argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: International Affairs
Maria Frances Lewis Miller (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend has a great deal of experience in those matters, and I am sure that Ministers sitting on the Front Bench are looking at them very closely. They will be as aware as us that, as we leave the EU, the complexities, particularly regarding equalities, need careful attention. When Government Equalities Office Ministers came before the Women and Equalities Committee recently, I was pleased that they were prepared to discuss Brexit issues. I hope that in future Brexit Ministers will also come before the Committee to discuss the issues set out by my hon. Friend I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for taking the issue very seriously indeed. I know that he has a lot on his plate, but he has taken the time to look at the issue in detail. He should be applauded for that. I look forward to seeing the fruits of his labour on Report.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Law and Crime
Oliver Letwin (Conservative, Centre-right): It pains me to say this, but I think that what several of us have been trying to say, put very briefly, is that clause 6 as it stands is a frightful mess. Of course I shall vote with the Government tonight, but I very much hope that after this debate—as did not happen after Second Reading—the Government will go away and think about clause 6. If they do not, what will happen is that it will, rightly, be massacred in the House of Lords, not least by former Law Lords. Once it has been, it will be very difficult for those of us who know it is a mess at the moment, in a way I am about to describe, to support an attempt to overrule the House of Lords. I beg those on the Front Bench to take seriously the problem we are trying to expose here. Let me try to describe it more clearly than perhaps I have managed so far, although I know that several of my hon. Friends have also tried. It is clear, from clause 5(2), that the Government accept that, in relation to the retained law, the interpretative powers of the ECJ are extremely wide. It states: "the principle of the supremacy of EU law continues to apply…so far as relevant to the interpretation, disapplication or quashing of any enactment" As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) rightly pointed out, the supreme power that can be given to a court in this land is being attributed in the Bill to the ECJ in respect of existing legislation—namely, the power to quash an Act of Parliament. It does not get higher than that.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Law and Crime
Robert James Buckland (Conservative, Centre-right): I am listening with great care to my right hon. Friend. Is not the simple answer that the Supreme Court will apply the rules of precedent in accordance with its practice direction of 50 years ago, which allows it to depart from previous case authority where it appears right to do so? Principles have been set out in domestic law by the Supreme Court and its predecessor, the judicial committee of the House of Lords.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Law and Crime
Oliver Letwin (Conservative, Centre-right): With great respect to the Solicitor General, I draw him back to clause 6(3)(a), which directs the lower court in such a case to continue to apply the retained case law on the basis of ECJ jurisprudence, not Supreme Court jurisprudence. If that is not what the Government intend, they need to redraft clause 6(3)(a). They can have it one way or the other, but we cannot in this country have a legal system that tells our courts to do two different things. That is why the former judges are causing a harouche here. They are not being told what we, as a Parliament, are expecting of them.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Law and Crime
Robert James Buckland (Conservative, Centre-right): What we are seeking to do is, in effect, settle the status of retained EU case law so that it is equivalent to that of Supreme Court authority. That is the explanation of the hierarchy that my right hon. Friend has, very fairly, outlined.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Law and Crime
Oliver Letwin (Conservative, Centre-right): If the Solicitor General is trying to argue that he is aiming for equality between the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice and the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, that poses an insoluble problem for the lower court. One has to trump the other, but if the Bill is trying to make out that one trumps the other, it does not do it. It is really quite important for a human being who speaks English and reads the Bill to be able to see which trumps which.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Law and Crime
Dominic Charles Roberts Grieve (Conservative, Centre-right): I understand exactly where my right hon. Friend is coming from. I have to say that my reading of this was that once the Supreme Court had departed from the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice in a particular case, thereafter the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence would be the one that the lower court would have to follow. However, that does not get us past the problem that the Supreme Court is provided with no guidance whatever about the purposive nature of EU law and how it should approach it.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Law and Crime
Oliver Letwin (Conservative, Centre-right): Let me deal with my right hon. and learned Friend’s helpful intervention in two steps. If what he said in the first step about the supremacy of the Supreme Court’s rulings is to apply—which is not inequality, but puts the Supreme Court above the ECJ in the interpretation of these matters for retained law—that is a perfectly clear position, and one that I, as a matter of fact, would welcome; but then the Bill should bloody well say so. However, he is right, in that even if we presume that the Bill will be adjusted—as I am sure it will be, in the House of Lords—to make it clear that that is the case, we face the next problem, which is what it is that the poor old Supreme Court is meant to be doing.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Law and Crime
