argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: Mixed Topics
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): In speaking to new clause 1, I will touch on other new clauses in the bucket. As we go through the debate on these amendments, which is probably the most important debate that we have had thus far and are going to have, it is important that we remind ourselves of the context. The negotiations that will take place under article 50 will be the most difficult, complex and important for decades—arguably, since the second world war. Among other things, it is important that we ensure the best outcome for our economy and jobs, and the trading agreements. As I have said on a number of occasions, what that entails is very clear; we must have tariff-free and barrier-free access to the single market, regulatory alignment, and full access for services and goods. In the White Paper published last Thursday, the Government accept the strength of those arguments about the trading agreements It is important that we have the right ongoing future relationship with our EU partners. Labour has been forceful in arguing for maintaining close collaboration with our partners in the fields of medicine, science, research, education, culture, security, policing and counter-terrorism. Although the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State maintain the idea that all this can be agreed within two years, leaving just an implementation stage, the reality is that we will have two deals: the article 50 agreement and a new UK-EU treaty setting out the new arrangements, along with transitional arrangements To be clear, we all have a vested interest, on behalf of all our constituents, in getting the right outcome, and that raises the proper role of Parliament in this process. That is why I have consistently argued for three elements of scrutiny and accountability, and this is a debate that, in a sense, has been going on for the last three months. The first element, which I started the argument for last October, was that, at the start, we should have a plan or White Paper—a formal document setting out the negotiating objectives. We should then have a system for reporting back during the negotiations, and we should have a vote at the end of the exercise. Those are the three elements of scrutiny and accountability that I have argued for.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: Other
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful for the intervention, and I accept that point. Far be it from me to say what the procedure should be, but that would be helpful because some of what has been said has been heard for the first time today, and we need to reflect on it.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: Other
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): I recognise the strength of that point. There are of course other opportunities to examine what has been conceded, and to ensure that it might find its way into the Bill. I think it would be sensible to recognise the significance of what has been said, hear a little more detail if we can, and reflect on that during the course of the afternoon. Of course, the Bill does not complete its passage today, or in this House.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: Other
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful for that intervention. When an assurance is given in a debate such as this, it is a significant assurance. That said, of course having something in statute at some later point would be even better.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: Other
Lyn Carol Brown (Labour, Centre-left): I came into the Chamber with the full intention of supporting new clause 1, and I still feel that we need to press it to a vote. I hear what my hon. and learned Friend is saying—that he wants to trust and believe the Government. However, if we saw a manuscript amendment before the end of the afternoon, I would find it much easier not to have a vote on new clause 1. Does he agree that a manuscript amendment would be helpful?
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: Immigration
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): That is in the hands of the Minister, but I certainly take the point Let me make some progress, because we have not got very far. [Interruption.] Well, I have not got very far. Looking again at the big picture, there is a commitment in paragraph 7.1 of the White Paper—this is important for trade unions, for working people and for constituents who have repeatedly raised these points—to convert all EU-derived rights, including workers’ rights, into domestic law. I do not think that commitment has been heard loudly enough. We certainly intend to hold the Government to that at every step of the way, along with other EU rights such as environmental and consumer rights I have consistently argued that the Prime Minister cannot, in the article 50 negotiations, negotiate to change domestic law or policy—that will require primary legislation. Paragraph 1.8 of the White Paper makes it clear that the Government do not accept that the Prime Minister would have that authority, and expressly refers to separate Bills on immigration and on customs. I highlight that because there is huge concern among my colleagues about the threat made by the Prime Minister to alter our social and economic model and turn the UK into a tax haven. That cannot happen without primary legislation. It is important that we note that.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: Other
Christopher Paul Farrelly (Labour, Centre-left): I rather agree with the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw). Given the Government’s position, which has just been outlined, does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the only substantive reason now for the Government not to agree to our new clause 1 is to deny the other House a vote on a resolution, and that the Minister should explain why that is the position?
