argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
DHSC Answers to Written Questions — House of Commons, 2020-11-19
Topic: Government Operations
Justin Piers Richard Madders (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Minister for his response and for the hard work he and his Department put in. However, as he acknowledges, the performance here, like in so many other areas, is just not good enough. We know it is tough, but there comes a point when it begins to look like departmental scrutiny is being used as a cover for evading giving answers. This morning, I looked at the Department’s response times to my own written questions over the past six months. I have had to wait over one month for an answer 29 times, over two months 11 times and over three months four times. I was actually thinking of putting in a question asking for the average response times to questions, but then I thought I would just be waiting a long time for that answer as well. I have even had to wait five months for the answer to what I thought was a pretty simple question asking what tests for covid-19 had been used. One hundred and sixty-eight days later, I received the utterly unrevealing answer: "A large number of different tests have been used throughout the programme." I was lucky; my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) waited 18 weeks for an answer to a question on tests, only to be told: "The information is not held in the format requested." Why did it take so long just to say that? Do Ministers even read the answers that they sign off This is not just about the time; the quality of the answers that we get back also needs improving. On dozens of occasions, I have been told that the Department does not hold the data, or no real attempt is made to answer the question that was asked. I accept that sometimes that information may not be easily acquired, but too often it looks as though the Department wants to keep us in the dark. I remind the House that the ministerial code requires Ministers to be "as open as possible with Parliament", even when that may be inconvenient to them. In the spirit of openness, will the Minister also look at restarting NHS England and NHS Digital publications In conclusion, we all understand that the Department is dealing with many pressing issues, but scrutiny is important. Accountability matters, and if the pandemic is used too often as an excuse for standards to slip, that is how we go from questions not being answered to major policy changes being announced by media leaks, until we end up with the shameful spectacle of spivs and cronies pocketing millions from PPE contracts. Government must do better.
Integrated Review — House of Commons, 2020-11-19
Topic: International Affairs
Sarah Deborah Champion (Labour, Centre-left): I really welcome this commitment to our armed forces. The Prime Minister spoke in his statement about defending our people and keeping the world safe, which I would argue are development objectives, thinking specifically about climate change, food security, creating stable Governments and investing to end violence against women and girls. How will he ensure that development remains front and centre of the UK’s new international policy following the integrated review? Will he please quash rumours and confirm his manifesto commitment to the 0.7% both now and going forwards?
Integrated Review — House of Commons, 2020-11-19
Topic: International Affairs
Daniel Owen Jarvis (Labour, Centre-left): I welcome the commitment to additional future funding, but we should not forget that British boots are on the ground in Afghanistan today. A consequence of President Trump’s threat to reduce troop numbers would be that the UK needed to play a greater role in building peace, security and resilience. So does the UK stand ready to meet that challenge and ensure that the people of Afghanistan are afforded the opportunity of a more peaceful and prosperous future?
Integrated Review — House of Commons, 2020-11-19
Topic: International Affairs
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Labour, Centre-left): In the mid-‘90s, the UK was one of the largest contributors to UN peacekeeping missions in terms of troops and personnel. Now we have only 600 personnel worldwide whom we contribute. Will this budget turn that around and take us back to our proud tradition of peacekeeping troops, and will the Prime Minister commit to ensuring that the 0.7% is not devalued at all in this wider review?
Integrated Review — House of Commons, 2020-11-19
Topic: International Affairs
Navendu Prabhat Mishra (Labour, Centre-left): Britain is the penholder for Yemen at the UN Security Council, with the responsibility to support the peace process and a real opportunity to show global Britain at its best, but will the Prime Minister tell us why his Government have resumed indefensible arms sales to Saudi Arabia, which has credibly been accused of human rights violations that may amount to war crimes?
Integrated Review — House of Commons, 2020-11-19
Topic: International Affairs
Mary Kelly Foy (Labour, Centre-left): In June this year, the Prime Minister abolished the Department for International Development, telling me and the House that there had been "massive consultation over a long period"—[Official Report, 16 June 2020; Vol. 677, c. 678]— with aid organisations prior to making the decision. Since then, around 200 aid organisations and his own Secretary of State have contradicted that. Can the Prime Minister provide evidence that this consultation took place prior to making the decision, or will he finally apologise for misleading the House?
Integrated Review — House of Commons, 2020-11-19
Topic: International Affairs
Ruth Lorraine Jones (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. Like many people throughout Newport West, I welcome the election of Joe Biden as President of the United States and Kamala Harris as the first woman Vice-President. Will the Prime Minister tell us how he explained, in his first phone call with President-elect Biden, the actions of his Government’s undermining of the Good Friday agreement?
