argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase 1 Report — House of Commons, 2020-01-21
Topic: Housing
Yasmin Qureshi (Labour, Centre-left): No one can forget their experiences of seeing the Grenfell fire, but I also want to talk about something that happened in my constituency. On 16 November last year, a devasting fire at The Cube—student flats in my constituency—left 200 University of Bolton students homeless I pay tribute to Greater Manchester’s fire and rescue service for ensuring that all the residents were evacuated quickly and safely, and that the fire was rapidly brought under control. I also pay tribute to the university staff who came to the scene to give immediate assistance, and who continued to provide physical, financial and mental support, although the university does not own the building. The local community also came together to support the students. It is not surprising that in 2013 Bolton was voted the friendliest, warmest and most considerate town in the United Kingdom It is clear that the building regulatory system is broken, and has failed the residents of Grenfell, The Cube and other buildings. The height limit for tighter controls on building materials is 18 metres. The Cube is just 16 centimetres short of that height, and is therefore not subject to the same safety regulations as taller buildings. I welcomed the Secretary of State’s announcement yesterday that he was minded to reduce the limit to 11 metres, but I feel that that does not go far enough. Many buildings lower than that are also high-risk, including hospitals, care homes, schools, and complex buildings such as shopping centres The Government have focused on the ACM cladding that was used at Grenfell, but The Cube was clad in high-pressure laminate, which is used on thousands of other buildings across the country. The Government have been warned repeatedly by the Greater Manchester High Rise Task Force—whose representatives I met last week—that the risks extend beyond ACM cladding, but not all cladding systems have yet been tested. The Government must recognise that other cladding materials also present a risk, and that all buildings should be made safe as soon as possible. I was particularly surprised to learn that VAT is being charged on remedial works, and I urge the Government to exempt them in order to help building owners to carry out works in a timely manner. Apart from the construction issue, there seems to have been a failure to tell people what procedures should be adopted in the event of a fire, and that was certainly not done in The Cube. Apparently the fire alarms went off regularly, and some of the students thought that there had been the same problem on the day in question. One young lady who realised what was going on knocked on every single door and got the people out. However, we must ensure that proper procedures are introduced in such buildings to ensure that people know what to do in case of fire, and also to ensure that there are ways of detecting fires.
Gasification plant in Hillthorn Park, Washington — House of Commons, 2020-01-21
Topic: Housing
Sharon Hodgson (Labour, Centre-left): I am pleased to be able to present this petition this evening on behalf of my constituents who oppose the building of a gasification plant in Hillthorn Park in my constituency. The petitioners and I believe that this planning application will be to the detriment of our local area and the health and wellbeing of residents and is in direct conflict with the Government’s own policies on waste and the environment. This petition is along the same lines as two other petitions that have been signed by approximately 10,800 people The petition I present today reads: The Petition of residents of Washington and Sunderland West constituency, Declares that the petitioners oppose the building of a Gasification plant in Hillthorn Park, Washington. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to recognise the opposition to the planning application; and calls on the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject the planning application 17/02085/MW4 And the petitioners remain, etc. [P002551]
Infrastructure Investment — House of Commons, 2020-01-22
Topic: Mixed Topics
Christopher John Bryant (Labour, Centre-left): One of the biggest projects that the Government have to deliver is the restoration and renewal of this Palace, which is one of the most loved buildings in the world. If we are to do that, we need skills that currently are not available in the workforce. Does the Minister agree that this presents a major opportunity to ensure that in every constituency in the land young people are being trained in those skills so that everybody has an investment in this building?
Political Advertising — House of Commons, 2020-01-22
Topic: Civil Rights
Michael Lee Amesbury (Labour, Centre-left): Thank you, Mr Speaker—I will go again. According to the international fact-checking agency First Draft News, almost 90% of the ads posted on Facebook by the Tory party in the general election were misleading. Does the Minister agree with the Information Commissioner that the current electoral laws on digital campaigning are not fit for purpose?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2020-01-22
Topic: Civil Rights
Questions: Will my right hon. Friend set out for the benefit of the House the work being done across Government and co-ordinated by his Department to ensure that farming communities like mine in North Devon climb, soar and succeed as a result of Brexit?; Thank you for calling me, Mr Speaker, and may I say how lovely it is to see you in your place?The Government’s aim of creating a level economic playing field between the north and the south is laudable and much needed, but can the Minister assure me that, in the rush to create this much-needed equality, we will not overlook deprived coastal areas in the south, such as some in the Clacton constituency which have been overlooked so often in the past?; I wonder whether the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster shares my concern about the lack of transparency in campaigns, and about rumours of wrongdoing in previous campaigns. Will he be responding to the recommendations of our all-party parliamentary group on electoral campaigning transparency, which include regulating the ability of campaigns to target voters on the basis of personal data, and streamlining national versus local spending with a per-seat cap on total spending?; As office costs are substantially cheaper in Stoke-on-Trent than in London, and it is only an hour and a half away on the train, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be the perfect place for the relocation of civil servants?
