argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland: Border Arrangements — House of Commons, 2018-02-28
Topic: Mixed Topics
David Roy Lidington (Conservative, Centre-right): A proper analysis of security will be undertaken by the appropriate agencies in any and all circumstances where that is required. My hon. Friend is right to say that one of the great achievements of constitutional politics in Northern Ireland over the past 25 years has been to bring about a measure of peace and security, after decades when people lived under the threat of terrorism. We should welcome that and re-dedicate ourselves to making sure that that process continues.
Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland: Border Arrangements — House of Commons, 2018-02-28
Topic: Mixed Topics
David Roy Lidington (Conservative, Centre-right): As I said to the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), in any Government, Ministers write letters and memorandums and have conversations from time to time. The policy of the Government under our system is the policy that is agreed collectively by the Cabinet, and the policy of the Cabinet and the Government is what I have set out today.
Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland: Border Arrangements — House of Commons, 2018-02-28
Topic: Mixed Topics
Simon Richard Clarke (Conservative, Centre-right): May I associate myself with what the Minister has said and with what the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister’s questions about the inconceivable nature of the EU’s proposals to date? Does he agree that the evidence given by the permanent secretary of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to the Public Accounts Committee that a two-tier system, including a trusted trader scheme and derogations for small business, could help to avoid the physical infrastructure that we all want to avoid at the border?
Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland: Border Arrangements — House of Commons, 2018-02-28
Topic: Immigration
Nigel John Mills (Conservative, Centre-right): Will my right hon. Friend define for the House what the Government meant when they said that they would guarantee that there would be no hard border? What would such a hard border involve and what are we guaranteeing will not exist?
Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland: Border Arrangements — House of Commons, 2018-02-28
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her point of order. There have of course been debates in the Committee of the whole House and Report stage on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, but outside of legislation, if memory serves me correctly, what the right hon. Lady says is factually correct. She will know that I have an unbridled enthusiasm for debate, for votes and for sitting in the Chair for extended periods listening to the intellects of Einstein and the eloquences of Demosthenes, which are so regularly on display from my colleagues in all parts of the House. I cannot get enough of it. It may seem eccentric on my part, but I love to listen to my colleagues. The more debates and the more votes, the better. I am most grateful to the right hon. Lady, of whose point of order I had only a moment’s notice, but which I enjoyed.
International Development Committee: Burma Visas — House of Commons, 2018-02-28
Topic: Immigration
Mark Christopher Field (Conservative, Centre-right): I must confess that these seem to me unique circumstances. They may well not be, but I will try to write to him to confirm exactly what the situation has been with regard to visa refusals of this sort.
International Development Committee: Burma Visas — House of Commons, 2018-02-28
Topic: Immigration
Philip Thomas Hollobone (Conservative, Centre-right): I visited the Kutupalong Rohingya refugee camp at the end of last year with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and two nurses from Kettering General Hospital recently returned from the Rohingya camps, where they were successfully combating the spread of disease. May I draw the Minister’s attention to the problem on the Bangladeshi side of the border? Bangladesh has been incredibly generous in hosting the Rohingya refugees and going out of its way to assist them, but the Bangladeshis are overwhelmed with visa applications from international aid workers and the like, and they are having difficulty processing those visas in a timely way, which is holding up some of the delivery of aid. Is there anything we can do to assist the Bangladeshis in overcoming that problem?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2018-02-28
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): No, but it is open to the shadow Leader of the House to raise that matter at business questions tomorrow. Knowing the perspicacity of the hon. Gentleman, I feel sure that, having registered his concerns today, he will articulate them in subsequent days until he elicits a ministerial response.
Independent Complaints and Grievance Policy — House of Commons, 2018-02-28
Topic: Civil Rights
Bernard Christison Jenkin (Conservative, Centre-right): I am so much more in favour of persuasion than coercion. You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink. We could force MPs to attend a training session, but what kind of attitude would they have towards that training if they did not want to do it? Let us take a step back and think about how we want to do this. I agree with the hon. Lady, however, that unless we promote conversation and understanding about the principles and values that should guide behaviour, the risk is that confusion about what is acceptable will persist Rules and regulations are, of course, important, but PACAC’s work has shown so often that when rules are not underpinned by clear principles and values that are understood, discussed and talked about, the outcome is a preoccupation with compliance with the rules rather than with upholding what reflects the values and principles we want upheld. The road to damnation is all too congested these days with people arguing how their conduct was "within the rules".
