argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2018-03-21
Topic: Macroeconomics
Rosalie Winterton (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the hon. Lady for giving me notice that she wished to raise this matter, which I will answer now rather than in due course. I know that it can be rather frustrating for Members when Ministers say no more than "in due course" when asked when something is going to happen; however, I am afraid that the content of Ministers’ answers is for Ministers, not the Chair, and I cannot attempt to define what was meant by that. Again, though, I would say that the hon. Member has made her dissatisfaction clear, and it will have been heard on the Treasury Bench and, I hope, will be reported back BILLS PRESENTED Northern Ireland (regional Rates and Energy) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Secretary Karen Bradley, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Attorney General and Mr Shailesh Vara presented a Bill to make provision about the regional rate in Northern Ireland for the year ending 31 March 2019; and amend the Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time today, and to be printed (Bill 188). Northern Ireland Assembly Members (Pay) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Secretary Karen Bradley, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Attorney General and Mr Shailesh Vara presented a Bill to confer power on the Secretary of State to determine salaries and other benefits for Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly in respect of periods when there is no Executive Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time today, and to be printed (Bill 187).
Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) Bill — House of Commons, 2018-03-21
Topic: Government Operations
Owen Smith (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Secretary of State for that intervention, but she cannot have her cake and eat it. She cannot argue that it would undermine the devolution settlement to intervene and legislate in areas of devolved competence—for example, on the HIA or the pension for those who have been severely disabled—and then do so. She is doing precisely that today on the renewable heat incentive scheme, which was introduced in the Assembly, by the Assembly, for Northern Ireland, and on the regional rates, which is an area to do with local government that is entirely devolved to the Assembly in Belfast. One cannot have one’s cake and eat it. One cannot speak out of both sides of one’s mouth on this issue, and I fear that that is what the Government are seeking to do.
Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) Bill — House of Commons, 2018-03-21
Topic: International Affairs
Owen Smith (Labour, Centre-left): I am glad I gave way to the hon. Gentleman because he understands Northern Ireland and understands fully that this is delicate. I completely accept that the Secretary of State is in an invidious position on these conventions, but to an extent they are just that—conventions—with the key one being the Sewel convention, whereby, ordinarily, this Westminster Government do not legislate on areas of devolved competence. However, there are instances where it is morally or fiscally necessary to intervene and the Government do intervene It is, in essence, for the Government to choose where the line is set, but there are moral and fiscal imperatives in respect of those people who are in the HIAI and those who have been severely injured, and who ought to see the Government intervene on their behalf. If the Government were to do that, it would in no way undermine the devolution settlement because the precedent is already set, as we are seeing today on the RHI and as we have seen on other areas of legislation. Nor would it undermine the peace process and the talks process, because there is widespread support for those things. Legal counsel supports my opinion—
Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) Bill — House of Commons, 2018-03-21
Topic: Social Welfare
Owen Smith (Labour, Centre-left): I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, because I want to complete this point. I sought some support from KRW Law, a firm of lawyers at the Bar in Belfast. Its view is: "There are three significant points which would support a conclusion that Parliament should in fact legislate" particularly in respect of the HIA. It continued: "(i) The Sewel Convention is a…convention, not a rule of law, and can be departed from for good reasons; (ii) The constitutional obligation to avoid a vacuum in governance clearly has more weight in the present constitutional circumstances" where we do not have an Assembly The hon. Gentleman raised that second point. The third was that the HIAI made a clear case for intervention. Therefore, I put it to the Secretary of State that there is clear precedent and legal support for her intervening to support some of the most vulnerable and damaged people, either under the terms of the abuse inquiry or in respect of those who have been physically disabled I raise the pension for those who were disabled and injured because they are here today—some are in the Gallery for today’s debate and some are meeting hon. Members from across the House. I think they would want to hear from the Secretary of State that she understands the nature of the issues they face.
Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) Bill — House of Commons, 2018-03-21
Topic: Social Welfare
Owen Smith (Labour, Centre-left): Before the Secretary of State intervenes, let me quote her own words to her. She has said that the Government have responsibilities to "provide better outcomes for victims and survivors—the people who suffered most during the troubles."—[Official Report, 20 February 2018; Vol. 636, c. 33.] She has an opportunity to make good on those words and legislate, and I hope she is going to tell us right now that she will do so.
Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) Bill — House of Commons, 2018-03-21
Topic: Macroeconomics
Owen Smith (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the intervention, and let me answer it and the point made by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley). She makes my point for me. She asks what the Executive decided in respect of the HIAI and the answer is we do not know. We know that they said they thought they ought to implement its findings in full—they said that just before the Assembly went down—so we have some clarity on that. Crucially, we do not know what the Executive would have decided in respect of the regional rate and we do not know whether the Assembly would have decided to change the terms of the cap on the RHI, yet we are legislating in this place, in this Bill, to change those things, without any knowledge of what the Assembly would have done. So it precisely relevant to the business at hand—
Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) Bill — House of Commons, 2018-03-21
Topic: Social Welfare
Owen Smith (Labour, Centre-left): I will give way in a moment. It is precisely relevant to the business at hand that we could be legislating under the same terms on these two issues but are choosing not to do so for some reason, be it political expediency, timeliness or the fact there are less pressing financial reasons for doing so. Those people who are here today—there are people who were injured by either side in the troubles—having been in paralysis, having lost limbs or having lost livelihoods for a long, long time now, are in need of our support I know that the Secretary of State wishes to give that support, so I cannot understand, and do not think she has yet explained to the House, why it is not a moral imperative—and a financial imperative for those people—to introduce legislation to implement a pension for the severely injured and to enact at the very least the relatively minor compensation arrangements that Sir Anthony Hart agreed under the HIAI The Secretary of State has the extra £1 billion that she managed to find for the Democratic Unionist party under the confidence and supply agreement, and part of that money could be allocated either to the victims of historical institutional abuse or to those who have suffered injury as a result of the troubles. That would be time well spent in the House, and nobody would reject or resent it. I do not believe for a moment that it would undermine either the Secretary of State’s efforts to get the peace process and the talks back on track, the Sewel convention or our desire to get the Assembly back up and running.
Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) Bill — House of Commons, 2018-03-21
Topic: Government Operations
Owen Smith (Labour, Centre-left): In case I did not, I meant to make it clear that I do not propose that we pursue other matters but absolutely do advocate that we legislate on historical institutional abuse and a pension for the injured.
Northern Ireland Assembly Members (Pay) Bill — House of Commons, 2018-03-21
Topic: Government Operations
Owen Smith (Labour, Centre-left): I too, welcome what I think I heard from the Secretary of State, but may I clarify one point? Is she saying that she does not intend to enact Trevor Reaney’s recommendation that the staff budget should be cut from £50,000 to £37,500? If that is what she has decided, it is an excellent decision.
Northern Ireland Assembly Members (Pay) Bill — House of Commons, 2018-03-21
Topic: Government Operations
Owen Smith (Labour, Centre-left): We accept the need for a cut in MLAs’ salaries. The last Labour Government did that on three occasions when there was a similar period of the Assembly not sitting; in the first instance, we cut it from £43,000 to £29,000; in the second instance, we cut it to £21,000; and there was a third cut in 2006. I therefore have one note of caution for those who imagine this will prompt the Assembly and its parties to instantly come together: pay was cut three times and it did not necessarily work—I am not sure that it was the third cut that pushed the parties over the edge to do the deal. None the less, there is widespread support for this measure in the House and in Northern Ireland We recognise that, as Trevor Reaney said, legislative work is not the only aspect of MLAs’ work. Just as for MPs, there is a huge amount of work for them to do in their constituencies and elsewhere. Mr Reaney estimates between 50% and 60% of MLAs’ work is constituency-based, not legislative. However, clearly they are not doing their job in its entirety and therefore it is entirely justifiable that their salaries are cut We support the way in which the Secretary of State intends to do this, if she follows Trevor Reaney’s proposed mechanism of a phased step basis. That makes sense given that people have to make adjustments: MLAs have mortgages and families, and it is entirely fair, and compatible with employment legislation, that a measured step-wise approach is taken. I welcome the news that the Secretary of State will not enact Mr Reaney’s recommendation in respect of MLAs’ staff, however. As many Members have already remarked, they continue to work extremely hard and the fact that the Assembly is not sitting is no fault of theirs. Therefore, it is right that the budget is maintained Finally, I have a question. I am not sure whether I am misreading the Bill or whether I have read this in the notes somewhere and now cannot find it, but I understood that we were going to address in the Bill the anomaly whereby Members of the Assembly who cease to be Members of the Assembly yet are members of the Assembly Commission continue to be paid. That has been a concern and a cause of great consternation and surprise in Northern Ireland. Is that being dealt with in this Bill, and if not, will it be dealt with at some point?
