argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2022-03-22
Topic: Mixed Topics
Questions: In December, my constituent Daphne Franks and I delivered a paper to the Ministry of Justice setting out proposals to end predatory marriage, but so far nothing has been done, mainly because the review of wills has been paused by the Law Commission. Given that the elderly and vulnerable are still being targeted every day, may I ask the Secretary of State whether he will now step in and support the legislative changes set out in our proposal so that we can finally bring this appalling abuse to an end?; Today would have been Harry Dunn’s 21st birthday. Instead, his twin brother Niall faces this fabulous milestone alone and there is still no justice for Harry’s family from the tragic killing of him by an American citizen who was driving on the wrong side of the road. I know that the hearts of colleagues from across the House go out to Harry Dunn, his whole family and all his friends, particularly his brother. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has done so much to try to help, give the House an update on what is being done to deliver justice for Harry?;   Will the Secretary of State confirm clearly, for the record, that the Government will not make changes to the Human Rights Act without legislative consent from the devolved institutions?; Will my right hon. Friend look again at whether there are any opportunities to support grandchildren to have better access to their grandparents following a divorce or bereavement?; One of my constituents, after leaving a near two-decade-long abusive relationship, reported an assault to the police, but she was then told that the statute of limitations on her case had run out, as it was not processed in time, which means that she will never see justice. What steps will the Minister take to reform the statute of limitations process for victims of assault in abusive relationships?; I commend my right hon. Friend the Minister for the steps he has taken recently to publicise community payback to tackle antisocial behaviour. In Darlington, antisocial behaviour involving off-road bikes and quad bikes causes tremendous trouble; will the Minister outline what steps he will take to use community payback to tackle that?
Matthew John David Hancock (Conservative, Centre-right): Are the Secretary of State and the Minister for prisons aware of the shocking report out this morning by Ofsted and Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons, which describes a terrible level of reading ability in prisons and a lack of progress over recent years? What plans do the Government have to put in place the recommendations of the 2016 Coates report and to ensure accountability, so that prison governors understand the vital nature of teaching all prisoners to read? Without that skill, there can be no serious rehabilitation.
Sub-Postmasters: Compensation — House of Commons, 2022-03-22
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy if he will make a statement on the steps taken to ensure that the group of 555 sub-postmasters are fairly compensated.
Paul Stuart Scully (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank the hon. Gentleman not only for his kind words, but for the work he has done in representing members of the group litigation order in the first place, as well as for his work here and his determination. The frank answer is that we will not—we will push as much as we can in any avenue to tackle compensation. Wherever it comes from, it should not be the UK taxpayer who is picking up the tab for other people’s problems.
Sub-Postmasters: Compensation — House of Commons, 2022-03-22
Topic: Mixed Topics
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy if he will make a statement on the steps taken to ensure that the group of 555 sub-postmasters are fairly compensated.
Robert John Blackman (Conservative, Centre-right): I remember my first ever job was working on the Post Office counter automation project—it was some 40 years ago, I hasten to say, and for Burroughs Machines, not Fujitsu. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work he has done thus far, but clearly this is a case of needing to compensating people quickly. He is going to do a short consultation. Will he consider now, after that consultation, making interim payments immediately, rather than waiting to the end of the year?
Sub-Postmasters: Compensation — House of Commons, 2022-03-22
Topic: Other
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy if he will make a statement on the steps taken to ensure that the group of 555 sub-postmasters are fairly compensated.
Paul Stuart Scully (Conservative, Centre-right): Please send my condolences to Myra and the family. Within any scheme there will always be hard edges, but please let me know if particular people are falling through the gaps and let me see what further we can do to support them through this difficult time.
Sub-Postmasters: Compensation — House of Commons, 2022-03-22
Topic: Other
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy if he will make a statement on the steps taken to ensure that the group of 555 sub-postmasters are fairly compensated.
Martin John Vickers (Conservative, Centre-right): I add my tribute to the Minister, who came after a long line of Ministers who did not grasp this issue, but he certainly has. Following other points that have been made, may I seek clarity on those who have died? Will their estates benefit?
Sub-Postmasters: Compensation — House of Commons, 2022-03-22
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy if he will make a statement on the steps taken to ensure that the group of 555 sub-postmasters are fairly compensated.
