argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-04-24
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Rosalie Winterton (Labour, Centre-left): I remind hon. Members that, if there is a Division, only Members representing constituencies in England and Wales may vote. As the knife has fallen, there can be no debate. I call the Minister to move the consent motion Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Programme Order, 22 January, and Standing Order No. 83M(5)), That the Committee consents to the following certified clauses of, and schedules to, the Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [Lords]— Clauses and schedules certified under Standing Order No. 83L(2) as relating exclusively to England and Wales and being within devolved legislative competence Clauses 29 and 31 of the Bill as amended in Public Bill Committee (Bill 160), and Schedule 4 to the Bill as amended on Consideration—(Guy Opperman.) Question agreed to. The occupant of the Chair left the Chair to report the decision of the Committee (Standing Order No. 83M(6)). The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair; decision reported. Third Reading
Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-04-24
Topic: Mixed Topics
Ruth Stephanie Nicole George (Labour, Centre-left): I will not detain the House for long. In a long afternoon of debate on financial guidance and cold calling since the ten-minute rule Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr), we have heard how important it is that so many people receive support and proper independent financial guidance. I welcome the work that has been done on both sides of the House, by Front Benchers and Back Benchers. As a member of the Work and Pensions Committee, I am glad that we have been able to contribute to the work that has gone into the Bill. I hope that Ministers will continue to listen to the arguments as they develop the Bill further when it returns to the other place We have heard in recent hours about people suffering from mental health problems. They are more vulnerable to people seeking to take their money, whether through cold calling and doorstep selling. As we have heard, mental health problems can be exacerbated by debt. I hope that the Government will consider widening the definitions of debt and of mental health crisis. I have constituents in High Peak who, unfortunately, even at a time of crisis and having attempted suicide, are unable to access mental health crisis support—in-bed support is not available, and there is even a waiting list for support in the community. I therefore hope that the Government will have as wide a definition as possible of people either receiving crisis care or on the waiting list to receive crisis care—I am sorry to say that there are waiting lists for crisis care. The definition should be extended to all debt Recently, I asked some parliamentary questions about the level of debt being recovered under universal credit and was sorry to hear that about 6% of current full-service claimants are paying 40% of their universal credit payments to cover third-party debts, leaving them with just 60% of a universal credit payment, which is already lower for many recipients than legacy benefits. Those people have already seen cuts and this is leaving them with even less to pay their debts As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), companies that provide consumer credit can be ruthless in hounding their customers and often contribute to mental health difficulties. In this era of rising household debt, we have nearly £200 million of consumer credit. Independent financial guidance and support are needed more than ever. I urge the Government to ensure that as many people as possible can access it Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.
Universal Credit: Household Debt — House of Commons, 2018-05-21
Topic: Housing
Helen Elizabeth Hayes (Labour, Centre-left): A recent Trussell Trust survey found that 70% of respondents were in debt as a result of the initial universal credit wait and more than half had experienced problems with their housing linked to debts and arrears. Advance payments simply stack up more debt, and food banks in areas where universal credit has been fully rolled out for more than a year have seen an average increase in need of 52%. The Secretary of State has it within her power to make further changes to universal credit to stop this avoidable hardship and distress now. Why will she not do so?
Universal Credit: Private Rented Sector Evictions — House of Commons, 2018-05-21
Topic: Housing
Questions: What assessment she has made of the effect of the roll-out of universal credit on the number of evictions in the private rented sector.
Margaret Greenwood (Labour, Centre-left): It is reported that the Law Centres Network says cases are now common in which eviction proceedings come to court after the Department for Work and Pensions has failed to pay rent directly to the landlords of universal credit claimants, even though it says on a claimant’s journal account that a direct rent payment has been made. What action is DWP taking to address this issue as a matter of urgency?
Young Disabled People: Help into Work — House of Commons, 2018-05-21
Topic: Civil Rights
Thangam Elizabeth Rachel Debbonaire (Labour, Centre-left): Would the Minister care to explain to my disabled constituent how new claim rules for Access to Work justify requiring confidential contracts of and employment information about the disabled person’s personal assistant, and how do those square with the general data protection regulation?
PIP Assessors: Mental Health Awareness — House of Commons, 2018-05-21
Topic: Mixed Topics
Justin Piers Richard Madders (Labour, Centre-left): I suggest the Minister goes back and sees how that works in practice. A constituent came to see me recently about their personal independence payment assessment; they were asked during the course of the assessment why they thought their previous suicide attempts had not been successful. Does the Minister share my disgust at that cruel, inhumane and disgusting way of asking questions?
