argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Tenant Fees Bill — House of Commons, 2018-09-05
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Rishi Sunak (Conservative, Centre-right): May I briefly thank all Members from all parties for their contributions today, in Committee and in the Select Committee hearings? All those contributions have helped to get the legislation into the fine shape that we find it in today. I appreciate all the insights from everyone. I welcome the broad support for the Bill. If Government or Opposition Members still want to engage on the details, I am very open to having those conversations Let me briefly answer the specific questions asked by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn). On timing, I am obviously not in control of the parliamentary timetable, but there will be a short period of time after Royal Assent—perhaps we should call it an implementation period rather than a transition period—after which the Act will come into force. Within 12 months of that point, any existing and legacy contracts will be subject to the Act’s provisions On the hon. Lady’s question about right-to-rent checks and incorrect Home Office information, I can confirm that under clause 8(5) the landlord would not be held liable Let me try one last time to persuade the hon. Lady not to press to a vote amendment 1, on fines. Perhaps she is not aware that the maximum fine is £1,000 under similar legislation in Scotland and that the maximum fine is just £500 in Wales. The Bill contains an initial fine of £5,000; the hon. Lady’s proposed maximum fine of £30,000 would be 60 times that of her party’s Government in Wales. I am sure she would agree that that sounds slightly disproportionate and that it gives her something to digest Finally, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) for his passionate defence of the free market economy in free enterprise and competition, with which I wholeheartedly agree and to which I wholeheartedly subscribe. It has been a pleasure to engage with him on the details of the Bill, and I assure him that as a fellow champion of small business, I continue to ensure that nothing we do will jeopardise the health of that free enterprise economy. I appreciate his advocacy on behalf of small business and look forward to future conversations with him Question put and agreed to. Government amendment 5 agreed to.
Tenant Fees Bill — House of Commons, 2018-09-05
Topic: Housing
James Peter Brokenshire (Conservative, Centre-right): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time I thank Members on both sides of the House for their passionate and constructive contributions to the Bill’s passage through the House. We all agree that the Bill’s aim of making renting fairer, more transparent and more affordable for tenants is important. As such, it is a key part of the Government’s housing agenda. More people are renting, and they deserve help now, which is what the Bill is all about. We want to ensure that everyone, regardless of whether they own their home or rent, or whether they are in the social or private sector, has the security and dignity they need to build a better life The feedback and evidence we received recognised the challenges that tenants in the private sector face, especially regarding unfair fees and the need to rebalance the relationship between tenants, landlords and agents. Having listened, we introduced amendments on Report to ensure that the Bill better delivers on our commitment to create a system that works for everyone. I thank all those who have engaged with the process, from our initial consultation through to pre-legislative scrutiny and since the Bill’s introduction to the House. That includes members of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, with their invaluable pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill; those who provided written and oral evidence to the Committee; and the organisations that have engaged so constructively with my officials in drafting guidance for the Bill.
Tenant Fees Bill — House of Commons, 2018-09-05
Topic: Housing
James Peter Brokenshire (Conservative, Centre-right): I recognise the important contribution that Select Committees, and Joint Committees of both Houses, make to pre-legislative scrutiny of draft Bills, and we can point to a number of examples. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, at other times the Government need to act quickly. The Bill has been a good example of the balance needed between ensuring consultation and engagement I also wish to pay special tribute to the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler), for all her efforts to develop the Bill and ensure its successful introduction. We all send her our heartfelt best wishes I also wish to thank the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), who has been instrumental in leading the Bill through the Commons and has been careful and conscientious in listening to the views of Members on both sides of the House We can all agree that the Bill has benefited from everyone’s input and, as a result, will be more effective in delivering on its promise to protect tenants from unfair charges. As we have heard, those charges can impose a significant burden on tenants, who often have little choice but to pay excessive and unjustified fees time and again for each property let or even just to renew an existing agreement. The Bill will put a stop to such unacceptable practices by banning unfair and hidden charges, making it easier for tenants to find a property at a price they are willing to pay and saving renters an estimated £240 million within the first year alone. The Bill will also help to introduce a level playing field for landlords and agents by protecting reputable players in the market from having their reputations tarnished by rogues I know that the changes have raised concerns in some parts of the letting market, but agents who offer good value and high quality services to landlords will continue to be in demand and play an important role in the sector. In addition, the Bill introduces a cap on tenancy deposits of six weeks’ rent, and we are not stopping there. We want to ensure improvements to how deposits are protected in the interests of both tenants and landlords, to reduce up-front costs to tenants. That is why we recently established a working group to look at the merits of innovative approaches to tenancy deposits, such as deposit passporting I am confident that the measures in the Bill will help to deliver the fairer, clearer and more affordable private rented sector that we all want to see—for tenants, yes, but also for decent, professional landlords and agents who are providing a vital service. I am happy to commend the Bill to the House.
