argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Windrush Victims: Compensation — House of Commons, 2019-06-10
Topic: Immigration
Diane Julie Abbott (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister has to begin to acknowledge communities’ grave concerns about the Windrush compensation scheme as it stands. They think that it is not working. She also needs to bear in mind that this is an ageing cohort, who will probably need more support on average than a cohort that is more mixed in age. The Home Secretary told the House in April last year that we "will do whatever it takes to put it right". He continued: "We have made it clear that a Commonwealth citizen who has remained in the UK since 1973 will be eligible to get the legal status that they deserve: British citizenship."—[Official Report, 30 April 2018; Vol. 640, c. 35.] What progress has been made on those promises Will the Minister reconsider some of the worst aspects of the current scheme? It will currently not compensate those who may have been wrongly deported. I quote from the document: "It is difficult to determine whether inability to return to the UK is a loss" Of course, someone being deprived of their home, job, family and community is a loss. How can Ministers say that it is "difficult to determine" whether there is a loss?
Immigration System — House of Commons, 2019-06-10
Topic: Immigration
Adrian Edward Bailey (Labour, Centre-left): International students are vital not just for our exports, but for university funding and regional economies. Britain is lagging behind our main competitors in attracting the brightest and the best. What plans has the Home Secretary to add countries such as India to the list of states with fast-track access to tier 4 study permits to help to address that issue?
Fire Services: Overnight Cover — House of Commons, 2019-06-10
Topic: Public Lands
Emma Dent Coad (Labour, Centre-left): In the Minister’s response of 5 June to my letter about fire service funding he stated that all services had the capacity to respond to high-rise fires, yet the speed of the fire spread we saw yesterday in Barking was terrifying, and if that had happened at night people may well have lost their lives. Seconds count and seconds save lives; is the Minister truly convinced that he has done everything he can to keep people safe in their beds?
Fire Services: Overnight Cover — House of Commons, 2019-06-10
Topic: Mixed Topics
Diane Julie Abbott (Labour, Centre-left): We are approaching the third anniversary of the Grenfell Tower tragedy, which, as Members will know, happened overnight. The Grenfell residents had complained about their treatment by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and had specifically highlighted the fire risks, but they were ignored. What steps have the Government taken to ensure that similar warnings from those who know most—the residents themselves—are heeded and acted on?
Counter-Terrorism — House of Commons, 2019-06-10
Topic: Mixed Topics
David George Hanson (Labour, Centre-left): This weekend, the Home Secretary announced as part of his leadership bid a £500 million investment in border security in Northern Ireland, plus ongoing costs. Will the Minister agree to publish the proposals as soon as possible, so that they can be open to public and private scrutiny?
Asylum Application Process — House of Commons, 2019-06-10
Topic: Immigration
Catherine Elizabeth West (Labour, Centre-left): Last December, the Home Secretary said that he would look into lifting the ban on asylum seekers working. Will he please set out his view on whether or not asylum seekers should have the right to work after they have lodged their applications?
Grenfell: Government Response — House of Commons, 2019-06-10
Topic: Housing
Emma Dent Coad (Labour, Centre-left): The time for platitudes is done. I am, frankly, shocked that Government Members have the face to wear a green heart—shame on them. How can they sleep at night when tens of thousands across the country cannot, living in homes that are potentially dangerous or with their investments worth nothing? I cannot sleep. Where is the leadership in this process? There is a whole generation of potentially unsafe buildings out there. It is hardly controversial to keep people safe in their homes. The Secretary of State talked about it being his mission. Please do not make it a mission—make it a legacy. It is within your power, and instead you consult, report, review; consult, report, review. Please, wake up from your torpor and legislate now; we know what needs to be done.