Jerome Patrick Burke Mayhew (Conservative, Centre-right): As Back Benchers, we often ask Ministers for action and get absolutely nowhere, but today is different. I join the tributes to the Minister for how hard and how successfully he has been working in Government to get to a solution. I also put on record my recognition of Therium’s decision not to seek its extra compensation. This week of all weeks, it is nice to have a business doing the right thing. Can he give some indication to my constituents and others of the rough timeframe for receipt of the compensation payment?
Sub-Postmasters: Compensation — House of Commons, 2022-03-22
Topic: Mixed Topics
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy if he will make a statement on the steps taken to ensure that the group of 555 sub-postmasters are fairly compensated.
Paul Stuart Scully (Conservative, Centre-right): Absolutely; I can make that clear. We want to know those answers. People want full and fair compensation, but they also want answers and accountability. We can have accountability only if we do exactly what the hon. Gentleman said.
Sub-Postmasters: Compensation — House of Commons, 2022-03-22
Topic: Mixed Topics
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy if he will make a statement on the steps taken to ensure that the group of 555 sub-postmasters are fairly compensated.
Paul Stuart Scully (Conservative, Centre-right): That is the last question, so I will say that although the last three quarters of an hour have been my moment in the sun, it is not about me: it is about the 555. I thank all hon. Members on both sides of the House who have been involved in ensuring that we have reached this point. There is plenty more to do. Clearly, we will all learn from this to inform us in other situations that may arise so that we can ensure that people get compensation as soon as possible.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Commons, 2022-03-22
Topic: Immigration
Thomas Christopher John Pursglove (Conservative, Centre-right): The direct answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that we judged that the amendment tabled in the House of Lords is technically deficient. I can confirm, however, that this route is free and there will be no good character requirement associated with it. We think the way this is presented in response to the Lords amendment is the correct way to progress and that it recognises the broad agreement for this, delivering on precisely what this House and the other place wish to see. I think we can all come together and be very pleased about that Amendment 4 removes the clause from the Bill that contains our proposals regarding notification requirements for those who are subject to a deprivation of citizenship decision. Deprivation is necessary to protect the public from those seeking to do serious harm, such as terrorists, or those who acquired their citizenship by fraudulent means. I again emphasise that the underlying deprivation of citizenship power is a century old, is only used in a small number of cases, is never used to target people because of their ethnic or religious background, and always comes with a right of appeal. The changes we want to make do not change any of that. This measure is simply about how we notify someone of the intention to remove their citizenship. It is necessary in order to ensure that we are able to use this power where we cannot contact a person; for example, because they are in a warzone. When contact is made, that person will be able to appeal the deprivation decision as usual We have considered very carefully amendments to the deprivation of citizenship clause tabled by Lord Anderson of Ipswich and agreed to in the other place. Lord Anderson’s amendments provide more clarity on the reasons for not giving notice of a deprivation decision, as well as introducing a degree of judicial oversight of the decision not to give notice. We are content that the original intention of the clause is not altered by these amendments, and we are satisfied that the amendments will enable us to protect the rights of the individual while delivering on our security objectives.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Commons, 2022-03-22
Topic: Civil Rights
Jonathan Edward Gullis (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank the Minister for taking the time to meet me and other colleagues with large ethnic minority communities in their constituencies, such as the Pakistani Kashmiri community that I am proud to have in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, and for giving that clarification and accepting the Lords amendments. They will help to ensure that it is made clear to people in that community that they should not fear, despite some of the misinformation produced by certain Members of the House outside the Chamber.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Commons, 2022-03-22
Topic: Immigration
Simon James Hoare (Conservative, Centre-right): I entirely support what the Minister is saying. Does he agree that citizenship of this country not only accrues rights but demands responsibilities? When people shy away from those responsibilities and ally themselves with a cultural value set so alien to ours that we cannot even recognise it, that must have consequences.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Commons, 2022-03-22
Topic: Civil Rights
Thomas Christopher John Pursglove (Conservative, Centre-right): I agree with my hon. Friend’s assessment that citizenship of this country comes with rights and responsibilities, and with recognition and acceptance of important constitutional principles including the rule of law. Those are all fundamental and central to the way in which our society has developed and is crafted and on which it stands. They are important principles that we all accept are crucial.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Commons, 2022-03-22
Topic: Immigration
