Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
A Full List of Signatures Is Here
IAVA Recipient: Secretary Mattis Letter: Greetings, First, thank you for your service and sacrifice and for your incredible leadership that so many in the military and veteran community have experienced and respect. As you know, more than 1.5 million veterans have have educated themselves with the Post-9/11 GI Bill, and almost 70% of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) members have used or transferred this benefit to a dependent. It could very well be the most transformative federal benefit created. The new restriction on Post-9/11 GI Bill transferability to only those with less than 16 years of service is a completely unnecessary reduction of this critical benefit, and it will ultimately hurt our military recruitment and readiness. In a time of war, it remains enormously important to recruit and retain qualified servicemembers, especially with an ever-decreasing pool of eligible recruits. For years, IAVA has been at the forefront of this fight. We led the effort to establish this benefit in 2008 and we have successfully defended it in recent years. We cannot allow our GI Bill to be dismantled or abused. This is why I am standing with my fellow IAVA members to respectfully request that you reverse this counterproductive policy change that creates barriers to access to these transformative benefits. The GI Bill has been earned by millions of men and women on the battlefield and around the world and it should not be subjected to arbitrary restrictions that limit its use. Again, thank you for your leadership and I ask that you take action now to reverse this decision. -
Political Affairs Digest a Daily Summary of Political Events Affecting the Jewish Community
19 May 2021 Issue 2,123 Political Affairs Digest A daily summary of political events affecting the Jewish Community Contents Home Affairs Relevant Legislation Israel Consultations Foreign Affairs Back issues Home Affairs House of Commons Oral Answers Antisemitic Attacks col 411 Mr Speaker: Before I call the Secretary of State to respond to the urgent question, I have a short statement to make. I know that all Members will be deeply concerned by the footage of apparently antisemitic behaviour that appeared online yesterday. I understand that a number of individuals have been arrested in relation to the incident, but that no charges have yet been made. Therefore, the House’s sub judice resolution is not yet formally engaged. However, I remind all Members to exercise caution and avoid referring to the details of specific cases in order to avoid saying anything that might compromise any ongoing investigation or subsequent prosecution. … Robert Halfon (Conservative): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on recent antisemitic attacks across the UK. The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick): No one could fail to be appalled by the disgraceful scenes of antisemitic abuse directed at members of the Jewish community in the past week. In Chigwell, Rabbi Rafi Goodwin was hospitalised after being attacked outside his synagogue. In London, activists drove through Golders Green and Finchley, both areas with large Jewish populations, apparently shouting antisemitic abuse through a megaphone. These are intimidatory, racist and extremely serious crimes. The police have since made four arrests for racially aggravated public order offences and have placed extra patrols in the St John’s Wood and Golders Green areas. -
The Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP 30 January 2020 Prime Minister 10 Downing Street London SW1A 2AA
The Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP 30 January 2020 Prime Minister 10 Downing Street London SW1A 2AA Dear Prime Minister, We are writing to you as a group of cross-party parliamentarians to express our grave concern over the contents of US President Donald Trump’s so-called ‘peace plan’ for Israel and the Palestinians. The plan presented on 28 January shows contempt for the rights of the Palestinian people and international law, and provides no realistic basis for a return to negotiations. Instead, it makes peace less likely, and threatens to undermine a fundamental principle of the post-WWII international legal order: the prohibition of annexation and territorial conquest. The long-standing position of the UK is that a negotiated peace settlement must be agreed to achieve a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders, leading to a safe and secure Israel living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state that has secure and recognised borders, and with Jerusalem as a shared capital of both states. The vision presented by the US administration is one where Palestinians would have none of these: no true shared capital in Jerusalem, no sovereign control of its borders or security, and with Israeli control far beyond the Green Line. As a group of 16 UK charities warned this week: “if implemented [the plan] will lead to the formal annexation of Palestinian land, perpetual Israeli occupation, and the negation of Palestinians’ collective right to self-determination.” It is a plan that the Palestinians have no choice but to reject if they wish to maintain their fundamental rights, but that they will be punished for not accepting. -
