argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
The Economy — House of Commons, 2020-07-08
Topic: Education
Karin Marguerite Smyth (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful for that intervention. That is exactly the point that I was going to make—more than 2 million well-paid jobs in this sector. In Bristol, social care makes up 13% of employment and it desperately needs supporting. The Minister has left the Chamber, but he commented in relation to another question that women’s income is quite important to families. It is not the 1950s. It is not pin money that women are earning. They are supporting their families and the gentlemen in the Treasury need a bit of help on the real economy as it affects women, which we are ready and willing to offer I want to focus my final comments on the further education sector and adult skills and training. They seem to be a bit hidden with respect to what we have seen today, and I am still trying to understand the detail, particularly as it affects apprenticeships. I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on apprenticeships and I have long supported the Government’s work in this area, working very closely with Ministers. Again, I want to see the apprenticeship system succeed. It is a ladder of opportunity for my constituents who are the least likely in the country to go to university. Please do better I have written to the Education Secretary suggesting an approach by Bristol City Council to retain some levy funds so as to be able to support public sector recruitment for apprenticeships. I would like an answer quite soon. Also, I would like to understand from the Government today whether we can clarify what impact the kick-start programme, which we do welcome, will have on businesses if they take on apprenticeships. If that could be addressed later, I would be very grateful It looks like colleges are getting some money, but it is a long way short of what they have been losing. City of Bristol College is hugely skilled in blended learning, supporting the most vulnerable and the least skilled youngsters, as well as those with greater skills, in our economy. We want further education colleges to succeed. They are ready to help with catch-up, training and adult skills, but they need to be properly funded to do that I would also like to know what the Government have estimated the regional economy of the west of England to be. We have been a net contributor to the Treasury in the past; we seem to be falling behind. When will we understand what these proposals mean for the west of England? At the start of this crisis, the Government said they would support local government. Bristol City Council is £76 million in debt. We need the Government to do better. Please support Bristol.
The Economy — House of Commons, 2020-07-08
Topic: Macroeconomics
Olivia Frances Blake Dagnall (Labour, Centre-left): It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan), who has spoken passionately about Telford’s tenacity. Today we are debating the state of our economy, which is in urgent need of discussion and desperate need of action. As the Chancellor pointed out in his statement, covid-19 resulted in a 25% drop in GDP in April, compared with February. That is unprecedented. Technically we are not in recession yet, but the writing is on the wall: there is worse to come. We know that we will be living with this crisis for a long time. Many of the measures that the Chancellor has outlined today are welcome, but they do not go far enough to address either the current unprecedented crisis or the long-term problems that have caused the UK to be one of the G7 economies hit hardest by the coronavirus. Before covid19, we were in no position to weather a financial storm. Ten years of anaemic growth have seen wages stagnate in real terms, and people’s rights at work have been eroded. Take the care workers the Prime Minister has clapped for on Thursdays and then scapegoated on the following Monday—on zero-hours contracts, poverty wages, and often unacceptable statutory pay. This was a problem created in the past 10 years, not six months. In my city, we have seen central Government funding cut year in, year out, with vital services stretched and starved of funding. We now face a £23 million shortfall in the council’s funding this year.
The Economy — House of Commons, 2020-07-08
Topic: Macroeconomics
Olivia Frances Blake Dagnall (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend makes a very valid point. The work that local authorities have been doing should be commended and rewarded. The Government have made promises that need to be kept in terms of funding, and I will watch to see whether they will fulfil them Nothing the Chancellor has said today addresses these issues. We were promised a green new deal. The £3 billion for home retrofits and energy efficiency in public buildings is welcome, but it is not a green new deal. It falls well short of the funding we need to kick-start a faltering economy and deliver the growth and green jobs that are vital for our recovery. We will see Governments across the globe act on a green recovery, and I am afraid that this will be a missed opportunity for the UK to help with a future crisis in the wake of this pandemic. We know that we are not out of the woods yet and we may be facing further hardship as a result of coronavirus. The medium to long-term impacts could be felt for generations. We need the Government to forge a path from which we can emerge with greater opportunities and a greener economy I welcome the extended access to funding for apprenticeships, but we cannot escape the fact that our further education sector has been decimated. We need accessible, lifelong learning to help us to pull through this global crisis. I am shocked that the only mention of universities in this whole package is £300 million for infrastructure and labs. That undermines the fact that research in this country is completely down to the amazing researchers that we have. We have seen redundancy processes started at multiple universities across the country, and this will be harmful to gender and black, Asian and minority ethnic representation in early careers. We risk having a lost generation of researchers in this country, and that will serve only to make us weaker in the future and reduce our productivity. It is absolutely vital that we see more from the Government on this The scale and ambition of the economic response to the coronavirus must match the scale of the challenges we face. As we come out of this public health crisis—if we do indeed come out of it—building back better requires that we do more than provide a plaster for the damage inflicted on the economy. It means addressing the fundamental problems in our economy—low growth, stagnating living standards, and poor pay and conditions. Unfortunately, the Government continue to offer nothing to address those issues. They say they will follow the science. I may have taken my lab coat off, but I hope I have given some food for thought.