Grenfell: Government Response — House of Commons, 2019-06-10
Topic: Housing
Lucy Maria Powell (Labour, Centre-left): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for hosting Grenfell United today. I hope you will continue that tradition I have hundreds, if not thousands, of constituents living in dangerous or potentially dangerous high-rise buildings. While I welcome the Government’s cladding fund for private blocks, many of those blocks are still waiting to hear from the Government whether they will be eligible for that fund. Meanwhile, their residents are trapped in dangerous properties, with their lives completely on hold as they wait for that information. The fund does not cover many buildings in my constituency that have other cladding—not ACM cladding—or that have no firebreaks or other safety concerns. Residents in Skyline Central 1 face demands of up to £25,000 each to re-clad their building, and those in Burton Place face demands of up to £80,000 each. Those costs will not, as it stands, be covered by the fund. As there are a very high number of private blocks in my constituency, will the Secretary of State come to Manchester to meet some of these residents and talk about how we can make their lives safe and free them from the trap they are in, with properties that they cannot sell and are frightened to live in?
Grenfell: Government Response — House of Commons, 2019-06-10
Topic: Housing
Margaret Eve Hodge (Labour, Centre-left): Mr Speaker, I am sorry I could not join your Speaker’s reception today, because I was with those of my constituents in Barking—on Barking riverside—who are the survivors and victims of the terrible fire that took place yesterday. I hope you will give me a little leeway in what I have to say The pictures on the estate are horrific. Thankfully, nobody died, but had that fire taken place at night, I think people would have died. Literally the whole building was engulfed in flames within six minutes. The residents I met have lost their homes, their possessions, children’s toys, family photos and personal mementoes, and what I came across in my meetings this morning were trauma, grief and anger These are early days and it is appropriate that a proper investigation takes place, but let me raise three issues with the Secretary of State that arose out of my visit this morning. First, it absolutely shocked me that the fire alarms that should have been in place and operating were not working and that there were no sprinklers in this block of flats, because they were not considered necessary. This is a block of flats that was built only seven years ago Secondly, timber was used, and it was used really in a decorative way. Allegedly—and this is so shocking—that timber had not been treated. What I have been told is that the regulations are such that, because the building was only a six-storey building and therefore not 18 metres or higher, there was no necessity to have that sort of regulation. That is shocking. How on earth can that be possible in this day and age? Thirdly, I want to talk about who is responsible. When we walk on to an estate like that, there is a freeholder, a developer, a builder and subcontractors, while the developer sells on to other people and there are then leaseholders and people in buy-to-let. There are myriad people who have a role to play there, and nobody is accountable. Everybody I talked to today on that side of the fence wanted to pass the buck and pass on responsibility I have to say to the Secretary of State that, at the end of the day, when lives are at risk he has to be responsible, and he has to empower local authorities, through him, to take responsibility. We are talking about protecting our people—the most important duty we have as elected representatives. It is no good passing the buck to other authorities. I hear what the Secretary of State says, and he does talk a lot of words. I urge him to recognise that now is the time for action. Two years on from Grenfell, we should not have had another fire.
Grenfell: Government Response — House of Commons, 2019-06-10
Topic: Public Lands
Thangam Elizabeth Rachel Debbonaire (Labour, Centre-left): When in 2014 the all-party parliamentary fire safety rescue group asked the then local government Minister in the coalition Government to act on the coroner’s recommendations, published in 2013, after the six deaths in the Lakanal House fire in 2009, that Minister said that he had not heard anything to suggest that the changes were urgent. After the all-party group said that it would go public on his inaction if there was ever another major fire tragedy, he finally announced a review just before the 2015 general election, in which he lost his seat. He has since said that the incoming 2015 Government dropped his pledge. Maybe he is wrong, so is the Secretary of State completely certain now, 10 years after the Lakanal House fire—not just two years since Grenfell—that every recommendation that the coroner made has been implemented? If not, why not?
