argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Remembrance, UK Armed Forces and Society — House of Commons, 2020-11-11
Topic: Defense
Kevan David Jones (Labour, Centre-left): I agree with my hon. Friend. I have had the privilege of visiting the Falkland Islands on several occasions. We could ask anyone who goes to, for example, San Carlos and sits in the cemetery there. There is no more spiritual place in the world that I have been in terms of the honour and dedication given to those individuals for whom it is their last resting place Today is about reflection and keeping the memory of those individuals’ lives; it is about making sure we do not forget them. It is also important to remember what our servicemen and women are doing today on our behalf to preserve the way of life which we wake up every morning and take for granted, but we know is incredibly fragile in the very uncertain world of today.
Coventry Blitz: 80th Anniversary — House of Commons, 2020-11-11
Topic: Defense
Colleen Margaret Fletcher (Labour, Centre-left): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting me this Adjournment debate to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the November 1940 bombing of Coventry The Coventry blitz was, of course, a defining moment in the history of my city, bringing both great hardship and change to Coventry. It is also, I feel, an important event to recall during the current pandemic. In this year of great hardship, many have sought to look back at the blitz as a blueprint for how communities can come together and overcome the toughest of circumstances. I am sure that all would agree that Coventry, the phoenix city which rose from the rubble to post-war success, is an inspirational tale for this time As a key centre of wartime production, Coventry, a pioneering engineering and manufacturing city, was a prime target. Indeed, prior to the air raid on 14 November, Coventry had already been the victim of a number of smaller air raids. But the events of 14 November 1940 were different. Over 11 hours, nearly 500 bombers dropped over 500 tonnes of high explosives, 30,000 incendiaries, and 50 landmines on the city. The sheer scale of the destruction would lead to the Germans inventing a new word, Coventration or to Coventrate, to describe the level of devastation. In that one night, just over half the city’s housing stock, approximately 43,000 houses, were damaged or destroyed. There was also widespread damage to factories, shops, workplaces and, as it was in the centre of the city, civic buildings. Most famously, an incendiary device landed on Coventry’s cathedral, destroying the medieval church of St Michael’s. On a visit to the city following the bombing, King George VI is said to have wept as he surveyed the ruins There was also an incredibly high human cost. The official death toll from the night was 554 people. A further 865 people were seriously injured. Among the disruption and the building rubble, many more were never accounted for.
Coventry Blitz: 80th Anniversary — House of Commons, 2020-11-11
Topic: Defense
Taiwo Owatemi (Labour, Centre-left): I join my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour in Coventry in paying tribute to the brave people of Coventry’s home front who, on 14 November 1940, endured a blitz that destroyed 15 factories and 43,000 homes. I honour individuals’ quiet acts of courage and selflessness that enabled them to endure devastation, and to rebuild in a spirit of peace and reconciliation. As my hon. Friend has said, during this pandemic we are reminded of what it is to come together and to endure uncertain times. I honour the fortitude and sacrifices of our veterans and civilians, and reflect on how those qualities are still with us today. Will my hon. Friend join me in that reflection?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2020-09-16
Topic: Health
Angela Rayner (Labour, Centre-left): Many people in the Chamber will think that the battle of Britain is today, but actually we marked the 80th anniversary of those veterans yesterday, and I want to put on record our thanks to all those who fought for our country in the past I want to start by reading to the Prime Minister a message that I have received from a man called Keir. Keir was not able to go to work today and his children could not go to school because his family had to wait for their coronavirus test results, despite the Prime Minister’s promise of results within 24 hours. Keir was able to do the right thing and self-isolate and work from home, but other people are not in this position, and many of them are the very people who were getting us through this crisis, such as the care workers, who I used to work alongside before I was elected to this House. The Prime Minister once earned £2,300 an hour; can he tell us the average hourly rate of a care worker in this country?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2020-09-16
Topic: Health
Angela Rayner (Labour, Centre-left): I do welcome the Prime Minister’s comments, but I must say to him, get some skates on it. Those care workers are still not getting the PPE they need. They are still not getting the testing they need. I urge the Prime Minister to get on top of this problem now before the winter crisis hits The Prime Minister has put his faith in Operation Moonshot, but, meanwhile, on planet Earth, there were no NHS tests available for several high-infection areas, including for Tameside and Oldham in my own constituency. In July, the Government promised that there would be weekly tests in care homes, and they promised this for September, so can the Prime Minister confirm—yes or no—do all care homes in this country have weekly tests?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2020-09-16
