argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2018-05-08
Topic: Other
Questions: The Secretary of State has visited Princess Alexandra Hospital in Harlow on a number of occasions and he will recognise that, despite excellent staff, the hospital is not fit for purpose. Will he confirm that Harlow is at the top of the list for capital funding, and that we will get the new hospital our town desperately needs?; I hope the Minister will join me in congratulating the mayor of Walsall, Marco Longhi, whose mayoralty has raised a significant sum to support WPH Counselling and Education Services, which provides adolescent mental care and counselling in Walsall.; Chapelford medical centre in my constituency has been operating out of a portakabin on waste land for many years, due to excessive delays and the failings of various NHS bodies involved in this project. What action will Ministers take to resolve these shocking delays, and will they meet me to give assurances to my constituents?; There is a clear connection between obesity and type 2 diabetes. Will the Secretary of State confirm that that issue will be addressed in the national diabetes prevention programme?; On 21 March, the Secretary of State told the House that he would look at the impact of private finance initiative deals on NHS hospital budgets. What has he done since then? How many meetings has he had about the issue? Will he commit not to use PF2 deals, given the concerns?; What discussions have the Government had with Vertex regarding the availability of Orkambi? Many Members packed out Westminster Hall in a debate about that issue. Will the Government give us an update on this really serious issue?; Does the Secretary of State share my concern that, according to the Royal College of Physicians, 43% of advertised consultant vacancies were left unfilled in 2016-17? Will Ministers be brave and argue publicly that there should be more visas for overseas doctors?
Stephen Charles Brine (Conservative, Centre-right): Yes. The dental contract has had a good outing this afternoon. I am always happy to see the hon. Lady and I can tick the Telegraph and Argus off my bucket list if they come along as well.
Learning Disabilities Mortality Review — House of Commons, 2018-05-08
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): Order. There is a certain amount of chuntering from a sedentary position. The Secretary of State has been with us, but Minister Caroline Dinenage will answer the urgent question, and we look forward to her answer.
Learning Disabilities Mortality Review — House of Commons, 2018-05-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
Cheryl Elise Kendall Gillan (Conservative, Centre-right): Every preventable death brings personal tragedy, as was highlighted in a 2016 report by Autistica, the autism charity, entitled "Personal tragedies, public crisis". Autistic adults with a learning disability are 40 times more likely to die prematurely. That is why I welcomed the Government’s announcement in March that reducing the gap in life expectancy for autistic people was one of the top autism priorities in the "Think Autism" strategy governance refresh under provisions in the Autism Act 2009. How will the Minister implement those provisions?
Learning Disabilities Mortality Review — House of Commons, 2018-05-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
Maria Frances Lewis Miller (Conservative, Centre-right): The biggest challenge that many learning-disabled people have is simply making their voices heard. Their legal entitlement to advocacy is not always upheld by health professionals, who often misunderstand that entitlement. Will the Minister look into the commissioning of advocacy services, and, indeed, the understanding of the Equality Act 2010 among NHS staff, to ensure that more learning-disabled people have access to organisations such as Speakeasy Advocacy in Basingstoke, which supports more than 600 people with learning disabilities in north Hampshire, helping to give them the voice that they so badly need?
Learning Disabilities Mortality Review — House of Commons, 2018-05-08
Topic: Civil Rights
Caroline Julia Dinenage (Conservative, Centre-right): My right hon. Friend is a fantastic champion for equality issues in her role as Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee. I take on board everything that she has said, and I will certainly look more closely at the issue that she has raised.
Learning Disabilities Mortality Review — House of Commons, 2018-05-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
Caroline Julia Dinenage (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Lady is right to make the point more broadly, rather than just about the healthcare outcomes for people with learning disabilities. We need to look at how we protect people more broadly, and this issue must particularly be a terrible worry for the ageing parents. I take on board what the hon. Lady said, and we will definitely feed it into the system to see what more we can do in support.
