argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
BBC — House of Commons, 2020-07-21
Topic: Labor
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on changes to the licence fee exemptions, programming and job losses at the BBC.
Christopher Philip James Elmore (Labour, Centre-left): Before the general election last year, I led a debate in Westminster Hall calling on the Department for Work and Pensions to introduce a new campaign to increase the uptake of pension credits. Work and Pensions Ministers have refused to do that, and in answer to written questions I have tabled, they have refused to increase the campaign to get take-up above 60%. The Minister knows that it is not for the BBC to implement Government welfare plans, so rather than just relying on the BBC writing letters to all over-75s, will the Minister commit to getting the DWP to start such a campaign, including writing to those pensioners who are entitled to the £2.5 billion that remains unclaimed by some of the poorest pensioners across the UK?
BBC — House of Commons, 2020-07-21
Topic: Technology
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on changes to the licence fee exemptions, programming and job losses at the BBC.
Diana Ruth Johnson (Labour, Centre-left): In Hull, our local BBC TV and radio is central to our community, as a public service broadcaster at times of crisis such as the flooding in 2007 and covid-19 this year, and by playing an important democratic role in scrutinising those in power locally. Taken with the parallel cutbacks in local newspapers and commercial TV and radio, local and regional BBC cuts are a growing crisis in local news, not least in the places furthest from London. The Minister has already said that this could lead to a more London-centric media. What will he do about that to protect news in places such as Hull?
BBC — House of Commons, 2020-07-21
Topic: Macroeconomics
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on changes to the licence fee exemptions, programming and job losses at the BBC.
Stephen James McCabe (Labour, Centre-left): In terms of public money, how come it is okay for people in the midlands to contribute £1 billion in licence fees and only get back 15% in jobs and production opportunities? Surely the Minister thinks that is completely unacceptable.
BBC — House of Commons, 2020-07-21
Topic: Technology
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on changes to the licence fee exemptions, programming and job losses at the BBC.
Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Labour, Centre-left): Because of huge Government cuts, the BBC has reluctantly had to axe the free TV licence for the over-75s, and make substantial reductions to national news and its much-treasured regional news output. During the heat of the election, the Conservatives extolled the virtues of local news and promised to protect our elderly from isolation by retaining their free TV licences. Will the Minister take this opportunity to apologise to those millions of pensioners and the BBC staff who will lose their jobs as a result of the Government’s broken manifesto pledge?
Windrush Lessons Learned Review — House of Commons, 2020-07-21
Topic: Law and Crime
Yvette Cooper (Labour, Centre-left): What happened to the Windrush generation at the hands of the British Home Office was deeply shameful. I welcome the Home Secretary’s commitment to fundamental reform of the culture and the processes in the Home Office, and her commitment to change the way the Home Office works. I also welcome the openness to scrutiny to which she referred. We on the Home Affairs Committee will welcome further details from her of her plans The Home Secretary referred to the Home Office needing to have a humane face, and that must start with those who have been most badly wronged. As she will know, there are still huge delays in the compensation process. I have had two more cases given to me this afternoon of people who have been waiting for over a year. They are still waiting, but are unable to get any response from the Home Office about what is happening to their cases. We are hearing of case after case where that is happening. Will she now urgently review the operation of the compensation scheme, so that initial payments can be made far, far more quickly? This is an ageing generation. It is urgent that they get support.
Windrush Lessons Learned Review — House of Commons, 2020-07-21
Topic: Education
Helen Elizabeth Hayes (Labour, Centre-left): Recommendation 6 of Wendy Williams’s review calls for an education programme to be introduced for all new and existing Home Office staff to make sure that all staff "learn about the history of the UK and its relationship with the rest of the world, including Britain’s colonial history, the history of inward and outward migration and the history of black Britons." It is right that the Home Secretary has announced today that that programme is being introduced in the Home Office. Does she agree with me that if we are to avoid such a shameful scandal as the Windrush scandal ever happening again, that content is important not only for staff in the Home Office, but for every child being educated in British schools? If she does agree that that is important, will she speak to her colleague, the Minister for Schools, who has recently refused to meet me and campaigners from my constituency—young people—who are desperate to see reform in their education system, so that they can all say, collectively, "Our history is British history"?
