argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Korean Peninsula — House of Commons, 2017-09-05
Topic: International Affairs
Mark Gino Francois (Conservative, Centre-right): It is clear that the House hopes overwhelmingly for a diplomatic solution to the crisis, but as the Foreign Secretary said that we stand by our allies, have we received any requests for potential military support from South Korea, Japan or, indeed, the United States? If so, what has been our response?
Korean Peninsula — House of Commons, 2017-09-05
Topic: International Affairs
Christopher Robert Chope (Conservative, Centre-right): The financial burden of implementing UN resolution 2371 will largely fall on China. What proposals are there, from our friends elsewhere and from within our country, to help China to meet those costs? It is easy for us to say, "They won’t do it," but surely we can do something to say, "If you take that step, we will do something to help you."
Korean Peninsula — House of Commons, 2017-09-05
Topic: International Affairs
Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson (Conservative, Centre-right): I understand my hon. Friend’s good and interesting point. At the moment we think that the cost to China is pretty minimal in comparison with the impact on North Korea, but if that is raised by our Chinese friends, we will certainly consider it.
Korean Peninsula — House of Commons, 2017-09-05
Topic: International Affairs
Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson (Conservative, Centre-right): I wish the hon. Lady every success in her trip to South Korea. When she goes there, I am sure she will have a clear feeling of the imminence of the threat posed by North Korea, not only with nuclear weapons but with conventional weapons. The answer to her question is simple: the two most important actors outside the Korean peninsula are of course China and the US. But the UK can play an important role in trying to bridge the gap between them and unite the international community around a common position.
Korean Peninsula — House of Commons, 2017-09-05
Topic: International Affairs
Richard Michael John Ogilvie Graham (Conservative, Centre-right): The current Chinese ambassador to the Court of St James’s, Liu Xiaoming, has often made it clear that in his previous role as ambassador to Pyongyang the North Koreans were incredibly difficult to work with on almost everything. Given the timing of North Korea’s latest missile test, which could scarcely have been less convenient for Xi Jinping, does my right hon. Friend really believe that the Chinese have been able to exercise any restraint on Kim Jong-un so far and will be able to do so in future?
Korean Peninsula — House of Commons, 2017-09-05
Topic: International Affairs
Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend speaks with great experience of the region and is entirely right in his analysis of the timing of the test and the effect it was meant to have on Xi Jinping and the Chinese leadership. That does not mean, though, that we should discount the Chinese ability to affect events in North Korea and China’s potential to do more.
Korean Peninsula — House of Commons, 2017-09-05
Topic: International Affairs
Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson (Conservative, Centre-right): The best thing we can do is to continue our work with the UN Security Council, at which the Chinese have so far been absolutely in step with us. The hon. Gentleman is right to focus on oil, which we think is the next opportunity.
Korean Peninsula — House of Commons, 2017-09-05
Topic: International Affairs
Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson (Conservative, Centre-right): I do not think we can simply assume Kim Jong-un is totally irrational. We have to hope that he is willing to take the interests of his people—the suffering people of North Korea—into account and that in the end he is willing to protect their interests. We have to ascribe some kind of rationality and humanity to him in the end.
Korean Peninsula — House of Commons, 2017-09-05
Topic: International Affairs
Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson (Conservative, Centre-right): That is a wonderful illustration of the vital importance of maintaining the joint comprehensive plan of action—the deal to restrict the development of Iran’s nuclear weapons that, as everybody knows, has been the subject of some controversy in Washington and that has been deprecated by some members of Congress. The value of coming to such arrangements with potential nuclear powers is evident.
Korean Peninsula — House of Commons, 2017-09-05
Topic: International Affairs
Atta-Ur-Rehman Chishti (Conservative, Centre-right): Following on from that point, North Korea and Iran signed an agreement on science and technology co-operation in 2012. The Foreign Secretary said that certain countries are suspected of supporting North Korea’s weapons programmes; will he clarify whether Iran is one of those countries? When will the investigations into those suspicions be concluded so that everyone knows who those countries are and what action will be taken against them?
Korean Peninsula — House of Commons, 2017-09-05
Topic: International Affairs
Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson (Conservative, Centre-right): I understand what the hon. Gentleman is driving at, but we cannot get into the business of offering security guarantees to the North Korean regime when it is currently threatening to destroy New York and other cities and countries around the world.
