argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
EU Nationals: UK Residence — House of Commons, 2016-07-04
Topic: Immigration
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on the legal status of EU nationals residing in the United Kingdom in the event of the United Kingdom’s leaving the European Union.
Wesley Paul William Streeting (Labour, Centre-left): In a written parliamentary question in January, I asked the Home Secretary to outline the contingency plans her Department was making for a leave vote. In the reply, the Minister gave no assurances. Is it not clear that on this issue, as with every question thrown up by the leave vote, the Government have done absolutely no contingency planning? The consequence in this instance is that people who are making decisions about their education, their jobs and their families have no assurances whatsoever from the Government. Is the Minister not ashamed of that position, and does it not reflect the cavalier approach of this Government since they were elected last year?
EU Nationals: UK Residence — House of Commons, 2016-07-04
Topic: Immigration
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on the legal status of EU nationals residing in the United Kingdom in the event of the United Kingdom’s leaving the European Union.
Seema Malhotra-Saluja (Labour, Centre-left): May I put on the record my absolute disappointment with the Minister’s statement today? On an issue that appears to command consensus among those who campaigned both for leave and for remain, it beggars belief that the Home Secretary yesterday and the Minister today cannot give the reassurance that the millions of people in this country need that they can stay here and have the rights that they deserve, and it is notable that not one Member of this House has so far agreed with the Government’s position. These people are our teachers, our doctors, our entrepreneurs; they are also our taxpayers. They deserve that reassurance. The tone the Minister would then send to other European nations would in my view be the kind of tone we need to keep relations with our allies and protect the rights of our British citizens abroad.
Courts and Tribunals Fees — House of Commons, 2016-07-04
Topic: Other
Andrew Francis Slaughter (Labour, Centre-left): I compliment the hon. Gentleman on an excellent report, but would it not be fairer to say that the Secretary of State changed? I do not know whether that is one of Keynes’s principles. The facts did not change at all; some light was suddenly shone on what was always a mad scheme, and a change came about. However, I do not want to detract from the credit that is owed to the hon. Gentleman’s Committee.
Courts and Tribunals Fees — House of Commons, 2016-07-04
Topic: Civil Rights
Andrew Francis Slaughter (Labour, Centre-left): I commend the hon. Gentleman on many of the recommendations in the report, but—as I would, I suppose—I want to highlight one that I think is slightly problematic. The Justice Committee went along with the decision of the independent commission on freedom of information to disallow appeals from the Information Commissioner to the first-tier tribunal, despite the fact that 20% of those appeals are successful. Would the hon. Gentleman like to look at that again? The Select Committee stated in its report: "We see no reason to disagree with the Commission’s view." Has the hon. Gentleman simply gone along with the view of the commission? What is his reason for making that decision?
Courts and Tribunals Fees — House of Commons, 2016-07-04
Topic: Civil Rights
David George Hanson (Labour, Centre-left): That is an important point. Women are more likely to be in low-paid jobs and there is employment discrimination in many areas against black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. The key point in the case I am putting to the Government is that the Committee heard evidence showing that the fees have a discriminatory effect. The Government have investigated this matter, but have not yet produced their report to say whether they believe that to be the case. There may be other reasons—I do not doubt that there are—but the key point from today’s report is for the Government to provide evidence to the House. The Committee was unanimous in saying that there is a discriminatory effect that deters claims from the poorest, the lowest paid and those in the most insecure employment. It is therefore hitting those who have no other defence than an employment tribunal, which is now out of reach This is a matter of access to justice, which we on the Committee, on a cross-party basis, have put on the agenda. We have said that there is a real case to answer. It is for the Minister, both today and in the future, to respond to the report and answer that case.
Energy Spending Priorities: Investors and Consumers — House of Commons, 2016-07-04
Topic: Mixed Topics
Alan Patrick Vincent Whitehead (Labour, Centre-left): Does the Chair of the Committee have anything to say about the almost collapse of solid wall insulation in homes that was predicted by the new ECO arrangements, as set against the suggestion by the Committee that by the end of the fourth carbon budget we should have in place 2.2 million solid wall insulation completions? Has the Committee considered that issue?
Energy Spending Priorities: Investors and Consumers — House of Commons, 2016-07-04
Topic: Other
Natascha Engel (Labour, Centre-left): Order. Six Members still wish to speak and we also have two Front-Bench winding-up speeches to come. We must finish by 10 o’clock and the hon. Lady has been speaking for 20 minutes now. If she comes to a conclusion and other Members stick to speaking for 10 minutes, we will get everybody in.
