argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Bat Habitats Regulation (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-02-05
Topic: Environment
Charles George Eustice (Conservative, Centre-right): The rules do apply to Malta. We have debated in the House some of the challenges posed by dove shooting in Malta, for example. Legal cases have been brought against the Maltese Government on precisely these issues. They have been required, under these regulations, to put in place protection for migrating doves, too In conclusion, the current licensing regime administered by Natural England already allows us to address problems caused by protected species such as bats and properly balances the legitimate interest of people in a way that avoids harming wildlife, without the need to change the law. For the reasons I have outlined, the Government oppose this Bill as being both unnecessary and inappropriate. I can, however, assure my hon. Friend that I take the issues he has raised very seriously. I hope he will recognise that although it is just one year on, we have indeed made progress with this application to the lottery project and with the ongoing review of the habitats directive. I hope therefore that he will see fit not to push this to a Division.
Benefit Entitlement (Restriction) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-02-05
Topic: International Affairs
Christopher Robert Chope (Conservative, Centre-right): I think that the opinion polls tell the story—I am told that another one was published today. I think that the British public are enormously sceptical about the outcome of the renegotiation, and enormously concerned that those aspects that were spelled out precisely in our manifesto have so far not been realised.
Benefit Entitlement (Restriction) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-02-05
Topic: International Affairs
Scott Leslie Mann (Conservative, Centre-right): What does my hon. Friend think about the fact that the watered-down version we were presented with seems to have been watered down even further, with countries such as France and Germany suggesting that they might not support the legislation that the Prime Minister has already agreed?
Benefit Entitlement (Restriction) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-02-05
Topic: Government Operations
Christopher Robert Chope (Conservative, Centre-right): That is an interesting point. Perhaps the ministerial code will have to be adjusted to take account of the fact that those who remain Ministers while supporting notwithstanding clauses, for example, should have an exemption. However, I am sure that there are more important issues at stake than the ministerial code.
Benefit Entitlement (Restriction) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-02-05
Topic: International Affairs
Scott Leslie Mann (Conservative, Centre-right): I hope my hon. Friend agrees that the decision will not be for this House, but for the country. I am grateful that the Conservatives went through the Lobby to put the referendum on the statute book and give people a say on whether we should be part of the European Union. Does my hon. Friend think that the decision will be made by this place or the great British general public?
Benefit Entitlement (Restriction) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-02-05
Topic: Social Welfare
Christopher Robert Chope (Conservative, Centre-right): The people will decide. We trust the people: that is why we are Conservatives. We look forward to the referendum whenever it comes I know other hon. Members wish to participate, but before closing let me turn to the issue of declaration of nationality. All the responses from the Government suggest that the scale of the problem is as the Prime Minister described it on Wednesday. However, the Government do not know at the moment how many people from the European Union or the European economic area are claiming benefits because there is no information about nationality in benefit claims. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead responded to the Bill two years ago, he said this would all be put right under universal credit. Well, that is great, but universal credit is taking a very long time to roll out That is why I would be interested to hear what the Under-Secretary of State says about my suggestion in clause 1: "From the date of the coming into force of this Act no national insurance number shall be issued unless the applicant provides a declaration of nationality…no application shall be made for a taxpayer-funded benefit unless the applicant provides a declaration of nationality." At the moment, we do not really have detailed information; all we have are some rough and ready calculations. We know there are large numbers of people in our country claiming from the benefits system who are not UK nationals. The Bill would address that problem full on and ensure that non-UK citizens from the European Union and the European economic area were not able to access our taxpayer-funded benefits. That is why I have the pleasure of begging to move that the Bill be read a Second time.
Benefit Entitlement (Restriction) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-02-05
Topic: Social Welfare
Christopher Robert Chope (Conservative, Centre-right): But surely we, in our country, should be able to decide for ourselves how our taxpayers’ money is spent on benefits. If we choose not to allow that money to be given to people from outside the United Kingdom, we should be able to decide that for ourselves.
Benefit Entitlement (Restriction) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-02-05
Topic: Social Welfare
Philip Andrew Davies (Conservative, Centre-right): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) on his persistence, as the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) put it. I am very proud to be one of the Bill’s supporters. Although this is, regrettably, going to be a very short debate, it has been a useful one. My hon. Friend has set out a case that will strike a chord with many people around the country, and certainly with many people in the Shipley constituency. It has also been helpful to hear the hon. Lady entrench the Labour party as the party of welfare and keep up its 100% record of opposing any attempt to restrict this country’s welfare system. At least the Labour party has always been consistent on that matter.