Tower Block Cladding — House of Commons, 2018-05-21
Topic: Housing
John Healey (Labour, Centre-left): (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on the action taken and planned by the Government with respect to residents in tower blocks with dangerous cladding, following the Grenfell Tower fire.
Tower Block Cladding — House of Commons, 2018-05-21
Topic: Housing
John Healey (Labour, Centre-left): As the Secretary of State has said, on this first day of the commemoration hearings at the Grenfell Tower inquiry, we remember the 72 people who lost their lives. We will not forget our special duty as Members of Parliament to do right by them, so it is a matter of deep regret that I must drag Ministers to Parliament again to explain their response to the Grenfell Tower disaster The Government have been off the pace at every stage since the fire. More than eleven months on from Grenfell, how is it that two thirds of Grenfell survivors are still in hotels or temporary accommodation? How is it that the Government still do not know how many private tower blocks are unsafe? How is it that only seven out of more than 300 tower blocks across the country with the same Grenfell-style cladding have had it removed and replaced? How can it be that Ministers offered money to councils and housing association landlords for re-cladding costs and finally agreed to consult on a combustible cladding ban only last week Many people will have learned only yesterday that the London fire service has fundamentally changed its safety advice to residents in blocks still wrapped with the same Grenfell-style cladding. In place of "stay put" if a fire breaks out—strong advice given for decades to all residents in all tower blocks across the country, including those in Grenfell Tower—the London fire brigade now says "get out" directly. Do all fire brigades now give the same advice? Do all residents in all blocks with unsafe cladding know that? I say to the Minister that more action, more clarity and more urgency are required from the Government When will the Secretary of State publish a clear national statement on evacuation policy? When will he confirm when all tower blocks be re-clad? When will he get sprinklers retrofitted—the Opposition and fire chiefs have argued that they are needed? When will he make public the location, ownership and fire safety status of all high-rise blocks at risk? The information is held by the Government, but Ministers are keeping it secret. We know that the Secretary of State knows—he is the new Secretary of State—that more action and greater urgency is needed. When will we get it?
Tower Block Cladding — House of Commons, 2018-05-21
Topic: Housing
Clive James Charles Betts (Labour, Centre-left): Last week, the Select Committee welcomed the Secretary of State’s decision to consult about banning all combustible material from the cladding on tower blocks. May I ask him, once again, whether he has given further thought to banning the material on existing blocks as well as on new blocks and refurbishment works? If he is minded to do that, does he accept that the Government would then have a responsibility to compensate building owners for the effects of building regulations that were changed retrospectively?
Tower Block Cladding — House of Commons, 2018-05-21
Topic: Housing
Hilary James Benn (Labour, Centre-left): While last week’s announcement of money to replace unsafe cladding on social housing is welcome, that still leaves a lot of private blocks, including in my constituency, where leaseholders are facing potentially a very large cost and great uncertainty about when the work will be done. Since the Government’s policy is that those who own the freehold should pay, will the Secretary of State now introduce a low-interest, long-payback loan scheme so that the work can be done and my constituents, and everybody else’s, can get peace of mind at last?
Tower Block Cladding — House of Commons, 2018-05-21
Topic: Mixed Topics
David Lindon Lammy (Labour, Centre-left): I have just come from the Grenfell inquiry, which began this morning. One of the survivors said to me, "If it was thought that combustible cladding was responsible for the fire and it had to come down, why is not banned?" Can the Secretary of State give some timetable on when combustible cladding will finally be banned?
Tower Block Cladding — House of Commons, 2018-05-21
Topic: Mixed Topics
Karen Patricia Buck (Labour, Centre-left): The "stay put" policy has been a recognised element of fire safety for a long time, and those of us who have thousands of residents in high-rise towers in our constituencies now want clarity from the Government. My understanding is that the London fire brigade has changed its policy for blocks with particular types of cladding, but are residents expected to know what kind of environment they are living in before deciding whether to stay put or to leave? What will the Government do about that to ensure that there is total clarity, from tonight, to guide people?
Tower Block Cladding — House of Commons, 2018-05-21
Topic: Housing
Angela Eagle (Labour, Centre-left): Does the Secretary of State accept that there is a real issue of enforcement here and that self-regulation, especially in competitive industries such as construction, simply will not work? I suspect that that is what Dame Judith Hackitt was getting at in her report. Given austerity cuts, can he assure the House that enforcement will be strengthened, so that as the regulations are changed, they bite and have an effect?