Abena Oppong-Asare (Labour, Centre-left): Thank you for calling me, Mr Speaker, and congratulations again More than 1,000 voters have lost the chance to have their say in local elections because of the identification requirements that have been highlighted over the past two years. That figure is 30 times higher than the total number of allegations made about polling station fraud in the whole of England in 2018 and 2019. Does the Minister agree with Professor Toby James from the University of East Anglia that there is no evidence to justify the introduction of voter ID requirements? I say that because the hon. Lady said earlier that we must trust voters when they make their decisions.
Engagements — House of Commons, 2020-01-22
Topic: Civil Rights
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): Next Monday, we will be commemorating Holocaust Memorial Day. It is a time for us all to reflect on the horrors of the past and to remind ourselves of the evils of Nazism, genocide, antisemitism and, indeed, all forms of racism, which we must always be implacably determined to root out wherever it appears This Saturday, hundreds of millions of people will be celebrating Chinese new year around the world, and I am sure that the Prime Minister will join me in welcoming the year of the rat and inviting all Chinese people to have a great time If a worker earning just over £12,500 a year receives a £300 bonus, how much of that bonus does the Prime Minister think that worker should be allowed to keep?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2020-01-22
Topic: Other
Questions: I welcome Ofsted’s annual report on our schools. It was released this week and shows great progress, not least that 86% of schools are now rated good or outstanding. With every school in Mansfield set to benefit from a funding increase later this year, the Government can be proud of the progress they are making. However, there is more to do, not least dealing with the 14% of schools that still do not reach that standard, many of which are based in areas that experience all sorts of other inequalities, too. What more can my right hon. Friend do to support and intervene in those schools to level up our education system and make sure that every child can access a good education, regardless of their postcode?; After being inundated with complaints from the people of Dewsbury and Mirfield, does the Prime Minister agree with me that the Northern rail service is no longer fit for purpose?; Both myself and the Northern Powerhouse Minister are concerned that power cables over the Tyne are a real barrier to businesses securing work for large renewable energy structures. Will the Prime Minister, through his good offices, undertake to support the National Grid’s energy transmissions bid to Ofgem for the permanent removal of the cables and to unlock the potential of the Tyne?; My right hon. Friend will know that the quarries of the Peak district provide a huge proportion of the national building and mineral needs of this great nation. We would be delighted to see him in the Derbyshire Dales, so that he can see at first hand the men and women who work at the quarry face, who will be at the heart of the post-Brexit economy, and look at the need for my local Ashbourne bypass—this is necessary to deliver Brexit to the people. Does not this support for these hard-working people show who the real Conservatives are and that this party is the party of the working man?
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): Order. May I just say that Prime Minister’s questions is going to run on because of this and that we must have short questions? I will work with Members, but Members have to work with the Chair.
Prevent Programme — House of Commons, 2020-01-22
Topic: Mixed Topics
Mohammed Afzal Khan (Labour, Centre-left): If the Government are serious about conducting a proper, independent review of Prevent, can the Minister give an assurance that they will engage with key Muslim organisations, such as the Muslim Council of Britain, and will heed the advice of the Muslim community?
Prevent Programme — House of Commons, 2020-01-22
Topic: Civil Rights
Geraint Richard Davies (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister will know that the word "Islam" is the Arabic word for peace. Does he agree that the focus of Prevent activity should be to ensure that people in the Muslim community do not misrepresent, misconstrue and corrupt the words of the Koran, as opposed to what people fear is the focus of Prevent, which is that there is too much Islam and too much Muslim ideology? Surely the focus should be that people do not corrupt the teachings in a way that brings about terror, and we should be encouraging mainstream Muslim organisations to work with us for the good of all.