Korean Peninsula — House of Commons, 2017-09-05
Topic: International Affairs
Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson (Conservative, Centre-right): I really must disagree powerfully with the hon. Lady’s assertion that somehow this crisis has been whipped up by the Americans, the President or the White House when, if we look at the history not just over the past year, but over the past 10 or 30 years, we will see that this has been a movement towards the acquisition of thermonuclear weapons by a rogue state. We have now come to a point where we have to use all the diplomatic and peaceful means at our disposal to freeze that nuclear programme and to ensure a peaceful solution.
Korean Peninsula — House of Commons, 2017-09-05
Topic: International Affairs
Robert Alexander Courts (Conservative, Centre-right): Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Britain, with its close and established ties with the United States and its strengthened ties with Japan, is in a unique position to bring together regional players to achieve the sort of regional solution that we need in order to avoid the instability that none of us in this House wants to see?
Korean Peninsula — House of Commons, 2017-09-05
Topic: International Affairs
Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That was why the Prime Minister’s trip to Japan was so timely and why her interventions there were so warmly welcomed not just by our Japanese friends, but by the South Koreans and many others. As my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary will confirm, the United Kingdom is committed to the security and stability of east Asia as much as it is to Europe.
Korean Peninsula — House of Commons, 2017-09-05
Topic: International Affairs
Robert Edward Jenrick (Conservative, Centre-right): North Korea’s regime is partly financed by money laundered through Chinese regional banks and companies. In the US, the Treasury Department has taken decisive action to cut off those organisations—even those that are Chinese—from the financial system, and prosecutions have been launched in the past few days. Will the UK Government do exactly the same to those organisations operating out of the City of London?
Korean Peninsula — House of Commons, 2017-09-05
Topic: International Affairs
Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson (Conservative, Centre-right): We are certainly in favour of ensuring that all the sanctions that are currently in place are fully applied. If it is necessary to take action in respect of the City of London, we certainly shall do so.
Korean Peninsula — House of Commons, 2017-09-05
Topic: International Affairs
Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful for the opportunity to point out that that is an entirely hypothetical question. I am very impressed by the mood of moderation in the House today. Everybody really wants a peaceful diplomatic solution, and that is what we are working towards.
Korean Peninsula — House of Commons, 2017-09-05
Topic: International Affairs
Alexander John Gervase Chalk (Conservative, Centre-right): Is it not a reality that further sanctions are unlikely to persuade this depraved regime to give up its illegal nuclear programme, even though it is beggaring its people in the process? Has the time not come to press again for six-party talks to include the North Korean regime if necessary?
Korean Peninsula — House of Commons, 2017-09-05
Topic: International Affairs
Kevin John Foster (Conservative, Centre-right): I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement and the focus on seeking a peaceful diplomatic solution. Will he reassure me that we have also made it clear to our allies in the region that if they were the subject of an unprovoked military attack by North Korea, they would not face it alone?
Korean Peninsula — House of Commons, 2017-09-05
Topic: International Affairs
Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson (Conservative, Centre-right): As my hon. Friend knows, we are doing everything we can to make sure that that appalling possibility does not take place. That is our aim. As he will also know, much of the region—Japan and South Korea—is protected by an American guarantee. The new element in this equation is that North America could now itself be the victim of an ICBM from North Korea. That is why the situation is now so grave, and why we must make sure that we terminate this programme where it is.
Korean Peninsula — House of Commons, 2017-09-05
Topic: International Affairs
Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson (Conservative, Centre-right): It is not so much that we are pressing all the options on the United States—though of course we are—but that those are the options that the United States itself massively prefers and wants to bring about.
Korean Peninsula — House of Commons, 2017-09-05
Topic: International Affairs
Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson (Conservative, Centre-right): I am delighted to hear Amitai Etzioni quoted on the subject of Korea. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to focus on the partnership and potential of the relationship between the US and China. They hold the key to the question between them, but, as I say, where there are differences it can be our task to try to help to bridge the gap, then unite the rest of the international community on a common position.
