argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Broadcasting (Radio Multiplex Services) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-01-13
Topic: Mixed Topics
Kevin John Foster (Conservative, Centre-right): I am very much enjoying my hon. Friend’s remarks. He will be aware that the rules for political parties on broadcast advertising still apply to small-scale licensing, just as they do to large-scale licensing. That is certainly the intention.
Broadcasting (Radio Multiplex Services) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-01-13
Topic: Mixed Topics
Kevin John Foster (Conservative, Centre-right): I welcome the broad thrust of the shadow Minister’s remarks, which appear to be supportive. She referred to the operators and the recent trials. Has she met anyone involved with the operators in the trials, as I have, when I found out from them just how simple it is?
Broadcasting (Radio Multiplex Services) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-01-13
Topic: Mixed Topics
Johanna Peta Churchill (Conservative, Centre-right): Yes, excessive speed. Well done. Once again, my hon. Friend comes to my rescue The last speaker told us that local radio, and community radio in particular, covers 10,000 local events, such as the fêtes. I was recently interviewed by people from local radio at our fireworks event in Bury St Edmunds, but I have also come across them at a plethora of fêtes across the country and all sorts of different events. More importantly, these stations raise £25 million for charity. As my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak mentioned, they announce that an event is going on, they drive it forward and get people to visit, and then get people to put those contributions into the bucket. Therefore, we are talking about another huge community asset.
Broadcasting (Radio Multiplex Services) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-01-13
Topic: Public Lands
Rebecca Faye Clark (Pow) (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend is making an exceedingly powerful point. About a year ago, I mentioned in this Chamber that we might light up the Wellington monument, which had not been lit for years, and our amazing local radio station, BBC Somerset, broadcast that. When we turned up in the dark, unexpectedly, with the National Trust, hundreds of people turned out because they had heard about this on local radio. That is what convinced the National Trust to support my project to raise money to restore the monument. That is all thanks to radio, so does my hon. Friend agree with me about how effective it is?
Broadcasting (Radio Multiplex Services) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-01-13
Topic: Other
Oliver Newton Colvile (Conservative, Centre-right): I must say that I, too, was deeply surprised. My right hon. Friend might also recall that although there were only 250 people in the grounds, the match was being watched by 19 million people on Indian television.
Broadcasting (Radio Multiplex Services) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-01-13
Topic: Mixed Topics
Matthew John David Hancock (Conservative, Centre-right): I have no doubt that all 19 million were totally astonished. It just shows that if you put on what might be regarded as niche broadcasts—in this case, a cricket match between the UK and Indian Parliaments—sometimes many, many people will watch.
Broadcasting (Radio Multiplex Services) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-01-13
Topic: Other
Kevin John Foster (Conservative, Centre-right): With the leave of the House, may I thank all Members, and particularly the Minister and the shadow Minister, for their remarks and support? I am glad to note that I seem to be on the same wavelength as everyone else in the Chamber today. [Hon. Members: "Oh!"] I am sure we can look forward to a range of broadcasts when we take the Bill into Committee I particularly thank my hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) and for Erewash (Maggie Throup) for their support in bringing the Bill forward. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), who has to play a silent role, but who was very effective in ensuring that I was fully aware of all the procedure. With that, I thank Members for their support Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).
Civil Partnership Act 2004 (Amendment) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-01-13
Topic: Civil Rights
Timothy Paul Loughton (Conservative, Centre-right): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time I am very excited because, in almost 20 years in the House, this is the first time that a Bill of mine has ever got an airing on a Friday morning. That shows what can happen if we persevere, and I do hope the Minister is not going to spoil it when he gets up to signal his vast support for this very sensible and much needed measure The debate over the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 has passed. The Act has become law, and over 15,000 couples have taken advantage of that new opportunity. Whatever people on the opposite sides of the argument, then or now, think, the world has not fallen in. However, as some of us argued at the time, the extension of marriage then has unwittingly created a new inequality, and a Government who argued zealously that same-sex marriage was an equality issue seem to have rather lost interest when it comes to an equality that affects opposite-sex couples. That new inequality is that marriage is available to same-sex and opposite- sex couples, yet civil partnerships are available only to same-sex couples.
