argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2017-12-14
Topic: International Affairs
Questions: Recreational boating is a vital part of my constituency’s leisure facilities around Hamble and Netley. Will the Minister outline what assessment his Department has made of the impact of leaving the EU on recreational boating on the Solent?; What plans does the Minister have to write the tobacco products directive into British law? What discussions has he had with his European counterparts about the TPD?; Following yesterday’s debate, will the Secretary of State now publish a timetable of the decision-making process to give Parliament absolute clarity about when the parliamentary vote on the deal will take place?; The Secretary of State knows very well the importance of the renewables industry to the Humber, and he knows how important it will be for the industry to be able to trade competitively when we leave the EU. Will he support new clause 83, which calls for a full impact assessment on that industry?; Yesterday, the EU warned that the Secretary of State risks damaging trust in the negotiations with his contradictory statements, so I wondered whether he could regain some trust by telling us what the difference is between an impact assessment and a sectoral analysis.; The Secretary of State claims that the phase 1 agreement gives security to EU nationals, but that is constantly undermined by the reference to a no deal Brexit, which would rip that up. Does he not accept that there is a need to give legal standing to EU citizens’ rights now, rather than putting EU nationals through another year of anxiety?
Robin Caspar Walker (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend is absolutely right—we are leaving the European Union; we are not leaving Europe. The Prime Minister has been very clear that we will want to work together on shared challenges such as global warming and the environment.
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2017-12-14
Topic: Government Operations
Questions: Recreational boating is a vital part of my constituency’s leisure facilities around Hamble and Netley. Will the Minister outline what assessment his Department has made of the impact of leaving the EU on recreational boating on the Solent?; What plans does the Minister have to write the tobacco products directive into British law? What discussions has he had with his European counterparts about the TPD?; Following yesterday’s debate, will the Secretary of State now publish a timetable of the decision-making process to give Parliament absolute clarity about when the parliamentary vote on the deal will take place?; The Secretary of State knows very well the importance of the renewables industry to the Humber, and he knows how important it will be for the industry to be able to trade competitively when we leave the EU. Will he support new clause 83, which calls for a full impact assessment on that industry?; Yesterday, the EU warned that the Secretary of State risks damaging trust in the negotiations with his contradictory statements, so I wondered whether he could regain some trust by telling us what the difference is between an impact assessment and a sectoral analysis.; The Secretary of State claims that the phase 1 agreement gives security to EU nationals, but that is constantly undermined by the reference to a no deal Brexit, which would rip that up. Does he not accept that there is a need to give legal standing to EU citizens’ rights now, rather than putting EU nationals through another year of anxiety?; Does the Secretary of State agree that the worst place for someone to be in any negotiation is when they have fixed and declared their own deadline? In tabling amendment 381, the Government have effectively put a gun to their own head.
Robin Caspar Walker (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman is ingenious in raising the topic of amendments that have not yet been tabled. Of course we will want to ensure that, as we take forward our engagement with the devolved Administrations, the issue of clause 11 is addressed.
Speaker's Statement — House of Commons, 2017-12-14
Topic: Government Operations
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): In view of the interest in the House, and outside, I wish, as an exception to the general rule, to make a statement about the replies I have sent today to those hon. Members who have written to me recently asking me to grant precedence to matters of privilege, relating to the motion agreed by the House on 1 November covering Brexit impact assessments Several Members have sought precedence to raise an alleged contempt in relation to the accounts that Ministers have given over the past 15 months of the sectoral analysis and assessment work undertaken by Departments in preparation for Brexit. I have carefully considered the representations made to me, as well as discussing the issue and the practice of the House with the Clerk of the House. I have to judge only whether to give precedence to a motion on the Floor of the House. Ministers could, with advantage, have been considerably clearer in their statements, particularly in challenging lines of questioning in Select Committees that were based on a genuine misconception. However, from the evidence I have seen to date, I have concluded that the test which I am bound to apply—that there is an arguable case that there has on this matter been a contempt of the House—has not been met in this case Other Members have written to me seeking precedence to raise an alleged contempt in relation to the response by the Secretary of State to the motion for an address agreed on 1 November. I have carefully considered the representations made to me, as well as discussing the issue and the practice of the House with the Clerk of the House. I have to judge only whether to give precedence to a motion on the Floor of the House. While it was most regrettable that the Secretary of State—this is a point that I made to him privately, but now state publicly—unilaterally excised some material from the papers he provided, and that it took so long to provide the papers, I also feel bound to pay due attention to the formally recorded view of the Committee that the Secretary of State had complied with the order of 1 November. I have concluded, from the evidence I have seen to date, that the test which I am bound to apply—that there is an arguable case that there has on this matter been a contempt of the House—has not been met in this case I do not judge that points of order can arise from these rulings.