G4S: Immigration Removal Centres — House of Commons, 2018-05-08
Topic: Immigration
Victoria Atkins (Conservative, Centre-right): The Government have agreed a short-term continuation of G4S’s contract to run the Gatwick immigration removal centres while further work is carried out to identify a long-term manager. The Home Office will launch a further, full competition later this year, after the outcome of two independent reviews. The contract for the management of Brook House and Tinsley House, which was due to expire this month, was put out for tender in November 2016. However, after careful consideration of the bids, it was decided that G4S would continue with the contract for a further two years. This will provide sufficient time to reflect on the two independent reviews’ conclusions, conduct a new procurement exercise, and mobilise the successful provider. As with any procurement process, the Home Office has undertaken a robust evaluation of all bids, supported by a comprehensive due diligence process I recognise that the Government have taken this decision against the backdrop of the BBC "Panorama" programme on Brook House, which was broadcast in autumn last year. The previous Home Secretary made it clear at the time that the behaviour on display from some G4S staff was utterly unacceptable and set out our expectation that G4S would take urgent action to address the serious issues the programme uncovered. G4S has put in place a comprehensive action plan and this has quickly delivered improvements at Brook House. My right hon. Friend the Immigration Minister has met G4S to review progress, and visited the two Gatwick centres on 18 January Detaining those who are here illegally and who refuse to leave voluntarily is key to maintaining an effective immigration system. But regardless of status, all immigration detainees must be treated with dignity and respect. Please be assured that we will always demand the highest standards from those we entrust with the safety and welfare of those in detention.
G4S: Immigration Removal Centres — House of Commons, 2018-05-08
Topic: Immigration
Victoria Atkins (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank the right hon. Lady for the urgent question. Let me reassure her that the decision to re-award the contract was taken during purdah and so we announced this on the first available opportunity after polling day on Thursday—the announcement was made on Friday. I hope that assuages her concerns as to why this has not happened more timeously. I am very conscious that I am being scrutinised here in the House, so I do not think the Government can be accused of escaping scrutiny As for the re-procurement process, it is precisely because we want to ensure that the long-term contract for these centres is dealt with in the way we expect that we have put in place this short-term continuation, for a period of two years. That will enable us to consider carefully the results of the independent reviews conducted by Stephen Shaw and Kate Lampard, and then build the procurement process. At the risk of striking a tone that is unusual to hear in the Chamber, we can agree across the House that we wish to have an immigration system that respects those who abide by the rules and that treats people fairly and with dignity and respect.
G4S: Immigration Removal Centres — House of Commons, 2018-05-08
Topic: Immigration
Victoria Atkins (Conservative, Centre-right): I note that the independent monitoring board report noted the commitment of staff to the provision of a safe environment and included recommendations to improve the safeguarding of vulnerable detainees. Shortly, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration will write to the chairman of the independent monitoring board, because that board plays such an important part. It is made up of members of the public who independently review these institutions, as similar boards review institutions across other parts of the immigration and prison system. Their role is so important in ensuring that the rules and standards that we expect are maintained by those who are entrusted with such responsibility.
G4S: Immigration Removal Centres — House of Commons, 2018-05-08
Topic: Immigration
Cheryl Elise Kendall Gillan (Conservative, Centre-right): I commend the Minister for the Government’s having taken swift action following the appalling "Panorama" programme. These immigration centres contain many vulnerable people. Feltham young offenders institution became the first autism accredited penal establishment in the world, and it found that that helped greatly. Will the Minister look into the possibility of rolling out that programme, particularly across the immigration estate, so that we can develop and implement standards by which we can protect vulnerable people in a custodial environment?
G4S: Immigration Removal Centres — House of Commons, 2018-05-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
Victoria Atkins (Conservative, Centre-right): Of course, my right hon. Friend has campaigned effectively for a long time on the importance of recognising autism and how we should treat it. Stephen Shaw set out in his 2015 report his concerns about adults who were vulnerable or at risk in the custodial environment. Indeed, that is why he has been commissioned to write a second report—a follow-up review—on the welfare of vulnerable detainees. I very much look forward to reading that report and its conclusions in due course.
G4S: Immigration Removal Centres — House of Commons, 2018-05-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
Victoria Atkins (Conservative, Centre-right): With regard to the original procurement process, due diligence was conducted, as would be expected, after the bids were received. In the light of the "Panorama" programme, further due diligence was conducted, and, as a result of further due diligence into the process, the Government have decided that the procurement process should be reopened so that all the actors in this field can take into account the two reviews that we are awaiting this year.
G4S: Immigration Removal Centres — House of Commons, 2018-05-08
Topic: Immigration
Victoria Atkins (Conservative, Centre-right): The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, last week, the Home Secretary set out in two statements before the House his vision for immigration policy and the principles that he expects to be applied to immigration policy. Taking into account the reviews that are being conducted, I am sure that those principles will be very much at the forefront of his mind.