Windrush Lessons Learned Review — House of Commons, 2020-07-21
Topic: International Affairs
Zarah Sultana (Labour, Centre-left): The "Windrush Lessons Learned Review" recommends that the Home Office implements a comprehensive programme to educate staff about Britain’s colonial history, but the Prime Minister, in an article he wrote for The Spectator, said that the problem with British colonialism was not "that we were once in charge, but that we are not in charge any more." If we are to have trust in this Government to deliver that education programme, will the Home Secretary condemn the Prime Minister and acknowledge the brutal crimes that British colonialism inflicted upon millions of people across the globe?
Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill — House of Commons, 2020-07-21
Topic: Law and Crime
Alexander Cunningham (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. He rightly says that this is about having an open mind. I was trying to persuade the Minister and the Conservative Members in Committee that they should have an open mind on a number of issues, because we are facing real challenges on deradicalisation programmes, the resources within the probation service and the fact that young people are going to be treated exactly the same as adult prisoners in the system—I will be coming on to that later We also want to understand whether the resources are available for the use of polygraphs and to deal with the impact on youth offender teams. I have already talked about the impact of longer licensing on the National Probation Service. Such measures as are in this Bill always have ripple effects, so we ask the Secretary of State to lay before the House, within three years, a report on the real financial impact of all these things. There should never be an issue of resources when it comes to justice matters, and a review would not only identify where there are issues, but arm the Secretary of State with the evidence he needs to resist further cuts to his Department’s budget and instead win some additional resources We should ensure that prisons are properly staffed and that those staff are properly supported, be it for their personal security or to provide them with adequate services when they suffer mental illness as a result of their job—services that we know are currently totally inadequate. I asked about these measures in Committee, but we still need reassurances. This is about not just funding for prison places, but the wider financial impact on society, especially when offenders get released from prison and need help rebuilding their lives. That is a particular concern for those who are young and may leave prison with no support system. These provisions do not come cheap, and I hope we are going to get some clearer answers on meeting the costs of the different services that I have laid out Throughout Committee, I stressed the importance of recognising that young offenders are different from older, adult offenders and that their age ought to be taken into consideration when they are being sentenced, even for the most terrible of crimes. That is why we tabled amendment 30, parallel amendments for Scotland and Northern Ireland and the remaining new clauses in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, myself and others.
Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill — House of Commons, 2020-07-21
Topic: Law and Crime
Alexander Cunningham (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Lady tempts me to start to rehearse all the arguments around the age of maturity. We know that children up to the age of 18 are treated differently under the law, much as the group between 18 and 20 are supposed to be treated differently. There is more and more evidence all the time. In particular, there have been some studies in Scotland—I am looking at the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) for the SNP—that are starting to talk in terms of, "Maybe we should be looking at 25 as the age of maturity." That is all the more reason why we have to think carefully about how we treat young people in the justice system, because young people ought to be treated differently. They have a better chance of being rehabilitated, and it is important we give them that chance.
Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill — House of Commons, 2020-07-21
Topic: Law and Crime
Alexander Cunningham (Labour, Centre-left): I am interested that the hon. Gentleman has addressed the issue of the probation service, because I talked about the crisis that exists in that service. Is he satisfied that it is operating in the way it needs to be to cope with the current business it has to deal with, let alone the increased activity arising from this Bill?
Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill — House of Commons, 2020-07-21
Topic: Law and Crime
Alexander Cunningham (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister is right to mention the additional funds and so on that have been forthcoming, and we very much welcome them, but we have a probation service in crisis. Would he like to comment specifically on the fact that there is a high sickness rate and a 10% vacancy rate? How on earth can they do their job properly if we do not have sufficient of them?
Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill — House of Commons, 2020-07-21
Topic: Law and Crime
Alexander Cunningham (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful to the Minister for his introductory remarks, particularly about how we can best work together as a Parliament, and I join him in paying tribute to the hon. Members across the House who shared personal experiences and testimonies—particularly the hon. Members for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson) and for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns). If we had had to be convinced to support the Bill, perhaps those experiences—in particular the experience of the friend of the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford—would have been sufficient to convince us The Minister’s ambition to have a sentencing regime in place for serious terrorism and terrorism-related offences has our support—no delay and no watering down—but he needs to ensure that the service is properly equipped and provides the services needed. I was therefore rather surprised—"stunned" is the word I wrote on my bit of paper—that the impact of introducing this new legislation will be less than £5 million for new prison places, an extended probation service and additional workers in the system. I cannot quite understand where that number comes from However, I am sure the Minister will be relieved to know that all I ask now is that he and his Home Office colleagues reflect on the challenges that we have made. I will withdraw new clause 1, but we will return to amendment 30 later. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 8 Lone terrorists: Review of strategy "(1) The Secretary of State must commission a review and publish a report on the effectiveness of current strategies to deal with lone terrorists (2) A review under subsection (1) must be conducted by a person who meets the criteria for qualification for appointment to the Supreme Court, as set out in section 25 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (3) A review under subsection (1) must consider— (a) counter-terrorism policy; (b) sentencing policy as it applies to terrorist offenders; (c) he interaction and effectiveness of public services with respect to incidents of lone terrorist attacks (4) For the purposes of subsection (3)(c), "public services" includes but is not limited to— (a) probation; (b) the prison system; (c) mental health services; (d) local authorities; and (e) housing providers (5) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report before Parliament (6) A Minister of the Crown must, not later than 3 months after the report has been laid before Parliament, make a motion in the House of Commons in relation to the report."—(Conor McGinn.) This new clause ensures that the Government orders a judge-led review into the effectiveness of current strategies to deal with lone terrorists including, but not exclusively, current counterterrorism and sentencing policy. Brought up, and read the First time.
Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill — House of Commons, 2020-07-21
Topic: Law and Crime
Conor Patrick McGinn (Labour, Centre-left): I do, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for the work she has done on this issue and her commitment to it. I am sure the Minister will have heard what she says. It is something I raised in Committee and I did receive some assurances from the Minister, but I think we would wish to hear—not just in the light of what my right hon. Friend says, but of what the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation said when he made a similar point—what the Minister is doing to ensure those safeguards are in place.
Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill — House of Commons, 2020-07-21
Topic: Law and Crime
Conor Patrick McGinn (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Gentleman speaks with both great personal dignity and authority on these matters. I agree. We want the system to be agile and to be able to respond. The Bill places a very significant power on the Secretary of State. In seeking to ask the Government for assurances, we want to ensure the system itself is robust, because those protections allow authority and credibility in terms of being able to respond to the ongoing terrorist threat. The amendment we propose would ensure that there are reasonable and probable grounds for a TPIM to be issued. The higher bar would create safeguards without harming the robust nature or operational utility of TPIMs, which we want to be as impactful as they can possibly be to keep people safe We acknowledge that it was a Labour Government who, upon introducing control orders in 2005, imposed a standard of proof, as proposed in the Bill, to require only reasonable grounds for suspecting an individual had been involved in terrorism-related activity. That was then raised by the coalition Government in 2011 with the creation of the new TPIMs regime, and again by the Conservative Government in 2015. However, I cannot help but reflect on the words of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation to the Bill Committee, when he said: "If it is right that the current standard of proof is usable and fair, and I think it is, in a word, if it ain’t broke, why fix it?"––[Official Report, Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Public Bill Committee, 25 June 2020; c. 7, Q6.] I think the Minister has to respond to that challenge. We need assurances from the Minister today, and an operational, administrative and procedural perspective for making those changes We would also like clarity on an exit strategy, given the indefinite nature of what has been proposed. Our concern with an open-ended or enduring TPIM regime is that it could see difficult cases languish, with no realistic plan for a resolution of any kind. Indeed, under the proposals, as the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation confirmed to the Committee, we could conceivably see someone who has been convicted of a terrorism offence being free from constraints before someone who has been placed on an enduring TPIM. That kind of situation is intolerable and I hope the Minister will again respond to those concerns, alongside the arguments of many colleagues in the House in relation to TPIMs and polygraph testing, which, while useful as an additional information source in certain contexts, we know is controversial and untested in the counterterrorism sphere. I do not think it would be unreasonable to run a pilot scheme, as per new clause 9, so that before making such costly national changes we could see proper independent evidence of the polygraph’s reliability and utility in the specific context of terrorist offenders. We all want an effective and efficient TPIM regime to help to save lives and protect our country’s citizens from harm, and we want to work with the Government to get it right.
Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill — House of Commons, 2020-07-21
Topic: Law and Crime
Bellavia Janet Ribeiro-Addy (Labour, Centre-left): Does the hon. and learned Lady agree that the delay of the review has caused quite a lot of concern in many communities who want better terrorist prevention legislation? Unfortunately, Prevent has demonised Muslim communities and put unfair duties on teachers and NHS workers. All those individuals want better terrorism prevention, but they will not get that if the review is delayed further.
Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill — House of Commons, 2020-07-21
Topic: Law and Crime
Conor Patrick McGinn (Labour, Centre-left): In the brief time available, I wish, first, to thank the Minister for addressing some of the concerns we have raised, not just today on Report, but through a thorough examination of the Bill in Committee. Although Labour Members wholeheartedly support robust action to keep our country and our citizens safe, and to tackle terrorism and its causes, it is the duty of any responsible Opposition to examine fully the Government’s proposals. I feel that we have done that, with the assistance of Scottish National party and Liberal Democrat Members, those from other parties in the House, and colleagues on the Back Benches The Minister and the Government should listen carefully to the very personal testimony given by my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) and for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), and indeed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). Although I might not have agreed with her on every crossed t or dotted i, or even on whole words or sentences on occasion, she does speak with the voice of years of experience in this House and a commitment to these issues. She also, like Members who spoke from these Benches, speaks authoritatively and with great passion on behalf of the constituencies and communities she represents. The Government should listen to them, which was why I made the points I did about the importance of not only getting this Prevent review right but getting on with it, to give the clarity and confidence needed, and to address some of the challenges and controversies associated with it I was hoping that we might receive a commitment from the Government to publish their MAPPA— multi-agency public protection arrangements—review before we got to consideration in the House of Lords, because it is important, given the removal of the statutory deadline for Prevent and given that the Opposition have proposed a review on lone actors, to have some timeframe on that. I appreciate and understand that the Minister has made valiant efforts to do that, but I regret that it has not been forthcoming to date. I hope that in considering the request for a review on lone actors, the Government understand that we do so in a constructive spirit.
Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill — House of Commons, 2020-07-21
Topic: Law and Crime
Conor Patrick McGinn (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Lord Chancellor and the Minister for that commitment. The robust exchanges we have had have been in the context and spirit of working constructively on a Bill of huge importance, which is concerned with keeping our country and its citizens safe. Our proposals for that review are in keeping with that view. We await to see what the MAPPA review by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation comes forward with. Colleagues in the other place will no doubt wish to scrutinise that. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause Clause, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 4 Serious terrorism sentence for adults aged under 21: England and Wales Amendment proposed: 30, page 5, line 35, at end insert— "(7) The pre-sentence report must — (a) take account of the offender’s age; (b) consider whether options other than a serious terrorism sentence might be more effective at— (i) reducing the risk of serious harm to members of the public, or (ii) rehabilitating the offender (8) The court must take account of any points made by the pre-sentence report in relation to the matters in subsection (7) and consider whether they constitute exceptional circumstances under subsection (2).".—(Alex Cunningham.) Question put, That the amendment be made.
Misuse of Nitrous Oxide — House of Commons, 2020-07-21
Topic: Environment
Rosemary Clare Duffield (Labour, Centre-left): We have all seen the tell-tale bullet- shaped silver canisters and their balloon companions littering our beaches and parks this summer. On Saturday morning, I saw yet another little pile of littered canisters at every 10 paces or so along Whitstable beach in my constituency.
Misuse of Nitrous Oxide — House of Commons, 2020-07-21
Topic: Environment
Tulip Rizwana Siddiq (Labour, Centre-left): I commend my hon. Friend for her powerful campaign on this issue. As a former councillor in Camden, I am aware of the pressures on councils during this pandemic. Is she aware of the significant cost to councils of removing these discarded containers, and will she raise that in her speech?
Misuse of Nitrous Oxide — House of Commons, 2020-07-21
Topic: Environment
Rosemary Clare Duffield (Labour, Centre-left): Yes, I am going to mention that. I know that my council has had so many extra rubbish collections during covid due to people gathering on beaches, which is a significant problem. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that Many people pass by these canisters without knowing what they are. Some will have picked them up, examined them and speculated imaginatively about their use. Among young people, the use of nitrous oxide is endemic. Every single sixth-former and university or college student in Britain will know what those silver canisters are. Nitrous oxide—also known as laughing gas, NOS, NOx, whippits, balloons or chargers—is a psychoactive drug covered by the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016. It can be taken legally, but it cannot by law be sold or given away to others for the purpose of inhalation in a recreational capacity.
Misuse of Nitrous Oxide — House of Commons, 2020-07-21
Topic: Law and Crime
Anna Rhiannon McMorrin (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech on a really important matter that has a huge impact on my constituents. Does she agree that it is important to look at the penalty for possession because, as it stands, there is none?