argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Ballymurphy Inquest Findings — House of Commons, 2021-05-13
Topic: Mixed Topics
Rachael Helen Maskell (Labour, Centre-left): The Prime Minister’s predecessor came to this House to report on the findings of the Bloody Sunday inquiry. His presence helped build reconciliation. Families in Ballymurphy have served a half-century sentence waiting for justice. It should therefore have been the Prime Minister addressing Parliament today. Peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland can never be taken for granted. It has to be won, and that starts by showing a commitment to finding truth and justice, so does the Secretary of State agree that, from this point, it must be the families of this injustice in Ballymurphy who are put first, and that the Government must listen to them as to how reparation processes have to change to expedite justice?
A Brighter Future for the Next Generation — House of Commons, 2021-05-13
Topic: Housing
Katherine Anne Green (Labour, Centre-left): Will the Secretary of State look again at placing a ceiling of the age of 16 on the requirement not to place young people in unregulated accommodation? I am sure he will agree that there are very many vulnerable 17, 18 and 19-year-olds for whom that would also be an important measure.
A Brighter Future for the Next Generation — House of Commons, 2021-05-13
Topic: Civil Rights
Katherine Anne Green (Labour, Centre-left): Antisemitism is intolerable in my party, and in any organisation and any part of this country, but I am very sorry to tell the Secretary of State that the legislation does appear to offer protection, potentially, to antisemites and holocaust deniers; and the Universities Minister yesterday was not able to gainsay that.
A Brighter Future for the Next Generation — House of Commons, 2021-05-13
Topic: Civil Rights
Charlotte Louise Nichols (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend will be aware, having listened to the interview on Radio 4 yesterday, that the Universities Minister was explicitly asked whether this legislation would cover holocaust denial and she explicitly said that it would. This is appalling. There is no academic merit whatever in debate, distortion or denial of the holocaust. I hope my hon. Friend will agree that the Secretary of State should correct the record, because what he said just then has misled the House.
A Brighter Future for the Next Generation — House of Commons, 2021-05-13
Topic: Civil Rights
Katherine Anne Green (Labour, Centre-left): Let me read a transcript of the broadcast yesterday. The Universities Minister says: "What this bill is designed to do is to protect and promote free speech which is lawful so any free speech which is lawful" The interviewer, Evan Davis, says: "It is lawful isn’t it? Holocaust denial in this country is lawful isn’t it?" The Minister says: "So what I’m saying, yeah, so that’s" Evan Davis asks: "So holocaust denial is okay, you’d defend a holocaust denier being invited to campus because that is part of the free speech argument?" The Minister responds: "Obviously it would depend on exactly what they were saying" Madam Deputy Speaker, it never depends on what a holocaust denier is saying.
A Brighter Future for the Next Generation — House of Commons, 2021-05-13
Topic: Other
Rosalie Winterton (Labour, Centre-left): I am now going to put a six-minute time limit on Back-Bench contributions, which will be on the screens and on the clock in the Chamber. We now go to the Chair of the Education Committee, Robert Halfon.
A Brighter Future for the Next Generation — House of Commons, 2021-05-13
Topic: Civil Rights
Charlotte Louise Nichols (Labour, Centre-left): I agree with the right hon. Member on some level about the need to protect our nation’s history. If he is so concerned about ensuring that the nation’s history is protected, will he condemn the comments made by the Minister for Universities on Radio 4 yesterday about holocaust deniers and people who wish to debate the facts of the holocaust being protected under the new free speech in universities legislation that his Government are bringing forward?
A Brighter Future for the Next Generation — House of Commons, 2021-05-13
Topic: Civil Rights
Catherine Jane Smith (Labour, Centre-left): We are discussing the importance of voting and democracy in a debate about the bright future for the next generations. Given that 16 and 17-year-olds have the right to vote in Scotland and Wales, how does the Minister defend the status quo in England, where 16 and 17-year-olds are not given equal voting rights to their Scottish and Welsh counterparts?
Climate Change — House of Commons, 2021-07-20
Topic: Mixed Topics
Sarah Deborah Champion (Labour, Centre-left): It is clear that low and middle-income countries are disproportionately affected by the impacts of climate change. Wealthier countries, including the UK, have so far failed to commit to the agreed £100 billion climate finance promise made in Paris to address this. Evidence submitted to my International Development Committee inquiry suggests that only 10% to 15% of the current climate finance available actually reaches the local communities that bear the brunt of this emergency. What steps are the Government taking to secure the £100 billion before COP26 and what is the Minister doing to ensure that local communities in the areas worst affected by climate change are consulted, including in designing programmes, and can actually access the climate financing themselves?