Northern Ireland Assembly Members (Pay) Bill — House of Commons, 2018-03-21
Topic: Government Operations
Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Centre-left): As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) has been performing in Westminster Hall during most of this debate—he always performs so well—and my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) has already spoken, it falls to me to give a brief response to this excellent debate. As my hon. Friend said earlier, we fully support what the Government are proposing, and I echo the views of the hon. Members for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), for North Down (Lady Hermon) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) The hon. Member for Strangford said that this is being done with a heavy heart, but it is the right decision to cut MLAs’ salaries and we support it, and it is also the right decision not to cut the salaries of staff.
Government Procurement: Small Businesses — House of Commons, 2018-05-16
Topic: Labor
Emma Ann Hardy (Labour, Centre-left): FCC Environment has public sector contracts across 160 constituencies, yet it refuses to pay its workers sick pay. The workers in Hull have been out on strike for more than 30 days after one of their colleagues developed cancer and had to return to work after a month because he could not afford to be off work. Will the Minister please look at reforming the rules for procurement so that no companies can exploit workers in this way and not pay them the basic right of sick pay?
Cyber-security — House of Commons, 2018-05-16
Topic: Education
Laura Smith (Labour, Centre-left): It is undeniable that the UK is in the grip of a digital skills gap, yet despite the Government’s national cyber-security programme, the problem is getting worse. Fewer students are taking up technology-based A-levels, and those who do are underperforming compared with their counterparts in other subjects. What conversations has the Minister had with his Front-Bench colleagues to ensure that digital technology is integrated across the curriculum and that teachers of all subjects are given the training to help them inspire the next generation into closing the digital skills gap?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2018-05-16
Topic: International Affairs
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): The divisions in the Cabinet mean that there has been no progress in negotiations for five months. The reality is that members of the Cabinet are more interested in negotiating with each other than with the European Union. The Prime Minister’s promise of "as little friction as possible" is in stark contrast with the earlier commitment that this would be "friction-free", so will she explain how much friction she is willing to accept? Businesses and workers in those companies need to know.
Engagements — House of Commons, 2018-05-16
Topic: Macroeconomics
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): Ministers are no nearer to agreeing a White Paper than they are a strategy for going forward. I remind the Prime Minister that UK has the slowest economic growth of all major economies, and its growth overall is slower than that of the eurozone. The Government’s uncertainty and recklessness are putting jobs and investment at risk. Last week, Airbus confirmed that its space contract would move abroad post Brexit and that it was considering its overall position in the UK because of the Government’s complete lack of clarity. How many other businesses have warned her that they too are considering their future in this country?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2018-05-16
Topic: Foreign Trade
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): The problem is that the Prime Minister’s own position is not even supported by her Cabinet. Rolls-Royce has said: "We’re worried about border checks…we need to be thoughtful and careful about" future investments. Ford has said: "any sort of border restrictions or customs friction is going to be an inhibitor to us continuing" Vauxhall says: "We cannot invest in a world of uncertainty" Businesses are understandably frustrated by the Government. This week, the Environment Secretary gave his view on the Prime Minister’s preferred customs partnership model. He said that "there have to be significant question marks over the deliverability of it on time" as it "has flaws". Well, at least he didn’t call it "crazy", as the Foreign Secretary did. If the Prime Minister cannot convince even her own Cabinet of her strategy, what chance does she have with 27 other European countries?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2018-05-16
Topic: Macroeconomics
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): May I congratulate the Prime Minister on record numbers of zero-hours contracts, record numbers of people in in-work poverty, and a record of wages lower today than 10 years ago? May I also congratulate her on formally dividing her Cabinet into rival camps—as if it needed doing—to consider two different models? As a process of parliamentary scrutiny, I hope that both Sub-Committees will report directly to the House so that we can all make up our minds on the rival factions in her Cabinet While the Prime Minister’s Government dither, the Dutch Government have now begun training the first batch of extra customs officials to deal with the reintroduction of customs checks for British goods at Dutch borders. In October, the Prime Minister’s official spokesperson said, "HMRC"—[Interruption.]
Engagements — House of Commons, 2018-05-16
Topic: International Affairs
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): The question that I asked the Prime Minister was, "How many more HMRC officials have been recruited?" She has not answered it. Let me help her, and say that if more are being recruited, as is being claimed, they will not even make up for the cuts made in the last eight years. It seems that the Dutch Government are more prepared for dealing with Brexit than the British Government We have had 23 months since the referendum. We have just 10 months in which to complete negotiations, and the Government are in complete disarray. On both sides of the negotiations, the reality is dawning that deadlines are at risk of not being met. More and more jobs are at risk as more and more businesses openly consider the options for relocating their jobs. The Government are so busy negotiating with themselves that they cannot negotiate with anyone else. If the Prime Minister cannot negotiate a good deal for Britain, why does she not step aside and let Labour negotiate a comprehensive new customs union and living standards backed by trade unions and business in this country? Step aside, and make way for those who will negotiate it.