Foreign Affairs Committee — House of Commons, 2017-12-14
Topic: International Affairs
Thomas Georg John Tugendhat (Conservative, Centre-right): The Committee did look at alternatives, but it was very focused on the ability to return to Burma; we did not seek, of course, to allow the Burmese Government an opt-out through which they could permanently displace these people and force others to take responsibility for their brutality. Although the Committee was absolutely aware that return could happen only when it was properly supervised and when humanitarian access to Rakhine state was possible, we did not emphasise the point about third party displacement.
Foreign Affairs Committee — House of Commons, 2017-12-14
Topic: International Affairs
Pauline Elizabeth Latham (Conservative, Centre-right): Does my hon. and gallant Friend agree that one of the main things that could be done would be to send the United Nations special envoy to Rakhine state to help those people who are still there and get back those who are displaced? Would that not be a really good move on the part of the UN?
Foreign Affairs Committee — House of Commons, 2017-12-14
Topic: International Affairs
Thomas Georg John Tugendhat (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend—I do refer to him as a friend—and fellow Committee member speaks very clearly and identifies his own views on the UN. We have not yet looked into this subject, and as I am responding on a particular report it would not be appropriate for me to stray into the structure of the UN. However, I urge the Minister to work through the UN system to make sure that reports such as that of the Annan commission are fully implemented, which it will be remembered from our time in the Committee we all supported.
Foreign Affairs Committee — House of Commons, 2017-12-14
Topic: International Affairs
Nusrat Munir Ul-Ghani (Conservative, Centre-right): My right hon. Friend will recall that the evidence we took on the awful nature of the human rights abuses and humanitarian crisis was in stark contrast to the letter sent to the Committee by the Burmese embassy, which contradicted all the evidence we took. Does my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.]—or, rather, my hon. Friend, agree that the underlying problem is that the Burmese authorities and Aung San Suu Kyi have denied citizenship to the Rohingya, and we and our international partners must push them to make sure the Rohingya are given the right to remain in their homeland?
Foreign Affairs Committee — House of Commons, 2017-12-14
Topic: International Affairs
Thomas Georg John Tugendhat (Conservative, Centre-right): I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend. As is being evidenced this morning, it is a pleasure to chair this Committee, with such experts and intelligent and supportive friends serving on it. My right hon. Friend is of course right that an essential part of the Government’s duty now is to make sure access is possible. I welcome the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Minister in seeking that when he has been working with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and other regional organisations. I also welcome the support he has given to the United Nations, and we of course discussed in Committee making sure the UN had that access.
Foreign Affairs Committee — House of Commons, 2017-12-14
Topic: Government Operations
Thomas Georg John Tugendhat (Conservative, Centre-right): I hear the hon. Gentleman’s comments on a regional response, because that is an essential part of this. The work of Her Majesty’s Government in putting up money initially will only go so far and it is unreasonable to expect that they could bear the entire burden. The work the Minister is doing regionally should be welcomed. He has been visiting partners and neighbours to make sure there is a regional response to what is, frankly, a regional problem.
Foreign Affairs Committee — House of Commons, 2017-12-14
Topic: International Affairs
Timothy Paul Loughton (Conservative, Centre-right): I congratulate my plainly hon. Friend on this excellent report. Further to that question, Myanmar is not a member of the Commonwealth, but does he think there is a role for Commonwealth countries, not least those close to Myanmar, to advise, help and support, so that these instances do not happen in the future and that we can get over the current tragedy soon?
Foreign Affairs Committee — House of Commons, 2017-12-14
Topic: International Affairs
Thomas Georg John Tugendhat (Conservative, Centre-right): I am sure my hon. Friend joins me in the sadness we feel that Burma is not currently able to seek re-admittance to the Commonwealth because of these very tragic events that, sadly, she has done nothing to prevent. There is of course a role for the Commonwealth in the region and more widely. We should also welcome the words of Archbishop Tutu in condemning the silence of the State Counsellor. Frankly, it is only voices like his that carry a weight that is equal to hers.