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2020-01-22
Topic: Mixed Topics
Maria Eagle (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This morning, Jaguar Land Rover announced the loss of 500 jobs—accounting for more than 10% of the total—at the Halewood plant in my constituency as it moves from a three to a two-shift system. Given the ongoing uncertainty about Brexit and the UK’s trading relationship with the EU, worse may be to come, so can you, Mr Speaker, advise me about how I can ensure that Ministers and the Prime Minister himself take this existential threat to the auto manufacturing industry in Liverpool as seriously as they should, and seek to help those losing their jobs as much as they can?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2020-01-22
Topic: Other
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): I am sure that that will be taken on board as well. I recognise that there has been real frustration around this and I know that the hon. Lady will, through her good offices, seek help from the Table Office too. I think that would be a good way forward.
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2020-01-22
Topic: Immigration
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of this point of order. It is not an issue for the Chair, but I recognise his frustration and he obviously quite rightly wants to take up his constituent’s case and the issue of the child visa. I am sure that people will be listening to this and I hope his concern is now being heard by Ministers and will be acted on.
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2020-01-22
Topic: Other
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): When the right hon. Gentleman and I came in together in 1997, it was frowned upon to read a question; people had to do the question without help and assistance. We have a new Parliament with a lot of new Members learning the ropes, but hopefully people will get into the habit rather quickly of asking a question without aid.
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-01-22
Topic: Immigration
Katherine Anne Green (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State will understand that there are, of course, some people for whom the challenge of applying for status is considerable, and the Government have said they will give reasonable consideration to those who have reason not to have applied by the deadline. One group that I and other colleagues are particularly concerned about is children looked after in the care system by local authorities, which do not in many cases have either the resources or the expertise to pursue applications for those children to obtain settled status. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that they will be protected, as they would be under a declaratory system?
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-01-22
Topic: Other
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): Order. I am bit bothered about time. We have quite a few Members who want to make speeches. I remind Members that they cannot just walk in and put a question to the Minister—let us all work together for one another.
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-01-22
Topic: Immigration
Thangam Elizabeth Rachel Debbonaire (Labour, Centre-left): I rise on behalf of the Opposition to explain why we oppose the Government on all five of their motions to disagree with their lordships On EU citizens’ rights, their lordships passed an amendment providing for, first, a declaratory system for gaining settled status and, secondly, for a physical document. The declaratory system would honour the previous Government’s pledges to EU citizens living here before we leave the EU that they would enjoy the exact same rights as before—we are just asking this Government to honour that. It would avoid the cliff edge of time limits—the grace period still means that there is a time limit—and pressures on people who have the legal right to be here but who, for various reasons, are being asked for yet more evidence or have only been given pre-settled and not yet settled status. The Government talk of the 2.5 million people who have been granted status, but many of those who have applied for settled status and are entitled to it have been granted only pre-settled status, which does not give that promised certainty. Many people are not aware that they need to apply, particularly those who have been here since childhood. Others may not apply in time, for many good reasons. The Secretary of State says that late applications for good reasons will be considered, but we do not really know what good reasons will count. That does not give certainty The Minister in the other place argued that declaratory registration is not necessary because the current scheme addresses all problems, but it does not. The arbitrary time limit and the problems and delays in securing status all risk making some people who should be lawfully resident unlawfully resident past the time limit The physical document—the other part of the amendment—is vital. Surely we in this Chamber all know that internet signals are not reliable. People do not all have smartphones. Other categories of non-UK citizens have a physical document, so it is not surprising that the Residential Landlords Association say that it is deeply concerned about the lack of physical proof and that landlords are not, and should not be treated as, border police. In a perverse justification of the policy, Ministers have said that providing a physical document, as this amendment proposes, would make a future Windrush-style scandal more likely. On our understanding, it is the exact opposite.
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-01-22
Topic: Immigration
Thangam Elizabeth Rachel Debbonaire (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend makes exactly the right point. Government Members should consider that the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, the3million and the Residential Landlords Association have all warned that there is a risk that landlords and employers will be reluctant, without that immediate physical proof that other Windrush citizens lacked, to let a home or offer a job to EU citizens.