East Coast Main Line — House of Commons, 2018-05-16
Topic: Transportation
Lilian Rachel Greenwood (Labour, Centre-left): In November 2014, the then Secretary of State promised that the new franchise awarded to Virgin-Stagecoach would run for eight years and return £3.3 billion in premium payments to the taxpayer. He said: "These figures are robust and have been subject to rigorous scrutiny, including by independent auditors."—[Official Report, 27 November 2014; Vol. 588, c. 1080.] The Secretary of State must take responsibility for this serious repeat failure. If Virgin-Stagecoach got its figures wrong, so did his Department, and he should apologise to passengers and taxpayers for that failure. The Transport Committee will be subjecting this failure to detailed scrutiny, but what does the decision today mean for other franchises that we know are struggling to meet their obligations?
East Coast Main Line — House of Commons, 2018-05-16
Topic: Transportation
Hilary James Benn (Labour, Centre-left): This is the third time that a private franchise on this line has failed. The Secretary of State just told the House that when it is fully formed, the new LNER operation will be a partnership between the public and private sectors. Can he clarify that, until that time, it will in effect be a publicly run service? If so, he could have made a considerably shorter statement if he had just got up and said, "For the time being, I am renationalising the east coast main line."
East Coast Main Line — House of Commons, 2018-05-16
Topic: Transportation
Ronnie Campbell (Labour, Centre-left): As has been said, three private companies have run the east coast main line, and they have all failed, except for the one that was disposed of by the last Government under the previous Transport Secretary. I wonder sometimes whether we should look at the current Secretary of State’s slush bucket and see how much Stagecoach put into it.
East Coast Main Line — House of Commons, 2018-05-16
Topic: Transportation
Jenny Chapman (Labour, Centre-left): Franchising on this line has failed repeatedly. The Secretary of State could make himself incredibly popular in my constituency, which is the birthplace of the railways, if he just stood up, looked behind him and said, "My name is Chris Grayling, and I have just nationalised a rail line."
East Coast Main Line — House of Commons, 2018-05-16
Topic: Transportation
Grahame Mark Morris (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State said that he was not aware of any problems with other franchises. Perhaps he was not in the House during Prime Minister’s questions, when problems with the Northern franchise were identified. Private companies are walking away from franchise bids in Wales and the east midlands. Is this not clear evidence that the rail franchising model is broken, and that the answer is a truly integrated railway under public ownership?
East Coast Main Line — House of Commons, 2018-05-16
Topic: Transportation
Fiona Oluyinka Onasanya (Labour, Centre-left): Three times in under a decade private companies have failed the east coast main line. It was successfully managed by a public company between 2009 and 2015. Why will the Secretary of State not accept that obvious solution to the problems faced by the east coast main line?
East Coast Main Line — House of Commons, 2018-05-16
Topic: Transportation
Martin David Whitfield (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State mentioned that independent members "will ensure the interests of other operators on the route are taken into account." Will this include First ScotRail, which operates the local service—it is itself operating at capacity and facing its own crises—on the east coast main line in my constituency of East Lothian?
East Coast Main Line — House of Commons, 2018-05-16
Topic: Transportation
Caroline Louise Flint (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State says that Stagecoach and Virgin Trains got their bid wrong, which presumably means that they undercut their competitors. Should there not be a consequence, with Virgin and Stagecoach denied the right to bid for other franchises?
East Coast Main Line — House of Commons, 2018-05-16
Topic: Transportation
Mary Helen Creagh (Labour, Centre-left): I congratulate the Secretary of State on following the advice I have been giving him in this Chamber and partially implementing Labour’s 2015 transport manifesto, which I had a hand in writing, by bringing track and train closer together. I also congratulate him on his decision to bring the Great Northern line under the control of London’s Mayor, thereby recreating Network SouthEast from the days of British Rail. His decision to run the railway from 24 June shows that that is legal under European law. I urge him to go further and ensure that the private sector knows there is an operator of last resort ready to step in, so that we have a public railway operated by public servants and working in the public interest.
East Coast Main Line — House of Commons, 2018-05-16
Topic: Transportation
Paula Michelle Sherriff (Labour, Centre-left): I receive daily communications from constituents who are frankly fed up with antiquated, unreliable and overcrowded trains, including, but not exclusively, on the east coast main line. The Secretary of State has long promised improvements in investment but has failed to deliver. When will he get a grip on rail in the north?