People with Autism: Work — House of Commons, 2016-05-09
Topic: Mixed Topics
Sharon Hodgson (Labour, Centre-left): Following the success of national autism awareness month, it was good to see the Government announce a taskforce to explore access to apprenticeships for those with learning disabilities, which will be led by the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard). I am aware that there is not a formal consultation period, but the British Association for Supported Employment has been asked to provide evidence to the taskforce by 13 May. Does the Minister agree that as many people and organisations as possible should feed into the taskforce’s work, to ensure that everyone has access to a life-changing apprenticeship?
State Pension Age: Women — House of Commons, 2016-05-09
Topic: Civil Rights
Julie Elliott (Labour, Centre-left): Why has the Minister not used the opportunity of a majority Conservative Government to put right the wrongs of the last Government, which have had an impact on some 4,290 women in my constituency, by introducing proper transitional arrangements—or is this just compassionate Conservatism in action?
State Pension Age: Women — House of Commons, 2016-05-09
Topic: Mixed Topics
Barbara Mary Keeley (Labour, Centre-left): While Ministers do nothing, my constituents and other people are really suffering. My constituent, a woman born in the 1950s, told me: "I feel anxious and distressed about how I am going to manage without an income in what has been, for my generation, the expected retirement age." It is six months since we had our first debate on this, so will the Minister and the Secretary of State now commit that civil servants will assist with costing the various options for transitional arrangements that have been put forward by Labour?
“Educational Excellence Everywhere”: Academies — House of Commons, 2016-05-09
Topic: Civil Rights
Dawn Petula Butler (Labour, Centre-left): I feel rather embarrassed for the Minister as the Government tried to sneak through this U-turn during one of the most racist campaigns that we have ever seen in the capital. Toby Young admitted that he had been arrogant and regretted criticising teachers, state schools and local education authorities. Will the Minister acknowledge that the teachers, the Labour party, the students and the parents were right, and she was wrong?
BIS Sheffield/Government Departments outside London — House of Commons, 2016-05-09
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Joanna Meriel Stevens (Labour, Centre-left): Many of my constituents work for the Insolvency Service. At a time when there is a steel crisis, BHS has collapsed and other businesses are becoming insolvent, one would think that the Government would want to retain staff with expertise in insolvency, yet 153 jobs are at risk. Does my hon. Friend agree that that does not seem to be a sensible policy approach?
BIS Sheffield/Government Departments outside London — House of Commons, 2016-05-09
Topic: Housing
Ruth Margaret Cadbury (Labour, Centre-left): Does my hon. Friend agree with me, a London MP, that centralisation and the relocating of staff presents a problem for London? It leads to congestion, more overheating, incredibly expensive accommodation, and so on. Most graduates cannot afford to rent in London, let alone buy their own property.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-09
Topic: Housing
Natascha Engel (Labour, Centre-left): Before I call the Minister, I wish to repeat what Mr Speaker said on 25 April about Lords amendments and financial privilege: designation of such amendments is not a matter of choice, and it has no bearing on the freedom of the House to debate and decide on them I must also tell the House that, as Mr Speaker then said, he has asked the Procedure Committee to inquire into the so-called privilege reason, and the Clerk has prepared a memorandum for its consideration I draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 47B and 47C. If the House agrees to them, I will cause an appropriate entry to be made in the Journal I must inform the House that five of the motions relating to the Lords amendments are certified as relating exclusively to England and one both to England and to England and Wales, as set out on the selection paper. If the House divides on a certified motion, a double majority—or, in the latter case, a triple majority—will be required for the motion to be passed Clause 4 Planning permission: provision of starter homes
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-09
Topic: Other
Natascha Engel (Labour, Centre-left): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Lords amendments 47B and 47C, and Government motion to disagree Government motion to insist on Lords amendment 97A and disagree to Lords amendment 97B Lords amendment 108, Government motion to disagree, and amendment (a) in lieu Lords amendment 109B Lords amendment 110, Government motion to disagree, and amendment (a) in lieu.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-09
Topic: Housing
Clive James Charles Betts (Labour, Centre-left): I am still a little confused about the position that local authorities will be put in if this amendment falls. They will, I think, still be entering into section 106 negotiations with a developer, part of which will involve a requirement to provide starter homes, but will they also have an ability to provide shared ownership properties and, presumably, affordable homes to rent as well? How will the balance and proportion of those homes be determined? Will that be a matter for local discretion?