Voyeurism (Offences) (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2018-09-05
Topic: Civil Rights
Anna Mary Soubry (Conservative, Centre-right): I am listening with great care, as ever, to the case that the hon. Lady is making, and I have some sympathy with it. My problem—will she help me with this?—is that I will be really troubled if we see all this offending as offences of hate against women, because much of it is genuinely in the category of sexual offending, which is often a deeper problem that must absolutely be stopped, prosecuted and so on, and sometimes it is harassment. I do not support the hon. Lady’s amendments; I think that we need to know more about this. Although my own view is that this absolutely needs to go to the Law Commission, I do not care where it goes, but it needs proper and full exploration so that we get this right. I am sure that she is right that some of the behaviour is misogynistic, but not all of it is.
Voyeurism (Offences) (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2018-09-05
Topic: Civil Rights
Alexander John Gervase Chalk (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Lady is making a powerful point, but she has identified something that she is right to concede is a weakness. It would be very odd, would it not, if misogyny could be applied to the offence of upskirting but not to rape, sexual assault or revenge porn. Does she therefore agree that a solution might be to get the Law Commission to look at the matter in a more holistic way?
Voyeurism (Offences) (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2018-09-05
Topic: Other
Christopher Robert Chope (Conservative, Centre-right): I have nothing but praise for the hon. Lady. Fortunately, the Opposition Whips, who are represented on the Selection Committee, obviously did not think it was necessary to allow the Bill to proceed without any amendment. It is worth putting on record that, during that Committee debate, the official Opposition spokesman said: "The Opposition support the Bill completely, and will not propose any amendments."––[Official Report, Second Reading Committee, 2 July 2018; c. 17.] At that stage, the Opposition were blindly supporting the Bill, rather than being prepared to examine exactly how it might be improved.
Voyeurism (Offences) (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2018-09-05
Topic: Other
Christopher Robert Chope (Conservative, Centre-right): It has certainly done the latter. It is quite a long time since a Second Reading Committee was set up to consider a piece of legislation, but in terms of making faster progress, there is no doubt that we are much further on than we would have been if this had remained a private Member’s Bill. Some of the other Bills that had already had their Second Reading have yet to come out of Committee and reach their Report stage. So those are some of the advantages of having a Government Bill. Another advantage is that when the Bill goes into Committee, the Committee has the opportunity to take evidence. My right hon. Friend gave potent evidence to the Committee, as did other witnesses. That would not have been possible if the Bill had stayed a private Member’s Bill.
Voyeurism (Offences) (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2018-09-05
Topic: Civil Rights
Lucy Claire Leigh (Frazer) (Conservative, Centre-right): I am happy to take that away and consider it. It is appropriate that when we look at protected characteristics we do not look exclusively at sex and gender characteristics, which as I said will be included. I am very happy to consider the point the hon. Lady makes and I will get back to her on that Secondly, I would like to deal with amendments 1 to 4, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), in relation to purposes. Before turning to the substance of her amendments, I would like to pay credit to her for all her work in this area. For many years, as Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee and individually as a Member of Parliament, she has continually stood up for the rights of women. I am very grateful to her for highlighting important points to me on the Bill in Committee and more informally. The Department has considered very carefully the issues she raises and reflected on them. I will set out in due course how we propose to deal with the points she has very carefully and helpfully raised for consideration, but first I will deal with the substance of the Bill as drafted In the Bill as drafted, upskirting is criminalised if the perpetrator takes an image with the purpose of either sexual gratification or causing humiliation, distress or alarm to their victim. The reason those motivations are identified in the Bill is that they are used in other current legislation. Amendments 1 to 4 would remove those defined purposes, effectively taking away any mens rea to the offence and therefore criminalising the taking of all upskirting photographs whatever the circumstances. As I understand it from the explanatory statement and the speeches today, the intention behind amendment 3 is to ensure that those undertaking this sort of inappropriate behaviour for group bonding or financial gain are caught.
Voyeurism (Offences) (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2018-09-05
Topic: Civil Rights
Maria Frances Lewis Miller (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. and learned Friend is making very clear when it is not acceptable to take an upskirting photograph. When is it acceptable to take an upskirting photograph, because by definition there must be some instances when she thinks it is acceptable?