Civil Partnership Act 2004 (Amendment) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-01-13
Topic: Civil Rights
Philip Andrew Davies (Conservative, Centre-right): I absolutely support my hon. Friend’s Bill. He will recall that, at the time, the same-sex marriage Bill was known as the equal marriage Bill by many people. Does he agree that, for it to be truly an equal marriage Bill, it is essential that his Bill is enacted to make the situation properly equal as between homosexual and heterosexual couples?
Civil Partnership Act 2004 (Amendment) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-01-13
Topic: Civil Rights
Timothy Paul Loughton (Conservative, Centre-right): I do agree, which is why, at the time, I argued that the amendment that forms part of the Bill would have prevented the inequality that was created, closed that loophole and made that Bill more acceptable for people who had difficulties with it. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
Civil Partnership Act 2004 (Amendment) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-01-13
Topic: Civil Rights
Timothy Paul Loughton (Conservative, Centre-right): That is right, and I will come on to explain precisely why the Bill is needed I have described the inequality, but some people may say, "Well, so what?" Opposite-sex couples have always been able to get married in a church or a register office —or even, now, in medieval castles, on exotic beaches, or, increasingly, wherever else takes their fancy. The problem is that a great many of these couples choose not to go down that traditional marriage route The Office for National Statistics estimates that there are just under 3 million cohabiting opposite-sex couples in this country—almost double the figure reported some 15 years earlier—of whom over a third, about 38%, have children. Indeed, cohabitation is the fastest growing form of family in the UK. We need to recognise that our society is changing, just as we did when recognising same-sex partnerships in law back in 2004. That was the right thing to do, and I enthusiastically supported it at the time. It was a glaring inequality and injustice that until then loving same-sex couples were not recognised in the eyes of the state and enjoyed no protections under the law. That anomaly was rightly addressed by this House back in 2004, and I was proud to be part of that People choose not to get involved in the paraphernalia of formal marriage for a variety of reasons. It is seen as too much of an establishment thing to do. For many, it is identified as an innately religious institution; even if done in a register office, it has religious connotations. Some see it as having a patriarchal side—as being some form of social control and not a proper partnership. Those are not my own views, necessarily, but they are certainly how many people see it. There are a whole lot of complex motives as to why many of our constituents do not go down the formal marriage route. They are mostly still in committed, loving relationships, but if they do not want to go for traditional marriage, they have no way of having those relationships recognised in the eyes of the state, just as was the case for same-sex couples pre-2004.
Civil Partnership Act 2004 (Amendment) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-01-13
Topic: Mixed Topics
Timothy Paul Loughton (Conservative, Centre-right): Absolutely not. At the time, my proposal, which I set out in an amendment, was the policy of the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, and supported by a good many Conservative Members, but for various reasons people voted against it. The logic is that of course we would want to address this inequality There are also various practical reasons for doing this. Particularly worrying is the common misconception that there is such a thing as a common-law wife or common-law husband, as a woman typically finds out abruptly on the death of a partner when there is an inheritance tax bill on the estate and potentially on the family home.
Civil Partnership Act 2004 (Amendment) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-01-13
Topic: Housing
Pauline Elizabeth Latham (Conservative, Centre-right): Does my hon. Friend think that if people realised that there was no such thing as a common-law wife or husband, they would opt for this to give them the protection in law that they do not have currently so that they would not lose their home?
Civil Partnership Act 2004 (Amendment) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-01-13
Topic: Mixed Topics
Timothy Paul Loughton (Conservative, Centre-right): This is about the future maintenance of children. It is about an inheritance tax bill that happens all of a sudden that could lead to the sale of a property so that someone finds themselves, in effect, homeless. These are all potential dangers currently faced by people who are not in a formal, legally recognised relationship.
Civil Partnership Act 2004 (Amendment) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-01-13
Topic: Housing
Rebecca Faye Clark (Pow) (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend is making a very sound case. I was fascinated to hear the current statistics on cohabiting. If we are to build a balanced society, bringing up our children in a fair and good way, surely it is very important to bring forward the ideas encompassed in this Bill in order to help society as a whole.
