argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2015-12-14
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Questions: Will the Secretary of State explain why the very same councils that have the highest numbers of vulnerable children are also those that have seen the highest budget cuts under his Government?; Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming plans submitted for the tearing down of the PowerGen building in Solihull—an eyesore that has blighted the lives of my constituents for a generation? It is being replaced by hundreds of new homes of many different types, including 260 badly needed assisted living apartments.; In a hasty attempt to reverse the Office for National Statistics decision to reclassify housing associations as “public”, Ministers were recently reported to be considering the sale of £44 billion of Government grant on housing association balance sheets to private investors. Housing associations have made it clear that they would strongly oppose such a move and David Orr, the chief executive of the National Housing Federation, has called it an “unhelpful distraction”. Will the Secretary of State assure the House and the housing association sector that the sale of Government grant on housing association balance sheets to private investors is not under consideration?; Last year, Christchurch Borough Council’s local development plan was adopted with new green-belt boundaries. Will my right hon. Friend ensure public confidence in that plan by making it his policy to call in for his determination any application by a local authority to depart from the plan by giving itself planning permission to build on the very green belt that was so recently confirmed?; Crippling cuts have led to some local authorities having to close their local welfare assistance schemes altogether. Food banks in these areas are reporting increased need. Given that the Government are continually presiding over 5 million people living in food poverty, will the Secretary of State commit to protecting future funding and reinstating the local welfare ring fence?; The people of Lincolnshire know what is best for the people of Lincolnshire. Will my right hon. Friend outline the benefits on offer in the current devolution deal and tell me how the Lincolnshire bid is going?; What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Business Secretary to explore how councils in steel communities can use imaginative and creative approaches to business rates to support the steel industry through this difficult time?
Gregory David Clark (Conservative, Centre-right): I have had discussions with the Business Secretary and his colleagues. It is very important that we empower those local communities to be able to act in support of the businesses and the employees of those industries. Through the extension of the enterprise zone in Teesside, for example, the hon. Gentleman will see that practical support has been given to make sure that the prosperity of those regions continues to grow, despite these challenges.
National Minimum Wage: Sports Direct — House of Commons, 2015-12-14
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): Order. I am glad that the Minister graciously welcomed the urgent question. Unfortunately, the Treasury wrote to me this morning to say that the matter was not urgent and should not be aired. Upon examination, I concluded that it was and should. We look very much forward to the exchanges Mr Peter Lilley was standing, but the right hon. Gentleman has thought better of it. Never mind—fair enough. I call Mr Marcus Fysh.
National Minimum Wage: Sports Direct — House of Commons, 2015-12-14
Topic: Other
Nicholas Edward Coleridge Boles (Conservative, Centre-right): Mr Speaker, you know that it would be a career-limiting move for me to depart in any way from the script laid down by my colleagues at the Treasury, but may I just repeat that I welcome the urgent question and was glad to have the opportunity to answer it I thank my hon. Friend for his suggestion. I am not going to pretend that we had given thought to that, but he has now triggered such a thought. I would be happy to discuss with him how it might work.
National Minimum Wage: Sports Direct — House of Commons, 2015-12-14
Topic: Mixed Topics
Nicholas Edward Coleridge Boles (Conservative, Centre-right): I have never had the pleasure of being encouraged to get stuck in by the hon. Gentleman before, but I promise to follow up on that. Let me be clear: I do not care how famous or well connected employers are, and I frankly do not care how much money they have made. They must obey the law, and if they do not, we will enforce it. We will fine them and disqualify directors if necessary.
National Minimum Wage: Sports Direct — House of Commons, 2015-12-14
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Nicholas Edward Coleridge Boles (Conservative, Centre-right): I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has pointed out how important that organisation is as an employer in his constituency. It is important we acknowledge that Sports Direct employs a great many people, and I am sure a great many people are very happy to work there. I reinforce the point, however, that no company director and no company owner will want the House of Commons to be discussing, in the terms we are discussing, the kind of breach that was alleged in the newspaper article. I am absolutely certain that, when faced with the kind of enforcement action I have set out, any employers, including those in his constituency, will want to sort themselves out.
National Minimum Wage: Sports Direct — House of Commons, 2015-12-14
Topic: Domestic Commerce
David Mowat (Conservative, Centre-right): On the facts, the case in The Guardian is disturbing. Does the Minister agree that one good piece of news is that, whatever else happens, in April next year Sports Direct will have to pay these people 11% more than they are getting now?