G4S: Immigration Removal Centres — House of Commons, 2018-05-08
Topic: Immigration
James Roger Cartlidge (Conservative, Centre-right): In the Windrush debate, I think that there is now a growing recognition on all sides that our immigration policy needs to show that it balances humanity with a robust ability to deal with those who are here illegally. The contract with G4S was a short-term award, but does my hon. Friend agree that, when the contract is awarded on a long-term basis, those bidding must demonstrate that they understand that and can deliver it?
G4S: Immigration Removal Centres — House of Commons, 2018-05-08
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Victoria Atkins (Conservative, Centre-right): Very much so. The competition will be a free and fair one, in that bidders will be expected to show that they can meet the expectations of the Government and others when it comes to quality, financial stability and price.
G4S: Immigration Removal Centres — House of Commons, 2018-05-08
Topic: Immigration
Victoria Atkins (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman talks about simply taking matters back in-house, but we have to acknowledge the complexity of providing services to people who often have vulnerabilities. When these people are in the centres, they may well be pursuing live claims on their immigration status themselves. Given the need to continue to provide these services at the standards that we expect, the view was taken that we would extend the current contract by two years, thus enabling a proper procurement process to occur in the light of the two reviews and allowing a decision on the next contract to be taken in good time and with care.
G4S: Immigration Removal Centres — House of Commons, 2018-05-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
Abimbola Afolami (Conservative, Centre-right): The Minister will have heard from all parts of the House the shock at these revelations. Bearing that in mind, will she confirm that there have been substantial changes to the practices at Brook House since these revelations have come to light and set out what oversight the Government will have over G4S during the contract extension period?
G4S: Immigration Removal Centres — House of Commons, 2018-05-08
Topic: Immigration
Caroline Elizabeth Johnson (Conservative, Centre-right): Morton Hall in my constituency is an immigration removal centre facing significant challenges and issues. Will my hon. Friend update the House on what is being done to improve immigration removal centres including not just Brook House but Morton Hall?
G4S: Immigration Removal Centres — House of Commons, 2018-05-08
Topic: Immigration
Victoria Atkins (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend will know of the issues in her own constituency. Morton Hall is in a slightly different category because it is run by the Prison Service and not by G4S. That reflects the fact that these are people who are being detained in a prison environment awaiting their removal. The Government take very seriously the treatment of people whose immigration status is not to their liking and who have appeals and so on in the process. The fact that the vast majority of people who are liable to removal from the UK are in the community being dealt with through alternatives to detention should, I hope, give comfort to the House.
G4S: Immigration Removal Centres — House of Commons, 2018-05-08
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): Before I call the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), I say not for the first time, and I am sure not for the last, that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) is correct: this is indeed an urgent question, and on the principle that the House and perhaps those attending to our proceedings like to have a bit of extra information, I can vouchsafe to all present that this is the 465th urgent question that I have been pleased to grant.
G4S: Immigration Removal Centres — House of Commons, 2018-05-08
Topic: Immigration
Victoria Atkins (Conservative, Centre-right): May I explain the reason why two years has been settled upon? The Home Office has taken the view that that is the minimum period required realistically to revisit the specification, to run a full and legally compliant procurement process, to complete all the relevant governance processes and to mobilise the new services. That timetable is not unusual for a procurement of this sort of value. I will ask the Immigration Minister to write to her on the question about healthcare.
Secure Tenancies (Victims of Domestic Abuse) Bill — House of Commons, 2018-05-08
Topic: Housing
Heather Kay Wheeler (Conservative, Centre-right): Sadly, I think the hon. Lady has misunderstood what the Bill is about. Funding for refuges and other supported housing will be dealt with by 2020 in a different vehicle New clause 1 calls for a review into the potential for co-operation between local authorities in England and local authorities in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to include consideration of the scope to extend the provisions of the Bill to apply across the UK. I entirely understand that there will be situations in which someone wishes to escape from one part of the UK to another to get away from an abusive relationship, perhaps to put a safe distance between themselves and their abusive partner, or to move back to where their family and support networks are. I sympathise with the broad intention behind this proposal to increase co-operation between England and the devolved Administrations, and I appreciate that there will be strong support for it. This issue was raised in Committee and also during the passage of the Bill through the Lords. However, I do not believe that this Bill is the appropriate vehicle to achieve that co-operation Nor would it be appropriate or necessary to seek to examine the possibility of extending the Bill to make changes to the legislation covering social tenancies in the devolved nations. I do not need to remind hon. Members that housing is a devolved matter. That means that it is for local authorities—or the Housing Executive in the case of Northern Ireland—and social landlords in each part of the UK to decide whether to allow access to social housing and what type of tenancy to grant, in accordance with the law that operates in that country.
