argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Windrush Compensation Scheme — House of Commons, 2019-04-03
Topic: Immigration
Sajid Javid (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I reiterate again that, for all the right reasons, there is no cap on this scheme. He asked whether only financial losses will be considered, but if other detriment has been suffered—people may have been wrongly detained, for example—the scheme will consider that. He also asked whether people who have used the urgent payment fund will be eligible to apply under scheme. Absolutely, if they meet the eligibility criteria, and depending on the claim, there is no link between the two schemes The hon. Gentleman welcomed the fact that the scheme is not limited to Commonwealth citizens of Caribbean origin; it is broader than that. It is right that we have focused on those whom all the evidence suggested are more likely to have suffered detriment, but it is also right that the scheme is not limited to Commonwealth citizens of Caribbean origin. He rightly referred to the Wendy Williams’s review, which will be vital to ensure that we get everything right.
Windrush Compensation Scheme — House of Commons, 2019-04-03
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): Order. Traditionally, there is slightly greater latitude for the Chair of a Select Committee, but in view of the time constraints it would be appreciated if colleagues could confine themselves to a single-sentence question without preamble. Otherwise, lots of people will be prevented from speaking.
Windrush Compensation Scheme — House of Commons, 2019-04-03
Topic: Mixed Topics
Sajid Javid (Conservative, Centre-right): We received some 1,400 responses to the consultation, which is high for any consultation, and we wanted to ensure that they were all considered carefully. We worked closely with Martin Forde and others and wanted to ensure that the systems were in place from day one when the compensation scheme went live. Now that it is live, we will be able to process claims quickly.
Windrush Compensation Scheme — House of Commons, 2019-04-03
Topic: Civil Rights
Jeremy John Elton Lefroy (Conservative, Centre-right): I heard the dignified evidence given to the Joint Committee on Human Rights by some of the Windrush generation. I was astonished that some were still put into this position despite providing huge amounts of documentation. What support is being given to those in the Windrush generation, or indeed anybody else, who have been dismissed despite having all this evidence in front of them?
Windrush Compensation Scheme — House of Commons, 2019-04-03
Topic: Mixed Topics
Sajid Javid (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend is right to raise that. I remember looking at cases in which such outcomes should not have happened. We have made the compensation scheme as simple and as straightforward as possible. For example, some payments have both a tariff structure and an actual structure, because we are trying to provide as much choice as possible.
Windrush Compensation Scheme — House of Commons, 2019-04-03
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Sajid Javid (Conservative, Centre-right): In our publication today, we set out carefully what type of eligibility and what type of losses can be covered. I believe that, with the consultation process and with the support of Martin Forde, it is a very fair process.
Windrush Compensation Scheme — House of Commons, 2019-04-03
Topic: Immigration
Sajid Javid (Conservative, Centre-right): We want to make sure that no one is left out. We have, for reasons I have previously explained in the House, focused on those of Caribbean origin, but that process of trying to find those who may have been wronged continues.
Windrush Compensation Scheme — House of Commons, 2019-04-03
Topic: Mixed Topics
Sajid Javid (Conservative, Centre-right): One category we have also included in the compensation is a discretionary category, because we are well aware that, although we can identify some of the most likely detriments to compensate, there may be some exceptional cases, and I want to make sure that nothing is left out by the compensation scheme.
Windrush Compensation Scheme — House of Commons, 2019-04-03
Topic: Immigration
Sajid Javid (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Lady makes a very important point. We want to make sure everyone feels they can, first, come forward to the Windrush scheme itself, in terms of documentation, passports and the work of the taskforce, and, secondly, make claims for compensation. For example, no information relating to those who come forward to the compensation scheme will be supplied to immigration enforcement, or in respect of any other issues and concerns that people might have.