National Minimum Wage: Sports Direct — House of Commons, 2015-12-14
Topic: Mixed Topics
Nicholas Edward Coleridge Boles (Conservative, Centre-right): It is not the job of a Minister of the Crown to lay down the law on individual cases and companies that have not been found definitely to have breached the law. I have been as clear as possible about any employer, large or small, that does breach the law, and I hope the hon. Gentleman can apply that to any particular case.
Climate Change Agreement — House of Commons, 2015-12-14
Topic: Mixed Topics
Amber Rudd (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank my right hon. Friend for his question, but at its core is a suggestion that what we are doing will not alleviate poverty. On that he could not be more wrong. Particularly through climate finance and the investment that will come from the private sector, which Governments will be able to leverage, we will help to alleviate poverty and provide energy in areas of Africa and India that have never had it before. That is an essential part of what we will achieve.
Climate Change Agreement — House of Commons, 2015-12-14
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): Order. I should gently point out to the House that hon. or right hon. Members who were not present at the start of the Secretary of State’s statement should not expect to be called. Now that I have made that point, it would be rather unseemly for them to continue to stand, as well as fruitless.
Climate Change Agreement — House of Commons, 2015-12-14
Topic: Mixed Topics
Nigel Paul Huddleston (Conservative, Centre-right): I add my congratulations to the Secretary of State and all those who have worked for many years on achieving an impressive outcome. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether the success criteria set before the conference were achieved at it?
Climate Change Agreement — House of Commons, 2015-12-14
Topic: Immigration
Christopher Robert Chope (Conservative, Centre-right): On current trends of uncontrolled immigration, this country will have a population of 30 million more by the end of the century. What impact does my right hon. Friend think that will have on our CO2 emissions?
Airports Capacity — House of Commons, 2015-12-14
Topic: Other
Patrick McLoughlin (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman has taken a view on the Government’s decision before the Government have made the decision. That is fairly typical of what he does. I have been very open with the House on the reason for the extra work that needs to be done. There are people on the Government Benches who have been incredibly consistent on this matter and there are people on the Opposition Benches who have been less consistent. I went through the whole programme of where we got to on the timetable, and if there has been a deliberate wasting of time, it was by the previous Labour Government.
Airports Capacity — House of Commons, 2015-12-14
Topic: Other
Patrick McLoughlin (Conservative, Centre-right): I am still waiting to hear—it should be such a simple, easy answer—what the SNP’s position is on this matter. Which scheme do SNP Members support? They are silent on it. They want everybody else to give their answers, so that once the decision is made they will attack it and say they would go down a different route. That seems to be the only point of the SNP in this Chamber: to wait for a decision to be made, then attack it. No wonder SNP Members are in such a difficult position today.
Airports Capacity — House of Commons, 2015-12-14
Topic: Other
Patrick McLoughlin (Conservative, Centre-right): I hear what my hon. Friend says, but the call from most Members in the Chamber is to make a decision. If we reopen the whole question and go back to his suggestion, it might take rather longer.
Airports Capacity — House of Commons, 2015-12-14
Topic: Other
Patrick McLoughlin (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, and remind him that the Davies commission was set up by the coalition Government to make and examine the case fully for what we should do for the future. I was proud of serving in that coalition Government, and I was proud of a lot of the things they achieved. The Davies commission and setting it up was just one of them, and now the right hon. Gentleman is wanting us to back away from the difficult questions it poses to us.
Airports Capacity — House of Commons, 2015-12-14
Topic: Mixed Topics
Kwasi Alfred Addo Kwarteng (Conservative, Centre-right): Will the Secretary of State give us an assurance that there will be a decision in the summer, because the only question my constituents ask is whether this thing will actually be decided upon or not?
Airports Capacity — House of Commons, 2015-12-14
Topic: Mixed Topics
Patrick McLoughlin (Conservative, Centre-right): To try to reassure the hon. Gentleman, who is yet another Scottish nationalist to get up but not to say which option he supports, let me point out that what I have said and been clear about is that we will stick to the timetable that gives the extra capacity that is needed by 2030.
Airports Capacity — House of Commons, 2015-12-14
Topic: Mixed Topics
Patrick McLoughlin (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. One thing I have learned from taking through some of the big infrastructure projects that I have been responsible for is that it is right to make sure we can prove on all the possible challenges we will face that we have done the right amount of work in preparation for whatever decisions we put before the House.
Airports Capacity — House of Commons, 2015-12-14
Topic: Mixed Topics
Patrick McLoughlin (Conservative, Centre-right): Those are all points that have to be put forward and addressed in the work that we are going to do in the coming months on air quality. As I say, a lot of this work has been covered by Davies, but a lot more is still to be done. My hon. Friend is right to show his concern and also to point out that there is no easy or straightforward answer on aviation capacity. We must also accept that aviation is a very important industry for this country, employing many thousands of people, including right across the supply chain and the delivery chain. On that basis, I hope that he will accept my assurances.