Benefit Entitlement (Restriction) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-02-05
Topic: Social Welfare
Philip Andrew Davies (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Lady said she was against the Bill, which is about restricting benefits for foreign nationals. I presume that means that she wants to continue to give benefits to foreign nationals, which means that she is against welfare reform. If I have misunderstood her, I apologise, but I do not think that is a controversial interpretation of her remarks, which were of no great surprise to any of us who have known her for a number of years I want to make a few points. The hon. Lady said that she opposed the Bill because it is not evidence-based. The whole point about the Bill is that it is about principle. It is about the principle of who should be entitled to claim benefits in the UK. Should foreign nationals who come here without having made any contribution to the UK economy be able to claim benefits straight away?
Benefit Entitlement (Restriction) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-02-05
Topic: Foreign Trade
Philip Andrew Davies (Conservative, Centre-right): But this country does not really have a contributory system in the same way as other EU countries. That is part of the problem. It is no good the hon. Lady wanting to protect something that does not exist and opposing something that would actually do what she claims she wants to achieve. Her actions on this issue are more important than her words, and if she opposes the Bill, her actions clearly do not follow on from her words. I do not see the need for evidence. This is a Bill about a principle that is important to many people. It is about fairness, not evidence I would have some sympathy with the hon. Lady’s opinion if we had to give all these benefits away to secure a free trade agreement with the European Union, and that had a net benefit for our economy. If we had to give away something in order to achieve that, it might be worth doing. Given that we had a £62 billion trade deficit with the European Union last year, and that if we were to leave the EU we would be its single biggest export market, it is perfectly clear that we could have a free trade agreement with the EU for nothing. We do not have to give it access to our benefit system, and we do not need to give it a £19 billion a year membership fee. We can have what we want from the EU—free trade—for nothing. That is the deal that we should be seeking to secure. I do not think anybody can sustain the argument that if we were to leave the EU and stop giving benefits to EU citizens when they came to the UK, Germany would want to stop selling Mercedes, BMV and Volkswagen cars to people in this country. Of course they would not; it is complete nonsense for anybody to suggest that.
Benefit Entitlement (Restriction) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-02-05
Topic: Social Welfare
Christopher Robert Chope (Conservative, Centre-right): Does my hon. Friend accept that people’s aspirations for retaining control over our own benefit system are gradually being eroded? It is extraordinary that back in 2014, the then Deputy Prime Minister said that he could not understand "why it is possible under the current rules for someone to claim child benefit for children who aren’t even in this country." That was his view then, but he seems to have resiled from even that.
Benefit Entitlement (Restriction) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-02-05
Topic: Social Welfare
Philip Andrew Davies (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that, because the situation regarding child benefit is probably one of the most indefensible in the benefit system. It does not matter how much evidence there is of how many people it applies to; it cannot be right, as a point of principle, that somebody can come into this country from Poland to work and claim child benefit for their children, who still reside in Poland and have never set foot outside Poland. It cannot possibly be right, on principle. We do not need any evidence to know that that is wrong; it is clearly and palpably wrong. It is strange that the Labour party is so wedded to its European credentials that it will inevitably have to see restrictions in benefits for all UK citizens to pay the bill for benefits to European citizens. I am sure that that does not go down very well in many of the estates in the hon. Lady’s constituency I do not intend to speak for long, because I appreciate that we need to press on, but I want to make a point about clause 3, which will ensure that nobody is paid a level of benefit above that of the equivalent benefit in their own country. I think I am right in saying that the Prime Minister is trumpeting something similar in his deal regarding child benefit. As I understand it—my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, who is far more knowledgeable on the matter than I am, will correct me if I am wrong—the Prime Minister is saying that under the great deal that he has secured for the nation, Polish people, for example, who claim child benefit will be able to claim only the child benefit rate in Poland, or whichever country the children reside in. That seems very similar to clause 3.
Benefit Entitlement (Restriction) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-02-05
Topic: Social Welfare
Christopher Robert Chope (Conservative, Centre-right): My understanding of the documents that were published this week is that it would not be as simple as that. The amount of child benefit that could be claimed would be related to the difference in the standard and cost of living between this country and the other EU country. That, of course, would be incredibly bureaucratic.