Richard Michael John Ogilvie Graham (Conservative, Centre-right): For the record, just so that we are all absolutely clear, we on the Government Benches, as elsewhere, strongly support the full integration of every community and British passport holder. The Government amendment will make it absolutely clear above all to Muslims of all places of origin and above all those born and bred in the UK that there is no threat to them whatsoever.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Commons, 2022-03-22
Topic: Immigration
Thomas Christopher John Pursglove (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend puts it better than I could. He has stated with crystal clarity the nature of the change, which I believe is enhanced and improved by accepting the sensible and pragmatic amendments tabled by Lord Anderson. It is also worth saying for the benefit of the House that taking out of the equation the issue of citizenship being obtained by fraud, the provision relates to 19 cases a year on average, and the changes we are making through the Bill do not alter the qualification, so no additional individuals will be brought into scope. The changes relate purely to the matter of notification On a procedural note, I should say that although Lord Anderson’s amendments were agreed in the other place, they were deleted when peers agreed to remove the substantive deprivation of citizenship clause from the Bill. The Government are therefore retabling the substantive clause, as amended by peers to include Lord Anderson’s amendments. I hope that meets with the favour of the House. It acts on and reflects the desire expressed for greater safeguards and greater clarity on these measures Amendment 5 inserts a clause specifying that nothing in the part of the Bill to which it applies authorises any policies or decisions that are incompatible with the 1951 refugee convention or the 1967 protocol relating to the status of refugees. It is the clear position of this Government that everything we are doing is compatible with all our obligations under international law. We do not think it is necessary to set that out on the face of the Bill. The Government therefore do not agree to the amendment.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Commons, 2022-03-22
Topic: Immigration
Thomas Christopher John Pursglove (Conservative, Centre-right): We do not see a need to augment the Bill in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. A plethora of opinions are expressed in the House and more generally when we debate the nature of what is proposed and whether people think it is the right thing to do. We are clear as a Government that we think that the package of measures we are introducing through the Bill is a proportionate response to the issues we face and will fix the broken asylum system in particular. We are also clear—and I have been clear on many occasions in this House and through the various iterations of the Bill—that we will at all times live up to our international obligations.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Commons, 2022-03-22
Topic: Immigration
Thomas Christopher John Pursglove (Conservative, Centre-right): Any Government in such circumstances could amend the primary legislation to remove that requirement. I also make the crucial point that we have an independent judiciary in this country, and it is open to people to bring points of challenge where they believe that there are grounds for doing so. It is fair to say that that is a regular occurrence in our society and a cornerstone of how our government, politics and society have evolved over centuries. No doubt that will continue to be the case, but let me again be very clear that the Government have acted and will continue to act in accordance with our international obligations. I must be very clear on that point Lords amendment 6 removes the clause from the Bill that establishes our differentiated approach to those who are recognised as refugees. That is an essential and fundamental part of our plan to deter people from making dangerous and unnecessary journeys to the UK. We therefore cannot agree to the amendment, which will simply encourage people to continue to risk their lives at sea.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Commons, 2022-03-22
Topic: Immigration
Thomas Patrick Hunt (Conservative, Centre-right): Does the Minister agree that amendment 6 is a huge slap in the face for all those people who play by the rules and engage in proper legal processes to get to this country, whether they are a refugee or not?
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Commons, 2022-03-22
Topic: Immigration
Thomas Christopher John Pursglove (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend and I have had many conversations about this topic over recent months and he makes a genuine point that individuals coming to this country illegally makes it more difficult for us to help genuine refugees in the way that we all want to. We see that reflected in the generosity of spirit shown across the country as people offered help in response to the Afghan crisis and to what we are seeing unfold so tragically in Ukraine. There is an outpouring of emotion and wanting to help, but there is also genuine concern about people putting their lives in the hands of evil criminal gangs, and paying significant sums of money to those gangs, which have no regard for human life and are willing in effect to play roulette with the safety of the people they are transporting.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Commons, 2022-03-22
Topic: Immigration
Lee Anderson (Conservative, Centre-right): The Minister may be aware that at present Opposition Members, especially Labour Members, are struggling to tell the difference between a man and a woman, so it is no surprise that they are struggling to tell the difference between a genuine refugee and an economic migrant. Would it not be wise of the Minister to remind those on the Labour Front Bench what the difference is?