Tower Block Cladding — House of Commons, 2018-05-21
Topic: Housing
Andrew Francis Slaughter (Labour, Centre-left): What advice does the Secretary of State have for landlords who are replacing cladding now? Perhaps the reason why only seven blocks have been re-clad is that landlords do not know what to do. Given that he has said he is minded to ban combustible cladding, why does he not put in place a provisional ban and advise landlords to use only non-combustible materials?
Tower Block Cladding — House of Commons, 2018-05-21
Topic: Housing
Rushanara Ali (Labour, Centre-left): Will the Secretary of State tell the House how many private blocks have combustible cladding, and what sanctions will be imposed on companies that are passing on costs to leaseholders? He has mentioned not ruling anything out, so will he provide some specifics to reassure our constituents who are living in those blocks?
Tower Block Cladding — House of Commons, 2018-05-21
Topic: Housing
Ruth Margaret Cadbury (Labour, Centre-left): What are the Government doing to ensure that residents of these high-risk buildings are made aware of the new arrangements about leaving in the case of a fire? Eight months since the change of policy there, residents of the privately owned Blenheim block in Hounslow have still not been given evacuation instructions or had a fire drill, and the only people who left the building when several fire engines turned up at one of several recent fires were the paid fire marshals.
Tower Block Cladding — House of Commons, 2018-05-21
Topic: Housing
John Eugene Joseph Dromey (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State was good enough to agree to investigate why, the best part of a year on, Birmingham’s 10,000 households and 213 tower blocks are waiting for the Government to honour their pledge to provide financial support to make them safe. A sense of urgency is now absolutely vital, so I ask the Secretary of State: how many more weeks or months will they have to wait?
Tower Block Cladding — House of Commons, 2018-05-21
Topic: Housing
Steven Mark Ward Reed (Labour, Centre-left): There is no enforceable legal obligation on builders, freeholders or insurance companies to pay for the removal of flammable cladding from private sector blocks, which means that the cladding will remain in place. Leaseholders feel that they are being hung out to dry and that their safety is being disregarded. If the Government believe that they can enforce a moral obligation, why do they not pay to take the cladding down, keep people safe and recover the funds from whoever they believe is responsible for paying for it?
Tower Block Cladding — House of Commons, 2018-05-21
Topic: Housing
Helen Elizabeth Hayes (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State and his predecessor have repeatedly said that they wish to see essential fire safety works completed in tower blocks across the country, yet across the country councils are saying that sprinklers are the essential fire safety works that can save residents’ lives in the future. In several cases, they have been told that the Government do not consider sprinklers to be essential. No funding for sprinklers has been provided by the Government. Will the Secretary of State explain how that is consistent with the Government’s stated commitment to do everything possible to ensure that another catastrophic tower block fire cannot happen and will he think again about funding for sprinklers?
Tower Block Cladding — House of Commons, 2018-05-21
Topic: Mixed Topics
Grahame Mark Morris (Labour, Centre-left): A study by the Association of British Insurers found that standard UK fire safety testing fails properly to assess risk. Why has the Secretary of State refused to initiate a large-scale programme of testing of suspected combustible cladding other than cladding made of aluminium composite materials?
Tower Block Cladding — House of Commons, 2018-05-21
Topic: Housing
Matthew Thomas Pennycook (Labour, Centre-left): A year on, the NHBC is yet to conclude whether the New Capital Quay development in Greenwich was or was not compliant with building regulations at the time of construction. What can the Secretary of State do in such cases to ensure that warranty providers wrap up their assessments and determine claims as a matter of urgency?
Private Members’ Bills: Money Resolutions — House of Commons, 2018-05-21
Topic: Mixed Topics
Jeffrey Smith (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and I completely agree with it. Does this not point to a much wider issue, which is the ridiculous process we have to go through on private Members’ Bill in this House? Is it not time we had a private Members’ Bills process where Bills could not be blocked by filibustering or by the whim of the Government?
Private Members’ Bills: Money Resolutions — House of Commons, 2018-05-21
Topic: Other
Christian John Patrick Matheson (Labour, Centre-left): I endorse what the Leader of the House says about treating colleagues with respect, but she is unwittingly making the argument just made by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan). Almost nothing that she is talking about requires a vote that is binding on the Government. The trend is the same; the Government are running away from anything on which they have to have a vote, and that is exactly what is happening with the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton.
Private Members’ Bills: Money Resolutions — House of Commons, 2018-05-21
Topic: Other
Yasmin Qureshi (Labour, Centre-left): May I ask the Leader of the House a very direct question that was posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan)? The convention of Parliament is that the money resolution has to be tabled once a private Member’s Bill has had its Second Reading. Second Reading of this Bill happened five months ago, so why has this not happened?