Independent Complaints and Grievance Policy — House of Commons, 2018-02-28
Topic: Other
Mark James Harper (Conservative, Centre-right): I see the Chairman of the Committee nodding, so I have got that right. That provision gives both the wider House and members of the public confidence that the information put before the House is not just the views of MPs; it is also the views of lay members of the Committee. That brings a useful check on our views about what is and is not appropriate behaviour.
Independent Complaints and Grievance Policy — House of Commons, 2018-02-28
Topic: Mixed Topics
Bernard Christison Jenkin (Conservative, Centre-right): My right hon. Friend is right to say that having the lay members present when decisions are made gives the Committee on Standards more authority, but there is something odd about the Committee adjudicating on rules and evidence—that should be done by a lawyer. These decisions would have much more authority if they were handed to the Committee by someone with the right juridical experience and standing, and the Committee was told, "This is the judgment. If you overturn this, you are overturning a respectable legal opinion. On your own head be it."
Independent Complaints and Grievance Policy — House of Commons, 2018-02-28
Topic: Other
Mark James Harper (Conservative, Centre-right): If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I am just going to conclude If the report of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House does nothing else but that and changes the culture, it will have taken us a huge step forward. I am very happy to support the motion and to commend it to the House.
Independent Complaints and Grievance Policy — House of Commons, 2018-02-28
Topic: Civil Rights
Bernard Christison Jenkin (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Lady is making such a good speech, particularly when it comes to the point about assumptions. If we want to change culture, everyone has to stop making assumptions about their own beliefs and other people’s. We need to talk about that and get it into the open, without judgment. I agree with her wholeheartedly about training for MPs who employ staff. Ultimately, if an MP has not been through a basic training package, why should the taxpayer allow them to employ their own staff?
Middle Level Bill — House of Commons, 2018-02-28
Topic: Other
Christopher Robert Chope (Conservative, Centre-right): The background to new clause 1 is the principle of quid pro quo, because the petitioners are concerned that new charges and obligations are being brought in without their getting anything in return. Before I expand on that, I should say that all the new clauses and amendments are grouped as one, so we are effectively discussing the Bill as a whole. I think that every part of the Bill is included in one or other of the amendments.
Middle Level Bill — House of Commons, 2018-02-28
Topic: Public Lands
Henry Bellingham (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend will be aware that the Bill affects my constituency. Without the Middle Level Commissioners, we would not have many homes protected and many thousands of hectares of farmland would not be kept productive. Does he agree that the key point is that if navigation, locks and waterways are funded through this charge, there will be more money for flood defences, which are a key priority in this part of East Anglia? Does he agree that the principle of the Bill is fit for purpose? Now that he is involved with his various amendments, the Bill may well become better, but surely the principle is very strong.
Middle Level Bill — House of Commons, 2018-02-28
Topic: Public Lands
Christopher Robert Chope (Conservative, Centre-right): I am not briefed to have an answer to that. All I can do is make the general comment that this has been raised by the March Cruising Club, which I imagine would not be concerned about it if it was not a problem. The March Cruising Club believes it is important to have this adequate depth of water set out to make sure the navigation is available That brings me on to new clause 2, which would require the provision of specified facilities at Stanground Lock and Salters Lode Lock. It states: "The commissioners must, within twelve months of the day on which the Act comes into force, provide facilities at Stanground Lock and Salters Lode Lock including a lavatory, a fresh water point, bins for the disposal of refuse" and so on. It also states that they should provide "a minimum of ten moorings, each available for up to seven days at any one time and capable of accommodating a boat of up to fifty feet in length." Again this is a quid pro quo: if the commissioners want to make money out of the navigation and the vessels using it, it would be sensible for them to make sure there are proper facilities for those vessels, which will be paying significantly for the privilege of using the navigation A similar point is raised in new clause 3 by the March Cruising Club. This clause states: "The Commissioners must, within twelve months of the day on which this Act comes into force, provide facilities within the town of March including a lavatory, a coin operated water shower" and so on. I understand that the commissioners have more or less guaranteed that that is what they are going to do, but the petitioners understandably want to ensure that those undertakings and expressions of good intention are properly reflected in the legislation, rather than just being left as a matter of good will.
Middle Level Bill — House of Commons, 2018-02-28
Topic: Public Lands
Henry Bellingham (Conservative, Centre-right): Surely there are few precedents for putting in the Bill specific infrastructure service provisions such as these. Doing so would cheapen the Bill in some ways and would make the point publicly that there was not this confidence between the Middle Level Commissioners and the different boating interests. What those boating interests want above all else is good navigable waters that are well maintained and at the right depth and with locks that work so that they can enjoy their boats at different times. If there is a surplus of revenue, and the relationship between the commissioners and the boating interests is positive and proactive, these other facilities can be looked at in the future. I urge my hon. Friend to consider that putting this in the Bill is not a good idea.