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: Other
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful for the intervention by the hon. and learned Lady. It would be helpful if we had both clarification and, if possible, a written form of the concession that has been made so that we can all see what it is.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: Other
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Ms Engel. Given that, as the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) said, we require some sort of information as to what the Government are putting forward, is there any way in which you can require the Government to put before us a manuscript amendment so that we actually know what we are debating for the rest of the afternoon?
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: Other
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): I am sure that the Minister hears what is being said. What has been said, today is significant—there has been a concession, and it now needs to be put in writing. A great deal of this debate should now be spent probing the concession that has been made.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: Other
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): I have made the case for accountability and scrutiny, I have made the case for a White Paper, I have made the case for reporting back and I have made the case for a vote. We have got this concession, and I think the most helpful thing, in the circumstances, would be for hon. Members to be given the opportunity to test what the Minister has said.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: Other
Stephen John Doughty (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister raised our hopes for a second, and then I felt myself deflate as he said that if things did not work out, we would "fall back on other arrangements."—[Official Report, 25 January 2017; Vol. 620, c. 295.] Can he be absolutely clear about what he meant by falling back on other arrangements?
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: Other
Angela Eagle (Labour, Centre-left): I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about a manuscript amendment—it would make things a lot clearer for all of us. Does he agree that the announcement that we may have a Hobson’s choice at the end of the process means that there will not really be a proper choice?
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: Mixed Topics
Angela Christine Smith (Labour, Centre-left): Is not one of the problems with the concession that has just been made that it tacks together in one votable motion the withdrawal agreement and the potential trade agreement? If Members do not like the trade agreement, they will face the unpalatable option of voting down the withdrawal agreement, thereby bringing us back to where we are now with the outcome of the referendum.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: Other
James Dolan Cunningham (Labour, Centre-left): I agree with most of what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. It is very important to have an amendment, so that the House and the Government know exactly where we are going. Why do we not put those on the Government Front Bench on a TUC course to learn how to negotiate?
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: Other
Benjamin Peter James Bradshaw (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for tabling and speaking to this new clause, which I think is important in view of the concerns expressed on all sides of the Committee about the so-called concession offered earlier by the Government Front-Bench team. Will my hon. Friend confirm that she will press her new clause to a vote?
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: Civil Rights
Kevan David Jones (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Gentleman says that we would reach a cliff edge, but his offer of a referendum involves no choice. People would either have to vote for it or against it. If they vote against it, what would that leave? There would be that cliff edge that people are trying to avoid.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: Mixed Topics
Owen Smith (Labour, Centre-left): I support the position that the hon. Gentleman articulates with amendment 43 but, in light of the concession we heard from the Government today, does he share my concern that, at the end of the negotiation, the choice that this Parliament will have will be between accepting the deal that the Government offer—possibly a bad deal—or falling out of the European Union on WTO terms at a cost of £45 billion to our gross domestic product? Does he not think the British people might be worried about that and might want to have a say?