Civil Partnership Act 2004 (Amendment) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-01-13
Topic: Civil Rights
Timothy Paul Loughton (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend pre-empts a large plank of my speech. Rather than let everybody pre-run what I want to say, I think I shall get on with saying it. Perhaps I will take some contributions at a later stage Returning to the problem that I have identified, when one partner is much older than the other and there is a reasonable expectation that they will die some years before the other, the long-term survivor would not receive the same tax benefits as a married person or someone in a civil partnership, which is also discriminatory towards the couple’s children. Even a couple who are engaged to be married have more rights than a cohabiting couple. Offering a formalised role within an opposite-sex civil partnership could save a lot of retrospective ignorance and the ensuing heartache and financial implications It is for those reasons of natural justice and protecting the rights of partners that I am yet again promoting a private Member’s Bill to extend civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples, which I have been trying to do since the change to the legislation back in 2013. There is a deal of déjà vu involved in my reappearance on the same subject here today Without Government support, the Bill is unlikely to make headway, despite the support of hon. Members from all parts of the House and a nationwide campaign that has so far attracted more than 71,000 signatures to a petition. I am particularly pleased that we have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady), who is the chairman of the 1922 Committee, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). We have the support of hon. Members from just about every party represented in this House. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), who speaks for the official Opposition on equality matters, wrote on her blog: "we have the chance to take another step in extending true equality, admittedly only in one aspect of our lives; choosing the type of partnership that best suits our needs, faith and aspirations." She gave her support and that of her party to the Bill, and is sorry she could not be here to give it in person.
Civil Partnership Act 2004 (Amendment) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-01-13
Topic: Civil Rights
Timothy Paul Loughton (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Lady is right. I will refer to that case, which will go to appeal imminently, as she says. My Bill may not get much further than hers if I succeed in talking it out in the remaining minutes, so I will make some progress The Bill has high-profile supporters, including Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan, the couple who instigated the campaign. I pay tribute to them. They appeared in the royal courts in London last November seeking to overturn the Government ban on different-sex civil partnerships, arguing that it is unfair because it treats people differently dependent on their sexuality By contrast and more recently, Claire Beale and Martin Loat became the first UK-based heterosexual couple to enter into a civil partnership in the British Isles. The catch is that they had to travel to the Isle of Man for the privilege. Bravely, the island recently made this reform to its legislation. While our British island cousins have made this step towards equality, the Government on the mainland of the United Kingdom claim, as they did when Rebecca and Charles first went to the High Court in January, and when I first tabled an amendment to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, that such a change would be costly and complicated. I just cannot see how or why I am not convinced by the Government’s excuses. This change is very straightforward. Just as with same-sex civil partnerships, it would not be possible for someone to become a civil partner with a close family member or someone who is already in a union. Such a union would need to be subject to the same termination criteria. All that is required is a simple one-line amendment to the Civil Partnership Act 2004, which is what my Bill would enact. That is why it is a very short, one-clause Bill. It could all be done and dusted in Committee by tea time.
Civil Partnership Act 2004 (Amendment) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-01-13
Topic: Civil Rights
Philip Andrew Davies (Conservative, Centre-right): I promise not to interrupt my hon. Friend again. Obviously, the other way of equalising the law would be to ban civil partnerships for gay couples. Would he be in favour of equalising the law in that way?
Civil Partnership Act 2004 (Amendment) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-01-13
Topic: Civil Rights
David Thomas Morris (Conservative, Centre-right): This has been a fantastic day for private Members’ Bills, and I believe that this Bill will be welcomed across the land. It really is time for us to address this issue, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for securing this date in order to explain his Bill to the House My personal feeling is that if people love each other—same sex, heterosexual, it does not matter—it should be entirely up to them if they wish to enter into an agreement or partnership. The law should accommodate any partnership that is legally binding, especially when it comes down to the sharing of property. If, God forbid, one partner should be left behind—either, sadly, through death or for other reasons—they should be legally covered. I know that the previous Government moved mountains to achieve equality by introducing legislation on same-sex marriage, but the question of civil partnerships should now be looked at more intently and as a matter of urgency. My hon. Friend has spoken eloquently and at length today about his wish to see his Bill become law, and I, too, commend it to the House.
Civil Partnership Act 2004 (Amendment) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-01-13
Topic: Other
Robert Henry Halfon (Conservative, Centre-right): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on introducing this Bill. He said that this was the first time that he has been able to speak on a private Member’s Bill—[Interruption.]