Voyeurism (Offences) (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2018-09-05
Topic: Civil Rights
Maria Frances Lewis Miller (Conservative, Centre-right): I am speaking to a QC, so I am treading very carefully here. We have an obligation as Parliament to be crystal clear to the judiciary, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) said eloquently in his speech. What the Minister just said is entirely confusing to me and possibly to the judiciary. If she is saying that there are examples where upskirting is allowable, she should be clearer. She cannot have her cake and eat it, if I may be so bold, and say that there are such instances, but there aren’t really.
Voyeurism (Offences) (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2018-09-05
Topic: Civil Rights
Helen Olivia Bicknell Whately (Conservative, Centre-right): I agree with my hon. and learned Friend about the good work done by campaigners in this area. I want to make one specific point: so often women and girls have been told that it is their fault if they are harassed, because it is their fault for choosing to wear a short skirt, for example. Does she agree that the Bill puts into law the important point that the person at fault is not the woman or girl who chooses to wear the short skirt, but the person who chooses to harass them and makes the poor choice to take a photo up their skirt?
Voyeurism (Offences) (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2018-09-05
Topic: Civil Rights
Lucy Claire Leigh (Frazer) (Conservative, Centre-right): That is a very important point, and such legislation sends a message about how people should act in relation to women I was mentioning those who have played a significant part in this Bill’s progress. My hon. Friend served on the Committee, and I also thank the other members of the Committee; we had an interesting debate on the provisions before the recess I thank, too, the other parties’ spokespeople on justice: the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), and the hon. Members for Belfast South (Emma Little Pengelly) and for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts). I worked closely with them as this Bill went through the House. I also extend my thanks to our hard-working Bill team, our private offices, our parliamentary private secretaries and the Whips, who can get overlooked at times. I also thank the Clerks and the other parliamentary staff for their sterling work and support on this issue It has been an honour to take the Bill from Second Reading through to today, particularly given the strong support from all parties across the House. I wish the Bill a safe and speedy passage through its remaining stages.
No Deal: UK Border Delays — House of Commons, 2018-10-25
Topic: Mixed Topics
Questions: What assessment he has made of the potential for UK border delays in the event that no deal is agreed for when the UK leaves the EU.; What assessment he has made of the potential for UK border delays in the event that no deal is agreed for when the UK leaves the EU.; What assessment he has made of the potential for UK border delays in the event that no deal is agreed for when the UK leaves the EU.
Philip Thomas Hollobone (Conservative, Centre-right): Has the Secretary of State made the Republic of Ireland aware that if the French start mucking about with Calais and a go-slow in the event of no deal, the biggest impact will be not on UK trade but on trade with the Republic of Ireland that passes through this country?
Leaving the EU — House of Commons, 2018-10-25
Topic: Mixed Topics
Dominic Rennie Raab (Conservative, Centre-right): I always listen to the hon. Lady, who is thoughtful and passionate in her views. However, I think that a second referendum would create a huge amount of uncertainty, returning us to square one and eroding public trust in the system.
Transition Period — House of Commons, 2018-10-25
Topic: Mixed Topics
Questions: What changes there will be in the relationship between the UK and the EU during the transition period after the UK leaves the EU on 29 March 2019.
Sue-Ellen Cassiana Braverman (Conservative, Centre-right): I take note of my hon. Friend’s comments. The aim of the implementation period is to provide certainty for businesses and individuals with access to each other’s markets on terms similar to those today. There will be a number of changes to reflect the UK’s new status as a third country—those I mentioned before—but crucially we have got new opportunities to start taking steps to enjoy our new freedoms, and that time should be used effectively.
Gibraltar — House of Commons, 2018-10-25
Topic: Mixed Topics
Questions: What steps the Government are taking to ensure that HM Government of Gibraltar is consulted throughout the negotiations for the UK to leave the EU.
Nigel Paul Huddleston (Conservative, Centre-right): I warmly welcome the apparent agreement on Gibraltar with our Spanish friends—and I do mean friends, because 10,000 Spaniards work in Gibraltar every day, the UK is Spain’s fifth biggest trading partner, and 18 million Brits went to Spain last year. Will the Minister confirm that it is in the best interests of Spain, Gibraltar and the UK that we have as frictionless a flow of goods, tourists and workers as possible?
Citizens’ Rights — House of Commons, 2018-10-25
Topic: Immigration
Questions: What steps the Government are taking to secure citizenship rights for (a) UK citizens residing in the EU and (b) EU citizens residing in the UK after the UK leaves the EU.