Topic: Health
Angela Rayner (Labour, Centre-left): Well, Mr Speaker, I heard what the Prime Minister had to say, but I have to say to him that, yesterday, the chief executive of Care England said, "We were promised weekly testing for staff. That has not been delivered." Time and again, the Prime Minister makes promises and then breaks those promises. In June, he told this House that "I can undertake…now to get all tests turned around in 24 hours by the end of June."—[Official Report, 3 June 2020; Vol. 676, c. 839.] The Government have had six months to get this right and yet the Prime Minister still cannot deliver on his promises. The Health Secretary said yesterday that it would take weeks to sort the situation out. Well, we do not have weeks. The Government’s latest figures show that there was an average of 62,000 people tested per day, not 500,000. The Prime Minister has said that testing capacity is at 300,000, but the average is 62,000 a day. How does he explain this?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2020-09-16
Topic: Health
Angela Rayner (Labour, Centre-left): Once again, I see that the Prime Minister says that it is somebody else’s fault—it is the public who are using up the tests. These were the Government’s own figures and own targets that they failed on. The next time a man with covid symptoms drives from London to Durham, it will probably be for the nearest covid test I want to move on to another very serious issue. Alongside the tragic stories we have heard of relatives dying alone in care homes and people not being able to say goodbye to their loved ones, we have heard from mothers who have had to give birth without the support of their partners or their families. The Health Secretary yesterday said that the new guidance had been issued, but even under that new guidance, many birth partners will not be allowed to join until the moment of established labour, leaving women enduring difficult labours or, even worse, traumatic and devastating miscarriages alone without support. Will the Prime Minister agree to meet with me and my hon. Friends and work with us to ensure that no woman is forced to give birth without the support that they need?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2020-09-16
Topic: Health
Angela Rayner (Labour, Centre-left): I welcome the Prime Minister’s comments; I think that was a yes, but I will follow it up. Thank you for those comments Infections are rising. The testing system is collapsing. When you are the Prime Minister, you cannot keep trying to blame other people for your own incompetence. We have the highest death toll in Europe, and we are on course for one of the worst recessions in the developed world. This winter, we are staring down the barrel of a second wave, with no plan for the looming crisis. People cannot say goodbye to their loved ones. Grandparents cannot see their grandchildren. Frontline staff cannot get the tests that they need. And what was the top priority for the covid war Cabinet this weekend? Restoring grouse shooting I suppose that is good news for people like the Prime Minister’s friend who paid for a luxury Christmas getaway to a Caribbean island and funded his leadership campaign, and just so happens to own two grouse moor estates. So Prime Minister, is this really your top priority?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2020-09-16
Topic: Health
Stephen John Doughty (Labour, Centre-left): I, too, have had constituents in Cardiff South and Penarth contact me with serious concerns about testing. It is clear that the problems originate not in Wales, but with the UK testing and online system, which is leading to rationing, chaos and confusion, and all the while the virus spreads further. We are told that the Prime Minister’s chum Cummings has a seeing room. Well, it is clearly not working, because this should have been seen coming months ago, like the exams fiasco. The truth is that the Prime Minister has not got control of this. When is he going to get a grip?
International Travel — House of Commons, 2020-09-07
Topic: Health
Ruth Margaret Cadbury (Labour, Centre-left): Heathrow airport has a large testing facility that is sitting idle, the UK economy is losing an estimated £60 million a day in tourism revenue, and constituencies near airports, such as mine, are in economic crisis due to covid. If equivalent countries with lower infection rates, such as Germany, can provide targeted support for their aviation sector, such as furlough extension in our case, and quick-turnaround tests—tests are getting more accurate all the time—why cannot the UK?
Lockdown: Economic Support — House of Commons, 2020-11-03
Topic: Health
Apsana Begum (Labour, Centre-left): Since the previous lockdown was lifted, two leisure centres in my constituency have not reopened. Both facilities were outsourced by my council due in part to the lack of funding to local authorities. Leisure centres such as these are vital to the mental health and wellbeing of the communities they serve. Indeed, I believe they should be defined as an essential service. What will be done to ensure that that essential service and leisure centres such as St George’s and Tiller in my constituency do not face permanent closure as a result of the forthcoming, and any future, lockdown?
Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-11-03
Topic: Defense
Kevan David Jones (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend says, "Please do," but I am sure that other Members want to contribute to this debate Since speaking on Second Reading and in Committee, it has been my aim, and that of the Labour Front-Bench team, to try to improve the Bill. In my nearly 19 years in this House, I have been someone who is proud of our armed forces, considers myself a friend to them and wants to help them in any way I can. I stand up for them, and I speak passionately, I think, in defending not just them but the case for defence It has therefore been disappointing that the Government have not really engaged to amend the Bill. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) said to the Defence Secretary that he wished to work with the Government to try to improve the Bill today, and he got a single-word reply: "No." We then had the reply from the Minister for Defence People and Veterans in response to a question on the Bill when he said that he would be "happy to work with anybody to improve this Bill, but we must operate in the real world."—[Official Report, 2 November 2020; Vol. 683, c. 13.] The only problem with that is that it is the real world according to the Minister, and that world obviously has a different colour sky from the one that we all live in. The idea that, somehow, as long as he is saying it, it has to be true, even when his evidence is counter to that put forward by various witnesses in Committee, is telling. What was sad in Committee was that all the Minister did was read out his civil service brief to us in response to the various amendments. He was reluctant to accept any interventions, even from rottweilers such as my hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon (Liz Twist) and for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck). When it comes to the Government Members on the Committee, I must congratulate the Whips Office on selecting so well, because those Members must have taken a collective vow of silence, which would have been admired by any silent ecclesiastical order. We had no contribution whatever from them, so it has been very difficult trying to engage with the Government on this Bill. The line is, clearly, that this is the answer, irrespective of what has been raised in Committee. We had some very good witnesses before us in Committee, but the Government are just not interested in changing the Bill, because the world and this Bill are perfect, according to the Minister and the Government.
Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-11-03
Topic: Defense
Kevan David Jones (Labour, Centre-left): Indeed. Time and again, supposed Government witnesses went against the Government. My hon. Friend raises a good point with the example that he has just provided The other thing that came out, which relates to my new clause, was about investigations. Investigations, or the problems that lead to these issues around investigations, were the thread that ran throughout the evidence. In spite of that, what we had at the weekend—this was a really dangerous move on the part of the Ministry of Defence—was tweets promoting this Bill from the MOD and saying that it would stop investigations. It will do nothing of the sort. As a former Defence Minister myself, using the MOD’s website and tweets to politicise things would not have been allowed in my day. What was put out is just not going to happen. Let us look at the evidence that we heard in Committee from a number of witnesses. The first one I will mention, again a Government witness, is Hilary Meredith, solicitor. She was very good and concentrated on the issue around investigations. She said: "It is the procedure and investigation in the UK that need to be reviewed and overhauled, and not necessarily a time limit placed on…prosecutions."––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 6 October 2020; c. 16, Q24.]
Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-11-03
Topic: Defense
Kevan David Jones (Labour, Centre-left): I am, and I will come onto part 2 in a minute. The hon. Gentleman has hit on an issue relating to the Government’s approach to this Bill. The Minister is saying that it is standing up for members of the armed forces. It is doing nothing of the sort. In part 2, it is actually taking away rights.
Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-11-03
Topic: Defense
Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Labour, Centre-left): My right hon. Friend has always been a strong supporter of the armed forces. Does he agree that, while drafting the Bill, the Government, who claim to be champions of our armed forces, continued to ignore the impartial advice of the Royal British Legion, which has stated again and again that it breaches the armed forces covenant?
Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-11-03
Topic: Defense
Kevan David Jones (Labour, Centre-left): But it really does not matter, because if my hon. Friend wants to see the attitude of the Minister to the Royal British Legion, he has only to read the evidence that came before the Committee New clause 2 would provide a way of ensuring that minor offences were dealt with speedily. As Judge Blackett said, this could be done in a magistrates court, where, after a period of time had passed, the cases could be looked at judicially and ticked off and dismissed on the basis that the there was no evidence to go forward. That would deal with a lot of the smaller issues. People ask why that is important, but if we look at the Iraq Historic Allegations Team—IHAT—and Northmoor, some of those cases involved assault and other things that in normal circumstances could be dealt with very quickly in a magistrates court. At least if we had a judge looking at them, he or she could make a decision as to whether or not those cases had any merit. It is amazing that the Government fail to recognise that the problem is not prosecutions but actually the investigatory process Then, halfway through the Bill Committee, the MOD announced it was coming forward with a review of investigations, to feed into next year’s Armed Forces Act, when the obvious place to have put that would have been in this Bill. The reason for doing that was given away by the Minister in the evidence session: this Bill has nothing to do with making sure of these matters. There is no reason why what I am suggesting and other issues around investigations could not be put in the Bill now and improve it, yet for reasons of tidiness the MOD wants to do it next year I have some sympathy with the MOD on that, because perhaps the best way to do this is in those five-yearly reviews of the Armed Forces Acts—and I think I have been on the Committee for every single one for the past nearly 20 years as either a Minister or Back Bencher. But the reason this Bill is before us has nothing to do with that; the Minister let the cat out of the bag in Committee when he said he had to get this through now, because one of his general election pledges was to do it within 100 days. I am sorry, but that is not a good way of bringing in legislation—just trying to press it forward irrespective of whether or not it is flawed.
Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-11-03
Topic: Defense
Kevan David Jones (Labour, Centre-left): I defer to the hon. Gentleman’s knowledge of Northern Ireland politics, but I will say that this will not be solved by the promise that has been made. That again is not the issue I turn to new clause 3. It relates to the point that was raised on part 2 and is covered by an amendment tabled by Members on the Labour Front Bench. The issue is the stripping away of rights from veterans. I find it absolutely astonishing that, in this week of remembrance, we have a Government who have introduced a Bill that will actually take rights away from veterans. The longstop of six years will mean that veterans—and families—will not have access to section 33 of the Limitation Act, which allows people to bring cases out of time In Committee there was a lot of discussion about how many people would be affected. The Royal British Legion was very clear in its opposition to part 2 because, as Charles Byrne said in response to the Minister: "I think it is protecting the MOD, rather than the service personnel"––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 86, Q163.] He said that the Royal British Legion thought it did breach the armed forces covenant. I agree, because the covenant states: "Those who serve in the Armed Forces, whether Regular or Reserve, those who have served in the past, and their families, should face no disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of public…services" and so on. I agree with that, but this strips away their rights under section 33, which means that if somebody brings forward a case after the six-year longstop, they cannot have recourse to section 33 of the Limitation Act, because the Bill will take those rights away. Those rights are open to every single Member in the House today, and to prisoners and asylum seekers—anybody who wants to bring a case The Minister said that 94% of cases were brought within the time limits anyway. That is irrelevant to me, because 6% clearly are not, and it is those 6% that will then possibly use the Limitation Act. May I put this on record, as I did in Committee? Bringing forward a section 33 case is by no means easy. It pertains to a very small number of individuals who could not bring their case within the time limit because their circumstances were unique; and they have to go before a court and argue out the reasons. I have done it myself when I worked for a trade union on injury or disease cases that were out of time—although you would not take on such a case in the first instance if you thought you would not get anywhere. However, there are those important cases that you can take, and which do make a difference The case that was mentioned time and again in Committee was the Snatch Land Rover decision in 2016. The families took forward the case under the Human Rights Act, which I will come on to in a minute, on the basis that their loved ones had been killed and injured in Iraq because of negligence on behalf of the MOD.
Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-11-03
Topic: Defense
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Labour, Centre-left): My right hon. Friend does not have to if he does not want to Will the passing of the Bill mean that civilians working for the MOD down the road will end up having, in effect, more rights than Army service personnel who have served in operations overseas? Does that not bring us back to the fundamental issue of the breaking of the armed forces covenant, on which the Government really must think again?
Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-11-03
Topic: Defense
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Gentleman, who is a good Member and a friend, is making a really interesting argument, but I fail to understand how it has anything to do with the Bill. How has limiting the ability of service personnel to take civil action against the MOD got anything to do with what he is talking about? How is requiring a five-year statute of limitations on things like torture anything to do with what he is saying about the operation in war? Can he explain how the interesting points he is making are relevant to what is in the Bill? I and, I think, my colleagues fail to see it.