Civil Partnership Act 2004 (Amendment) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-01-13
Topic: Civil Rights
Robert Henry Halfon (Conservative, Centre-right): On his own. Given that this is about civil partnerships and marriage, I congratulate my hon. Friend on losing his virginity with this Bill My hon. Friend talked about the 2014 consultation, which ran during the time that same-sex marriage was introduced. There were 11,500 respondents, 76% of whom opposed extending civil partnerships. The Government’s position is that we want to see what happens and to look at the data before taking any further decisions on the matter My hon. Friend also said that marriage has patriarchal and religious associations, but the concept of marriage has moved on from when women were considered chattel. Civil marriage ceremonies are available to all couples and contain no religious element. In fact, when I got married a few months ago, we had the "The Wizard of Oz" playing and a tin man in the registry office. Civil ceremonies can be personalised by the couple, which is exactly what we did, to include non-religious words and vows. There is no requirement for a couple to take vows to honour or obey each other. The only requirement is that the marriage takes place in the presence of witnesses and that the ceremony includes the statutory declarations and contracting words. It is no longer for everybody a religious and patriarchal way of making a commitment The Government have rightly taken great pride in championing equality for all. The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act was passed in 2013 and during the passage of the legislation the question arose of whether, if marriage was available to same-sex couples, civil partnerships should be open to opposite-sex couples as a matter of equality. My hon. Friend pointed out that the Government considered the issue at the time and decided that it would be a mistake to rush to amend the Civil Partnership Act 2004 owing to the unknown, untested effects on myriad legislation spanning areas such as pensions, devolution, international recognition, gender recognition, adultery and consummation. At the time, the House recognised that to invite such risk would be irresponsible and that the unforeseen issues that may arise, as with all issues that come from great legislative change, will take time to identify, understand and account for, lest we burden the public with expensive, ineffective laws I mentioned the consultation and the number of people who responded to say that they wanted no change to civil partnerships. My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), who introduced his brilliant Bill, as the Minister for Digital and Culture said, with real panache earlier, also asked about civil partnerships. There has been an 85% decrease in the number of civil partnerships since 2013. In 2015 there were 861 civil partnerships, compared with 5,646 in 2013.
Civil Partnership Act 2004 (Amendment) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-01-13
Topic: Civil Rights
Timothy Paul Loughton (Conservative, Centre-right): I understand what the Minister is saying, but all the potential legislative implications of my Bill are no less than, and no different from, the implications of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act itself for laws that had to be changed. Those changes were rushed through in a space of months, whereas we have had several years to think about this. It is almost three years since the consultation, and I repeat that there was a big consultation before the Act was introduced in which the majority said that they wanted civil partnerships to be extended to opposite-sex couples. How much longer will we have to wait?
Civil Partnership Act 2004 (Amendment) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-01-13
Topic: Civil Rights
Robert Henry Halfon (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend and other hon. Members will know that there are ongoing legal proceedings. I am sure he would agree that it is right for the Government to wait to see the Court’s judgment. It is fairly reasonable to say that, as the Court is considering this issue, the Government should wait to see what happens. His Bill would amend the Civil Partnership Act so that opposite-sex couples can form civil partnerships. As has been highlighted, he has tabled the proposal previously, and in response the Government tabled their own amendment to require formal review of the operation and future of the 2004 Act in England and Wales once marriage became possible for same-sex couples One reason for the Government moving their own amendment is that the impact on demand for civil partnerships caused by the extension of marriage to same-sex couples could not be predicted. When civil partnerships were introduced, there was a peak in the first year, and it took only a couple more years before the numbers started to stabilise. The coalition Government said at the time of the 2013 Act that we expected an early rush to marry for same-sex couples from 29 March 2014, when the Act came into force, and for there to be a similar initial peak in the number of same-sex couples wishing to convert their civil partnership to a marriage from 10 December 2014 The coalition Government also believed that some couples might take much longer to decide between civil partnership and marriage if they wanted a legal relationship or, in particular, to decide whether conversion to marriage was a step they wished to take. Even now, it is still too early to tell whether that will happen in practice That is not the only reason why the Government now believe that my hon. Friend’s proposals would require significant further work. I will take each reason in turn: the legislative complexity introduced by a change to the law; the difficulty in estimating the size of the challenge in successfully making such a change; complications introduced by marriage being a devolved matter; treatment of other overseas relationships; the reaction of religious communities and stakeholders; and finding parliamentary time during this Parliament.