Pension Equality for Women — House of Commons, 2017-12-14
Topic: Labor
Timothy Paul Loughton (Conservative, Centre-right): I am proud to be a co-signatory of the motion. So far the hon. Gentleman has referred only to WASPI but, as we know, there is an awful lot of interest in this whole issue, and only some of the groups involved call themselves WASPI. We are actually talking about all the women born in the 1950s who are suffering from an injustice that has been disproportionately inflicted on them as a result of changes to the pension qualification age.
Pension Equality for Women — House of Commons, 2017-12-14
Topic: Labor
Guy Thomas Opperman (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) will be aware that in 2007, after 10 years of a Labour Government, the then Government considered all matters of pensions legislation and passed the Pensions Act 2007. During their 13 years in power Labour Members had total capacity to do something about what they now say is not appropriate. With respect, there is a legitimate point to answer.
Pension Equality for Women — House of Commons, 2017-12-14
Topic: Macroeconomics
William David Wiggin (Conservative, Centre-right): I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman and he seems to know what he is talking about. Can he give an idea of how much this will cost? I suspect that there is a range of amounts, but I am curious to know what he thinks would be the right amount of money that could go some way towards putting this right.
Pension Equality for Women — House of Commons, 2017-12-14
Topic: Labor
John David Penrose (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman is setting out his case beautifully and I congratulate him on securing this debate. As someone who represents a retirement town, many local constituents have raised this issue with me. Most of them have a slightly different point of view and do not object to the principle of the equalisation of pension age at all—indeed, they think it is just and right. They are upset because they say they were not properly advised and did not have time to plan for the changes early enough in their working careers. That is the injustice that those who speak to me feel most strongly.
Pension Equality for Women — House of Commons, 2017-12-14
Topic: Social Welfare
Neil Quentin Gordon Parish (Conservative, Centre-right): Does my hon. Friend agree that this is very important for the generation of women affected? Although some of them saw the letters, others did not, and some did not receive them, so they have not been able to make plans for their retirement. The next generation of women will know exactly what is coming. We have made some alterations, but the Government need to be much more generous than they have been to this group of women.
Pension Equality for Women — House of Commons, 2017-12-14
Topic: Labor
Johanna Peta Churchill (Conservative, Centre-right): I agree with my hon. Friend, but it also affects those of us who were in our late 40s when we received the letters. I received one in 2011 or 2012, which proves that they do work. I took a 10% hit in my working life. I will be working until I am 67, I think—
Pension Equality for Women — House of Commons, 2017-12-14
Topic: Social Welfare
Miriam Jane Alice Davies (Conservative, Centre-right): I, too, have lobbied the Minister on this issue. I pay tribute to the Solent WASPI women, who have also presented a petition here in Parliament. Many of the affected women are unable to go back to work because they have already taken on a caring responsibility. That very much affects what they can do financially.
Pension Equality for Women — House of Commons, 2017-12-14
Topic: Social Welfare
Johanna Peta Churchill (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. She works unstintingly for carers up and down the country, and we could have a broader discussion about how we value carers, who are predominantly women The hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) highlighted the specific issues facing a lot of the affected women, but I say gently that those are issues that women—whether they are in their 50s, 40s, 30s or 20s—are dealing with across the piece. Women tend to bear the brunt of these things. As my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan) said, there are challenges in rural areas, and my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney brought up the issue of financial service organisations and banks not playing their part by also being a conduit of information for women. A series of events led to the current situation, and we have all found ourselves learning that communication should be better. At the nub of this is the fact that we have a problem. In 1917, 24 letters were sent from the Monarch to women who were turning 100; last year, the Queen sent 24,000. By 2050, some 56,000 people will celebrate their 100th birthday.
Pension Equality for Women — House of Commons, 2017-12-14
Topic: Labor
Johanna Peta Churchill (Conservative, Centre-right): Indeed we will. The nub of my point is that many of us come to this place as women and as carers. My husband and I still have four living parents, which is great. It is a sign of improved medical care and so on. Nevertheless, we have four children who arguably will bear the brunt of paying for these costs In one of my surgeries recently, I spoke to a woman who is affected by the changes to the state pension age—she is a WASPI woman. She said: "I was born in 1956 and have been fortunate to work all my life"— I take on board the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy)— "in a variety of careers that I have enjoyed." She explained that some of those careers were due to necessity of circumstance. She was warned in two letters that her state pension age would be changing. She will receive her state pension at 66 She went on: "I will be 62 next birthday and even if I was in receipt of a pension, I would struggle to stop working as I thoroughly enjoy my current job." That is what I mean about the need to consider this issue on a more individual basis. The woman continued: "I appreciate that I am very fortunate as I am blessed with good health"— there have been several allusions to that in the debate. She said that she had a supportive husband "and 3 lovely children. I expect to live longer than my parents but my perception is that my children struggle more financially than I did at their age. I realise that my taxes contributed to my parents’ pensions and my children’s taxes will fund mine. I cannot expect my already financially challenged children to contribute to my pension, for many, many more years. That would seem very unfair." If we do not see through these changes to the state pension, the burden on our children will be astronomical. This is not fair, but it is where we find ourselves. We must ensure that our response is proportionate It is about choices. I say gently to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) that the Scottish National party has the ability to make a unilateral decision if it wants to.
