argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Free Travel for Under-18s: London — House of Commons, 2020-07-08
Topic: Transportation
Ruth Margaret Cadbury (Labour, Centre-left): If the Government have done an impact assessment on this, I do not believe that they have yet shared it with TfL, the Deputy Mayor or the Mayor of London I would like to pose some questions to the Minister. Why did the Government wait until the 11th hour to confirm emergency support for TfL to keep London running through the pandemic, when other sectors equally affected were given support quicker and with fewer strings attached? Why was that condition to remove free travel from London’s children and young people crowbarred into the emergency funding agreement at the very last minute? What is the demand reduction in per cent. that the Government expect to see from the change to concessions? Do not TfL’s recently introduced maximum passenger limits on buses deal with the potential overcrowding problem? Who will pay for the additional administrative burden? When does the Minister expect the system to be operational? What discussion have the Government had with local authorities, schools and colleges about the proposal? Is the proposal being consulted on, so that students, parents and schools can make their views known? Has an equalities impact assessment been done? If so, will either of those be made public? Or is it a done deal—no discussion, take it or leave it?
Free Travel for Under-18s: London — House of Commons, 2020-07-08
Topic: Law and Crime
Margaret Olivia Hillier (Labour, Centre-left): In my constituency, sadly we have a problem with gangs, and a parent has written to me saying that she does not want her son to be another statistic. She chose a school on a safe bus route to make sure he was safe. Switching to what the Minister describes as active travel, which I would normally support, is not as simple as she describes, and I hope she will recognise that.
Covid-19: Women in the Workplace — House of Commons, 2020-06-17
Topic: Social Welfare
Gillian Furniss (Labour, Centre-left): As with any other economic downturn, it is women who are at risk of being worst hit by the economic consequences of coronavirus. As childcare responsibilities overwhelmingly fall on women, the closure of schools and childcare facilities could mean that many women are forced to leave work or to reduce their hours as the furlough scheme is wound up. The U-turn yesterday on free school meals is welcome and will help many families, but what will the Minister do to ensure that women are able to return to work in a flexible way in order to balance childcare commitments and not lose out financially, particularly as schools are not yet fully open?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2020-06-17
Topic: Social Welfare
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): Can I start by welcoming the announcement of a major breakthrough in the treatment of coronavirus by UK scientists? That is really fantastic news. We are all behind it and I pay tribute to all of those involved Can I also welcome the Prime Minister’s latest U-turn, this time on free school meals? That was the right thing to do and it is vital for the 1.3 million children who will benefit. It is just one step in the fight against child poverty A report last week from the Government’s Social Mobility Commission concluded that there are now "600,000 more children…living in relative poverty" than in 2012. The report went on to say: "Child poverty rates are projected to increase to 5.2 million by 2022." What does the Prime Minister think caused that?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2020-06-17
Topic: Social Welfare
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): The Prime Minister says that poverty has not increased. I have just read a direct quote from a Government report, from a Government commission, produced last week, which says that it has gone up by 600,000. The Social Mobility Commission has a clear answer to my question: "This anticipated rise is not driven by forces beyond our control" I gave the Prime Minister the number: 600,000. He did not reply. The report goes on to say, and this is a real cause for concern—[Interruption.] The Prime Minister is chuntering. He might want to listen. This is a real cause for concern because the commission goes on—[Interruption.] I am sure that the Prime Minister has read the report. On the increase to 5.2 million, it states that "projections were made before the impact of COVID-19, which we expect to push more families into poverty." This is a serious issue. I am sure the Prime Minister would agree that an even higher child poverty rate would be an intolerable outcome from this pandemic. So what is he going to do to prevent it?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2020-06-17
Topic: Social Welfare
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): The Prime Minister obviously has not got the first idea what the social mobility report, from a Government body, actually said last week. He talks to me about consistency and U-turns. The Government have had three U-turns in the last month. First, we had the immigration health charges; then we had MPs’ voting; and then we had free school meals. The only question now is whether U-turns at the Dispatch Box are before or after. Three U-turns. He argues about one brief one week and one the next; he is an expert in that. This is not the only area where the Government are falling short. During the pandemic, local authorities have been working flat out on social care, homelessness, obtaining protective equipment for the frontline, and delivering food and essential supplies. On 26 March, the Communities Secretary told council leaders directly and in terms, in a letter to council leaders and in a speech: "The Government stands ready to do whatever is necessary to support councils in their response to coronavirus" Does the Prime Minister believe that the Government have kept that promise?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2020-06-17
