argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
University Students: Compensation for Lost Teaching and Rent — House of Commons, 2021-04-15
Topic: Housing
Florence Eshalomi (Labour, Centre-left): I have two privately run student accommodation blocks in my constituency, which in normal times are home to hundreds of students from London’s top universities. Because of the travel restrictions and physical closure, they have had to live elsewhere for most of the year, but they still continue to pay the rent. These students have exhausted all means, including discussions with their accommodation provider, and they have been looking at trying to terminate their contracts or to be offered a rent reduction, but to no avail. They have been put into an impossible position, having faced huge restrictions on their education and their social life, but they are still paying rent. All they want is a fair deal from their accommodation provider. What plans do the Government have to address this?
Prayers — House of Commons, 2021-01-06
Topic: Mixed Topics
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): Before we come to the first item of business, could I thank all the staff of the House Service and the joint departments for their ongoing commitment and hard work to ensure that the House can conduct its business? Due to the current severe public health situation, every effort has been made to enable today’s proceedings to take place with the bare minimum level of travel to and attendance at Westminster. I should inform hon. Members that when a speaking limit is in effect for Back Benchers, a countdown clock will be visible on the screens of hon. Members participating virtually and on the screens in the Chamber. Before I call the Prime Minister, I would like to point out that the British Sign Language interpretation of the statement is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.
Covid-19 — House of Commons, 2021-01-06
Topic: Other
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): Can I just say, while the right hon. Lady is on the line, that I am not over-happy with "wilful"? I think we have to think about the language we use within the Chamber. These times are unprecedented, but I really do think Members ought to be careful on the language they use.
Covid-19 — House of Commons, 2021-01-06
Topic: Mixed Topics
Charalambos Charalambous (Labour, Centre-left): Given the examples of elections being held in other countries, including the elections held overnight in Georgia, can the Prime Minister confirm that it is his intention that the local elections in 2021 will go ahead as scheduled on 6 May, and will not be delayed any further?
Covid-19: Educational Settings — House of Commons, 2021-01-06
Topic: Mixed Topics
Mohammad Yasin (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State has placed the decision about whether to open maintained nursery schools on governing boards. Will he make public health a priority, and guarantee full funding during this crisis to relieve boards such as the Bedford Nursery Schools Federation of the feeling of being coerced into remaining open to protect their future viability?
Business of the House (Today) — House of Commons, 2021-01-06
Topic: Other
Valerie Carol Marian Vaz (Labour, Centre-left): Can I start by thanking the Leader of the House for extending virtual participation in debates? It has made a huge difference to our colleagues to be able to take part Could I ask the right hon. Member, on the business of the House, whether the Government are likely to move any motion relating to virtual participation in Committees—many statutory instruments are coming through—and also whether there are likely to be any changes to sitting Fridays? Our colleagues are very keen to take part in all aspects of the House’s business.
Public Health — House of Commons, 2021-01-06
Topic: Other
Rosalie Winterton (Labour, Centre-left): I will now introduce the three-minute limit. I remind hon. and right hon. Members that when a speaking limit is in effect for Back Benchers, a countdown clock will be visible on the screens of hon. and right hon. Members participating virtually and on the screens in the Chamber. For hon. and right hon. Members participating physically in the Chamber, the usual clock in the Chamber will operate.
Public Health — House of Commons, 2021-01-06
Topic: Mixed Topics
Victoria Jane Foxcroft (Labour, Centre-left): Today, I would like to focus on one particular group who have felt forgotten throughout this pandemic: disabled people. In reading the updated regulations, I can see that no assessment of the impact of lockdown on disabled people has taken place. That must change. Disabled people must be central to our decision making, not an afterthought Communication has been poor. Shielding letters have been arriving far too late, leaving many unsure of what guidance they should be following. At Monday’s press conference, shielding was reintroduced, yet the Government website does not have any updated guidance for shielders. The guidance that is there is not in an accessible format. People urgently need this evidence to ensure that they can continue to be paid. The Government’s press conferences, which are communicating extremely important public information, are still taking place without a British Sign Language interpreter. It is unbelievable that this has not been sorted. At the start of this crisis, disabled people raised with me their concerns about accessing food, medicines, PPE and social care. Many have faced increased costs, yet we still have not seen any uplift to legacy benefits. Ministers originally said that this would take up to eight weeks to sort. Ten months later, no progress has been made. Will this increase ever materialise? The Women and Equalities Committee report "Unequal impact? Coronavirus, disability and access to services" calls for an independent inquiry into the causes of adverse outcomes for disabled people. ONS statistics show that two thirds of those who have died from coronavirus in England and Wales have been disabled. We also need the Scottish Government to collate this data, to enable us to fully understand the impact of the pandemic on disabled people. Sadly, the funding for disabled people’s organisations has been cut Being guided by disabled people’s experience is essential. I want to thank everyone who has contacted me about today’s debate; I am only sorry that time restraints mean that I cannot raise everyone’s points. I will end by asking one simple question. As the Government’s Disability Unit looks to recruit 14 disability and access ambassadors, how many of those will be experts by experience? How many will be disabled people? I hope the answer is all of them, but I fear not. The Government must ensure that disabled people’s voices are at the heart of decision making, and that is more crucial than ever during a pandemic.