Telecommunications Infrastructure (Relief from Non-Domestic Rates) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-09-05
Topic: Technology
Marcus Charles Jones (Conservative, Centre-right): The Government are committed to supporting full-fibre telecommunication infrastructure and the roll-out of 5G. This will deliver a step change in the speed, service quality and reliability of broadband and mobile services. Independent research suggests that increased broadband speed alone could add £17 billion to UK output by 2024, so this is a vital measure for the whole economy. The Bill will provide the powers we need to implement an important part of that strategy At the 2016 autumn statement, the Government announced 100% rate relief for new full-fibre infrastructure in England. The clauses in the Bill will allow us to deliver that relief with retrospective effect to 1 April 2017. We have already published draft regulations that illustrate how we will use these powers to implement the relief. The draft regulations have been prepared in consultation with telecoms experts in the Government, Ofcom and telecoms providers. Business rates and telecoms are technical fields so there is considerable scope for complexity where they meet. However, I am glad to say that through our work with the sector, we believe that we have found a clear approach to allow the valuation officer to identify, capture and quantify new fibre.
Telecommunications Infrastructure (Relief from Non-Domestic Rates) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-09-05
Topic: Technology
Edward Vaizey (Conservative, Centre-right): I refer the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Is my hon. Friend aware of some concerns in the telecoms sector that the tax relief could be gamed? People could switch off lit fibre and light dark fibre in order to take advantage of the tax relief. Some have suggested that a better way of implementing may be simply to limit the quantum of business rates paid by telecoms companies. Will my hon. Friend comment on those concerns, which I have heard from a number of providers?
Telecommunications Infrastructure (Relief from Non-Domestic Rates) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-09-05
Topic: Technology
Marcus Charles Jones (Conservative, Centre-right): I understand the concerns raised by my right hon. Friend, and I have great respect for his considerable knowledge of the matter. I reassure him and the various bodies that hold concerns that the relief is not a measure to support the relighting of fibre that has been turned off. Indeed, it is to support the laying of new fibre in the ground. This technical matter is laid out in the draft regulations and explained in the accompanying consultation document published by my Department last week. Consultation will ensure that the proposal reaches the right audience in the telecoms sector. With business rates experts, we will ensure that the relief will work as planned. The consultation will also allow us to move quickly to implement the relief once the Bill has passed and ensure that support is available for new fibre.
Telecommunications Infrastructure (Relief from Non-Domestic Rates) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-09-05
Topic: Macroeconomics
Christopher Laurie Malthouse (Conservative, Centre-right): Even if this were a relief that applied to currently dark fibre that is lit, or to fibre that was lit, is unlit and is then lit again, if the premise of the scheme holds true, this is an investment. The idea is that this is meant to spur more economic activity. Therefore, more tax will be gained from corporation tax, pay-as-you-earn and other forms of business rates because people will have premises that become available for use and that are then much more commercial. Rents will rise, values will rise and all the rest of it. The Government do not need to be too chary about where the relief goes, because if the relief is seen as an investment, not just some kind of freebie for the industry, it will benefit everyone, including the Government.
Telecommunications Infrastructure (Relief from Non-Domestic Rates) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-09-05
Topic: Technology
Marcus Charles Jones (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend is right that this is an investment in the infrastructure of the country. Indeed, it is a relief that is time-limited for five years. After that five-year period, that fibre will attract its own income into the business rates pool, whether on the local list or on the central list.
Telecommunications Infrastructure (Relief from Non-Domestic Rates) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-09-05
Topic: Technology
Edward Vaizey (Conservative, Centre-right): I hope the Minister will forgive me for interrupting his eloquent speech, but I was spurred into action by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), who is a newly elected member of the Treasury Committee—I congratulate him—and who displays the forensic skill we will see in many hearings in months to come. It behoves me to clarify that it is possible under the current regulations for a telecoms provider simply to lay new fibre in existing ducts, turn it on and take advantage of the tax relief, even though there is already fibre in those ducts. That would be seen as gaming the system—taking advantage of the tax reliefs without building the new infrastructure my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire has campaigned for so vigorously. That is simply the warning light that I put up, and it may be that my hon. Friend will drive future Treasury Committee hearings towards that subject.
Telecommunications Infrastructure (Relief from Non-Domestic Rates) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-09-05
Topic: Technology
Marcus Charles Jones (Conservative, Centre-right): By definition, full fibre is fibre that goes all the way from an exchange to the particular business or residential property that it individually serves. Therefore, by definition, even if an existing set of ducting was used, the new fibre would be an expansion of the network, because it would serve a different property from the current fibre. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend is reassured.