The Economy — House of Commons, 2020-07-08
Topic: Macroeconomics
Rachel Louise Hopkins (Labour, Centre-left): Today’s statement on the economy is a clear opportunity to confront some of the vulnerabilities that covid-19 is exploiting, including rising unemployment and the ever-present climate emergency. Without greater and targeted intervention, both those intertwined crises will exacerbate class inequalities and severely damage living standards After borrowing "Jobs, jobs, jobs", the Government’s latest strap line is "Build, build, build", but that is not enough. We also need to "Make, make, make", with a hands-on, interventionist approach to manufacturing to stimulate growth in our communities. We need bold, innovative solutions to reinvigorate a greener job market Two predominant sectors in my constituency of Luton South are aviation and automotive, and they would both benefit dramatically from a targeted economic strategy that roots a green recovery in our communities to ensure that local people reap the rewards of growth in their area. A 21st century industrial strategy requires an end to economic short-termism and a greater focus on the creation of quality, unionised green jobs I am a member of Unite the union, the recent report of which, "Manufacturing Matters", evidences the need for strategic state investment to reinvigorate the UK’s manufacturing base and create new sustainable employment and education opportunities in our communities. In Luton, this could be represented by additional support for Vauxhall to help its transition towards the manufacture of electric vehicles. Such an approach is not radical; the French Government have already adopted a similar strategy Green economic growth must be built into inclusive local economies. Anchor institutions must drive the green transition. Local authorities must be empowered to construct green local infrastructure, including clean local transport systems and electric vehicle charging points. This would create skilled green jobs that are fit for the 21st century The Government have a unique window of opportunity to accelerate a green transition in the aviation sector. A targeted economic package would protect thousands of jobs and stimulate a sectorial transition towards net zero. Commitments attached to economic support could include strict time-bound decarbonisation expectations and obligations to adopt cleaner fuels and low emission technologies. A green aviation package would save jobs in Luton during the pandemic while creating a thriving, sustainable job market for future generations The UK needs an economic strategy that directly lifts people out of economic insecurity, gives them secure, quality jobs and protects our climate for future generations. This will be achieved only through a state-driven industrial strategy; the market will not deliver it. I urge the Government to put people and their living standards first.
The Economy — House of Commons, 2020-07-08
Topic: Macroeconomics
Zarah Sultana (Labour, Centre-left): Shortly before the coronavirus pandemic hit, I visited the home of one my constituents. She had issues with her flat. When it rained heavily, water came flooding through her roof. Mould was growing on the walls and it was causing breathing problems. She was desperate for help. Members from across this House will hear similar things every single day because, before this crisis hit, our economy was failing working people: 14 million people in poverty, including 4 million children Key workers, from shop assistants to delivery drivers and refuse collectors to hospital porters, are on poverty pay. They kept our country running through this crisis, but this country has not been running for them, because while working people have faced a decade of public service cuts, stagnating wages and rising rents, the super-rich and big businesses have enjoyed a decade of tax cuts and corporate giveaways. Their wealth has soared while the majority have suffered. This was the economy before coronavirus hit—rigged, unfair and unsustainable, and charging us towards climate catastrophe, with the Government on course to miss their carbon neutral target by 49 years. We cannot go back to that: it is broken, it is rotten and it has failed But the Government are not trying to take us forward—they are trying to take us back to that, with announcements that are nowhere near enough to match the scale of the challenges we face. Three million people are still excluded from Government employment support, unemployment is predicted to reach levels not seen since the 1980s, and Coventry and the west midlands are hit particularly hard. Now is the time to rise to the challenges we face, with ambition that matches their scale, to bring about lasting change, rewiring the economy so that it works for all, with a focus on advancing the wellbeing of people, not endlessly chasing GDP figures It is with a bold, green new deal that we can build that economy: building green industries and not just preventing redundancies but creating 1 million good, new, well-paid, unionised jobs; investing in green public transport and making it free to help working people and to cut emissions; embarking on an ambitious plan to insulate millions of homes across the country, cutting bills and carbon; and exploring a four-day working week, with no loss of income for working people, stopping job losses by sharing out work. Polling shows that even Conservative voters think that that should be considered. While we do that, we need to take on the billionaires, dismantle the fossil fuel industry, tax the super-rich, and crack down on the tax dodgers Now is the time for bold ideas and bold actions. It is time to build a new economy where our resources are geared to meet the needs of the people, not to make profits for the rich.