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-09
Topic: Housing
Clive James Charles Betts (Labour, Centre-left): So let me be clear: there will be requirement for 20% starter homes but if, as is the case in most of my constituency, the maximum requirement on sites for affordable housing is a total of 10%, does that mean that there would be nothing other than starter homes on those sites—that is, no other affordable housing?
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-09
Topic: Housing
Clive James Charles Betts (Labour, Centre-left): Yes, the houses for sale in my constituency are much lower in price than in many other parts of the country, though higher than in one or two other areas in the north. However, the tens of thousands of people on the waiting list are on the waiting list primarily because they cannot afford to buy the houses, even though they are lower in value than those in the constituency of the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman).
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-09
Topic: Housing
Helen Elizabeth Hayes (Labour, Centre-left): I wish to speak briefly about Lords amendment 10B and to urge the Government to support it. The amendment would allow local councils to decide the mix of affordable housing that is delivered in their area, based on their assessment of local need and demand The Minister speaks about manifesto pledges, and his point is understood, but I would like to quote the press release that accompanied the Tory manifesto launch: "After funding replacement affordable housing on a one for one basis, the surplus proceeds will be used to fund the extension of right to buy" It is entirely untenable for the Government to include starter homes in the definition of affordable housing. A home to buy that requires a deposit of £90,000 and a salary of £77,000 and that costs up to £450,000 is not affordable to most people in London, and my constituents simply shake their heads in disbelief at the suggestion that it is. It is not the case that starter homes are replacement affordable housing, and it is entirely misleading of the Government to claim they are Amendment 10B would allow local authorities—the same local authorities that undertake housing needs assessments, that have statutory housing duties, that are democratically accountable to their communities and that know what is needed in their communities—to determine the type of affordable housing that is appropriate in their area.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-09
Topic: Housing
Helen Elizabeth Hayes (Labour, Centre-left): The Bill does not simply go nowhere near that principle—it contravenes it Amendment 10B would give local authorities the ability to decide the balance of starter homes and other, more genuinely affordable homes to be delivered in their area. By failing to support the amendment, the Government are breaking the commitment they made in launching their manifesto. More importantly, they are failing communities in London and across the country that need affordable housing It is important to point out what links an affordable, secure home and the aspiration of many people in this country to own a home: the ability to save. Someone who is spending too high a proportion of their income on private rents and on deposits for landlords every year because they have no security of tenure does not have the ability to save. The Bill does nothing about the private rented sector; it reduces the supply of genuinely affordable homes and, in doing so, it denies the aspiration of an entire generation to have an affordable, secure home and, ultimately, to own a home of their own. That is an ideological position, and it will deepen the housing crisis and be the shame of this Government.
Immigration Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-09
Topic: Other
Natascha Engel (Labour, Centre-left): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Lords amendment 84, and Government amendment (a) in lieu Government motion not to insist on amendment 85B in lieu of Lords amendment 85 and to agree to Lords amendment 85C as amended by Government amendments (a) to (f) Government motion to agree to Lords amendment 87B in lieu of Lords amendment 87 and Government amendments (a) and (b) Commons amendments 84A and 85B, Government motion not to insist, and amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 84.
Immigration Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-09
Topic: Immigration
Keith Anthony Vaz (Labour, Centre-left): I warmly welcome what the Minister has said today. The Government have moved a considerable way as a result of what has happened in the other place It is so important that we do not send a message out to people traffickers that the floodgates will be open for them to profit more from what is being achieved. It is also important that we give local authorities the resources they need. They are already under huge pressure to house refugees, and it is important that we work with them. The Minister has done the right thing and I welcome it.
Immigration Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-09
Topic: Immigration
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): Let me start by discussing unaccompanied refugee children in Europe and reminding the House that two weeks ago the Government voted against Lord Alf Dubs original amendment here in this House. Last week, they voted against this amendment in the other place. Obviously, I welcome the change of position, but it is just that. Whether voting against an amendment last week and accepting it this week is listening, as the Government would have it, or U-turning, as I would have it, is a matter for debate, but clearly there is a changed position.