Virtual Participation in Debate — House of Commons, 2020-11-19
Topic: Government Operations
Harriet Ruth Harman (Labour, Centre-left): May I thank the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) for her statement and say that I agreed with absolutely every single word of it? I commend her and her Committee for this report, which is based on the principle that, despite this awful pandemic, all Members should be able to participate in our debates, whether in person or remotely, and I strongly support that principle. I agree with her that it is the role of the Leader of the House to support MPs to do their job and to speak in debates and that it is not for him to set up exclusions Is the right hon. Lady aware that the number of MPs who are exercising proxy votes and therefore excluded from debates is 62%? That means that 62% of us are not able to speak in our debates; that cannot be right. Is she also aware that the figure for Scottish Members of Parliament is 78%? Imagine having a situation during this pandemic where 78% of Scottish MPs are excluded from debates. We want and need to hear from them and from our colleagues in Wales and from the regions outside Westminster as well. We do not want a situation where half of the Chairs of Select Committees are not able to speak in debates, even those debates that are on the subject on which they have done inquiries and reports We might be essential workers, but we can work remotely. I strongly back the amendment of the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) to the motion of the Leader of the House. I urge the right hon. Lady to back that amendment—I am sure that she will—and to urge all other Members to do the same, so that we can override the Leader of the House and ensure that all Members are able to speak in debates on equal terms at this crucial time.
Virtual Participation in Debate — House of Commons, 2020-11-19
Topic: Government Operations
Christopher Philip James Elmore (Labour, Centre-left): I pay tribute to the right hon. Lady for the leadership that she has shown since taking over the chairmanship of the Committee. It must feel like a decade ago, but it has not even been a year. She has shown enormous leadership in ensuring that the reports have all been on a cross-party basis. As a member of the Procedure Committee for the last four years, I think that we have covered more ground in nine months than we did in two whole previous Parliaments Let me take her to paragraph 33 on page 11 of the report, where we talk about the issues of hybrid procedures and a mixed debating system. We state in that paragraph that the Clerk of the House has confirmed that we have made significant progress in relation to the availability of the Chamber to be fully hybrid for all debates, but that the Standing Orders for this have not been progressed because there has been no request from the House to do so. To me, this confirms that the House is ready and there is enough capacity. As I said on Monday, it is disappointing that the Leader of the House has suggested that he has now requested the capacity be improved when the Clerk argues that the capacity is there. Does the right hon. Lady agree that if the Standing Orders could be changed to allow for full participation, another Standing Order could be changed to say that those taking part in the hybrid proceedings on the screens could not do things such as intervene, but that, as was so eloquently put last week, that is a small price to pay for allowing Members to take part in all debates, including on Armistice services, when Members were excluded from what should have been truly cross-House debate that brought the House together and showed it at its best?
Virtual Participation in Debate — House of Commons, 2020-11-19
Topic: Government Operations
Valerie Carol Marian Vaz (Labour, Centre-left): I place on record my thanks to the Chair of the Procedure Committee and all its members, who have been absolutely assiduous in their work. With so many reports, the workload has been incredible, and the Committee has informed a very important debate I also place on record my thanks to the Broadcasting Unit, which has been absolutely superb. As has been said, we are world leaders in a virtual Parliament, and people are looking at how we do our work. In paragraph 28 of this excellent report, Matthew Hamlyn, the strategic director for the Chamber Business Team, confirms that the resilience of the broadcasting hub has been substantially improved. At paragraph 33, the Clerk of the House confirms that the infrastructure necessary to support mixed physical and virtual contributions is ready to roll. At paragraph 58, the important point is made about hon. Members’ eligibility. We are all equal, and we all have to play our part in democracy There is a mention of Mr Speaker reporting by 14 December. There is such important legislation coming through at the beginning of December, not least because it is the most dramatic time for the United Kingdom, as we leave the EU. Important pieces of legislation need to be put through Parliament, and our colleagues will not be able to take part. Is there any way that the Chair of the Procedure Committee can look at that? We stand ready to work with her and with the Leader of the House to ensure that these measures are put in place so that all colleagues can take part in those debates.