Windrush Compensation Scheme — House of Commons, 2019-04-03
Topic: Other
Sajid Javid (Conservative, Centre-right): As I mentioned earlier, we have tried to make it as simple as we can to navigate, with guidance and a free phone number. If anyone finds themselves in that circumstance, I suggest that the first thing they do is call the free phone number.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-04-03
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): Under the terms of the business of the House motion to which the House has just agreed, amendments for the Committee stage of the Bill may now be accepted by the Clerks at the Table. An amendment paper containing all amendments tabled up until 6.15 pm today, and the names of signatories, will be available in the Vote Office and on the parliamentary website by 7 pm. Members may continue to table amendments up until the start of proceedings in Committee of the Whole House. If necessary, an updated amendment paper will be made available as soon as possible during proceedings in Committee. For the benefit of everyone, however, I would encourage Members to table their amendments as soon as possible. The Chairman of Ways and Means will take a provisional decision on selection and grouping on the basis of amendments tabled by 6.15 pm, and that provisional selection list will be made available in the Vote Office and on the parliamentary website before the start of proceedings in Committee.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-04-03
Topic: Mixed Topics
William Nigel Paul Cash (Conservative, Centre-right): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order regarding the need for a money resolution under the Standing Orders in respect of the Bill. For example, if the Bill was to result in a very great extension, the cost could be £36 billion of taxpayers’ money. Fifty MPs have written to you, Mr Speaker, in my name and theirs, in the belief that a money resolution is required, particularly as the matter is apparently decided by the Clerks of the House of Commons. That raises a question for the Procedure Committee as to whether or not there should be a money resolution. I therefore ask you, Mr Speaker, first of all, what is your conclusion on that, as advised; and, secondly, whether the matter can be referred to the Procedure Committee, because in my judgment it is completely unacceptable for matters to be decided in this way?
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-04-03
Topic: Other
Edward Julian Egerton Leigh (Conservative, Centre-right): Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not want to get into the argument about what the Bill is going to cost, but as a member of the Procedure Committee I do think it is an arguable contention that when we are indulging in such constitutional innovations the matter should go to the Procedure Committee first. Otherwise, what is the point of the Procedure Committee?
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-04-03
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): It is not for the Chair to pronounce judgment on the attendance record of right hon. and hon. Members at Committees. Suffice to say that I have heard points of order from the hon. Members for Stone (Sir William Cash) and for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), and the House has heard what they have had to say. If there are no further points of order—[Interruption.] Oh, very well.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-04-03
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): I would rather deal with this matter. I think it is more orderly to deal with it in that way. If there are no further points of order on this matter, I will—[Interruption.] I beg the pardon of the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg).
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-04-03
Topic: Other
Jacob William Rees-Mogg (Conservative, Centre-right): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I thought this matter would come at a later stage, because on private Members’ Bill Fridays we do not have money resolutions until Bills need to go into Committee. The money resolution is given at that stage. It is the case that a Bill cannot proceed out of Committee without a money resolution, not Second Reading, is it not?
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-04-03
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): That is true, but I say to the hon. Gentleman that there is no automatic or compelling obstacle to the House treating of the matter now. I judged, in consultation with the hon. Member for Stone, that it might be for the convenience of the House—particularly a relatively full House, at this time—for me to say something about the matter now on the back of what he has said. The alternative was for him to expatiate on this point in the course of any speech that he might make on Second Reading Of course, the two are not mutually exclusive, but I am sure that the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) would agree that for me then to interrupt the Second Reading debate to respond to the point would be a rather ungainly way in which to proceed. I thought it better to treat of the matter now, before we embark on Second Reading. I have heard his point, and I respect it, but I do not think it is conclusive.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-04-03
Topic: Other
Shailesh Lakhman Vara (Conservative, Centre-right): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your advice, because many of the people who wish to have the debate that we are about to have argue that the mandate—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, I am trying. They argue that the mandate given by a margin of a million people in a referendum was not sufficient. They also argue that a 4% margin was not sufficient, in percentage terms. Could you therefore advise me as to the appropriateness of carrying on a debate that has got through on one solitary vote?