Telecommunications Infrastructure (Relief from Non-Domestic Rates) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-09-05
Topic: Technology
Oliver Heald (Conservative, Centre-right): As my hon. Friend will know, there are homes and businesses in the rural parts of North East Hertfordshire that are more than 1,000 metres from the nearest cabinet, so providing fibre straight to the door is the best solution. Will the proposed change mean that more work can be done on that more quickly?
Telecommunications Infrastructure (Relief from Non-Domestic Rates) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-09-05
Topic: Technology
Marcus Charles Jones (Conservative, Centre-right): My right hon. and learned Friend hits the nail on the head. The whole design of this legislation and this tax relief is intended to encourage providers—not just the large ones, but the smaller ones, which these proposals are very good for—to bring that new, direct fibre cable to homes and businesses.
Telecommunications Infrastructure (Relief from Non-Domestic Rates) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-09-05
Topic: Technology
Edward John Comport Argar (Conservative, Centre-right): In that context, could the Minister clarify something for me? The Bill says the relief will apply to hereditaments used "wholly or mainly" for the purpose of telecommunications. Is a standardised definition of "mainly" extant in legislation, or could he enlarge on what it would be defined as?
Telecommunications Infrastructure (Relief from Non-Domestic Rates) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-09-05
Topic: Technology
Marcus Charles Jones (Conservative, Centre-right): I think it would be best for me to reassure my hon. Friend that the sole purpose of this legislation is to cover telecommunication hereditaments. As he has heard, the aim is for the Government to provide a targeted, five-year rate relief to incentivise the laying of new fibre cable, which will hopefully serve and support his constituents in Leicestershire.
Telecommunications Infrastructure (Relief from Non-Domestic Rates) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-09-05
Topic: Technology
Marcus Charles Jones (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend is a keen advocate and supporter of the businesses of Solihull. My understanding is that, by the end of the current roll-out period, 91% of properties will have been reached by superfast broadband. However, the Bill will incentivise providers to roll out more direct fibre services to all parts of the country. Hopefully, businesses and individuals in Solihull will also benefit from the provisions in the Bill Through these powers, we will target the relief on operators of telecoms networks who deploy—I have reiterated this point a number of times for the sake of clarity—new fibre on their networks. The proposals will incentivise and reward operators who invest in the fibre network These concepts have not been defined before for business rates. The powers in the clauses will therefore allow us to develop definitions with experts in the telecoms and business rates sectors. By taking this approach, we can ensure that we accurately capture in the relief only those parts of the telecoms network that comprise new fibre, which has been a significant concern of right hon. and hon. Members.
Telecommunications Infrastructure (Relief from Non-Domestic Rates) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-09-05
Topic: Technology
Richard Michael John Ogilvie Graham (Conservative, Centre-right): The Minister knows that I am as keen as he is to make sure that all the blackspots in our urban constituencies are broadband-enabled as soon as possible. For some time, my concern has been that if new developments do not get fibre connections, there will be a continuing gap, and that every time Ministers stand up and say they will get 95% or 100% coverage, there will be new places without coverage. I am pleased that the Minister’s colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), wrote to me saying that Openreach will "provide FTTP"—fibre to the premises— "to all new developments with more than 30 plots for free." That is great news, and it means that Ministers do not have to consider the option I was recommending of enabling local councils to make it mandatory for new developments to have fibre connections. However, will the Minister say something about developments with under 30 houses, because part of the regeneration of all cities is getting small plots redeveloped with housing, and that may involve developments of fewer than 30 homes?
Telecommunications Infrastructure (Relief from Non-Domestic Rates) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-09-05
Topic: Technology
Eleanor Fulton Laing (Conservative, Centre-right): I remind hon. Members that, if there is a Division, only Members representing constituencies in England and Wales may vote on the consent motion for England and Wales Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Committee consents to the following certified clauses of the Telecommunications Infrastructure (Relief from Non-Domestic Rates) Bill: Clauses certified under Standing Order No. 83J as relating exclusively to England and Wales and being within devolved legislative competence Clauses 1, 2 and 5 of the Bill (Bill 3).—(Mr Marcus Jones.)