Private Members’ Bills: Money Resolutions — House of Commons, 2018-05-21
Topic: Other
Paula Michelle Sherriff (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Leader of the House. Does she agree that it would be appropriate to lay the money resolution and allow this House to debate it in the usual way, and then, if the Government wished, they could vote against it?
Private Members’ Bills: Money Resolutions — House of Commons, 2018-05-21
Topic: Mixed Topics
Joanna Meriel Stevens (Labour, Centre-left): I am very grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way, but she knows, as does every Member of this House, that the boundary review will be based on information about the electorate that is years out of date, so why not scrap it and do it on the basis of the current electoral register?
Private Members’ Bills: Money Resolutions — House of Commons, 2018-05-21
Topic: Civil Rights
Stephen Nathan Kinnock (Labour, Centre-left): The Leader of the House talks about a constitutional duty. Does she not think that the Government have a constitutional duty to the 2.1 million people who are not on the electoral register and are therefore not included in this review, and a constitutional duty to do right by the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan)?
Private Members’ Bills: Money Resolutions — House of Commons, 2018-05-21
Topic: Mixed Topics
Kevan David Jones (Labour, Centre-left): I am sorry, but the right hon. Lady is talking complete nonsense. Is it not a fact that the Government could lay the money resolution now? The idea that that money would be spent is absolute rubbish, and as for the idea that the Bill will somehow go ahead, would it not be a suitable back-up if the boundary commissions’ review were to fall?
Private Members’ Bills: Money Resolutions — House of Commons, 2018-05-21
Topic: Civil Rights
Valerie Carol Marian Vaz (Labour, Centre-left): This is the most current register—and the 2.1 million people left off the existing register have to be included—but the Bill says that the register from the most recent election should be used The Bill would allow the 2.1 million electors to be included in the review. The Government passed a statutory instrument that many in the House agreed with, allowing people to register to vote right up until Thursday 9 June 2016—for the referendum—so they accept that voting is important, and those 2.1 million people should be counted and have their voices heard.
Private Members’ Bills: Money Resolutions — House of Commons, 2018-05-21
Topic: Immigration
Valerie Carol Marian Vaz (Labour, Centre-left): I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. He makes his point very well. Clause 4 would require the boundary commissions to complete their reports, including in relation to the requirements in clauses 1 to 3, by 1 October 2020 and to report by 1 October every 10th year, rather than every five years, as provided for by the 2011 Act. Giving the boundary commissions 10 years will actually save costs.
Private Members’ Bills: Money Resolutions — House of Commons, 2018-05-21
Topic: Civil Rights
Khalid Mahmood (Labour, Centre-left): It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) for securing a debate on this very important issue after the House voted overwhelmingly in support of his private Member’s Bill. It is unfortunate we have had to have this debate because of the Government’s wrongful persistence. I thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing last week’s Standing Order No. 24 application and for granting this debate. It is extremely important that we are able to discuss this issue Having listened to the Leader of the House speak of all the great things she has awarded Parliament and this Chamber, of the Bills she has allowed and of how gracious she has been, I should perhaps be on bended knee to await her grace and favour. I am aghast that I should even be here to question this situation. Unfortunately for the Leader of the House, we are not in China. We are the longest-serving democracy in the world. We are the mother of Parliaments. Parliament is supreme, and her job as Leader of the House is to convey those things—not to block, and not to stand for the Executive rather than listen to the voice of this Chamber. In her speech she mentioned only what has been put forward by the Executive and the reasons why she is still not able to say, "Yes, we will grant this money resolution because it is the overwhelming will of this Chamber that we do so." I do not want to deviate too much on the boundary change issue, to which the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex and others have alluded, but these are the figures on which the boundary commissions have been working: 46,107,152 people were registered to vote in 2011; and in 2017, 46,826,481 people were registered to vote, a 2.67% change. This year’s electoral registration figure is 46,148,035, which means the number of people able to vote has reduced The big issues for the boundary changes are, first, the number of people actually on the electoral register and, secondly, how registration has happened over the past eight years and how this Executive have made it difficult for people to register to vote. That is the real problem that the Leader of the House needs to address, and she has not yet done so Members on both sides of the Chamber have mentioned the cost factor. The Government say the cost of Parliament is too high. Will a Government Member stand up and tell me how many Members have been appointed to the other place since 2010? What is the cost of those appointments?