Israel and Palestine — House of Commons, 2021-07-20
Topic: Housing
Andrew Francis Slaughter (Labour, Centre-left): Given that the Minister has just said that his Department’s policy is not to encourage or support economic and financial activity in settlements, will he at least say that, where public bodies decide that they do not wish to invest in settlements, following his Government’s advice, he will not stand in their way in doing so?
Cyber-attack: Microsoft — House of Commons, 2021-07-20
Topic: Mixed Topics
Ruth Lorraine Jones (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this urgent question. He highlighted the recent indirect acquisition by a Chinese firm of Newport Wafer Fab in my constituency. This appears to have slipped through the UK Government’s screening system. My focus and commitment to the people of Newport West is on protecting jobs for people in my community. Does the Minister think that this situation shows that the Government’s security policies simply are not working?
Cyber-attack: Microsoft — House of Commons, 2021-07-20
Topic: Other
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): Let me just say to all Members who have participated that my call list says that some were to be virtual and some physical, but nobody seems to be what I am being told on this list. A lot of effort goes into creating it—a lot of staff time—and staff need to know where Members are. If you intend to be physical, please let us know very early, and if you are going to go virtual, please also let us know. Do not let me have to start spotting who is here around the Chamber and who is not.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Commons, 2021-07-20
Topic: Immigration
Olivia Frances Blake Dagnall (Labour, Centre-left): I am proud to represent Sheffield, Hallam. Sheffield was the first place to call itself a city of sanctuary, and I pay tribute to all the great organisations, such as City of Sanctuary Sheffield, the South Yorkshire Migration and Asylum Action Group, ASSIST Sheffield and many more, that do such good work in my city—my home—to make it as welcoming a place as possible to people fleeing war, persecution and violence It is in that spirit of humanity, compassion and genuine internationalism that I completely reject the divisiveness written into nearly every clause and line of this Bill. The Bill is divisive—in the way it pits so-called group 1, or "good" asylum seekers against so-called group 2, or "bad" asylum seekers; in the way that it stacks our legal system against some of the most vulnerable people coming to the UK; and in the way that it criminalises altruism and basic acts of compassion Every line of the Bill strains to break the human bonds that hold us all together. It is an affront to the spirit of the 1951 refugee convention. The convention clearly states that refugees "shall enjoy fundamental rights and freedoms without discrimination," yet discrimination seems to be at the heart of the Bill The Government know that there are no visa or pre-entry clearances for someone wishing to claim asylum—there is no such thing as an "illegal asylum seeker"—but the most vulnerable asylum seekers are those who rely on illegal methods to get into the country. The distinction between group 1 and group 2 asylum seekers is a completely bogus differentiation which will introduce more legal hurdles for some of the most traumatised and brutalised people on our planet. It is also chilling that there are no restrictions to prevent the Home Secretary from treating group 2 asylum seekers differently. Those people are already under huge amounts of pressure to provide evidence of their cases, often when they have had to leave their homes behind very quickly. There are massive barriers to their submitting coherent evidence on arrival in the UK. The proposal for decision makers to doubt applications on the basis of late evidence is a wilful misunderstanding of the challenges, the horrors and the deep trauma that asylum applicants have faced to be here, as well as the lack of legal advice One of the most appalling aspects of the Bill is the criminalisation of anyone who helps someone seeking asylum to enter the country. What does that mean in practice? For example, how is it compatible with the duty of a ship to attempt to rescue people who are in danger at sea This Bill is discriminatory, a violation of our international treaty obligations, inhumane, spiteful, and badly thought through. I suspect that it is more about appealing to a subset of ugly populist opinion than about addressing the real problems in the system, such as the lack of safe and legal routes into the UK to claim asylum. Today I will be upholding the best traditions of my constituency, and voting firmly against it.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Commons, 2021-07-20
Topic: Immigration
Michael Whitley (Labour, Centre-left): I welcome the opportunity to speak in a debate that has enormous implications for so many of my constituents July marks the 70th anniversary of the signing of the refugee convention. Born out of the turmoil and devastation of the second world war, that landmark treaty enshrined the rights of those fleeing persecution and conflict. This anniversary provided the Government with the perfect opportunity to commit themselves to the principle that the UK should provide sanctuary to those who have been forced to flee their homes. Instead, we have abandoned the key principles of the convention, retreating even further from our long-standing moral commitments The Home Secretary claims that this Bill will fix a "broken system", but it was this Government who broke the system in the first place, and nothing in this Bill will clear up the mess