Grenfell: Government Response — House of Commons, 2019-06-10
Topic: Housing
Mathew Richard Allen Rodda (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Secretary of State for his update. Two years is a very long time. I can only imagine the suffering and stress that the residents of Grenfell and the local community have had to endure in that time. Many other residents around the country, such as those in Reading living in flats with dangerous cladding, have also endured suffering and stress. Will the Secretary of State now commit to take urgent action? Will he visit Reading to see the flats in my constituency that are covered in dangerous cladding, as well as other buildings that may be dangerous, such as overcrowded houses in multiple occupation and shoddy conversions of office accommodation into flats?
Grenfell: Government Response — House of Commons, 2019-06-10
Topic: Housing
Marsha Chantol De Cordova (Labour, Centre-left): Two years on from the Grenfell fire, thousands of people are still living in homes wrapped in unsafe, dangerous cladding. My constituents are living with unnecessary stress, anxiety and worry due to the unsafe cladding on their blocks. The Secretary of State says that the funding has now been made available for those living in privately owned blocks, but there is no deadline or timeline set for the removal of the unsafe cladding. Will the Secretary of State today confirm what timeline is being set, not just for local authorities but for the owners of private blocks, to ensure that unsafe cladding is removed more quickly?
Grenfell: Government Response — House of Commons, 2019-06-10
Topic: Public Lands
Christopher Shaun Ruane (Labour, Centre-left): Ann Jones, my colleague who represents the Vale of Clwyd in the Welsh Assembly, has sponsored legislation in Wales to introduce sprinklers to prevent such fires. In response to the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), the Secretary of State said that he will look all over Europe for best practice on fire prevention. Will he look at this best practice from Wales and see if he can introduce it?
Ford in Bridgend — House of Commons, 2019-06-10
Topic: Mixed Topics
Christopher Philip James Elmore (Labour, Centre-left): I should like to start by welcoming the Secretary of State’s statement, and I thank him and the Business Secretary for the constructive way in which they have engaged with me as the Member for the neighbouring constituency, in which a large majority of the workforce actually live, and with my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon). We have been meeting the workforce and the unions over the weekend, and I welcome the way in which they are working with the Welsh Government It is reassuring to hear the Secretary of State say that he is willing to work in the taskforce and to do all he can to help to support the workforce, but can he set out here and now what he will do if there is a need for UK Government fiscal intervention to protect those jobs and possibly to make Ford change its mind? I believe that Ford still has questions to answer, given that just three weeks ago it was talking about the Dragon line being the most efficient of any of the plants across the world, including in Mexico My priority will be the families in my constituency who will be left devastated by this and the communities in my constituency that have not recovered from the de-industrialisation of the 1980s. This really will be a hammer blow to so many of them right across Ogmore, Bridgend, Aberavon and many other constituencies. We need a fiscal stimulus package and an automotive sector deal so that we can protect these jobs and these workers and ensure that these families have some security beyond September 2020.
Ford in Bridgend — House of Commons, 2019-06-10
Topic: Mixed Topics
Richard Haines Burden (Labour, Centre-left): The circumstances facing Bridgend are obviously different from those that surrounded the collapse of MG Rover at Longbridge over a decade ago, but I still know something about the impact that the closure of a major car plant can have not only on jobs, but on a community’s sense of identity. The first message from this Chamber must therefore be one of solidarity with the workers of Ford at Bridgend and their families May I ask the Secretary of State two things? First, he said that he met the company, so has he suggested any alternatives to closure? If so, what were those alternatives; I did not hear them in his statement? Secondly, while Brexit may not be the immediate cause of this announcement, he knows that it is relevant to virtually every decision that any automotive manufacturer is making at the moment. Is this news not just further evidence that we must avoid no deal at all costs?
Ford in Bridgend — House of Commons, 2019-06-10
Topic: Mixed Topics
Kevin Denis Brennan (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State represents the constituency next door to the plant, yet he will not rule out a no-deal Brexit. That is utterly irresponsible and provides the context, even if not the immediate cause, for why the automotive sector in this country, including at Ford in Bridgend, is on the brink, with 10,000 jobs at risk, with 50,000 more in the supply chain. When is he going to show some leadership?