Public Health — House of Commons, 2021-01-06
Topic: Mixed Topics
William Roffen Esterson (Labour, Centre-left): I want us to learn from what has happened since March, rather than saying no, because if this lockdown is to be effective, we have to look at the gaps that have not been plugged so far. I want to talk particularly about the up to 3 million self-employed people: freelancers, people who run their own businesses and people who changed jobs at the wrong time who have had little or no financial support. It has been a burning injustice since March that they have gone without, and it continues to be. The Chancellor should be coming to the House of Commons to describe how he is going to support these people who have been left behind. It is not fair to them and it is an injustice, but it is damaging economically too. They all have a contribution to make as the economy eventually recovers, and the stronger and healthier their finances are now, the better placed they and many other businesses will be to play their part when the time comes There are also health consequences. One characteristic of this crisis has been that people have not been able to afford to self-isolate—individual low-paid workers and the 3 million excluded people—because they have not had the support, whether that is sick pay for people who are employed, or a lack of access to furlough, to the self-employed scheme or often even to universal credit. People have not been able to afford to self-isolate when they have been contacted, and that is a big part of the reason that less than 20% of people who were supposed to self-isolate have so far done so. That must be fixed; to get the health benefits of the lockdown right, the financial side must be fixed at the same time It is therefore right that the expectations of the large retailers in returning £2 billion in unneeded business rates relief are that that money is used to support those who have so far gone without. The Chancellor should come here, and tell the House and those excluded people that that money will be used to support them through the coming weeks—and, if necessary, months. He should be providing greater business support for those areas where business has had to go without for longer because lockdown came earlier and deeper, and he must put these things right soon. If we do not do so, the ongoing crisis will be worse in the long run, the cost will be greater and those people who have gone without will continue to suffer.
Speaker’s Statement — House of Commons, 2021-02-24
Topic: Mixed Topics
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): Her Majesty the Queen will, in less than one year from now, mark the 70th anniversary of her accession to the throne. The Queen’s platinum jubilee will be marked by national celebrations. As with previous jubilees, it is hoped that Her Majesty will visit Parliament next year to mark the occasion. As I announced in November, both Houses of Parliament intend to present a gift to Her Majesty to mark this historic occasion. In 1977, to mark Her Majesty’s silver jubilee, the fountain in New Palace Yard was built. In 2002, to mark the golden jubilee, the sundial in Old Palace Yard was installed, and in 2012, to mark Her Majesty’s diamond jubilee, the stained-glass window in Westminster Hall was commissioned. The House will therefore be pleased to hear that a gift has now been commissioned for Her Majesty from Parliament to mark her platinum jubilee in 2022. It is now open to all Members of both Houses to contribute towards this gift, and I invite hon. Members to do so. As was the case in 2012, when hundreds of parliamentarians contributed towards the diamond jubilee gift, this gift will also be funded by personal contributions from Members of both Houses, entirely at their own discretion. It is proposed that no public funds will be spent on the gift. I have written to all Members with details of the gift and how they may wish to contribute. I warmly encourage them to do so We now come to questions to the President of COP26, and I welcome the Minister to his new position.
Covid Contracts: Judicial Review — House of Commons, 2021-02-24
Topic: Mixed Topics
Mary Elizabeth Twist (Labour, Centre-left): The Government claim that this is just a case of a few PPE contracts being published a couple of weeks late, but in fact we know that hundreds of millions of pounds-worth of contracts also went to management consultants. Will the Minister confirm whether all the contracts for which the publishing deadline was missed, from the start of the pandemic until now, were in fact for PPE, or did they also include contracts that have gone to private consultants? Will he explain why those contracts were not published on time?