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-04-03
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): Yes, I can. The answer is that procedural propriety in the House has got absolutely nothing to do with numbers for or against a particular proposition, either in a referendum or in a general election. I say to the hon. Gentleman with great courtesy, because he is among the most courteous Members of this House, that he has made what might be thought by some people to be a very good polemical or campaigning point, but—I think he and I did O-levels, and I say this to him with some trepidation, because he is an extremely intelligent man—in procedural terms, I am afraid his observation would not warrant anything better at O-level than an unclassified. I am sorry. He has made an important campaigning point, but not a procedural one; I do not say that in any spirit of unkindness.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-04-03
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): Order. Forgive me; I have treated the hon. Gentleman with the utmost courtesy, as I always do, and I am happy to discuss the matter further with him. However, that is a ruling on advice, to which very careful thought has been given, and we cannot debate it further. We must now proceed with the business.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-04-03
Topic: Other
Nadine Vanessa Dorries (Conservative, Centre-right): I have the greatest respect for the right hon. Lady’s endeavours today and for what she is trying to achieve, but may I draw attention to one of the things that we have to do in the House, which she mentioned at the beginning of her speech? We are all used to battling for our ideologies here, and for our beliefs and for what we want. Is this not one of the rare occasions when it is appropriate for us to think not about what we believe in and what we fight for, but about what is right for the country? Some of us, both remainers and arch-leavers, need to compromise and meet somewhere in the middle.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-04-03
Topic: Mixed Topics
John Charles Baron (Conservative, Centre-right): The right hon. Lady is being very generous in giving way, and I appreciate the manner in which she has introduced the debate, but may I gently remind her that predictions about the consequences of voting to leave or no deal have proved very wrong in the past? We heard dire economic predictions in 2016—for instance, it was predicted that by Christmas that year 500,000 more people would be unemployed—but the economic reality has been very different. The predictions were wrong then, and I suggest to her that they are wrong now.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-04-03
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): Order. I gently point out that there are three Front-Bench speeches to be heard, and that a number of other hon. and right hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. There is therefore a premium on brevity.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-04-03
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): Order. I have just had a message chuntered to me from a Government Whip that the Secretary of State is content to wait for a period. The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) is the beneficiary.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-04-03
Topic: Civil Rights
Martin John Vickers (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is absolutely right in his analysis Moving on, some people argue for a second referendum, or a so-called people’s vote, as if the people did not vote on the first occasion.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-04-03
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): Order. I encourage colleagues to make speeches not exceeding three minutes. In fact, there will be a three-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. The Front Benchers are going to be encouraged to be extremely brief. Lots of people want to speak and there is very little time.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-04-03
Topic: Other
John Charles Baron (Conservative, Centre-right): I find it very strange, this condescending view that, "People did not know what they were voting for first time around, so we are going to give them a second vote. If we don’t like that result, we will give them a third and a fourth." It is complete nonsense.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-04-03
Topic: Mixed Topics
John Charles Baron (Conservative, Centre-right): No. Mr Speaker has told us to be brief, and I will be brief I ask the House to reflect for a moment and use moderation when it comes to this issue of so-called crashing out or falling off a cliff by leaving on no-deal WTO terms. I gently remind the House that in 2016 there were lots of dire predictions about what would happen if we voted to leave. We had predictions from the trade bodies, the business organisations and the Government—the Treasury Front Benchers. We had predictions of 500,000 extra unemployed by Christmas 2016, and the CBI came out with a figure of 950,000 extra unemployed within a couple of years. They all proved to be wrong, so much so that the Bank of England had to apologise What has happened since? We have had record low unemployment, record inward investment and record manufacturing output. I suggest to the House that the reason we for that is that economic reality, trade and comparative advantage trump predictions. When we talk about comparative advantage, factors such as how low our corporation tax rates are compared with those in other countries, how much more flexible our labour markets are, our financial expertise, which is unrivalled—certainly within Europe—our research and development, and our top universities are more important, in aggregate, than WTO tariffs and leaving with no deal. The proof of the pudding is in the economic reality. We would all agree that a low unemployment rate is terribly important, as high unemployment is one of the social evils in our society, and our unemployment rate is nearly half that of the EU average. That is the issue in point. We trade with many countries outside the EU, very profitably, on WTO, no-deal terms, so I suggest to the House that if we want to respect the referendum result, the triggering of article 50 and our election manifestos, we should be leaving the EU on 12 April on no-deal, WTO terms if we cannot agree a deal before then.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-04-03
Topic: Other
William Nigel Paul Cash (Conservative, Centre-right): I have just been to the Vote Office and, most unfortunately, for some reason that we cannot understand, the copy of the Bill we should be getting actually malfunctioned in some way or another, so, as I understand it, it cannot be obtained from the Vote Office.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-04-03
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): I am not sure that a Bill is itself capable of malfunction. My imagination, which is quite vivid, is being stretched. It may well be that there has been some malfunction that has caused the absence of the Bill, which the hon. Gentleman wishes to see and of which he would want a copy. That is unfortunate and I hope the matter can be speedily remedied. [Interruption.] I have just been advised—I am grateful to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) and the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois)—that it was the amendment paper that was not forthcoming. However, I gather that honour is served. The amendment paper is here, the Chairman of Ways and Means is in his place, he has made his selection and the House is going to hear it.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-04-03
Topic: Other
Oliver Letwin (Conservative, Centre-right): On a point of order, Sir Lindsay. Would it not make sense to suspend the sitting for 10 minutes to make sure that all Members present can have a copy of the amendments and the selection list that you have spoken about?