Benefit Entitlement (Restriction) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-02-05
Topic: Social Welfare
Philip Andrew Davies (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but the Prime Minister is trying to secure the same kind of principle that my hon. Friend seeks in clause 3. For the benefit of not only our deliberations on the Bill but those who are trying to weigh up the Prime Minister’s renegotiation, I want to say that there is a huge danger in this aspect of the Bill. We have said that if somebody comes from Poland, they can claim child benefit at the UK rate for their children in Poland. If that is changed and the amount of child benefit that they can claim becomes only £2 or £3 a week, or whatever the equivalent might be in Poland, there is a danger that rather than saving the taxpayer money, as we all intend—including the Prime Minister, I might add—we may inadvertently increase the bill to the taxpayer. We are working on the basis that people will just carry on doing as they do at the moment. Who is to say, if we limit the child benefit to the rate in the home country, that they will not take the opportunity to bring their children to the UK in order to claim the higher UK rate? On top of that, there is the cost of schooling, any medical care and all the rest of it. We must be very careful about what we wish for A much more sensible approach to matters such as child benefit would be that if a foreign national comes to this country but their children still reside in the home country, they should not get anything. Whether it is the UK rate, the Polish rate or any rate whatever, the UK Government should not give them anything. That would avoid the unintended consequence of more and more people bringing more and more of their children to this country at a higher cost to the taxpayer Having made those points, I will sit down, because we all want to hear from the Minister. We all know that he is a very good man. The Bill did not find any favour with the shadow Minister, but as he is far more sensible, we hope he will have warmer words to say about it.
Speed Limits on Roads (Devolved Powers) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-02-05
Topic: Government Operations
Scott Leslie Mann (Conservative, Centre-right): In the light of the Minister’s response, I will withdraw the Bill. However, I will lobby the Secretary of State to try to get some of these powers in the devolution package for Cornwall, and I hope we might make some progress in devolving the power to town and parish councils in other areas. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion Motion and Bill, by leave, withdrawn.
Local Services (Southend) — House of Commons, 2016-02-05
Topic: Macroeconomics
Marcus Charles Jones (Conservative, Centre-right): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) on securing the debate. He has a great passion for his constituency and the interests of the people whom he represents. I represent a constituency that is probably about as far away from the sea as anywhere else in the country, so I will not challenge his assertion that Southend-on-Sea is the best seaside resort in the country I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me this opportunity to talk about something that I feel strongly about. Local services, whether in Southend, my constituency of Nuneaton or anywhere else in the country, are crucial to local people. He raised interesting points about finance; from what he says, it seems that a bit of a blame game is going on at times. We all know that there are challenges with the public finances. Local authorities account for a quarter of public spending, and it is only right that local government should find its share of savings. We need to reduce the largest deficit in our post-war history.
Local Services (Southend) — House of Commons, 2016-02-05
Topic: Government Operations
David Anthony Andrew Amess (Conservative, Centre-right): To date, neither my hon. Friend nor I have had one letter complaining about the allocation of funds. To whom are representations being made? Surely my hon. Friend agrees that they should be made through local Members of Parliament if the situation is to be addressed. Will he let me know or write to me about that?
State Pension Eligibility — House of Commons, 2016-02-01
Topic: Labor
Questions: What support his Department has made available to women born in the 1950s who are affected by recent changes in the age at which they become eligible for the state pension.; What support his Department has made available to women born in the 1950s who are affected by recent changes in the age at which they become eligible for the state pension.; What support his Department has made available to women born in the 1950s who are affected by recent changes in the age at which they become eligible for the state pension.; If his Department will make an assessment of the merits of options for transitional protection for women who will adversely be affected by the acceleration of increases in the state pension age.
Shailesh Lakhman Vara (Conservative, Centre-right): Working-age benefits are available for those who have not yet reached state pension age. A concession of £1.1 billion was made, and 81% of those affected will see a delay of one year or less. For the rest, the delay will be no more than 18 months. There are no plans for further transitional arrangements.