Ford in Bridgend — House of Commons, 2019-06-10
Topic: Mixed Topics
Nicholas Desmond John Smith (Labour, Centre-left): Some 27% of our output in the Gwent valleys comes from manufacturing, and some of our leading employers in Blaenau Gwent are in the automotive sector. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that Ford workers and suppliers will get the same package of financial support that was offered to Honda just up the M4?
Ford in Bridgend — House of Commons, 2019-06-10
Topic: Mixed Topics
Jessica Elizabeth Morden (Labour, Centre-left): Ford’s announcement is indeed a bitter blow for workers at Bridgend and will be felt across south Wales, and all our efforts should be put into supporting those who are affected. With the car industry in crisis, the steelworkers I met on Friday at Cogent, owned by Tata, want the Government to be proactive in helping to develop and support the supply chain for electric vehicles. Companies like Orb have the workforce and the expertise, but what will the Government do to support such companies through the industrial strategy for the future of this industry?
Ford in Bridgend — House of Commons, 2019-06-10
Topic: Mixed Topics
Anna Rhiannon McMorrin (Labour, Centre-left): This closure is devastating news for families across Wales, including those affected in my constituency and across the whole of south Wales, and for the supply chain businesses affected, as a huge number of people are involved in the supply chain. The Secretary of State is wholly wrong to rule out Brexit being a causal factor in this decision. The former First Minister of Wales, Carwyn Jones, said today that closure was "never on the agenda" during his very recent private discussions with Bridgend Ford. So can the Secretary of State please rule out a no-deal Brexit and the irresponsible message he is giving to every manufacturer across the industry, across the UK and across Wales today? Will he give that assurance to the car industry and to everyone?
National Insurance Contributions (Termination Awards and Sporting Testimonials) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-06-10
Topic: Mixed Topics
James Dolan Cunningham (Labour, Centre-left): I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I made a remark about sneaky tax from a sedentary position. I have a good example of why we should not trust what those on the Government Front Bench say: in their manifesto, they pledged to retain the free television licence for old-age pensioners. What did they do? They passed it on to the BBC. We have all seen the announcement today. How can we trust anything they say?
National Insurance Contributions (Termination Awards and Sporting Testimonials) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-06-10
Topic: Domestic Commerce
David Drew (Labour, Centre-left): I have listened very carefully to my hon. Friend and I totally agree with him. May I concentrate on the issue of testimonials? One of the great myths about professional sportspeople is that they are all terribly well paid, but county cricketers, people playing in the lower regions of football and rugby players playing outside the premier league are not well paid. Traditionally, long-term servants have had the opportunity of a testimonial and those testimonials are often organised by groups of volunteers. Are we seriously suggesting that people who organise a darts match, a pool tournament or a dinner are going to be brought into the regime, whereby they have to think about national insurance contributions, taxation and the rest? That is surely crazy.
National Insurance Contributions (Termination Awards and Sporting Testimonials) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-06-10
Topic: Domestic Commerce
David Drew (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Lady will have heard my earlier intervention. It is not uncommon for people to give very generously when they have a favourite sportsperson. It could happen that someone expects to get £30,000 over the course of a year, yet people are so generous that they give £60,000. Should that be backdated? In other words, if the additional £30,000 could be given to charity, does that impact on the whole amount or the part amount? This what happens in real life; it is not as straightforward as perhaps the Government think.
National Insurance Contributions (Termination Awards and Sporting Testimonials) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-06-10
Topic: Other
Peter Christopher Dowd (Labour, Centre-left): I indicated at the time that we would reserve our judgment and see whether the Government came up with sensible proposals. The fact of the matter is that, regrettably, they have yet again not come up with those suggestions, proposals, recommendations and explanations. That is why. Here we are giving the Government the benefit of the doubt, and we are being criticised for it.