Covid Contracts: Judicial Review — House of Commons, 2021-02-24
Topic: Civil Rights
John Martin McDonnell (Labour, Centre-left): I think the whole tenor of the discussion today demonstrates a need for greater transparency, as the Minister has said. One way of doing that is by extending freedom of information to include all companies engaged in publicly funded contracts. I am concerned about the data contract with the US data company Palantir, which is notorious for its links with Trump and the white supremacist far right. Will the Minister confirm whether that contract has been the subject of a data protection impact assessment, including a public consultation, and whether Palantir will be able to sell on NHS data at a later stage, even, for example, to the Conservative party for electoral purposes?
Uber: Supreme Court Ruling — House of Commons, 2021-02-24
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Mary Kelly Foy (Labour, Centre-left): With taxi drivers facing mounting debt and, tragically, recent reports of at least five suicides in the sector, including three mentioning financial worries in their suicide notes, does the Minister agree that drivers and operators need urgent access to extra financial support—including small business grants of £10,000, in line with other small businesses?
Fire Safety Bill — House of Commons, 2021-02-24
Topic: Housing
Stephen John Doughty (Labour, Centre-left): Unfortunately, leaseholders in my constituency have been left in the dark after the announcement the other day because, despite the co-operation between the Welsh Government and the UK Government on the details of this Bill, they have been unable to get answers on the crucial issues of the building development levy and the new tax and on whether there will be any new money for Wales in the proposals laid out by the Secretary of State. Will the Minister urgently respond to the letter from the Welsh Housing Minister, Julie James, which asks reasonable questions and sets out constructive solutions, and will he and his MHCLG colleagues meet me to discuss these issues and find a solution for leaseholders across the United Kingdom?
Fire Safety Bill — House of Commons, 2021-02-24
Topic: Housing
Sarah Ann Jones (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I do not think the Government have gone far enough, and I do not accept the reasons why we are going at such a snail’s pace on something so important. I will come to what we think should be done about it The Government rejected many attempts to amend the Bill. The draft Building Safety Bill places various requirements on what is called the "responsible person" and refers to the fire safety order for the definition of that, but the fire safety order does not provide a definition of the responsible person. The draft Building Safety Bill even attempts to put into law a building safety charge. It is vital that the fire safety order makes it clear that there is no ambiguity around the definition of responsible person and that it does not mean leaseholders. However, the Government chose to reject that amendment The fire safety order requires regular fire risk assessments in buildings, but it includes no legal requirement for those conducting the assessment to have any form of training or accreditation. In Committee and on Report, we tabled amendments that would bring into force an accreditation system for fire risk assessors, rather than waiting for more secondary legislation. We also tabled an amendment to require the schedule for inspecting buildings to be based on a prioritisation of risk, not an arbitrary distinction of types and heights of building. On that point, I am glad that the Government have listened, having turned us down in the initial stages, and taken good practice from Croydon and other areas and introduced a risk-based approach to the Bill We tabled an amendment on waking watch to require the Government to specify when and for how long such measures should take place. Thanks to Lord Kennedy of Southwark, our amendment on implementing key measures from the first phase of the Grenfell inquiry passed in the Lords, despite the Government’s attempts to block it. The Government have made so many promises to address the fire safety crisis but failed to keep them. The families and survivors are still waiting for justice, and hundreds of thousands of leaseholders and tenants are still trapped As we debate the Lords amendments this afternoon, the Government face a choice on what they include in the Bill. They could do the right thing and fulfil their promises, or they could push the can down the road again—"We do care, just not quite enough, not quite yet." There are two answers that thousands of people across the country are watching and waiting for today: will the Government change their mind and back the Lords amendment to implement recommendations from the Grenfell inquiry, and will the Government legislate to ensure that leaseholders—blameless victims of this crisis—do not have to foot the bill for measures to make their buildings safe?
Fire Safety Bill — House of Commons, 2021-02-24
Topic: Housing
Sarah Ann Jones (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. He is an expert in this area, and I very much respect what he says. The answer is that it is for the Government to resolve this crisis. It is not for leaseholders to foot the bill. We suggested a national taskforce, whereby the Government could take responsibility for assessing the costs of the remediation work and then find out who is responsible, so that, as with the polluter pays principle, we could get to the point where the people who were responsible for the problem were paying the bill. That is fundamentally what we are trying to achieve, because in law at the moment, those who can least afford to pay are the only ones having to pay. The Minister says that there are flaws in the way the amendment is worded, but he could have amended it Lords amendment 2 would place robust requirements on building owners or managers and implement the key recommendations from phase 1 of the Grenfell inquiry. The Minister said that he had concerns with the way the amendment was worded. Again, the Government could have tried to amend it and to fix some of the problems along the way, but have chosen not to do so. The Government said that they would implement the Grenfell phase 1 inquiry recommendations in full and without delay, and Lords amendment 2 would be a straightforward way for them to fulfil that promise. It seeks to require the owners of buildings that contain two or more sets of domestic premises to do four simple things: to share information with their local fire and rescue service about the design and make-up of the external walls; to complete regular inspections of fire entrance doors; to complete regular inspections of lifts; and to share evacuation and fire safety instructions with residents. Those measures are straightforward and supported by key stakeholders. Indeed, a common response is incredulity that these measures are not already in law The Government have even tried to water down proposals on the evacuation of disabled people, as has been reported today. They have proposed requiring personal evacuation plans for disabled people only in buildings with known safety issues and a waking watch. It is only after legal action by the families of those who died in the Grenfell Tower fire that the Government have relaunched a consultation on this.