Free Travel for Under-18s: London — House of Commons, 2020-07-08
Topic: Transportation
Ruth Margaret Cadbury (Labour, Centre-left): It is good to see my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) in her place, and it is a particular pleasure to see the Minister in her place and to be joined by colleagues who are concerned, like me, about the issue of children and young people’s travel in London I sought this debate to try to understand the Government’s decision to require Transport for London to suspend free travel for under-18s on London’s buses and trams. The removal of free travel for under-18s will impact hardest on London’s most disadvantaged young people. It is technically complex to implement and will lead to low levels of demand reduction, which is the proposal’s purported aim. I shall briefly summarise where I think we are with the issue and would then welcome clarification from the Minister on the latest position When the Government agreed in May to provide emergency funding to TfL—as they did to so many public services whose income streams have been decimated by the pandemic—they set a number of conditions, one of which was for TfL to suspend free travel for under-18s. The funding agreement states that the reason behind the condition was "to optimise the use of the available safe transport capacity"— in other words, to manage demand, especially during the morning peak I understand that despite many weeks of discussion between Government officials and TfL, the specific condition was raised directly with London’s deputy Mayor for transport, Heidi Alexander, only on the day the deal was agreed, 14 May. It came out of the blue without any prior assessment of its impact on London’s children or the cost and complexity of implementing it. It was the only deal that the Government offered; the Mayor of London had no choice but to accept it to keep the tubes and buses running, and if he did not, he would have been forced to issue a statutory section 114 notice—the declaration stating that TfL is no longer able to work to a balanced budget. Because the condition was imposed at the last minute, there was no time for TfL’s officers to assess the significant impact and the supposed benefit.
Free Travel for Under-18s: London — House of Commons, 2020-07-08
Topic: Transportation
Ruth Margaret Cadbury (Labour, Centre-left): I believe that they have not. They certainly did not discuss the implications because it came, as I said, out of the blue. It is good to know that local authorities are assessing the impact. London is the UK’s most congested city, with the lowest levels of car ownership and the greatest numbers of families living in poverty. Free travel for under-18s was introduced by a Labour Mayor, and since 2006 subsequent Mayors, including the current Prime Minister, have retained the policy.
Free Travel for Under-18s: London — House of Commons, 2020-07-08
Topic: Social Welfare
Ruth Margaret Cadbury (Labour, Centre-left): I absolutely agree with my neighbour’s point. My son went to Richmond upon Thames College, and many students journey from far too far away to be able to cycle. As she so rightly says, the proposal hits the poorest hardest—the very families that need all the help that they can get to ensure that their children can achieve and prosper. It is those families who are doing worst in the covid crisis. According to the Child Poverty Action Group, 700,000 children in London are estimated to be growing up in poverty.
Free Travel for Under-18s: London — House of Commons, 2020-07-08
Topic: Education
Margaret Olivia Hillier (Labour, Centre-left): I thank my hon. Friend for securing this vital debate. Does she agree, further to the point made by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), that this is effectively a tax on education? Many parents will already have chosen schools and have their children in secondary schools or colleges on the basis of free travel. They will either be forced to pull out or have to pay for it. This is a really significant issue for our young people.
Free Travel for Under-18s: London — House of Commons, 2020-07-08
Topic: Education
Ruth Margaret Cadbury (Labour, Centre-left): One fifth of London’s secondary school children travel across borough boundaries and many travel long distances to go to the school of their choice, or even the only school that they could get into, because school places are at a premium in London, as we know, with the rising population and the gap in creating sufficient school places quickly enough. A mother from Hounslow said that "it’s hard to find money to put on an oyster card. I know it’s not free—someone has to pay—but the Zip Oyster card for kids did help."
Free Travel for Under-18s: London — House of Commons, 2020-07-08
Topic: Labor
Helen Elizabeth Hayes (Labour, Centre-left): The cost that we are talking about for a family with three children in secondary school is £45 a week. Does my hon. Friend share my concern about how families that have faced furloughing or lost employment, and may already be on low incomes during this covid-19 crisis, could possibly be expected to meet that additional weekly cost?