Secure Tenancies (Victims of Domestic Abuse) Bill — House of Commons, 2018-05-08
Topic: Housing
Heather Kay Wheeler (Conservative, Centre-right): That will certainly be part of the package, yes. I will read out the letter as well, because that is the killer punch It is likely that most victims who flee from one part of the UK to another to escape domestic abuse and who are in need of housing would apply to a local authority for assistance on the basis that they were homeless. Homelessness legislation will provide a safety net for victims fleeing domestic abuse, even when they flee across national borders, but Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own homelessness legislation. That means that there may be differences of approach in accordance with the requirements of each devolved area. For example, local authorities in Wales, as in England, may discharge their duty to rehouse using the private rented sector The purpose of the Bill is to remove an impediment that might prevent someone who suffers domestic abuse from leaving their abusive situation in England when the provisions under the Housing and Planning Act 2016 come into force. The Act applies only to England. A victim of abuse in another part of the UK will not face the same impediment to fleeing their situation for fear of losing their lifetime tenancy. For example, if someone in Scotland were to flee to another council district within Scotland, the second local authority would grant them a lifetime tenancy if and when they were rehoused.
Secure Tenancies (Victims of Domestic Abuse) Bill — House of Commons, 2018-05-08
Topic: Housing
Heather Kay Wheeler (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman is trying to entice me down a road that I will not go down. This is parliamentary legislative drafting, and there should be no reason whatsoever for local authorities to misunderstand the situation, which will obviously also be made clear in guidance. However, I thank him for giving me the opportunity to say it again. We will be issuing guidance to assist local authorities to implement the fixed-term tenancy provisions in the Housing and Planning Act 2016. To manage concerns, we can certainly look to ensure that it explains the provisions in this Bill as well, including making it absolutely clear that it applies where the victim is seeking to be re-housed in a different local authority district from the one in which her existing tenancy is situated.
Secure Tenancies (Victims of Domestic Abuse) Bill — House of Commons, 2018-05-08
Topic: Housing
Heather Kay Wheeler (Conservative, Centre-right): That is a slightly different clause, which I will come to in a moment. With that in mind, and taking into account the fact that amendment 1 is unnecessary for the reasons I have given, I therefore ask for it not to be pressed On amendment 2, I appreciate the concern of hon. Members to prevent further stress and anxiety. Survivors of domestic abuse have already suffered experiences that most of us here can only imagine. However, I do not think the amendment is necessary. The number of households likely to be granted a tenancy under this Bill that would lead them to under-occupy a property, and as a result become subject to removal of the spare room subsidy, is likely to be very small indeed Allocating a property that is too big for a tenant’s needs would not be in the interests of the tenant or the landlord. The tenant, if eligible for housing benefit, would see their eligible rent reduced, which would not be in the tenant’s or the landlord’s interest. It would also not be the best use of scarce social housing.
Secure Tenancies (Victims of Domestic Abuse) Bill — House of Commons, 2018-05-08
Topic: Housing
Heather Kay Wheeler (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Lady brings up an interesting fact that was not discussed in Committee. I will address the discretionary powers that local authorities have, which might help her with an answer. Allocating a property that is too big is not necessarily in the tenant’s interest or the landlord’s interest, and it certainly is not the best use of scarce social housing. Our 2012 allocations guidance clearly recognises that local authorities, when framing the rules that determine the size of property to allocate to different households and in different circumstances, will want to take account of removal of the spare room subsidy Where the victim wishes to remain in her own property after the perpetrator has left or been removed, we expect that in most cases it would not result in an under-occupation charge—domestic abuse normally occurs between partners who share a bedroom, so removing the perpetrator would not normally result in under-occupation. Furthermore, if there is any risk it could lead to a victim becoming subject to the under-occupation charge, it will be open to the authority to offer a new tenancy in another, smaller property, or to offer a similar one and take into account the next matter In the small number of cases in which, for whatever reason, a local authority grants a tenancy under the Bill in a property that has more bedrooms than the tenant needs, it is open to the tenant to apply for a discretionary housing payment to cover any rental shortfall. Some £900 million of funding for discretionary housing payments has been provided to local authorities since 2011 to support vulnerable claimants, including victims of domestic abuse.