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: Other
Patrick Bosco McFadden (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way while he is taking us through this sequence. The Minister indicated at the beginning of the debate that the Government were bringing forward a concession that would make the process more meaningful. I do not expect him to comment, but it appears that No. 10 is now briefing that it is exactly the same as what the Prime Minister offered in her Lancaster House speech, meaning that nothing has changed.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: Other
George Edward Howarth (Labour, Centre-left): I say for the benefit of other Members that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has had a very long career—so long, in fact, that he is capable of recognising the difference between an intervention and a speech.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: Mixed Topics
Yvette Cooper (Labour, Centre-left): I do not think that the new clauses would bind the Government’s hands. I agree that there is a concern that we could end up toppling off the edge of the negotiations without having a deal in place, which means that there is an incentive for all of us in Parliament to want a deal to be in place for Brexit, for future trade arrangements and for the transitional arrangements. Given how the Government have set out the arrangements, however, my concern is that there is no incentive for the Executive to try to get a deal that Parliament can support. If the Executive can simply go down the WTO route and reject alternatives without Parliament having any say, they will not have the right incentives to get the best possible deal.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: Immigration
Christopher Paul Farrelly (Labour, Centre-left): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Prime Minister’s approach so far, in pandering not to those who want immigration reduced to the tens of thousands but to the nones-of-thousands lobby, risks our approaching the scenario he just outlined? That approach is nonsensical, because we need immigration, whether the people are crop-pickers or gene splicers. There are deals to be done and the Prime Minister needs to admit it.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: Other
George Edward Howarth (Labour, Centre-left): Order. There are four hon. Members who still want to contribute and who have given their names to amendments. However, the Government are likely to come back at 6 o’clock. If everyone takes less than five minutes, I might be able to squeeze in at least four more speakers. It is a gentle reminder; there is no time limit. I call David Lammy.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: Mixed Topics
Patrick Bosco McFadden (Labour, Centre-left): I do not have much time so I am going to conclude The point of all of this is to avoid the choice between being told that we have to define as success, on the first account of it, whatever the Government have managed to negotiate, or default to the WTO. To be honest, a concession on timing that does not allow us to ask the Government to go back and negotiate a better agreement is simply holding a gun to Parliament’s head a few months earlier than would otherwise have been the case. This new clause is about taking all the claims made for decades about parliamentary sovereignty and making them real, rather than giving us a choice between deal or no deal, take it or leave it, my way or the highway. Frankly, Parliament and the country deserve better than that.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: Mixed Topics
Matthew Thomas Pennycook (Labour, Centre-left): To be fair, I dealt with that earlier in my remarks when I said that the new clause is not an attempt to delay because we know that the Government have already carried out impact assessments. The idea that no impact assessments will be published throughout the course of the negotiations is farcical. We could have them up front, which would help to inform debate.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: Civil Rights
Matthew Thomas Pennycook (Labour, Centre-left): I will make a little progress Labour Members look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts. The purpose of new clause 98, in the name of my hon. Friends, is simple. It would ensure that the impact of decisions on women and those with protected characteristics was considered and debated at every stage of the negotiation process. It may have escaped the attention of some hon. Members, but the word "equality" does not appear once in the White Paper. Indeed, the White Paper contains no mention of race, disability, sexuality or gender identity, which is astonishing. How can we secure a Brexit that works for everyone, as hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have repeated ad nauseam, if black, Asian and minority ethnic people, disabled people and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities are not given due consideration when the different negotiating positions are being weighed up The process and the final deal must have regard to equalities and the protection and extension of rights for those with protected characteristics. New clause 98 would ensure that equalities considerations were at the forefront of Government thinking throughout the withdrawal process and inform the final deal. Doing so would help to ensure that we got the best deal for everyone, wherever they were and, crucially, whoever they were. It would ensure that any negative impact on women or those with protected characteristics must be transparently presented and considered, and that if there was a risk of a disproportionate impact, the Government took steps to mitigate it New clause 98 is in line with recommendations from the cross-party Women and Equalities Committee, which has called for greater transparency on the impact of Government decisions on women and those with protected characteristics. It would help to improve scrutiny and accountability, and I look forward to the Minister giving it due consideration in his response.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: Mixed Topics
Chuka Harrison Umunna (Labour, Centre-left): That is right, and there are lots of examples of that throughout the country. That is not surprising, because prominent members of this Government—the Foreign, Environment, International Development, International Trade and Transport Secretaries, who are all members of the current Cabinet—went around the country in that big red bus that said: "We send the EU £350 million a week. Let’s fund our NHS instead." None of them disowned that pledge during the campaign. They also stood by a big sign saying: "Let’s give our NHS the £350 million the EU takes every week."