Pension Equality for Women — House of Commons, 2017-12-14
Topic: Labor
James Roger Cartlidge (Conservative, Centre-right): It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate and I congratulate the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) on bringing it forward I have received a considerable amount of correspondence about this matter from the ladies in South Suffolk who are affected by the change, although I do not know whether they are in the Public Gallery today. As everyone else, quite rightly, is focusing on the specific issue faced by that cohort of women, I want to consider its long-term implications for the state pension system. We need to ask ourselves whether the system is really fit for purpose. Do we have a state pension system that actually delivers any longer The key thing is that we have a pay-as-you-go system. The most common argument that we hear from ladies who have been affected by these changes is, "I have paid in contributions all my life; it is my pension pot." They believe that as they have paid in their money, they have a contract for what they should receive in return. The problem is that there is no such pot. None of us in the state pension system has a pot with our name on it. We have a pay-as-you-go system. This month’s national insurance contributions from the working population pay for this month’s pension liabilities in the state system. I am afraid that that system is extremely vulnerable in the face of demographic change.
Pension Equality for Women — House of Commons, 2017-12-14
Topic: Labor
James Roger Cartlidge (Conservative, Centre-right): That is not a function of the state pension system. I will resist the bait to which the hon. Lady tries to get me to rise. It is important that we remember the costs involved. The DWP spends £264 billion a year, of which the largest part is for the state pension. At £111 billion, it is by far the biggest single piece of public expenditure. That sum gives out a state pension of on average just under £160 a week—not exactly a king’s ransom. Of course pensioner poverty would be far higher in the current age were it not for the fact that many of this generation of pensioners are fortunate enough to have occupational pensions—and good luck to them. My parents are in that generation, many of whom own property. Savills estimates that the housing equity of people over 65 is about £1.5 trillion, so that generation has been cushioned to a certain degree. It has also been cushioned by the Government’s actions to protect pensioner benefits and introduce the triple lock, all of which have protected state pension expenditure from the necessary savings made in other Departments.
Pension Equality for Women — House of Commons, 2017-12-14
Topic: Labor
James Roger Cartlidge (Conservative, Centre-right): Actually my point was going to be that everyone will end up paying the price. Of course this debate is about a specific cohort that has been hit quite directly and over a specific period, and there is also the whole issue of notification. However, although young people going into the workforce know about the change in the retirement age and have had notification, that does not mean they will be able to save adequately for a pension. It also does not mean that they will be able to afford one, or to get a foot on the housing ladder, and they probably will not have an occupational pension. We cannot look at this issue in isolation; we need to look at the whole system.
Pension Equality for Women — House of Commons, 2017-12-14
Topic: Labor
Timothy Paul Loughton (Conservative, Centre-right): Another day, another debate on pensions for women born in the 1950s. We have now had many more debates on this subject than Elizabeth Taylor had husbands, and much like her seventh husband, I find it difficult to know what new to bring to the bedroom, if not the debate today This situation is not going to go away. I am proud to be the co-chair of the all-party group, and I am pleased to have co-sponsored the debate here today. WASPI is not just those groups calling themselves WASPI; it is hundreds of thousands and millions of women who find themselves in this position. I welcome the work that the all-party group is doing and the survey that we have sent out. I hope that we will get some concrete data back, and I will certainly support the Bill when it comes to the House in April There are three main problems. First, no one is complaining about equalising the pension age; it is the process and mechanism of doing so that is at fault. The impact on a specific group of women—more than 3 million now—is disproportionate. It is calculated that 33% of men will retire with just the state pension to rely on, but 53% of women will do so. The issue is much more important to women The second problem is the arbitrary cut-off date that many women have suffered retrospectively. The pension age of a woman born on 6 May 1953 will now be November 2016—a loss of some £2,000 on what she might originally have expected. The pension age of someone born a year later on 6 May 1954 will now be January 2020, a loss of £20,000. That is a huge difference for the sake of 12 months.