Middle Level Bill — House of Commons, 2018-02-28
Topic: Other
Christopher Robert Chope (Conservative, Centre-right): I am glad my hon. Friend agrees that the provision of these facilities is a good idea, but I cannot understand why he thinks requiring them to be provided in the Bill is not a good idea.
Middle Level Bill — House of Commons, 2018-02-28
Topic: Public Lands
Christopher Robert Chope (Conservative, Centre-right): Ultimately, it is an issue of trust as to whether or not the undertakings given will be honoured. We have precedents from other private Bills in this House—for example, the north London cemetery Bill—where the promotors have written to the Chairman of Ways and Means giving an undertaking, which was then put in the public domain. That may be another way of resolving this problem. From what my hon. Friend is saying, it seems that everyone is agreed that these facilities are necessary and desirable, and should be provided New clause 4 says that the "Commissioners must within twelve months of the day on which this Act comes into forces enable access to the facilities and moorings specified under this Act to be by a boater key system paid for by boaters for a nominal fee and operated by the Commissioners." That is not an unreasonable suggestion. It is a commonplace practice in the boating industry.
Middle Level Bill — House of Commons, 2018-02-28
Topic: Other
Philip Andrew Davies (Conservative, Centre-right): I particularly support new clause 5 and struggle to find a reason why anyone could not, because it seems to be only fair and proper. Has my hon. Friend had any discussions with the Bill’s sponsor or the people behind it to find out whether they think it is a common-sense clause that they would accept or, if not, what logical reason they have for not accepting it?
Middle Level Bill — House of Commons, 2018-02-28
Topic: Other
Christopher Robert Chope (Conservative, Centre-right): We have not yet reached that stage. That might be my fault, because I have not sat down with the Bill’s promoters to discuss these issues in detail. I understand that there was quite a lot of discussion of such issues in Committee. For the reasons that I have set out, the petitioners are still unhappy and feel that there should be a new clause to incorporate this provision.
Middle Level Bill — House of Commons, 2018-02-28
Topic: Other
Christopher Robert Chope (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. We will come to clause 4 and the amendments to it later. I shall say nothing other than that the petitioners and I were pleased that clause 4 was introduced in Committee in response to the concerns that were expressed. As I mentioned at the outset, just because it was introduced at that stage, that does not mean that it is perfect, which is why we are dealing with these new clauses and the amendments to clause 4, to which I shall come in due course and in order, because it is much easier for people to follow proceedings if people start at the beginning and go through clause by clause.
Middle Level Bill — House of Commons, 2018-02-28
Topic: Mixed Topics
Kevin John Foster (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank my hon. Friend for the points that he is making. However, does he agree that the slight danger with this amendment is that it would say that the persons are representative of all the interests, when the whole point of a representative committee would be to have people who represent different interests, just as we in this House all represent different constituencies even though we have the same duty as Members?
Middle Level Bill — House of Commons, 2018-02-28
Topic: Other
Christopher Robert Chope (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend makes a brilliant point, but it is nothing to do with this. It is not a question of what the persons are representative of, because that is spelled out, but a question of whether they are representative of the groups listed or appear to the commissioners to be representative of them. It should be quite easy to establish whether somebody is representative of these interests rather than appearing to the commissioners to be representative of them.
Middle Level Bill — House of Commons, 2018-02-28
Topic: Public Lands
Christopher Robert Chope (Conservative, Centre-right): I accept that we do not want to go into any more detail than I have already, but the analogy is that the powers that are being sought in the Bill by the Middle Level Commissioners are almost identical to the powers that have already been obtained by other organisations, such as the Canal and River Trust, which operates on the Kennet and Avon canal.
Middle Level Bill — House of Commons, 2018-02-28
Topic: Mixed Topics
Henry Bellingham (Conservative, Centre-right): Is there any serious demand from disabled people in the boat-owning community in East Anglia for this exemption? I have a number of disabled constituents who are boat owners, and as I pointed out on Second Reading in the last Parliament, many boat owners from my constituency will motor upstream into the different parts of the Middle Level. I have not come across any demand from disabled people; this is not like the blue badge scheme. We have great respect for those in the disabled community, but is my hon. Friend really saying that there is a desire to give them an exemption from these charges? Would that not just make the scheme that much more bureaucratic? Also, most disabled people are very proud, so do they really want this exemption?