State Pension Eligibility — House of Commons, 2016-02-01
Topic: Labor
Questions: What support his Department has made available to women born in the 1950s who are affected by recent changes in the age at which they become eligible for the state pension.; What support his Department has made available to women born in the 1950s who are affected by recent changes in the age at which they become eligible for the state pension.; What support his Department has made available to women born in the 1950s who are affected by recent changes in the age at which they become eligible for the state pension.; If his Department will make an assessment of the merits of options for transitional protection for women who will adversely be affected by the acceleration of increases in the state pension age.
Shailesh Lakhman Vara (Conservative, Centre-right): The equalisation measures of the Pensions Act 2011 were introduced, and the matter was expedited, to ensure that we covered for the fact that there had to be a sustainable pensions budget. It is also important to remember that people are living a lot longer. We have to take that into account, which is why we had to accelerate the issue.
State Pension Eligibility — House of Commons, 2016-02-01
Topic: Labor
Questions: What support his Department has made available to women born in the 1950s who are affected by recent changes in the age at which they become eligible for the state pension.; What support his Department has made available to women born in the 1950s who are affected by recent changes in the age at which they become eligible for the state pension.; What support his Department has made available to women born in the 1950s who are affected by recent changes in the age at which they become eligible for the state pension.; If his Department will make an assessment of the merits of options for transitional protection for women who will adversely be affected by the acceleration of increases in the state pension age.
Shailesh Lakhman Vara (Conservative, Centre-right): I remind the hon. Lady of the record issues we have achieved for female employees. We now have record female employment, at a rate of 69.1%, and there are more than 1 million more women in work since 2010. The number of older women in work is at a record high, with more than 100,000 more than last year. The people to whom the hon. Lady refers are all benefiting from the measures I have mentioned.
State Pension Eligibility — House of Commons, 2016-02-01
Topic: Labor
Questions: What support his Department has made available to women born in the 1950s who are affected by recent changes in the age at which they become eligible for the state pension.; What support his Department has made available to women born in the 1950s who are affected by recent changes in the age at which they become eligible for the state pension.; What support his Department has made available to women born in the 1950s who are affected by recent changes in the age at which they become eligible for the state pension.; If his Department will make an assessment of the merits of options for transitional protection for women who will adversely be affected by the acceleration of increases in the state pension age.
David Anthony Andrew Amess (Conservative, Centre-right): I fully accept that we are talking about huge sums of money. I was here in 1995 when we first announced the changes, but will my hon. Friend consider whether the Government have taken appropriate action in communicating to women these significant changes so that they can prepare for their retirement? Have the changes been clearly advertised on the Government websites?
State Pension Eligibility — House of Commons, 2016-02-01
Topic: Labor
Questions: What support his Department has made available to women born in the 1950s who are affected by recent changes in the age at which they become eligible for the state pension.; What support his Department has made available to women born in the 1950s who are affected by recent changes in the age at which they become eligible for the state pension.; What support his Department has made available to women born in the 1950s who are affected by recent changes in the age at which they become eligible for the state pension.; If his Department will make an assessment of the merits of options for transitional protection for women who will adversely be affected by the acceleration of increases in the state pension age.
Shailesh Lakhman Vara (Conservative, Centre-right): The initial changes were made in 1995. Until 2010, when the coalition Government came to office, there had been at least 10 Labour Pensions Ministers, one of whom held the position twice, and they made absolutely no effort in terms of communication. I want to put it on the record that, as far as the Pensions Act 2011 is concerned, more than 5 million people were written to, including the women affected, using the addresses we had from HMRC. For those who want more information, it is available on the Government website.
State Pension Eligibility — House of Commons, 2016-02-01
Topic: Labor
Questions: What support his Department has made available to women born in the 1950s who are affected by recent changes in the age at which they become eligible for the state pension.; What support his Department has made available to women born in the 1950s who are affected by recent changes in the age at which they become eligible for the state pension.; What support his Department has made available to women born in the 1950s who are affected by recent changes in the age at which they become eligible for the state pension.; If his Department will make an assessment of the merits of options for transitional protection for women who will adversely be affected by the acceleration of increases in the state pension age.
Shailesh Lakhman Vara (Conservative, Centre-right): A concession was made in 2011. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State said that he would go away and consider matters. He did so, and when he came back he made a concession worth £1.1 billion and reduced the two-year extension to 18 months. In the case of 18 months, 81% of women affected will have to work no more than 12 months.