Tuesday 20 April 2021 COMMITTEE of the WHOLE HOUSE PROCEEDINGS
1 SUPPLEMENT TO THE VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS Tuesday 20 April 2021 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE PROCEEDINGS FINANCE (No. 2) BILL (Clauses 1 to 5; Clauses 6 to 14 and Schedule 1; Clauses 24 to 26; Clause 28; Clause 30 and Schedule 6; Clauses 31 to 33; Clause 36 and Schedule 7; Clause 40; Clause 41; Clause 86; Clauses 87 to 89 and Schedules 16 and 17; Clauses 90 and 91; Clauses 92 to 96 and Schedule 18; Clause 97 and Schedule 19; Clauses 109 to 111 and Schedules 21 and 22; Clause 115 and Schedule 27; Clauses 117 to 121 and Schedules 29 to 32; Clauses 128 to 130; any new Clauses or new Schedules relating to: the impact of any provision on the financial resources of families or to the subject matter of Clauses 1 to 5, 24 to 26, 28, 31 to 33, 40 and 86; the subject matter of Clauses 6 to 14 and Schedule 1; the impact of any provision on regional economic development; tax avoidance or evasion; the subject matter of Clauses 87 to 89 and Schedules 16 and 17 and Clauses 90 and 91; the subject matter of Clauses 92 to 96 and Schedule 18, Clause 97 and Schedule 19 and Clauses 128 to 130) [FIRST AND SECOND DAY] GLOSSARY This document shows the fate of each clause, schedule, amendment and new clause. The following terms are used: Added: New Clause agreed without a vote and added to the Bill. Agreed to: agreed without a vote. Agreed to on division: agreed following a vote. -
The IR35 MP Hit List the 100 Politicians Most Likely to Lose Their Seats
The UK's leading contractor site. 200,000 monthly unique visitors. GUIDES IR35 CALCULATORS BUSINESS INSURANCE BANKING ACCOUNTANTS INSURANCE MORTGAGES PENSIONS RESOURCES FREE IR35 TEST The IR35 MP hit list The 100 politicians most likely to lose their seats Last December research conducted by ContractorCalculator identified the MPs for whom it will prove most costly to lose the selfemployed vote, and published the top 20 from each party. The results were based on data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and contractor sentiment indicated by a previous ContractorCalculator survey. The full results of this research are now published, with the top 100 MPs, ordered by risk of losing their seat, due to the Offpayroll (IR35) reforms that Treasury, HMRC and the Chancellor are attempting to push through Parliament. In total, 85 MPs hold a majority in Parliament that would feasibly be overturned if the expected turnout of IR35opposing selfemployed voters from their constituency were to vote against them, and we list the next 15, making 100 in total, that are potentially under threat if the self employed voter turnout is higher than expected. "This single piece of damaging policy could prove catastrophic for all parties involved, not least the Tories, who make up 43% of the atrisk seats,” comments ContractorCalculator CEO, Dave Chaplin. “There is also potentially a lot to gain for some, but those in precarious positions will have to act swiftly and earnestly to win over contractors’ trust.” How we identified the atrisk MPs The research leveraged the data and compared the MPs majority at the last election with the likely number of selfemployed voters in their area who would turn out and vote against them. -
Daily Report Monday, 9 November 2020 CONTENTS
Daily Report Monday, 9 November 2020 This report shows written answers and statements provided on 9 November 2020 and the information is correct at the time of publication (07:12 P.M., 09 November 2020). For the latest information on written questions and answers, ministerial corrections, and written statements, please visit: http://www.parliament.uk/writtenanswers/ CONTENTS ANSWERS 8 Licensed Premises: BUSINESS, ENERGY AND Coronavirus 20 INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY 8 Life Sciences 20 Beer: Small Businesses 8 Low Pay: Coronavirus 21 Bounce Back Loan Scheme: Nuclear Power 22 Sussex 8 Nuclear Power Stations: Business: Coronavirus 9 Finance 22 Carbon Emissions 11 Nuclear Reactors 22 Consumer Goods: Safety 11 Overseas Students: EU Coronavirus: Disease Control 12 Nationals 23 Coronavirus: Remote Working 12 Personal Care Services: Coronavirus 23 Coronavirus: Social Distancing 13 Political Parties: Coronavirus 24 Debenhams: Coronavirus 13 Post Office: Legal Costs 24 Economic Situation: Coronavirus 14 Post Offices: ICT 25 Electronic Commerce: Renewable Energy 25 Regulation 14 Research: Public Consultation 27 Energy Supply 15 Research: Publishing 27 Energy: Meters 15 Retail Trade: Coventry 28 Erasmus+ Programme and Shipping: Tees Valley 28 Horizon Europe 16 Solar power: Faversham 29 Fireworks: Safety 16 Unemployment: Coronavirus 29 Green Homes Grant Scheme 17 Weddings: Coronavirus 30 Horizon Europe 18 Wind Power 31 Housing: Energy 19 Hydrogen 20 CABINET OFFICE 31 Musicians: Coronavirus 44 Ballot Papers: Visual Skateboarding: Coronavirus 44 Impairment 31 -
House of Lords Official Report