they have made. Last year, the number of people waiting more than a year for the initial decision on their asylum claim was 33,000—a tenfold increase since 2010. A staggering 250 people have been waiting for more than five years, including 55 children. The impact on those caught up in this shocking backlog, including many of my constituents, is devastating. Their lives are left in limbo: they unable to work and they are plagued every day by the uncertainty of whether they will be granted leave to remain in the country they call home. Enver Solomon, the CEO of the Refugee Council, has said: "Leaving vulnerable men, women and children waiting for years on end for news of their fate…is cruel and unjust. It is an incredibly inefficient, ineffective and unfair way to operate a refugee protection system." Yet this Bill contains no measures to address these delays or provide justice for those who have been waiting for it for so long The Home Secretary has also told the House that these proposals "will increase the fairness of our system."—[Official Report, 19 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 705.] Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the Bill risks creating a deeply discriminatory two-tier system based on how people have reached the UK. Those who come via a third-party country or who lack documents will be unfairly penalised regarding the strength of their claim. The UNHCR has condemned these plans as a "recipe for human suffering", and it is absolutely right. The Bill will make life infinitely harder for those who have been forced to flee their homes. Instead of providing refugees with the support and kindness they so desperately need, the Government seem intent on treating them like criminals. Victims of human trafficking will lose vital protections and struggle to access much-needed support. Meanwhile, young people and children will be forced into the hands of despicable people traffickers because of the Government’s failure to establish safe and legal alternative routes.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Commons, 2021-07-20
Topic: Immigration
Katharine Helen Brooks-Osborne (Labour, Centre-left): Thank you for calling me to speak in this debate today, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to focus my contribution on the impact of detention on women. In 2016, the Government committed to reduce their use of detention. While the number of women in detention has fallen since then, the measures in the Bill will likely lead to an increase Research by Women for Refugee Women shows that many of those detained in immigration centres are survivors of torture, rape or trafficking, and locking them up severely impacts their mental health. In March this year, there were just 25 women detained in the UK. These are historically low numbers, yet the Home Office is to open a new detention centre for women at the Hassockfield site in County Durham in the north-east later this year. If the Home Office is committed tousb detention reduction, why the increase in detention capacity Then we dig into the detail of this Bill, and it becomes clear that measures are being put in place that will increase women’s detention. For example, clause 10 create two tiers of refugee. People claiming asylum will be recognised as a group 1 refugee if "they have come to the United Kingdom directly from…where their life or freedom was threatened…and…they have presented themselves without delay to the authorities." Those designated as group 2 refugees will have more limited protections upon grant of status, including being given shorter periods of leave to remain. However, because many women often do not realise that their experiences of gendered violence make them eligible for asylum, they do not apply straightaway. This will mean that many women will be wrongly placed in group 2 and therefore liable for detention Furthermore, clauses 46 and 47 go against the Home Office’s own guidance on penalising individuals for not disclosing details of their exploitation. Such guidance is in place to recognise that trafficking victims may take time to disclose what has happened to them. The move to penalise individuals for not disclosing, will mean that fewer women are recognised as victims of trafficking. That means that they will become liable for detention or, if already detained, that they will not be released In addition, clause 48 raises the threshold for being recognised as a potential victim of trafficking through a "reasonable grounds decision" for the national referral mechanism. It means that a positive decision will now be made when there are "reasonable grounds" to believe that the individual "is", rather than "may be", a victim of slavery or human trafficking. Like clauses 46 and 47, it also makes it more difficult for women to be recognised as victims of trafficking, which again means that more women will be liable for detention. Overall the Bill signifies the Government’s attitude towards the safety and rights of vulnerable women who have fled abuse and violence. It disproportionately affects vulnerable women, and criminalises them. I reject this hostile environment, and I ask other Members to do the same by voting against the Bill.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Commons, 2021-07-20
Topic: Immigration