Online Harms — House of Commons, 2020-11-19
Topic: Law and Crime
Stephen Creswell Timms (Labour, Centre-left): I want to raise just two points: first, the current epidemic of online frauds; and, secondly, the online sale of the illegal weapons used on our streets in gang violence First, the Pension Scams Industry Group has told the current Work and Pensions Committee inquiry that 40,000 people have suffered the devastation of being scammed out of their pension in five years. Much of that is online. Mark Taber told us he has reported to the Financial Conduct Authority this year 380 scam adverts on Google. It is a crime, but after weeks or months the FCA just issues a warning. The Transparency Task Force told us of "high-profile, known crooks…running rings around the regulators", and-: "Paid keyword search is a highly efficient means for pensions & savings scammers to target their victims." Another witness told us that there is "a big increase in social media scams" Which? said that "we need to look at what sort of responsibilities should be given to those online platforms to protect their users from scams." A director at Aviva told us that it "had to take down 27 fake domains linked to our brand... It is very difficult and it takes a very long time to engage the web domain providers to get it down." He called big technology companies "key enablers of fraud", and he made a call "to extend the Online Harms Bill to include the advertising of fraudulent investments" I think that should be done, and I want to ask the Minister if it will be in the legislation Secondly, the Criminal Justice Act 1988 bans the sale and import of a list of weapons: disguised knives, butterfly knives, flick knives, gravity knives, stealth knives, zombie knives, sword sticks, push daggers, blowpipes, telescopic truncheons and batons. But all of them are available online for delivery in the post. That is how most weapons used on the streets in London are obtained. As we debated in the Offensive Weapons Bill Committee in 2018, companies should not sell in the UK products that it is illegal to purchase here The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), said in Committee that the Home Office was working with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on these online harms, and looking at "what more we can do to ensure…companies act responsibly and do not facilitate sales of ‘articles with a blade or point’ or ‘corrosive products’ in their platforms."––[Official Report, Offensive Weapons Public Bill Committee, 11 September 2018; c. 280.] What I want to ask the Minister is: will that promise be fulfilled in the coming legislation?
Covid-19: Women Leaving the Workforce — House of Commons, 2020-10-21
Topic: Labor
Eleanor Claire Reeves (Labour, Centre-left): Working mums have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic, with a recent report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies finding that they are more likely to quit or lose their jobs and typically perform a larger share of childcare and household duties than men. One of my constituents spent lockdown home schooling her two children as well as caring for her elderly shielding mother. Excluded from most of the financial support packages, she now faces winding up the company she set up. I have heard what the Minister had to say, but it does not go far enough. What additional urgent measures will he take to ensure that progress in female employment is not set back by decades?
Covid-19: Women Leaving the Workforce — House of Commons, 2020-10-21
Topic: Social Welfare
Christopher Philip James Elmore (Labour, Centre-left): The Women’s Budget Group last week highlighted that working-class women specifically face the biggest cuts to working hours since the beginning of the pandemic, with 43% reporting having had their hours cut to zero since April. Could the Minister set out what specific support he is putting in place to stop these women falling into poverty, because clearly it cannot be right that working-class women are so adversely affected by the pandemic?
Covid-19: Women Leaving the Workforce — House of Commons, 2020-10-21
Topic: Labor
Janet Jessica Daby (Labour, Centre-left): The Work Foundation has reported that 58% of workers in the retail sector are women and these are some of our lowest-paid workers, but due to most of them working on part-time or temporary contracts, hundreds of thousands of women working in retail will not even be eligible for redundancy pay. What plans does the Minister have in mind to mitigate the likelihood of disproportionate numbers of women being made redundant with no financial support available to them?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2020-10-21
Topic: Macroeconomics
Catherine Elizabeth West (Labour, Centre-left): I associate myself with those kind remarks on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) My constituents are reeling from the 9% contraction of the economy since March this year. Unemployment has sky-rocketed and joblessness in Haringey is the highest in the capital. Unfortunately, we are at the same time facing the idea that there could be a congestion tax forced on an extra 4 million Londoners by this Government. These Londoners are already facing the double whammy of covid and financial ruin. Will the Prime Minister please immediately stop the imposition of this dreadful plan? I look forward to his answer.