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-04-03
Topic: Other
Nicholas Soames (Conservative, Centre-right): On a point of order, Sir Lindsay. In the spirit of the new regime of bringing the whole House together on these difficult matters, and while you are waiting to get these amendments circulated, I thought it would be helpful if I was to let the House know that the Grand National will be won by a horse called Tiger Roll. [Laughter.]
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-04-03
Topic: Other
William Nigel Paul Cash (Conservative, Centre-right): On a point of order, Sir Lindsay. I think you just called amendment 13. In the selection list, it says "Yvette Cooper". As it happens, I have here a list of tabled amendments and amendment 13 is in my name.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-04-03
Topic: Other
Steven John Baker (Conservative, Centre-right): On a point of order, Sir Lindsay. It may help the House. I have just inquired in the Vote Office, and the correct amendment paper, the one that we should be looking at, is the one with 15 printed pages. There has been some confusion, which would explain the point of order from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash).
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-04-03
Topic: Other
George Iain Duncan Smith (Conservative, Centre-right): I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman realises something about his amendment: I would be very happy to see it inserted because I think it would immediately mean a money resolution would be needed, so I give him good encouragement.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-04-03
Topic: Other
Charles George Eustice (Conservative, Centre-right): Well, we have all had a little time to look at the Bill, but my understanding is that amendment 20 would insert a maximum time limit and that subsection (5) would then be subject to it. Subsection (3) makes explicit reference to subsection (2), which relates to the motion that would be before the House. I think the consequence of amendment 20 would be to include a limit of the 30 June, notwithstanding what the right hon. Gentleman says about subsection (5).
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-04-03
Topic: Other
Anne Margaret Main (Conservative, Centre-right): I want to test amendment 20 slightly, because it is not dissimilar to an amendment that has been selected in my name. How did my hon. Friend pick 30 June 2019? How does that offer clarity on what he wants to achieve?
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-04-03
Topic: Other
Charles George Eustice (Conservative, Centre-right): I strongly disagree with the hon. Lady’s reading, as subsection (3) sets out the terms in which anything can be offered under subsection (2) and amendment 20 places a clear limit in subsection (3) of 30 June. Subsection (5) then says: "If the motion in the form set out in subsection (2) for the purposes of subsection (1) is agreed to with an amendment to change the date" and so on. The issue I have is that subsection (3) says that the date has a time limit, so it would not be legally possibly under subsection (2) to have a date that contradicted the requirements set out in subsection (3). That is my contention and I disagree with the hon. Lady. If she and the right hon. Member for Leeds Central were right, they would not have had subsection (3) at all.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-04-03
Topic: Mixed Topics
William Nigel Paul Cash (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend made a remark that goes to the issue of the money resolution that I raised earlier. He said, and I am going to take his word for it, because no doubt as a recent former Minister he has followed this carefully, that the extension in question could be as long as five years. Let us think about that. If we multiply five by £18 billion of taxpayers’ money, which is the amount we pay every year in gross contributions to the EU, we find that it works out at £90 billion. That is his assessment, and I am simply asking him to ask the Minister vicariously whether he is aware that this Bill could cost £90 billion of taxpayers’ money? I think—I hope—the media will pick up on that.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-04-03
Topic: Other
Michael James Tomlinson-Mynors (Conservative, Centre-right): I have been wondering about that. My hon. Friend says that the motion in effect will mandate, but does he agree with my reading, which is that under subsection (2) the House simply agrees that the Prime Minister is seeking an extension? It does not mandate or order it. Does that not again make nonsense of swift drafting on such an important issue?