Richard Burgon (Labour, Centre-left): It is a great pleasure to welcome as Deputy Speaker one of my former neighbours from Cross Gates in my constituency of Leeds East. It is good to see you in the Speaker’s Chair. What it is not good to see, however, is this vile Bill I have been a Member of Parliament for six years, and in that time I have seen some vile legislation—legislation that punches down and attacks the poorest and most vulnerable, from the bedroom tax to the slashing and denying of benefits for disabled people, and welfare caps that force children into destitution—but this dreadful Bill is up there with the worst of it I find the Bill stomach churning. I cannot help but feel sick reading it, reading the Government’s plans and reading what they want to do to vulnerable people, including children fleeing war, rape and torture. The Bill will criminalise people seeking asylum simply because of how they get here. That is not only immoral; it is in breach of international law, although that is not all. The legislation—this rotten, sick legislation—opens the door to offshore detention centres. What kind of dystopian society do the Government want to create? They want offshore detention centres where, hidden from public view, people seeking asylum can be subjected to the mistreatment the Government are already known for, without any accountability.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Commons, 2021-07-20
Topic: Other
Charalambos Charalambous (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Member misunderstands me. It is the process of the Bill getting here that has been rushed, not the debate we have had today There is also no impact assessment accompanying the Bill. We have no idea how much it will cost or what the overall impact will be.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Commons, 2021-07-20
Topic: Immigration
Charalambos Charalambous (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Member is running roughshod over international law. I would be interested to see which third countries would be interested in taking people. If there were such third countries, I am sure the Minister would have introduced them today Many colleagues have spoken about the broken asylum system, but let us be clear about who broke it. The Government have had 11 years to fix the system but there is nothing in the Bill about how they will fix the current scandalous state of affairs. I know many hon. Members who have constituents who have been waiting for a decision about their asylum status. I have had one case where a constituent from Afghanistan had to wait seven years for his claim to be processed. It took my direct intervention with a Minister for his claim to be determined. It should not take the direct intervention of MPs for the system to snap into action. With fewer claims being made—yesterday the Home Secretary mistakenly said that claims have gone up when in fact they have gone down—it should not be taking longer to process applications. If the asylum system was operating as a business, it would be going bust by now.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Commons, 2021-07-20
Topic: Immigration
Charalambos Charalambous (Labour, Centre-left): I invite the right hon. Member to read the refugee convention and he will find there what the actual law is. On the basis of his logic, we would only be taking asylum claimants from France, Ireland and Belgium Looking at the detail of the Bill, many hon. Members have quite rightly highlighted the odious clause 12, which creates a two-tier system for refugees based on how someone arrives in the country and their mode of transport, not on the strength of their claim. As my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) put it, it is "judging them on how they arrived, not what they have left."—[Official Report, 19 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 757.] Once again, sentence first, verdict later.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Commons, 2021-07-20
Topic: Immigration
Charalambos Charalambous (Labour, Centre-left): Criminalising people who have come to this country irrespective of what they have left behind makes them criminals. What law have they broken when they are seeking refuge here What we have seen playing out in the channel crossings over the past few days occurred because the Government have closed down all safe routes for refugees to travel to the UK for protection. People are being driven to make dangerous journeys because they are out of options. To this callous Government, it is all a game—pure theatre. The Tories use all migrants, an ever-easy target, as a distraction from their own institutional failings and the gross inequality that falls upon their citizens The Bill does nothing to propose refugee resettlement or family reunion routes and will only put more pressure on Britain’s broken asylum system. About 10% of arrivals are expected to be unaccompanied children. The Government should be properly addressing the issue of safe routes for claiming asylum and helping unaccompanied children. Penalising refugees is a clear breach of article 31 of the refugee convention, but even more disconcerting is that clauses 27 to 36 seek to interpret the refugee convention to suit the Government’s whim. Unilaterally deciding how international law should be interpreted never ends well for the Government. The reason they feel the need to do so here is that they know they will be humiliated when those clauses are challenged. Once again, it is not so much a case of marking their own homework; more a case of being judge, jury and executioner One thing the Bill will almost certainly do is ensure that people seeking asylum here are kept longer. Whether through imprisoning asylum seekers for four years in our prisons or detaining them in barracks, that is an awful lot of money to spend on something that is not going to work. I dread to think what impact that will have on our creaking criminal justice system. Again, we have not seen the sums. Why not? Surely the Home Secretary will have cleared this with the Chancellor and costed it?