Fire Safety Bill — House of Commons, 2021-02-24
Topic: Housing
Stephen John Doughty (Labour, Centre-left): I wholeheartedly agree with the points that my hon. Friend is making. I want to emphasise the importance of paragraph (a) of Lords amendment 2, on sharing information about the materials that a building is constructed of, because my constituents in Cardiff South and Penarth have real difficulties getting hold of, for example, architectural drawings and original "as built" drawings. There is simply no consistency in this across the UK, which means that fire and rescue services, let alone anybody trying to undertake works, have a much harder job.
Fire Safety Bill — House of Commons, 2021-02-24
Topic: Housing
Sarah Ann Jones (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I have had many similar cases in my constituency, with people just trying to get to the bottom of what the issues are, and meanwhile they cannot sell their flat and are facing fire remediation and waking watch charges, their insurance is rocketing and their lives are on hold. We heard from many such people this morning, and it really was very sad It is hard to understand why the Government have put forward a motion to disagree with Lords amendment 2. I heard what the Minister said, but my challenge is that he could have tried to amend our amendments if he had a problem with them, to make them work. The answer, "We will do these things, but later" is simply inadequate.
Fire Safety Bill — House of Commons, 2021-02-24
Topic: Mixed Topics
Sarah Ann Jones (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I do not doubt her sincerity or the work that she has done on this since becoming a Member of Parliament, but I fundamentally disagree. The step-by-step process might be the right process, but it is so slow. It is almost four years since the Grenfell fire, and it is a year since the recommendations were made. The consultation finished in October, and the Government are still considering the responses. It is painfully slow. Have we not seen with covid what is possible when we put our minds to something? Look at how tremendously quickly we have achieved amazing things through this year of trauma. I think that, with commitment, the Government could work faster on this.
Fire Safety Bill — House of Commons, 2021-02-24
Topic: Housing
Sarah Ann Jones (Labour, Centre-left): I hear what the hon. Member says, but whether we should have a system in law whereby we check that a lift is safe is really not that complicated. Of course there are experts, but throughout all stages of the Bill the Government and the Minister have referred to steering groups, taskforces and consultations, rather than actually implementing the recommendations. We could have gone much faster. The Government published the consultation on fire safety in July and it closed in October, but four months later they are still analysing the feedback. They cannot keep promising to act later; they need to act now. There really are no more excuses. There is no reason why this amendment could not be made. The Lords were right I will now move on to Lords amendment 4, to which many amendments have been tabled in an attempt to improve it and build on it. This morning I heard from many leaseholders in this very situation. They told me of their desperation, how their lives have been put on hold, how they face mental health issues, how their insurance has rocketed, how their waking watch costs are exorbitant, how they cannot get EWS forms and so cannot sell their homes, how they face costs of other fire remediation way beyond cladding, and how they live in blocks not covered by the Government schemes. Many of them face bankruptcy. They simply cannot understand the injustice of having to pay for things that were never their fault. They cannot understand how the Government do not get this and will not put it right.
Fire Safety Bill — House of Commons, 2021-02-24
Topic: Housing
Sarah Ann Jones (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I genuinely struggle to understand why the Government have not grasped the scale of this crisis and the quantity of people who cannot sell their flat, who cannot afford the costs that they are currently looking at, who cannot change jobs and who cannot get married or have children because their lives are on hold. Many are first-time buyers who have saved up, worked really hard and got their flat. If the Government would say today, "We will commit to legislate to say that lease- holders should not have to foot the bill", we could accept that there was a commitment there, but there is not There is no commitment to say that leaseholders should not have to foot the bill. The words are said, but there is no action to put it into law. [Interruption.] The Minister says from a sedentary position that there is £5 billion, and that is true, but that does not cover the vast number of people who are still affected—the vast number of people whose lives are still on hold. One could say that some of them are perhaps traditional Conservative voters. We struggle on this side of the House to understand how the Treasury has not grasped the scale of this crisis and is not putting it right.