Bernard Christison Jenkin (Conservative, Centre-right): I understand the words "in accordance with any retained case law" in clause 6(3)(a), but I do not understand the words "any retained general principles of EU law" That suggests that the court must adopt a methodology which has been retained. What we want our courts to do is revert to what they used to do, which was interpreting statute without reference to the jurisprudential and teleological techniques adopted by the European Court.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Law and Crime
Oliver Letwin (Conservative, Centre-right): Notwithstanding the chuntering of my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry)—and she is a friend of mine, but she is quite wrong about these issues—I happen to agree with my hon. Friend. My point is, however, that it does not matter nearly so much which side of the argument we are on as that we should be clearly on one side or the other I feel sure that the reason clause 6(3)(a) says that the court should judge "in accordance with…any retained general principles" is exactly the reason that was cited by the former Attorney General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). As we see in clause 5(2), the purposive and teleological nature of the judgments, and the ability of those judgments to be used to quash even Acts of Parliament, should apply to the way in which our courts continue to interpret retained law. That, I think, is the intent of clause 6(3)(a) This leaves us with the wide-open, yawning question of whether the Supreme Court should be making judgments when it is, we are told in clause 6(4)(a), "not bound by any retained EU case law", but should nevertheless apply the general principles, and try to use the same purpose and teleological reasoning that the ECJ uses. We are not told, and the judges are not told. Far from creating legal certainty, clause 6 seems to me to create the largest possible degree of legal uncertainty. That is not a tolerable position. It is not one that the Government wish to achieve, and not one that the Opposition wish to achieve. I do not believe that anyone in the House of Commons wishes to achieve it. However, it is what the clause, as currently drafted, achieves.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: International Affairs
Oliver Letwin (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman did not allow me to intervene on him, but let me say now that, unfortunately, his point is wholly irrelevant to clause 6; it relates to the transition which will be covered in another Bill. My concern is about the continuing state of UK law following exit. This is not going to be resolved by the Government producing a White Paper. It has to be resolved by clause 6 being drafted in a way that creates the very legal certainty that the Government so admirably wish to create, and which they at present so abundantly fail to do.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: International Affairs
William Nigel Paul Cash (Conservative, Centre-right): My right hon. Friend is asking some very interesting questions, but that does not necessarily mean—he, or indeed any of us in this Chamber, not being a judge—that he is drawing the right conclusions. He is pointing to several questions that need to be raised, however, although he has not mentioned that clause 5(1) states: "The principle of the supremacy of EU law does not apply to any enactment or rule of law passed or made on or after exit day," and that must include this Bill Furthermore, my right hon. Friend has not quite taken on board what the Solicitor General said with respect to our application of the stare decisis method of interpretation, which the Supreme Court will be obliged to apply after exit day. So he is asking some interesting questions, but I do not think we can necessarily draw conclusions from them.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Law and Crime
Oliver Letwin (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, and I am very happy to leave it to the Government to draw the conclusions and answer the questions in due course. I do not think clause 5(1) helps at all, however, because my hon. Friend is right that it excludes the possibility of subsequent enactments being subject to the principle of supremacy, but in clause 5(2) it is equally clear that, so far as the retained law is concerned, the principle of supremacy remains, and therefore there may be judgments in the future that already existing law, where there is judged to be a conflict between an Act of Parliament and an ECJ ruling, should have the result that the ECJ ruling triumphs over the Act of Parliament. That is a perfectly possible and sensible position to adopt. It is not one my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and I would like to see, and I doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) would like to see it, but it is nevertheless a perfectly tolerable position—and it then needs to be carried over for the Supreme Court just as much My point remains, however, and it is a simple one: that if the Bill is trying to achieve a hierarchy here, it needs to state what the hierarchy is, and in stating that hierarchy, it needs to make it clear who governs whom. At the moment, the Bill does not do that.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: International Affairs
Jacob William Rees-Mogg (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The answer ought to be perfectly clear. If we are still under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, we will not have left the European Union.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: International Affairs
Anna Mary Soubry (Conservative, Centre-right): Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that what he describes is a blatant piece of bullying that goes to the very heart of democracy? None of the people who have been named—I take it as a badge of honour—want to delay or thwart Brexit; we just want a good Brexit that works for everybody in our country. That is not a lot to ask for in a democracy.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: International Affairs
Dominic Rennie Raab (Conservative, Centre-right): I will repeat, in terms, exactly what I said earlier. We want an early agreement on an implementation period. As the Prime Minister said in the Florence speech, that may mean we start off with the European Court still governing some rules we are part of for that period, but the Government are also clear that if we can bring forward a new dispute resolution mechanism at an earlier stage, we will do so. The hon. Gentleman should have listened to what I said earlier.