Immigration Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-09
Topic: Immigration
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful for that intervention. The fact remains that only last week the Government voted against the Lord Alf Dubs amendment, as it was then put in the other place, which was a change from the position the last time we saw it in this House. I welcome this change of position, which is a step in the right direction, but I wish to pay tribute to those who have got us this far. I pay particular tribute to Lord Alf Dubs and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who has raised this matter on so many occasions, both in this House and elsewhere. I also thank Save the Children and the other charities and non-governmental organisations that have given their support. I pay tribute to those on the Conservative Benches who have urged the Government to reconsider their position. They have done so over several weeks and months and played an important part in getting us to where we are today It is important that actions match words. Citizens UK has identified 157 children in Calais with family connections here. Obviously, there are many children in equally appalling conditions in Greece and Italy. Although the Minister does not want to put numbers and a timetable to the proposed change to the resettlement scheme, the challenge for the Government is surely to take all those in Calais with valid legal claims for reunification notwithstanding the fact that they are in France—
Immigration Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-09
Topic: Immigration
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): Reunification with their family here under the Dublin arrangements. The Minister has made it clear on a number of occasions that he is seeking to improve the reunification rules under the Dublin arrangements. Some 157 children have been identified as falling into that category. This is the time for action, not words. We also challenge the Government to take 300 children most at risk in Greece and Italy before the start of the next school term. There is an urgency to this situation. The debate two weeks ago was dominated by a real and genuine concern about the missing children—those who are at risk of exploitation, trafficking and various other aspects of mischief. That is the challenge. I ask the Minister to say a little more to the House about the numbers and the timetable.
Immigration Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-09
Topic: Immigration
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): I agree that if children are to come to this country under the proposal put forward in this amendment, it must be done properly with the relevant local authorities receiving full support I also supported the amendment that sought to enable movement and help to pass from one local authority to another. Kent, in particular, has provided a lot of support. Although there has been voluntary support from other local authorities, the amendment proposed by the Government during the passage of the Bill put in place a provision to allow that to be more meaningful and effective, and I supported that for the very reasons that have been mentioned in this House I want to move on to immigration detention, because there are two substantive issues still before—
Immigration Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-09
Topic: Immigration
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): On immigration detention? I have barely started. I really think that I should press on, as we have limited time On immigration detention, the Stephen Shaw report made it clear that there is now near universal acceptance that detention makes people more vulnerable, and disquiet has been growing. Lords amendment 84 tackles that issue head on, by sensibly providing a 28-day period of immigration detention after which the Secretary of State can apply to extend detention in exceptional circumstances. That amendment strikes the right balance and reflects both the cross-party reports by the all-party groups on refugees and on migration and long-standing Labour party policy. It also had cross-party support in the Lords. Amendment 84A in lieu provides for four months of immigration detention, with an ability to apply for bail at the end of that exercise. That is markedly different: it is four months rather than 28 days; it puts the onus on the individual rather than on the Secretary of State; and it is subject to a different test. It does not go far enough, which is why we will vote in favour of the Lords amendment this evening Let me move on to the position of pregnant women. I remind the House of an important finding of Stephen Shaw’s report. As he put it, it is "obvious" that detention has harmful effects on both the mother and the unborn child. The Royal College of Midwives, in its evidence to him for his report, pointed to the special vulnerabilities of pregnant women and made it clear that appropriate care cannot be given in detention. Add to that the fact that until now, the vast majority of pregnant women have not been removed, and one can see why he concluded that the current policy was not working. He rightly concluded that the only move should be to absolute prohibition. That has been the Labour party position consistently, and that is why we voted as we did on 25 April.
Immigration Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-09
Topic: Civil Rights
Stella Judith Creasy (Labour, Centre-left): Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that we should move to not detaining vulnerable people at all? It is expensive and immoral. In this amendment, we see some movement on that, because after all, we consider pregnant women to be vulnerable, but given that two thirds of the women in places such as Yarl’s Wood are victims of sexual violence in conflict, we really should not detain any of them at all.
Immigration Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-09
Topic: Immigration
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful for that intervention. On vulnerable individuals as described, I agree. I state again that our position, particularly in relation to pregnant women, is that they should not be in immigration detention at all. However, this is a move in the right direction by the Government, and the limit proposed is better than no limit at all Unfortunately, the amendment in lieu undoes a lot of the good work, because it seeks to remove the overriding principle that there should be detention only in the most exceptional circumstances, and seems to remove the provision relating to medical facilities. For those reasons, we will not support the amendment in lieu, but will support the Lords amendment.