Middle Level Bill — House of Commons, 2018-02-28
Topic: Civil Rights
Christopher Robert Chope (Conservative, Centre-right): Obviously, they would get the exemption only if they applied for it. Disabled people are proud, and I have a lot of disabled residents among my constituents, but that does not mean that, for example, they do not cherish the ability to park their cars using a discretionary parking permit In direct answer to my hon. Friend’s intervention, I had not received any representations from disabled constituents of his before making this speech; if I had, I would have referred them to him. However, what I can say is that the Canal and River Trust, which was dealing with this issue in Wiltshire, has now accepted in principle that disabled boaters should not have enforcement action taken against them in the same way as able-bodied boaters, but it has not yet been very keen to communicate that policy to disabled people there All I can say is that, given how the powers have been used on inland waterways in other parts of the country, there is potentially an issue, and by putting forward amendment 14, I have at least ensured that it is discussed. As we know, there is even more interest in the other place in promoting the cause of disabled people than there is in this House. It may well be that, when the Bill gets to the other place, Members there will wish to pursue the content of amendment 14 if it is not accepted by the sponsor today Amendments 15 and 16 are designed to leave out clauses 5 and 7. I tabled them to enable us to have a debate on the content of those clauses, should that be thought desirable. However, having regard to the time, the best thing to do is probably not to speak to those amendments but to go on to one or two of the later amendments.
Middle Level Bill — House of Commons, 2018-02-28
Topic: Other
Peter William Bone (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend is making a very informative speech. He will recognise that other Members are affected, other than just those from the fens, because the River Nene—or "Nen", depending on which part of my constituency someone is from—flows into the Middle Level. So this issue is wider than just a local area.
Middle Level Bill — House of Commons, 2018-02-28
Topic: Other
Peter William Bone (Conservative, Centre-right): On that point, is my hon. Friend not concerned that the Bill does not state what the initial fee will be? It just says "a reasonable application fee". Would he not prefer the Bill to state what that fee should be?
Middle Level Bill — House of Commons, 2018-02-28
Topic: Mixed Topics
Philip Andrew Davies (Conservative, Centre-right): Does the hon. Lady have any sympathy with any of my hon. Friend’s amendments, particularly the one about no charge "being payable in respect of the use of the waterway by a vessel being used by a person who is registered disabled" Is that not something the Labour party would welcome?
Middle Level Bill — House of Commons, 2018-02-28
Topic: Housing
Kevin John Foster (Conservative, Centre-right): It is a pleasure to get another opportunity to speak on the Bill. Given that it has already had its Second Reading, I will focus my remarks on today’s amendments and the changes made in Committee As the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) just mentioned, a number of positive changes were made to the Bill in response to the petitioners’ concerns, and I was grateful to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) say that changes had been made and that people had listened. It is appropriate, however, that I say briefly why I do not think it would be appropriate for the amendments and new clauses to be accepted. New clause 1 would set a minimum navigation depth actually lower than the one in current legislation. New clauses 2 to 5 refer to specific facilities that could be provided. As suggested in an intervention, it does not seem logical to specify in statute things such as coin-operated water showers. Were that to sit in primary legislation, it would run the danger of the Bill becoming completely outdated. It also makes sense for users, via the mechanisms proposed in the Bill, to be able to discuss what are appropriate facilities. The inclusion of some of these items might also render particular powers ineffective where planning permission is refused. I therefore urge the House to reject all the new clauses.
Middle Level Bill — House of Commons, 2018-02-28
Topic: Public Lands
Henry Bellingham (Conservative, Centre-right): The Bill affects my constituency along with several others, and it is vital to the people living in the fens. Without the modern drainage that was brought in during the 18th century, they would not have homes, and we would not have nearly 200,000 acres of prime agricultural land. It is also important to the owners of pleasure craft. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight), who chaired the Committee, and agree with what he just said, and I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) for his indefatigable work as the Bill’s sponsor It is important that we have a charging regime that is simple, transparent and not too bureaucratic. Some of the amendments do make quite a lot of sense but, with great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), I urge the House not to have anything to do with the new clauses, which would complicate the Bill and make it more bureaucratic. What we want is a simple Bill, with a charging system that really is fit for purpose. We want to build up a position of trust between the commissioners and the boat owners and users who will be paying the navigation fees. On that basis, I very much hope that the Bill is not delayed a day longer than is necessary, because it is so important to my constituency.