Carbon Emissions — House of Commons, 2017-09-12
Topic: Environment
Claire Louise Perry (Conservative, Centre-right): The UK’s measurement of carbon emissions is considered among the best in the world, with a 97% accuracy rate. Indeed, our inventory of carbon emissions is among the world’s most comprehensive, covering all sectors of the economy. However, we are always looking to improve our accuracy in this area, and that work is guided by the National Inventory Steering Committee, which meets twice a year.
Carbon Emissions — House of Commons, 2017-09-12
Topic: Environment
Claire Louise Perry (Conservative, Centre-right): I hope that my right hon. Friend will also consider excellent the fact that we overachieved against our first carbon budget to 2012 and that we are on track to over-achieve by 5% and 4% respectively against our second and third carbon budgets. However, I am afraid that he is being his usual mischievous self in asking about the fourth carbon budget, which is something that I shall be talking more about when we launch our clean growth strategy, so he will have to be patient just a little bit longer.
Carbon Emissions — House of Commons, 2017-09-12
Topic: International Affairs
Claire Louise Perry (Conservative, Centre-right): I hope that the hon. Gentleman will celebrate the fact that we entirely agree and have committed to increasing our contribution to the funding of that agency, directly as a result of the pull-out of the USA from the Paris agreement—although technically it cannot withdraw until 2020.
Taylor Review — House of Commons, 2017-09-12
Topic: Labor
Margot Cathleen James (Conservative, Centre-right): We welcome, accept and agree with Matthew Taylor’s ambition that all work in the UK should be fair and decent, with realistic scope for development and fulfilment. The report is comprehensive and detailed. We will give it the careful consideration it deserves, and we will respond in full later this year.
Taylor Review — House of Commons, 2017-09-12
Topic: Labor
Margot Cathleen James (Conservative, Centre-right): Much of what the hon. Gentleman refers to is covered by Matthew Taylor in his report, and one of his recommendations that we will be following up with interest is that all workers should be informed of their status in writing by their employer before they start their work.
Taylor Review — House of Commons, 2017-09-12
Topic: Labor
Michael Louis David Fabricant (Conservative, Centre-right): Has my hon. Friend looked at the working practices of the John Lewis Partnership—with which I no longer have any connection whatever—and seen the way in which it has people on its boards of management? Does she not believe that this is an important way to achieve worker involvement?
Taylor Review — House of Commons, 2017-09-12
Topic: Labor
Margot Cathleen James (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank my hon. Friend for his commendation of the John Lewis Partnership, with which I concur. It is, indeed, a very good employer, but it is not alone: many other large companies engage with their employees in much the same way.
Taylor Review — House of Commons, 2017-09-12
Topic: Labor
Margot Cathleen James (Conservative, Centre-right): Indeed, what the hon. Lady refers to as bogus self-employment is one of the reasons why the Prime Minister appointed Matthew Taylor to review employment protection in the context of the modern economy. She raises some good points, and I trust her Committee will be investigating them. My Department will co-operate fully.
Taylor Review — House of Commons, 2017-09-12
Topic: Macroeconomics
Margot Cathleen James (Conservative, Centre-right): Productivity is a crucial part of our industrial strategy, as are good employee communications and practice. The union between Matthew Taylor’s report and the industrial strategy will focus very much on improving productivity as the basis of improving people’s earning power.
Weekly Earnings — House of Commons, 2017-09-12
Topic: Macroeconomics
Margot Cathleen James (Conservative, Centre-right): We need an economy that works for everyone. We are developing the industrial strategy to improve living standards and boost earning power, so that everyone in our country can share the benefits of our economic success.
Weekly Earnings — House of Commons, 2017-09-12
Topic: Labor
Margot Cathleen James (Conservative, Centre-right): That is one of the reasons why the Government have introduced the national living wage, as a means of boosting the earning power of people at the lower end of the pay scale. I acknowledge that average earnings have been static over the past year, but it is important to recognise that people on the national minimum wage were given a 4% pay rise in April this year, and 1.3 million of those people have been taken out of paying income tax altogether.
Weekly Earnings — House of Commons, 2017-09-12
Topic: Labor
Margot Cathleen James (Conservative, Centre-right): I have to agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a very good point. Indeed, the rise in national minimum wage to which I referred in my earlier answer is the best pay rise for low-paid people in this country for 20 years.