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: Other
Angela Eagle (Labour, Centre-left): Does my hon. Friend agree that that kind of cynical campaigning gives politics and politicians a really bad name? The people who saw the pledge on that big red bus now expect this Government to deliver on that pledge.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: Other
Chuka Harrison Umunna (Labour, Centre-left): I do not know about the hon. Gentleman’s mote, but this amendment has been drafted so that it is inoffensive to people like him. Given that it is such a reasonable amendment, I suggest that he simply votes for it.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: Mixed Topics
Seema Malhotra-Saluja (Labour, Centre-left): I am very pleased to support my hon. Friend’s amendment. Does he agree that this will also be a vital part of the keeping the public’s confidence in the process as we go forward over the next two years, not least given the conversations in a focus group I held in my constituency on Sunday where people said that this issue remains topmost in their minds as the reason they voted to leave?
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: Other
Chuka Harrison Umunna (Labour, Centre-left): I will very shortly I hope that we will have the opportunity not only to debate this amendment but to vote on it too. It has been signed by more Members than any other amendment. It is supported across parties and of course has the support of the Opposition Front Bench. In the end, in our democracy, it is in this House that Members are held to account for the promises they make and the things they say to the people. What better way to test the resolve of people such as the right hon. Members for Chingford and Woodford Green and for Surrey Heath than for there to be a vote on this issue so that people can see whether they meant what they said?
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: Mixed Topics
Chuka Harrison Umunna (Labour, Centre-left): I will give way to the hon. Gentleman shortly. The poster gave the clear impression that the money would be spent. It is true that the Office for National Statistics said that the £350 million figure was misleading, but the Vote Leave campaign, which the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath chaired, kept on using that figure regardless. Now they will be held to account for it.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: Other
Chuka Harrison Umunna (Labour, Centre-left): I think the hon. Gentleman was involved in Vote Leave—perhaps he was not—but I am not going to take any lectures about peddling fear and all the rest of it, in any campaign, from anyone associated with Vote Leave. I will come on to the point that he made about the Conservative party shortly.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: Civil Rights
Chuka Harrison Umunna (Labour, Centre-left): That is absolutely right, and I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I come to the point that the hon. Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney) made about the Conservative party—[Interruption.] Admittedly, it could also apply to some people from the Labour party. Some say that the pledges were made primarily by people who may have been members of a Conservative Government, but who did not speak with the authority of that Government. Of the five Cabinet Members I have mentioned who took leading roles in the campaign, three were members of the Government at the time and one, the Foreign Secretary, attended the political Cabinet. Part of the reason why those key campaigners were put up to do media and to campaign for Vote Leave was that they carried the authority of being Ministers. We cannot detach one from the other The other, and connected, argument that is made is that the commitment was given by one side in a referendum campaign, not by a Government, so we should leave the matter alone and get on with things—we should all shut up. I am sorry, but I do not think that that will wash. Whether they were Ministers or not, all the key Vote Leave campaigners were Members of this House. As I have said, if our democracy is to mean anything, it is that Members of this House answer and are held to account in this House for the promises that they make to the people. After all, as has been said, they campaigned in the name of parliamentary sovereignty. If Parliament is sovereign, they should be held to account here.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: Other
Chuka Harrison Umunna (Labour, Centre-left): I will not give way; I am going to finish Either those people made the pledge in the expectation of delivering on it, in which case they must now show us the money and vote for this very reasonable amendment, or they made it in the knowledge that it would never be met, in which case they will never be forgiven for their betrayal of those who, in good faith, relied on that promise.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: Other
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): Order. The hon. Gentleman is speaking. I know that there has been some latitude, but I also know that he wants to get back on the subject of impacts, and that is where we are going now. Let me just say that there are seven other speakers.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: Other
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): Order. The problem might have come from somewhere else in the Chamber, but I do not want it to be from the right hon. Gentleman. You have been around this Chamber for far too long and you know that you are way outside scope. I think that I preferred you on the Front Bench than on the Back Bench.