Vol. 808 Thursday No. 151 26 November 2020 PARLIAMENTARYDEBATES (HANSARD) HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICIAL REPORT ORDEROFBUSINESS Questions G7 Summit .....................................................................................................................361 Special Educational Needs .............................................................................................364 Rural Economy ..............................................................................................................368 Official Development Assistance ....................................................................................372 Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Producer Organisations and Wine) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 ................................................375 Agriculture (Payments) (Amendment, etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020............................375 Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2020............................................................375 Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 ........................................................................376 Motions to Approve Parliamentary Constituencies Bill Commons Reasons ..........................................................................................................376 Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 1) (Amendment) Order 2020............................403 -
Japan-UK: “Progressive” Ties and a Case for Britain in the CPTPP, April
Issue Brief April 13, 2021 Japan-UK: “Progressive” Ties and a Case for Britain in the CPTPP Jagannath Panda The UK’s entry into the landmark CPTPP agreement, led by Japan, could be a breakthrough in advancing Britain’s global ambitions as an independent trading nation and encourage a stronger cross- continental collaboration. It would not only act as a gateway for the UK to become an active player in the Indo-Pacific, but also substantiate the global overture of Japan-UK ties and strengthen their collaboration in the face of shared challenges. It can, in other words, help transform an already strong Japan-UK relationship into a global partnership. Introduction ambition to join the CPTPP, for which London has already formally applied5 and entry negotiations are Between dealing with challenges arising from the shortly expected6, shaping London’s relations with Covid-19 pandemic and international geo-political Japan and a range of countries in the region. Given flux, the United Kingdom (UK) is progressively these developments, how will the UK’s involvement shaping its identity as an exclusive economic actor impact its overall approach to the Indo-Pacific? in the wake of its exit from the European Union Conversely, how does Japan view London’s interest (EU). The signing of the Comprehensive Economic in the CPTPP and the Indo-Pacific at large? Partnership Agreement (CEPA)1 between Japan and the UK in November 2020 was heralded as Japan’s UK Outlook “historic”2, for it was the first trade deal signed by the UK as an “independent trading nation”.3 It also A Japan-UK partnership is, at its core, a natural marked the first step in London’s emerging trade and one.7 As island nations, both states have maritime global economic ambitions, reflecting its desire to interests and a drive to uphold maritime order in enhance “commercial diplomacy” with the countries line with international norms. -
Vindication, Virtue, and Vitriol
Journal of Computational Social Science https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-020-00090-9 RESEARCH ARTICLE Vindication, virtue, and vitriol A study of online engagement and abuse toward British MPs during the COVID-19 pandemic Tracie Farrell1 · Genevieve Gorrell1 · Kalina Bontcheva1 Received: 21 July 2020 / Accepted: 11 October 2020 © The Author(s) 2020 Abstract COVID-19 has given rise to a lot of malicious content online, including hate speech, online abuse, and misinformation. British MPs have also received abuse and hate on social media during this time. To understand and contextualise the level of abuse MPs receive, we consider how ministers use social media to communicate about the pandemic, and the citizen engagement that this generates. The focus of the paper is on a large-scale, mixed-methods study of abusive and antagonistic responses to UK politicians on Twitter, during the pandemic from early February to late May 2020. We fnd that pressing subjects such as fnancial concerns attract high levels of engagement, but not necessarily abusive dialogue. Rather, criticising authorities appears to attract higher levels of abuse during this period of the pandemic. In addi- tion, communicating about subjects like racism and inequality may result in accusa- tions of virtue signalling or pandering by some users. This work contributes to the wider understanding of abusive language online, in particular that which is directed at public ofcials. Keywords Online hate · Abusive speech · Natural language processing · Politics · COVID-19 · Twitter * Tracie Farrell [email protected] Genevieve Gorrell [email protected] Kalina Bontcheva [email protected] 1 University of Shefeld, Shefeld, UK Vol.:(0123456789)1 3 Journal of Computational Social Science Introduction Social media can ofer a “temperature check” on which topics and issues are trend- ing for certain cross-sections of the public, and how they feel about them [21]. -