Weekly Earnings — House of Commons, 2017-09-12
Topic: Macroeconomics
Philip Thomas Hollobone (Conservative, Centre-right): Average weekly earnings in Kettering are typically 5% below the national average, so anything the Government can do to cut basic levels of tax is particularly important. Does my hon. Friend agree that, because we raised the income tax threshold from £6,500 a year in 2010 to £11,500 a year, basic rate taxpayers typically pay £1,000 a year less in income tax?
Weekly Earnings — House of Commons, 2017-09-12
Topic: Education
Margot Cathleen James (Conservative, Centre-right): I very much agree with my hon. Friend’s point. I am sorry to hear about the situation with regard to earnings in Kettering, but I am sure that the Government’s commitment to improving skills and our target of 3 million apprenticeship places by 2020 will help the people of Kettering, as they will help people all over the country.
Weekly Earnings — House of Commons, 2017-09-12
Topic: Labor
Margot Cathleen James (Conservative, Centre-right): I remind the hon. Lady that the Government set the national living wage, but only after consultation with the independent Low Pay Commission. It is the commission’s view that we need to have several levels of the national minimum wage because youth unemployment is persistently higher than unemployment among those above the age of 25. The policy is really to balance maximum earning power with maximum levels of employment.
Weekly Earnings — House of Commons, 2017-09-12
Topic: Labor
Margot Cathleen James (Conservative, Centre-right): I remind the hon. Gentleman that this Government are concerned not just about pay, but about employment. If we look at the record of the previous Labour Government—or, indeed, that of any Labour Government—we see that their record on employment is poor. The record of this Government is the maximum number of jobs, with more than 1 million new jobs created, which is an important point. If he wants to talk about anniversaries, let me say that this week is the 10th anniversary of the financial crisis, and I remind him of the deficit that this Government inherited following that crash.
Space Sector — House of Commons, 2017-09-12
Topic: Technology
Jo Johnson (Conservative, Centre-right): The UK has a world-leading space sector. A quarter of the world’s satellites are either built in the UK or have major components from the UK. At the last European Space Agency ministerial in 2016, the Government agreed €1.4 billion of new funding for space programmes, and we have recently introduced the Space Industry Bill, which will enable UK firms to participate in a sector worth £25 billion.
Space Sector — House of Commons, 2017-09-12
Topic: Technology
Ranil Malcolm Jayawardena (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank the Minister for his very encouraging answer. The tender for the next stage of the ground control segment of the Galileo programme, in which the UK has a leadership role, is currently live, so will he make sure that the European Commission’s request for UK-based companies to clarify how they will repatriate activities to the EU does not undermine them in winning contracts?
Space Sector — House of Commons, 2017-09-12
Topic: Technology
Jo Johnson (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend raises an important point. British expertise has been absolutely fundamental to the development of the Galileo and Copernicus programmes. The "Collaboration on science and innovation" paper we published just last week made it clear that the UK would very much welcome an agreement to continue to collaborate with our European partners on major science, research and technology initiatives. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have made it clear that we want our companies and our universities to continue participating in key EU space programmes.
Space Sector — House of Commons, 2017-09-12
Topic: Technology
Adam Afriyie (Conservative, Centre-right): The ingenuity, expertise and experience of our UK space sector enables us to punch well above our weight and to collaborate globally in bodies such as CERN, ESA and many others that predate the EU. Does the Minister agree that we should continue fully to support the role that British companies play in both other European space agencies and the EU space programme?
Space Sector — House of Commons, 2017-09-12
Topic: Technology
Jo Johnson (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend has great expertise in this area, through his association with the parliamentary space committee. I can reassure him, as I did a moment ago, that we are committed to continuing to collaborate closely with European countries to develop our space sector to the benefit of all those in employment in this sector in this country.
Space Sector — House of Commons, 2017-09-12
Topic: International Affairs
Jo Johnson (Conservative, Centre-right): At the ESA ministerial council in December, the UK committed a record sum of €1.4 billion to ESA. We are committed to continuing to participate in ESA, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is not part of the EU but a separate organisation entirely. We see great value in continuing to participate in the programmes it administers.
Manufacturing Capacity — House of Commons, 2017-09-12
Topic: Macroeconomics
Claire Louise Perry (Conservative, Centre-right): I am delighted that my hon. Friend has asked that question, as we often hear that Britain does not make things anymore. In fact, Britain is the ninth largest manufacturing nation. The sector contributes £168 billion to the national economy and employs more than 2.5 million people directly, and its output has grown by 3.2% in real terms since 2010.