Free Travel for Under-18s: London — House of Commons, 2020-07-08
Topic: Social Welfare
Ruth Margaret Cadbury (Labour, Centre-left): Absolutely. We keep hearing in this House how universal credit and the other benefits just do not keep up with the real cost of living in London. My hon. Friend is absolutely right We have covered the inequality issues, but the decision is also technically complex and costly to administer. As I say, 30% of young Londoners are entitled under national regulations to free travel anyway, and so will continue to have that right. That includes those on free school meals or other benefits, and those with special educational needs and so on. But there is currently no system in place in London for working out which children qualify. Indeed, any such system would be more complex than any in England, with seven fare zones and over a fifth of children crossing borough boundaries to get to school. Will the home council administer the scheme, or the one where the school is based, or will TfL or the schools administer it? We do not know.
Free Travel for Under-18s: London — House of Commons, 2020-07-08
Topic: Transportation
Ruth Margaret Cadbury (Labour, Centre-left): I absolutely agree with my other honourable neighbour. She is absolutely right, because while London has the lowest car ownership in the UK, it does not take a lot of additional cars on the road to create extra congestion. That would send all the wrong messages and be completely contrary to the messages the Government are trying to bring in about alternative travel The Government expect this new system to be agreed and up and running in a matter of weeks when staff are already under huge pressure. I do not believe the Government have considered the logistics, and with no precedent for changing the concessions, there is also no way of knowing how many under-18s would still pay to use public transport. TfL expects a demand reduction of only 1% to 2% in the morning peak if these proposals were to be implemented from September, reaching only 5% by January, so the proposal is not even going to achieve the Government’s aim of reducing demand significantly TfL is willing and able to work with local authorities and schools on a range of measures to address demand, such as staggering start times, capping numbers on buses, and encouraging walking and cycling where possible for those who live near school, whereas this proposal, which might hit the already disadvantaged hardest, might only reduce demand during the morning rush hour by 1% to 2% The Minister might say that children should cycle, but even when new segregated cycle routes are in place, I challenge her to find many 2-mile to 5-mile home-to-school journeys that can be done by an 11-year-old, wholly on segregated cycle paths, including crossing major junctions or on quiet streets like in Hackney. Many boroughs are not implementing these schemes anyway. Kensington and Chelsea seems somewhat reluctant Furthermore, many low-income families do not own a bike, many homes have nowhere safe to store a bike and not everyone lives in a place where it is safe to walk to school. Those walking longer distances are at risk from those preying on vulnerable children. One mother said to me that the advantage of the bus is the CCTV, so the groomers and the robbers do not tend to use them. Many London children travel long distances to school, beyond the reach of the bike.
Free Travel for Under-18s: London — House of Commons, 2020-07-08
Topic: Transportation
Margaret Olivia Hillier (Labour, Centre-left): I thank my hon. Friend for being generous in giving way again. One of the benefits of this project when it was introduced was that it got whole generations of young people to realise that public transport was there and was useable. It got them in the habit. Does she not think there is another detrimental impact? It is a nice idea that everyone is going to hop on a bike instead of going by car, but it is not likely to happen.
Free Travel for Under-18s: London — House of Commons, 2020-07-08
Topic: Transportation
Ruth Margaret Cadbury (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend is absolutely right. To quote the brilliant Josh from Lewisham again, public transport is a lifeline for so many of our young people So far, the Transport Secretary, in his responses on the issue to this House and to the Transport Committee, has paid lip service to the need to reduce demand, but seems to take delight in criticising TfL’s finances—what he claims is the Mayor’s mismanagement of them—and suggests that taxpayers elsewhere in the UK are unduly subsidising London. However, the previous Mayor of London, who is now the Prime Minister, agreed to phase out TfL’s direct operating grant. This left London as one of the only major cities in the world, and the only capital in Europe, not to receive direct Government funding for running day-to-day transport services. As a result, fares and commercial revenues have been forming just over 80% of TfL’s income. Before covid struck, TfL’s finances were in a strong place, but clearly, when tube ridership plummeted by 95%, it was simply not feasible for TfL to recuperate that income on its own. Hence it needs support Perhaps the imposed condition and the way it has been handled is an attempt to curb the Mayor’s powers, contrary to the Government’s professed support for devolution of powers to cities and regions. I hope not. The Government should let the London Mayor lead, and let TfL get on with the job it does so expertly every day—managing demand, providing safe journeys for children and young people, and keeping London moving Children and young people in Greater London, including my constituents, should not be the accidental victims of this apparent power tussle between the Government and the Mayor of London. I have some questions for the Minister.