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2015-12-14
Topic: Other
Nicholas Soames (Conservative, Centre-right): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think you were in the Chair when the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) accused my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), who has sat quietly and respectfully throughout this exchange, of not being in his place. Although my hon. Friend is completely wrong on absolutely everything to do with runways, it is extremely unfair to his constituents and to his future supporters in the mayoral election that they should think he was not here for the whole of the time that this statement took place.
Relocation of Migrants in need of International Protection (Opt-in Decision) — House of Commons, 2015-12-14
Topic: Immigration
James Peter Brokenshire (Conservative, Centre-right): I beg to move, That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 9355/15 and Addendum and No. 11132/15, international protection for the benefit of Italy and Greece, No. 11843/15 and Addendum, establishing a crisis relocation mechanism, and No. 11844/15 and Addendum, international protection for the benefit of Italy, Greece and Hungary; and agrees with the Government’s decision not to opt in to proposals establishing provisional measures for the relocation of individuals in need of international protection or to the proposal establishing a crisis relocation mechanism The motion covers a series of EU proposals on the relocation of migrants within the EU. They formed a central part of the EU’s summer response to the ongoing migration crisis and have been the subject of long negotiations within the EU and of previous debates in the House The current migration crisis has been described as the worst refugee crisis since world war two. It has severely tested the ability and resolve of the EU and member states to provide a comprehensive and sustainable response that is able to support member states under the most pressure and ensure protection for those in real need of it. The situation has been and remains complex and fast moving. Proposals have been brought forward and adopted extremely quickly; at times, Interior Ministers have met almost weekly, and as soon as proposals were adopted, they were often superseded by others Since the crisis began, the Government have been clear about our views on relocation: it is the wrong response. It does absolutely nothing to address the underlying causes of the crisis and does nothing more than move the problem around Europe. Relocation also reduces incentives for member states to tackle abuse, process applications and strengthen their borders. It may also encourage more migrants to travel illegally to the EU. We must ensure that the permanent relocation proposal does not reduce the obligation on all member states to have fully functioning border and asylum systems The Government have consistently stated that the UK would not opt in to measures, whether temporary or permanent. I apologise to the House for the fact that we have had to override scrutiny on these relocation measures. The European Commission brought forward proposals on relocation as a response to an emergency situation. The Prime Minister and Home Secretary were required to make the Government’s views on such measures clear in hastily arranged EU Council meetings The debates on relocation continue within the EU. Only a tiny number of people have been relocated under the agreed temporary measures and many member states are now stepping back from their previous commitments. Concern is growing about the merits of the permanent mechanism.
Relocation of Migrants in need of International Protection (Opt-in Decision) — House of Commons, 2015-12-14
Topic: Immigration
James Peter Brokenshire (Conservative, Centre-right): Obviously, we are not party to the arrangements as we are using our opt-out. My hon. Friend highlights some of the issues that have arisen since the measures were put into place. I am aware that Slovakia and Hungary have recently filed legal challenges in the European Court of Justice against the relocation scheme. There are relevant concerns. In our view, the proposals are ill conceived and many more now question the viability of relocation as a tool to manage the migration crisis.
Relocation of Migrants in need of International Protection (Opt-in Decision) — House of Commons, 2015-12-14
Topic: Immigration
John Alan Redwood (Conservative, Centre-right): I strongly support the Government’s decision to opt out. Will the Minister explain something? Under the scheme that was agreed, if migrants were allocated a given country to settle in but then decided they would rather live in another EU country, what would stop them from moving?
Relocation of Migrants in need of International Protection (Opt-in Decision) — House of Commons, 2015-12-14
Topic: Immigration
James Peter Brokenshire (Conservative, Centre-right): My right hon. Friend has highlighted what might be described as secondary movement, and we remain conscious of that. Obviously, there is secondary movement within the Schengen area, but we maintain our own border controls and visa requirements. Practical issues with the scheme have been highlighted; to date, only about 160 people have been relocated under the measures thus far Rather than relocating those arriving in Europe, the Government have made clear that our policy is to focus our efforts on resettling vulnerable people in need of international protection. We continue to make the case that this is not just an EU problem but an international issue requiring concerted action from a whole range of international parties.
Relocation of Migrants in need of International Protection (Opt-in Decision) — House of Commons, 2015-12-14
Topic: Immigration
Jacob William Rees-Mogg (Conservative, Centre-right): Is not the problem on secondary movement the fact that once migrants have become citizens of an EU member state, the free movement of people means that they are entitled to go anywhere? Even under our own laws, asylum seekers go to the head of the queue in getting nationality.