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-01-22
Topic: Immigration
Hilary James Benn (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend will be aware that the Brexit Select Committee in its former incarnation recommended a physical document. Many Members will have had this experience: constituents apply for further leave; employers say, "Prove you have leave"; they are told by the Home Office, "Apply to the checking service"; lots of employers refuse to do that, and as a result our constituents lose their jobs. Is that not precisely the kind of reason we need a physical document?
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-01-22
Topic: Immigration
Thangam Elizabeth Rachel Debbonaire (Labour, Centre-left): My right hon. Friend is exactly right. I ask Government Members to imagine a future constituency surgery in which they are asked to explain to their constituents who are EU citizens why they have been denied a physical document or settled status or have experienced delays in getting that status changed, and have thus been refused a job or a home—because their MP refused to back this amendment. Their constituents will ask, "Why did you vote this way?" and they will need a good answer.
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-01-22
Topic: Immigration
Thangam Elizabeth Rachel Debbonaire (Labour, Centre-left): The problem is that we are allowing Ministers to set the terms and test, which is an unacceptable breach of the boundaries between the Executive and the judiciary The Government have had plenty of time to consider the provisions of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. If they want more time, just giving Ministers broad and sweeping powers is not the answer. They could, if they wanted, bring a short Bill before Parliament with proposed amendments that we could debate and scrutinise in the usual way. Every Government Member must understand—it seems that several possibly do, although they are no longer in their places—that if they pass the Government’s motions to disagree with amendments 2 and 3, the separation of powers will be blurred, there will be legal chaos and it will be impossible for Parliament to change. These are not powers that should be exercised through regulation. We should not risk ministerial interference in judicial processes. The Government should think again and withdraw their motions to disagree. If they do not, we will vote against them Thirdly, I turn to child refugees and Lords amendment 4, to leave out clause 37, which amends clause 17 of the 2018 Act and thus removes the obligation on the Government to negotiate future arrangements to protect unaccompanied child refugees. This is such a modest provision—it also reflects the Government’s own commitment—that it seems extraordinary and inexplicable that they are removing it. I have very dark and deep suspicions about why, though I want to be charitable and I am hoping there may be a good answer As Lord Dubs said, it is partly the scattergun of justifications that leads one to be suspicious. He was asked by Ministers to trust them, and he very generously said that as individuals he did trust them but that he did not trust them as a Government—because their predecessor Government had form on this. They promised to take 3,000 children on the Dubs scheme, as originally committed to, but took fewer than 500 in the end. The Government have boasted, as the Secretary of State has just done, about the number of children given refuge in this country, but have ignored the fact that most could not and did not come by the safe or legal routes that currently exist, even when entitled to them under the current law. They were often trafficked or took dangerous journeys in order to reach their family members, because they felt they had no other choice. We are talking about reuniting families, but removing the already restrictive access to safe and legal routes does not decrease the risk of trafficking; it increases the risk.
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-01-22
Topic: Immigration
Thangam Elizabeth Rachel Debbonaire (Labour, Centre-left): Of course not—hon. Members on the Government Benches seem to agree with my hon. Friend—but if so why remove the provision? Why not keep it in? The Government say there is no change of policy, but the removal of clause 17 is a change of policy. They complain that leaving the provision in will act as a pull factor, but that rather indicates that what they want is a change of policy. They tell us that this is not the right Bill for the provision and that it should be in the immigration Bill, but clause 17 is context and time-specific: it directs the Government to a negotiating objective during the very time limited period—a matter of months—that they now have to agree the future relationship. As the Secretary of State has said, we cannot bind our neighbours to our national law, so that is not a valid argument against putting any other commitment in any other law. This provision only commits the Government to a negotiating aim. They say it can be done through rules, but a negotiating aim cannot be pursued through immigration rules. So which is it—is it law, is it rules, is it an aim, or is it no change at all, as they have also claimed The Government have said the provision would bind their hands in negotiations but then became offended at the accusation that they were using children as a bargaining chip. Again, which is it? Are children a limit on the negotiations or not? They have also justified their argument on the grounds of the election manifesto, but the only words in that manifesto were: "we will continue to grant asylum and support to refugees fleeing persecution" There is not a word in that manifesto that implies this change of policy—and it is a change of policy—on child refugees. Just saying that it is not a change does not make it so. If it is not a change of policy, why does the provision need to be removed?