THE 422 Mps WHO BACKED the MOTION Conservative 1. Bim
THE 422 MPs WHO BACKED THE MOTION Conservative 1. Bim Afolami 2. Peter Aldous 3. Edward Argar 4. Victoria Atkins 5. Harriett Baldwin 6. Steve Barclay 7. Henry Bellingham 8. Guto Bebb 9. Richard Benyon 10. Paul Beresford 11. Peter Bottomley 12. Andrew Bowie 13. Karen Bradley 14. Steve Brine 15. James Brokenshire 16. Robert Buckland 17. Alex Burghart 18. Alistair Burt 19. Alun Cairns 20. James Cartlidge 21. Alex Chalk 22. Jo Churchill 23. Greg Clark 24. Colin Clark 25. Ken Clarke 26. James Cleverly 27. Thérèse Coffey 28. Alberto Costa 29. Glyn Davies 30. Jonathan Djanogly 31. Leo Docherty 32. Oliver Dowden 33. David Duguid 34. Alan Duncan 35. Philip Dunne 36. Michael Ellis 37. Tobias Ellwood 38. Mark Field 39. Vicky Ford 40. Kevin Foster 41. Lucy Frazer 42. George Freeman 43. Mike Freer 44. Mark Garnier 45. David Gauke 46. Nick Gibb 47. John Glen 48. Robert Goodwill 49. Michael Gove 50. Luke Graham 51. Richard Graham 52. Bill Grant 53. Helen Grant 54. Damian Green 55. Justine Greening 56. Dominic Grieve 57. Sam Gyimah 58. Kirstene Hair 59. Luke Hall 60. Philip Hammond 61. Stephen Hammond 62. Matt Hancock 63. Richard Harrington 64. Simon Hart 65. Oliver Heald 66. Peter Heaton-Jones 67. Damian Hinds 68. Simon Hoare 69. George Hollingbery 70. Kevin Hollinrake 71. Nigel Huddleston 72. Jeremy Hunt 73. Nick Hurd 74. Alister Jack (Teller) 75. Margot James 76. Sajid Javid 77. Robert Jenrick 78. Jo Johnson 79. Andrew Jones 80. Gillian Keegan 81. Seema Kennedy 82. Stephen Kerr 83. Mark Lancaster 84. -
Members of the House of Commons December 2019 Diane ABBOTT MP
Members of the House of Commons December 2019 A Labour Conservative Diane ABBOTT MP Adam AFRIYIE MP Hackney North and Stoke Windsor Newington Labour Conservative Debbie ABRAHAMS MP Imran AHMAD-KHAN Oldham East and MP Saddleworth Wakefield Conservative Conservative Nigel ADAMS MP Nickie AIKEN MP Selby and Ainsty Cities of London and Westminster Conservative Conservative Bim AFOLAMI MP Peter ALDOUS MP Hitchin and Harpenden Waveney A Labour Labour Rushanara ALI MP Mike AMESBURY MP Bethnal Green and Bow Weaver Vale Labour Conservative Tahir ALI MP Sir David AMESS MP Birmingham, Hall Green Southend West Conservative Labour Lucy ALLAN MP Fleur ANDERSON MP Telford Putney Labour Conservative Dr Rosena ALLIN-KHAN Lee ANDERSON MP MP Ashfield Tooting Members of the House of Commons December 2019 A Conservative Conservative Stuart ANDERSON MP Edward ARGAR MP Wolverhampton South Charnwood West Conservative Labour Stuart ANDREW MP Jonathan ASHWORTH Pudsey MP Leicester South Conservative Conservative Caroline ANSELL MP Sarah ATHERTON MP Eastbourne Wrexham Labour Conservative Tonia ANTONIAZZI MP Victoria ATKINS MP Gower Louth and Horncastle B Conservative Conservative Gareth BACON MP Siobhan BAILLIE MP Orpington Stroud Conservative Conservative Richard BACON MP Duncan BAKER MP South Norfolk North Norfolk Conservative Conservative Kemi BADENOCH MP Steve BAKER MP Saffron Walden Wycombe Conservative Conservative Shaun BAILEY MP Harriett BALDWIN MP West Bromwich West West Worcestershire Members of the House of Commons December 2019 B Conservative Conservative -
View Questions Tabled on PDF File 0.16 MB
Published: Wednesday 19 May 2021 Questions tabled on Tuesday 18 May 2021 Includes questions tabled on earlier days which have been transferred. T Indicates a topical oral question. Members are selected by ballot to ask a Topical Question. † Indicates a Question not included in the random selection process but accepted because the quota for that day had not been filled. N Indicates a question for written answer on a named day under S.O. No. 22(4). [R] Indicates that a relevant interest has been declared. Questions for Answer on Wednesday 19 May Questions for Written Answer 1 Peter Dowd (Bootle): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, whether the Government has undertaken an assessment of the potential links between (a) universities based in the UK and research institutes in China and (b) the People’s Liberation Army. [Transferred] (2310) 2 Peter Dowd (Bootle): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, how much funding the Government allocated to the UK-China Green Finance Centre in 2019-20. [Transferred] (2313) 3 Peter Dowd (Bootle): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, how much funding the Government has allocated to the China-UK PACT since its inception. [Transferred] (2314) 4 Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, for what reason photography studios are no longer in the leisure services category for covid-19 support grants. [Transferred] (2260) 5 Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, what assessment his Department made of the potential effect of the decision on the level of coronavirus restart grant to be awarded to photography studios on the revenue of those studios in the context of the restrictions placed on their business as a result of the covid-19 outbreak.