Relocation of Migrants in need of International Protection (Opt-in Decision) — House of Commons, 2015-12-14
Topic: Immigration
James Peter Brokenshire (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend makes an important point in respect of rights and entitlement to citizenship, but he will know that there are certain tests that we adopt—good character requirements, for example—and other steps that we take to assure ourselves in respect of those who may be granted citizenship, and that that process is conducted over a number of years before someone would be so entitled. Citizenship is certainly not automatic. I underline the point that I made—we maintain our own visa and border requirements in respect of those who come here, and adhere to them clearly for those who are not EU citizens.
Relocation of Migrants in need of International Protection (Opt-in Decision) — House of Commons, 2015-12-14
Topic: Immigration
James Peter Brokenshire (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about the operation of the scheme. That has been a practical issue for EU member states that are party to the scheme when migrants have displayed an unwillingness to participate in the relocation arrangements envisaged by the measures to be debated this evening. Such practical issues have to be confronted The migration crisis is constantly changing and requires a flexible but robust response. Our approach has been designed to protect the UK interest while making a contribution to helping those in need and addressing the unprecedented challenge faced by our partners. Relocation is not proving to be successful. In our view, time would be better spent on measures that would make a real difference. We must secure the external border, quickly provide protection to those who need it and return those who do not. That is where the focus of this Government will remain, and I trust that the House will be minded to support the motion.
Relocation of Migrants in need of International Protection (Opt-in Decision) — House of Commons, 2015-12-14
Topic: Mixed Topics
William Nigel Paul Cash (Conservative, Centre-right): The reality is that there are declared jihadists who have been in Syria and other parts of the middle east. Jihadi John, as he was described, is a very good example of a declared jihadist who came from the United Kingdom, but I was not making a point about the United Kingdom, although I do perceive the danger. I was referring to the fact that there is no doubt that citizens—admittedly, they were French—who had been to Syria and come back via routes that enabled them to get to Paris contributed to the carnage. People can dispute that if they wish, but the facts are clear. The reality is that real problems have to be addressed, and that is an extremely important part of this debate. People can have differing views, but the reality is that there are real dangers I am also bound to say another thing with respect to the manner in which the Government have dealt with the issue. I want to make this point briefly, but it is important. The Minister passed very briefly over this and made a slight apology for what happened, but, with regard to override, I am going to put it in stronger terms. Scheduling a debate after the Government have reached an opt-in decision makes a mockery of their own commitment to enhanced scrutiny of their opt-in decisions and to provide full transparency and accountability to Parliament. The Government have provided no explanation, even this evening, for their failure to schedule an opt-in debate during a September sitting of Parliament, when the House could have expressed a view on the merits of opting into the first two relocation proposals, or an opt-in debate before the expiry of the opt-in deadline of 8 December on the proposed amending regulation.
Relocation of Migrants in need of International Protection (Opt-in Decision) — House of Commons, 2015-12-14
Topic: Immigration
Jacob William Rees-Mogg (Conservative, Centre-right): Would my hon. Friend be more sympathetic to Her Majesty’s Government, as I might be, if it were not true that it was nearly three years ago, in January 2013, that the European Scrutiny Committee requested a debate on the Floor of the House on the free movement of people? Their failure to schedule debates is long standing.
Relocation of Migrants in need of International Protection (Opt-in Decision) — House of Commons, 2015-12-14
Topic: Immigration
William Nigel Paul Cash (Conservative, Centre-right): It is indeed. I always want to encourage the Government to do better, but on this occasion they have done a lot worse. The delay in scheduling opt-in debates is inconsistent with the letter and spirt of the commitments made to Parliament by the Minister for Europe. I would be grateful if the Minister for Immigration would deal with that, because he owes not only the European Scrutiny Committee, but, much more importantly, the House and this country’s voters an apology for the way in which it has been dealt with. I am sure he will give that apology; perhaps he would like to do so now. Is there a chance that he might? Is he listening to what I am saying?
Relocation of Migrants in need of International Protection (Opt-in Decision) — House of Commons, 2015-12-14
Topic: Mixed Topics
James Peter Brokenshire (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful to the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee for allowing me to intervene on him. As I said when I gave evidence to the Committee, the Government have had to deal with a fast-moving situation, and, as I have already indicated today, we are sorry that it has not been possible to have the debates in the way we would have chosen to have them, but that is a reflection of the exceptional circumstances with which we have been dealing. There have been opportunities for debates and to respond to questions by way of statements, but that is the situation to which we have been seeking to respond.