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Commons, 2022-03-22
Topic: Immigration
Thomas Christopher John Pursglove (Conservative, Centre-right): I certainly think that my hon. Friend’s constituents and mine, and people across the country, feel strongly—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) is chuntering from a sedentary position, but I will make the point that, no matter where they are in the country, people feel very strongly that individuals should not put their lives in the hands of evil criminal gangs, whose only motivation is to turn a profit by taking greater and greater risks with the lives of the individuals they are putting in small boats. I would argue that we, as a Government and in this House, have a duty to stop that happening. That is precisely what the measures in the Bill are designed to do, while at the same time providing safe and legal passage for people who require sanctuary to come to this country, and enabling us to care for them properly when they are here. That is an absolutely humane and decent stance to take, and one that I will continue to passionately defend Amendment 7 would change our approach to allowing people who are claiming asylum to work by reducing the period in which claimants may not work from 12 months to six months, as well as removing the condition restricting jobs for those who are allowed to work to those on the shortage occupation list.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Commons, 2022-03-22
Topic: Immigration
Edward Julian Egerton Leigh (Conservative, Centre-right): It seems that amendment 7 goes to the heart of what we are talking about today. Does the Minister agree that the Bill, taken as a whole, is a package, and that if we start amending it in this way to facilitate economic migration, we will end any chance we have of stopping cross-channel migration, stopping the evil criminal gangs and taking back control of our borders? This is a package, and I am afraid we have to vote down all the amendments.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Commons, 2022-03-22
Topic: Immigration
Thomas Christopher John Pursglove (Conservative, Centre-right): I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is a passionate advocate of taking action to address those concerns. I argue that this is a package of measures that come together. There is no one single intervention that will solve this problem. We must have a robust and proportionate approach to tackling, for example, very dangerous channel crossings—in November, we saw a tragic loss of life that none of us wants to be repeated—while also ensuring we have safe and legal routes by which people can come to this country to get the sanctuary they need when they find themselves in desperate circumstances. That is what I believe the Government are delivering The right to work, while well meaning, would undermine our economic migration scheme and allow people to bypass it over and above those who follow the proper process by applying for visas and paying relevant fees to work in the UK. We cannot allow that to happen. I must therefore advise the House that we cannot accept the amendment Amendment 8 prevents third country inadmissibility measures from coming into force until formal returns agreements are in place. We expect to work with our international partners to tackle the shared challenges of illegal migration. We continue to seek effective returns agreements to ensure that people can be removed from our country when they have no right to be here. In the meantime, we want to continue resolve cases where we can on a case-by-case basis As I have said many times before, those in need of protection should claim in the first safe country they reach. That is the fastest route to safety. The first safe country principle is widely recognised internationally.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Commons, 2022-03-22
Topic: Immigration
Thomas Christopher John Pursglove (Conservative, Centre-right): We have many resettlement routes whereby people can come to this country. I have said this several times in the House, and it bears repeating now, that people getting in small boats to come to the United Kingdom are coming from perfectly safe countries at great risk, and they are lining the pockets of evil criminal gangs, which funds wider criminality, when there are fully functional and appropriate asylum systems, where people can gain help and support, that they are leaving to make those perilous journeys. It is also important to point out—I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is a particularly keen advocate of the European Union and wishes we were a member of it—that it is a fundamental feature of the common European asylum system that people should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. Without any enforcement of that, we simply encourage criminal smugglers to continue to exploit vulnerable migrants and leave flows of migrants across Europe, which culminate in the dangerous channel crossings. The Bill’s inadmissibility measures are an essential part of our approach to enforcing the safe first country principle, and for that reason we cannot agree to the amendment.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Commons, 2022-03-22
Topic: Immigration
Thomas Christopher John Pursglove (Conservative, Centre-right): I am conscious that I need to make some progress, so I will continue for now. I have been quite generous, and I will see how I get on in the next few minutes Amendments 9, 52 and 53 would delete from the Bill provisions that would make it easier to remove an individual from the UK while their asylum claim is pending. We have said repeatedly that while people are dying making dangerous and unnecessary journeys to the UK, we must consider every option to discourage people from funding criminal gangs and putting their lives at risk by crossing the channel. That includes the option of processing of asylum claims overseas. We must ensure we have the flexibility to do everything we can to disincentivise people from putting themselves and others at risk and lining the pockets of people smugglers. That is the clear rationale for this policy. I want to make it absolutely clear again that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children will not have their claims processed overseas.