National Insurance Contributions (Termination Awards and Sporting Testimonials) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-06-10
Topic: Mixed Topics
Peter Christopher Dowd (Labour, Centre-left): We will push new clause 5, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw new clause 1 Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 5 Effects of termination awards provisions (1) The Treasury must publish reviews of whether the payment of Class 1A contributions on termination awards under sections 1 and 2 has had— (a) any effect on the number of termination awards made above £30,000; (b) any effect on the size of termination awards made above £30,000; or (c) a disproportionate effect on— (i) women, (ii) pregnant women, (iii) persons aged 50 or over, or (iv) any other group of people with protected characteristics (within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010) (2) The first review under subsection (1) shall be published no later than 24 months after this section comes into force (3) Subsequent reviews under subsection (1) shall be published no later than 24 months after publication of the previous review.—(Peter Dowd.) This new clause would provide for a general review of the termination awards provisions of this Act within every period of 24 months. Bought up, and read the First time. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme — House of Commons, 2019-06-10
Topic: Mixed Topics
Grahame Mark Morris (Labour, Centre-left): That is an incredibly important point. When I had to apologise to some of the miners from Wales and Yorkshire who travelled down last week, the point was made to me that even in the space of one week—the period by which this debate was delayed—thousands would die.
Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme — House of Commons, 2019-06-10
Topic: Mixed Topics
Grahame Mark Morris (Labour, Centre-left): Absolutely. We owe a debt to the miners, and the Government have an obligation to them— a moral obligation. They obviously have the financial resources to discharge that debt, and to give retired miners and their widows and dependants some dignity.
Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme — House of Commons, 2019-06-10
Topic: Mixed Topics
Grahame Mark Morris (Labour, Centre-left): Absolutely The MPS winter newsletter states: "Whilst the Trustees are and always have been supportive of any initiative that had the underlying aim of improving members outcomes, the Trustees do not have the power to make these changes without recourse to the Guarantor" —in other words, the Government "We will of course continue to work in your interests across all aspects of running the scheme" Let me say this, earnestly, to the Minister. The trustees will be listening. They want to renegotiate the current sharing arrangements. If approached by the trustees, will the Government, as guarantor, negotiate those arrangements? If the Minister wishes to intervene now, I will take his intervention; otherwise I hope he will address that question when he sums up the debate.
Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme — House of Commons, 2019-06-10
Topic: Other
Grahame Mark Morris (Labour, Centre-left): God bless you. I am grateful for that intervention, What I am trying to do—with all due respect, and without denigrating anyone’s contribution—is set out the factual position. I think that the arguments that the existing arrangements are unfair are overwhelming.
Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme — House of Commons, 2019-06-10
Topic: Mixed Topics
Michael Robert Hill (Labour, Centre-left): I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way on that point. As he knows, although Hartlepool never had any pits we certainly have mineworkers who served in pits in Durham. Does he agree that the Government are under an even greater obligation because of the sacrifices and industrial diseases that those mineworkers have suffered from, which have shortened their lives in many cases? That makes this an urgent issue for many.
Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme — House of Commons, 2019-06-10
Topic: Mixed Topics
Michael Lee Amesbury (Labour, Centre-left): Fred Smith died last week. He was a proud Scotsman and a miner in the Castleford collieries. He died of an industrial-related disease and he leaves a widow, Enid, and a family to care for. He wants justice.
Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme — House of Commons, 2019-06-10
Topic: Mixed Topics
Grahame Mark Morris (Labour, Centre-left): Absolutely. A dear friend of mine, Myrtle McPherson, an absolute stalwart and a legend in Easington, died just a few days ago. These people should have justice. She was loved in that community and worked tirelessly. Her husband Gordon died prematurely of pneumoconiosis. There is a time pressure here and the Government and Ministers really must act.