Julian Carlton Knight (Conservative, Centre-right): My question has been prompted by a particular case at my surgery involving a German couple who have been here for many years and contributed hugely to my town of Solihull. They have been concerned by scare stories and by EU intransigence on this issue, and they would like me to ask the Secretary of State whether he can clearly confirm that, after Brexit, EU citizens in the UK and UK nationals in the EU will be able to continue to live their lives as they do today.
Citizens’ Rights — House of Commons, 2018-10-25
Topic: Immigration
Questions: What steps the Government are taking to secure citizenship rights for (a) UK citizens residing in the EU and (b) EU citizens residing in the UK after the UK leaves the EU.
Dominic Rennie Raab (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Of course, under the withdrawal agreement, we have set out very clearly the rights that people would have in order to give effect to the assurance that he is seeking. They include the right to stay in this country; the right to work; protection for those working as frontier workers; the right for close family members to join them; the recognition of EEA professional qualifications; and a role for the independent monitoring authority in relation to the application of the citizens’ rights element of the agreement, which would mirror what the Commission will do for UK citizens on the continent.
Citizens’ Rights — House of Commons, 2018-10-25
Topic: Immigration
Questions: What steps the Government are taking to secure citizenship rights for (a) UK citizens residing in the EU and (b) EU citizens residing in the UK after the UK leaves the EU.
Dominic Rennie Raab (Conservative, Centre-right): Most hon. Members would agree that citizens’ rights are an issue of scale, importance and sensitivity, which means that it will be dealt with not in technical notices, but in a different format. However, I reassure the hon. Gentleman that all the details will be coming along shortly to provide the assurances that I think both sides of the House want to give to EU nationals here. We value their contribution and want them to stay.
Customs Arrangements — House of Commons, 2018-10-25
Topic: Mixed Topics
Questions: On the subject of the long-term customs relationship between the EU and the UK, what discussions has my right hon. Friend had with his EU counterparts?
Dominic Rennie Raab (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I know that he and other hon. Members are concerned about that. We need a package in place that not only deals with the separation issues and the money in the way that he described, but has a clear path and a clear commitment to put the future relationship into effect.
Fishermen — House of Commons, 2018-10-25
Topic: Mixed Topics
Questions: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on support for fishermen after the UK leaves the EU.
David Anthony Andrew Amess (Conservative, Centre-right): Sea fishermen and cocklers are greatly looking forward to our leaving the European Union at 11 o’clock on 29 March 2019, but will my hon. Friend reassure them that their expected increase in living standards will not be damaged by any extension to the transition period?
Support for Businesses — House of Commons, 2018-10-25
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Robin Caspar Walker (Conservative, Centre-right): It is vital that both the Government and businesses work together on contingency planning, which is why the Government have published the 106 technical notices. We will continue to work closely with businesses to ensure that they can bring their contingency plans up to form. We will also continue to work on a deal that means those contingency plans do not have to be put into force.
Support for Businesses — House of Commons, 2018-10-25
Topic: Mixed Topics
Robin Caspar Walker (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point about the huge importance of our automotive sector. We continue to engage with the automotive sector, both with the big companies and organisations such as the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, and with the supply chain to ensure that we are taking their views on board. Securing frictionless access to the European market is so important to protecting those supply chains, which of course exist both in the UK and in Europe.
Support for Businesses — House of Commons, 2018-10-25
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): In the spirit of helpfulness to new Members, may I gently say to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), whom I know wished to come in on the previous question, that with modest guile it would be perfectly possible for him legitimately to shoehorn his inquiry into the current question?
Second EU Referendum — House of Commons, 2018-10-25
Topic: Civil Rights
John Robert Lamont (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful to the Minister for that response. As someone who voted remain in that referendum, I was naturally disappointed by the result. But I am also a democrat, and it is important that we all respect the results of all elections, regardless of whether we win or lose them. Putting aside the questions on the so-called "people’s vote" and what it would actually achieve and deliver, does she not agree that it would undermine fundamental principles of democracy in this country?
Second EU Referendum — House of Commons, 2018-10-25
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): I should say to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) that I was speaking at a theatre in Colchester last night and I referenced him in the course of my remarks. Knowing that he is not altogether averse to a focus upon himself from time to time, I think he would have enjoyed my observations.
Second EU Referendum — House of Commons, 2018-10-25
Topic: Civil Rights
Sue-Ellen Cassiana Braverman (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. This is not the best of three. It is not about, "You keep trying until you get the result you want." This was a historic vote, when millions of people put their faith in democracy. To do anything other than revere that vote would undermine democracy and cause a collapse in that faith.