Engagements — House of Commons, 2020-10-21
Topic: Government Operations
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Prime Minister for his remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) Prime Minister, how does an area which goes into tier 3 restrictions get out of those restrictions?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2020-10-21
Topic: Social Welfare
Rupa Asha Huq (Labour, Centre-left): Financial support packages, tackling homelessness, rail nationalisation and honouring Marcus Rashford—there is plenty that this Government have done on covid that I applaud, but with winter set to bite and no end to the virus in sight, may I ask the Prime Minister to reconsider the arbitrary end to many of his schemes, which were set months ago when we knew so little? Three million self-employed people were completely left out of all of these measures, a number of whom are now set to face destitution when the minimum income floor ends next month. Furthermore, school dinners for 3,272 kids in his own seat and 2,016 in mine are in the balance. Can he start by voting with us tonight and make sure that that gong does not mean nothing?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2020-10-21
Topic: Transportation
Janet Jessica Daby (Labour, Centre-left): Can the Prime Minister confirm that his Government are seeking to force the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, to remove free travel for under-18s and for holders of the 60-plus travel card in return for further financial support for TfL to keep the tubes and buses running? How can this be right when many people in London, including in my constituency, already have months of genuine hardship ahead of them?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2020-10-21
Topic: Macroeconomics
Sarah Mei Li Owen (Labour, Centre-left): Three weeks ago the Prime Minister stood at that Dispatch Box praising Luton as the only place to have come out of local restrictions, but praise does not pay the bills. Luton’s proud industries of manufacturing, aviation and events cannot get by on soundbites and figures that bear no relation to what is really happening to jobs and businesses. He knows that entire industries are at stake, so is his inaction indifference or incompetence? Will he support businesses and areas that need it throughout this crisis?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2020-10-21
Topic: Education
George Edward Howarth (Labour, Centre-left): May I return to the subject of free school meals? There are 7,108 children in Knowsley who are reliant on free school meals, which are vital to ensure that they are properly fed. Whether to extend provision to Easter is both a moral and political choice. Will the Prime Minister make the right choice and agree to extend free school meals to Easter?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2020-10-21
Topic: Labor
Helen Elizabeth Hayes (Labour, Centre-left): The Chancellor has decided that people who are unable to work because of coronavirus restrictions should be paid as little as two thirds of the national minimum wage. At the same time, the Government are paying £7,000 a day for consultants to work on the failed Serco track and trace programme. Can the Prime Minister tell the House how on earth he thinks that is justifiable, and is this what he means by "levelling up"?
Covid-19 Restrictions: South Yorkshire — House of Commons, 2020-10-21
Topic: Social Welfare
Olivia Frances Blake Dagnall (Labour, Centre-left): Although I am horrified that we are at this position, I completely understand the need for the introduction of these measures; I hope that everyone in South Yorkshire will follow them constructively. However, we need a level of support across the country to ensure that these local measures work. Although I am pleased that we have had constructive conversations throughout this period, I am still concerned that too many people will be left behind I have already heard from one employer about their employees falling through the cracks of the support scheme. They are unable to access funding for childcare on the basis of this as well. The lowest paid also use universal credit as an in-work benefit. Will the Minister agree, accept and make representations to the Treasury that perhaps 80% of an income topped up by universal credit is not enough in these scenarios?
Covid-19 Restrictions: South Yorkshire — House of Commons, 2020-10-21
Topic: Macroeconomics
Paul Christopher Blomfield (Labour, Centre-left): Clearly we have to take the measures necessary to combat the virus, and we have tried to work together on them across South Yorkshire, but the Minister knows that this deal does not meet all the concerns of local leaders, nor does it provide the support that businesses need. The ban on household mixing is clearly necessary, but it makes many cafés, restaurants and pubs with food unviable. It impacts on the music, events and creative sectors, but because they are not being required to close, they will not get the support they need. They are simply being hung out to dry. Will the Government think again and provide the support that those businesses need, to save thousands of jobs across South Yorkshire?
Additional Covid-19 Restrictions: Fair Economic Support — House of Commons, 2020-10-21
Topic: Macroeconomics
Angela Rayner (Labour, Centre-left): As the hon. Member has turned up today, I hope he will do the right thing and support people with an economic package so that they can do the right thing and we can save people’s lives across Greater Manchester and the whole of this country. I hope he will do the right thing and support us in the Lobby tonight The Government have not given us the chance to have our say, so today we are giving the House the chance to do so. Our motion calls for the Government to bring forward fair national criteria for financial support in areas facing additional restrictions, and it provides for Members to have a vote on the criteria.
Additional Covid-19 Restrictions: Fair Economic Support — House of Commons, 2020-10-21
Topic: Macroeconomics
Angela Rayner (Labour, Centre-left): I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Over the past 24 hours, the people of Greater Manchester, regardless of their political persuasions or colours, have been absolutely dismayed by the way in which our democratically elected Mayor has been treated, but this is about the treatment not just of our Mayor but of the people of Greater Manchester. This is not some spiteful little game; this is about people’s lives, people’s loved ones and people’s jobs. They have spent years building up our economy in Greater Manchester. This Government choosing the path that they have chosen has done one thing for Greater Manchester: it has completely brought us together in saying that this Government and Prime Minister must do the right thing by the whole of our nation and support everywhere, not pick us off one by one.