Topic: Government Operations
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): This is turning into Opposition questions. If the Prime Minister wants to swap places, I am very happy. I could do it now. The only bit of an answer he gave to the question I asked was about £3.2 billion—[Interruption.] It is a lot of money. The Conservative-led Local Government Association has said that councils will have a shortfall of £10 billion this year—[Interruption.] The Health Secretary heckles. The Conservative leader of Lancashire County Council wrote a letter to the Communities Secretary a month ago, on 7 May. He said that "the overall financial impact on councils nationally and locally will be far in excess of the £3.2 billion provided to date" He went on to say that "we…would like some assurance from you that all councils will be fully reimbursed for the costs of…covid-19" These are the Prime Minister’s own council leaders. He must have known about this problem for months. Why has he been so slow to act?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2020-06-17
Topic: Government Operations
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): The Prime Minister just does not get how critical this is. I spoke with council leaders from across the country this week. The Prime Minister must know that they face a choice between cutting core services and facing bankruptcy under section 114 notices. Either outcome will harm local communities and mean that local services cannot reopen. That will drive up poverty, something the Prime Minister says he does not intend to do. Local councils have done everything asked of them in this crisis—the Government have not. Will the Prime Minister take responsibility and actually do something?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2020-06-17
Topic: Macroeconomics
Jessica Elizabeth Morden (Labour, Centre-left): A strong UK steel industry is essential for the UK’s economic recovery. Plants such as Llanwern and the Orb steelworks in Newport—the only electrical steel plant in the UK—can play a key part in that recovery, but we are three months into the crisis and steel companies are still waiting for Government liquidity support. That is critical. Will the Prime Minister commit to addressing that now?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2020-06-17
Topic: Social Welfare
Tulip Rizwana Siddiq (Labour, Centre-left): Last week, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft), the Prime Minister said:"newly shielded people may be asking themselves whether they will be entitled to furlough funds. I have been made aware of the issue very recently. I can assure her that we will be addressing it forthwith."—[Official Report, 10 June 2020; Vol. 677, c. 281.]Since then, the deadline for applying for the furlough scheme has been and gone, and there has been no announcement about the support for shielding workers. Is this yet another U-turn, or has the Prime Minister just forgotten what he said in the Chamber last week?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2020-06-17
Topic: Social Welfare
Stephen Creswell Timms (Labour, Centre-left): One million people with no recourse to public funds cannot access the universal credit safety net. I agree with the Prime Minister’s point at the Liaison Committee that hard-working families in that position should have help of one kind or another. Will he deliver help by suspending the "no recourse to public funds" restriction for the duration of this crisis, and do it before the school summer holidays, so that destitute families can at least claim the free school meal vouchers he announced yesterday?
Coronavirus — House of Commons, 2020-06-17
Topic: Environment
Geraint Richard Davies (Labour, Centre-left): Research from Harvard and Queen Mary University clearly shows a dramatic increase in the level of deaths and infections from covid-19 in higher pollution areas. Given that BAME communities tend to live in higher pollution areas, will the Secretary of State accept that this is a major factor in their disproportionate death rate? What is he doing with colleagues to ensure that we have low pollution levels as we come out of covid? Will he meet me to consider proposals from scientists, businesses, academics and local authorities, published by the all-party parliamentary group on air pollution, on a strategy for coming out of lockdown with low air pollution to reduce death and infection rates?
Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (Accession) — House of Commons, 2020-06-17
Topic: International Affairs
Jeffrey Smith (Labour, Centre-left): As my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) said earlier, the original consultation on membership of this partnership took place over a three-month period in autumn 2018, when most of industry and this country was preoccupied with the Brexit negotiations. Would it not be sensible now to have a second consultation so that stakeholders can have a proper chance to assess and comment on the implications for them?
Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (Accession) — House of Commons, 2020-06-17
Topic: Foreign Trade
Stephen James McCabe (Labour, Centre-left): Given the Secretary of State’s ambition to have tariffs removed, will she tell us why nine of 11 products—including cheese, honey and butter—that the EU can export tariff-free to South Korea are subject to tariffs for this country under the UK-South Korea continuity agreement, which the Government have negotiated?
Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (Accession) — House of Commons, 2020-06-17
Topic: Foreign Trade
Christopher John Bryant (Labour, Centre-left): It is a bit difficult not to come to the conclusion that, basically, the Government want to form new trade deals with countries that are less financially significant to us in terms of trade but speak English. If we add up all the trade that the UK does with the countries in the Commonwealth, it does not add up to the trade that we presently do with France and Germany, does it?
Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (Accession) — House of Commons, 2020-06-17
Topic: Foreign Trade
Geraint Richard Davies (Labour, Centre-left): Will the Secretary of State ensure that product, environmental, health and workers’ standards do not fall below EU standards in order not to jeopardise an EU trade deal that is 47% of our trade? Equally, will she seek an exemption, as New Zealand has, from the investor-state dispute settlement, so that, in the event that we want to raise our standards of health and environment above EU standards, we will not be sued by big corporations? She has given a verbal undertaking, but will she put that into action and seek an exemption now?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2020-06-17
Topic: International Affairs
Christopher John Bryant (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is on a completely different matter. You will know that yesterday the Prime Minister announced that he intends to merge the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development. He said in the House that he was intending that there would still be proper scrutiny of both elements of that work by the House. I gather that yesterday the Foreign Secretary and the International Development Secretary wrote to the Chair of the International Development Committee to tell her that her Committee would be abolished. Can you confirm that that is actually a matter for the House? It is a matter for our Standing Orders whether that Committee exists. For that matter, the allocation of Chairs between the various Select Committees of the House is a matter that has to be arranged between the usual channels.
Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2020-06-17
Topic: Law and Crime
Alexander Cunningham (Labour, Centre-left): Put simply, Labour supports this Bill. It is in line with Labour party policy. It sends the right message, we believe, many years later than it should have arrived in this place We support reforming some of the archaic and outdated hoops that people have to jump through if they want their marriage to end. People who may never have sought or needed a divorce may not know that there is currently no such thing as a no-fault divorce and that one of the parties must be "to blame" for a relationship ending. They may not know that if there is no blame to be laid, people must spend two years separated before they can file for divorce. They may not know that if one of the parties objects to divorce, the other must remain married to them for five years. That is why we hope that Ministers will reject amendment 1. I will turn specifically to that soon Marriage is supposed to be a happy and special occasion where two people come together in front of their loved ones and commit themselves to each other, and then set up their lives together. But we would be naive to think that all marriages will last forever. People change and life changes. Something that may have once seemed perfect will not necessarily be that way forever. There is no reason why, in situations where there is no fault, two people should be forced into a hostile situation where they have to find blame, keeping them married for long periods and preventing them from moving on with their lives.
Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2020-06-17
Topic: Law and Crime
Alexander Cunningham (Labour, Centre-left): I think that is a matter for the individuals involved. Adults who are embarking on divorce are supposedly mature people and they should be able to sort these things out for themselves. If they want to blame somebody for some reason, that is very much a matter for them It is right that this Parliament is taking action to bring divorce law into the 21st century and recognise that in many cases there is no blame—there is just no desire to be together any more. We should be facilitating peaceful endings of marriages where that is possible. I am pleased that this Bill makes excellent moves towards achieving that Yet the Opposition have identified several related matters that we felt needed to be heard and considered. From the list of amendments, I see that some Conservative Members also felt that some changes were needed. I plan to address these in turn. Amendment 1 would extend the minimum legal period for a divorce from the six months in the Bill to a year. Wo did not see what value or benefit this would provide; it would simply force two people together for longer than they need to be.
Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2020-06-17
Topic: Law and Crime
Alexander Cunningham (Labour, Centre-left): I think that when people embark on divorce proceedings, it is not because they have just changed their mind overnight—relationships break down over a long period and they get to that point. So extending the period anywhere beyond six months does not serve any great further purpose I know that it is up to the Government to defend their Bill, but we hope that Ministers will not give way on this issue. Amendment 1 is not within the spirit of the Bill, and it fails to recognise that, by the time a married couple reach the stage of deciding to file for a divorce, they have already made their decision. It is highly unlikely that they will change their minds simply because they have to wait longer for the divorce to be finalised. We are talking about adults—adults who were deemed to have the ability to consent to get married in the first place, and adults who still have the capacity to consent to end that marriage.
Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2020-06-17
Topic: Law and Crime
Naseem Akhtar Shah (Labour, Centre-left): Is my hon. Friend aware of the YouGov poll commissioned by Resolution, which represents more than 6,000 family lawyers and family law professionals? It shows that 71% of the population agrees that no-fault divorce is urgently needed to protect the long-term interests of children.
Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2020-06-17
Topic: Law and Crime
Alexander Cunningham (Labour, Centre-left): I have seen that particular information. It cuts to the very core of what this is about. It is not just about the two partners in a relationship; it is about the children. The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) spoke about the extended family and the need for grandparents to be involved with their grandchildren. It would absolutely break my heart if I were to lose contact with my grandson. It is very important that we recognise that this will actually make life easier for children, which is why we support it. As I was saying, basing benefit entitlement on marital status is outdated, so I hope the Minister will go away and collect the information to share with the House. The Government have acknowledged that we need to make divorce easier and more straightforward, which this Bill does, but the Government cannot and should not ignore the negative repercussions of the positive changes being brought in with this Bill In conclusion, this is a good Bill that will change people’s lives for the better. But there is always room for improvement, especially changes in the spirit of this Bill recognising modern relationships and families as well as legal aid. I hope the Minister will agree that there is much more change needed in this area of family law, but this is a good first step.
Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2020-06-17
Topic: Law and Crime
Naseem Akhtar Shah (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Gentleman is making very valid points, which I agree with. Does he agree with me that, especially where domestic violence is involved, that partner has the power to prolong cases for up to two years —in some cases, five years—which has a negative impact on both the abused partner and on the children?
Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2020-06-17
Topic: Law and Crime
Alexander Cunningham (Labour, Centre-left): I thank colleagues who contributed to the robust debates we have had on Second Reading and in Committee. The Opposition are pleased to support the Bill at its final stage. We are correcting an outdated notion that the only reason two people should get divorced is if there is some blame to be laid. We know that that is not always the case in every relationship. Sometimes marriages break down over time—not always because one great wrong has been committed by one party, but because people change, situations change, and compatibility at one time is not always permanent It will always be a difficult time in any relationship for two people to acknowledge that the marriage is over, but it is still best for them to part ways. The best role that we as law makers can play in such a situation is to make sure that they are able to part quickly and amicably. This is not just in the best interests of the spouses; it is crucial in limiting the emotional pain felt by children left in the middle as their parents’ marriage is split apart. The Bill will help to limit the turmoil of divorce because it acknowledges that sometimes there just is no fault I have enjoyed the specific discussions on the amendments and new clauses and on how the Bill could be improved. Although the proposed changes did not make it into the final Bill, I hope Members will agree that there was real merit in many if not all the issues raised. On some cases, such as families in which the parents are unmarried not getting benefit payments, I hope that the Government will go away and reconsider their position I was a little disappointed that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), did not have sufficient time when he summed up to address the issue of legal aid. I hope the Government will take that away and look particularly at the issues when there is financial abuse in a relationship As I have said, we have made great progress with the Bill in recognising how modern marriages, relationships and families are; it would be a great shame if we failed to recognise that across other policy areas. We do not oppose Bills for the sake of it; we want to do what is right. Today, we have achieved real progress that will have a real and positive effect on people at one of the most vulnerable points in their lives.
Covid-19: Economic Support — House of Commons, 2020-07-07
Topic: Macroeconomics
Bridget Maeve Phillipson (Labour, Centre-left): The Chancellor knows that different sectors of our economy face very different challenges in the months ahead, so will he listen to the businesses right across our country that have called again and again for the job retention scheme to have the flexibility to meet those different challenges?
House Building and Regeneration: Domestic Supply Chains — House of Commons, 2020-07-07
Topic: Energy
Wesley Paul William Streeting (Labour, Centre-left): The Conservative manifesto promised £9 billion for energy efficiency schemes, but the Committee on Climate Change described even that as "welcome but not enough to match the size of the challenge" Given that the Chancellor is about to announce a £2 billion scheme, why are the Government scaling back their ambition when they should be scaling up to bring down people’s bills, tackle climate change and create the jobs we need to get Britain back to work?
Coronavirus: Employment — House of Commons, 2020-07-07
Topic: Labor
Sarah Deborah Champion (Labour, Centre-left): In his announcement of the self-employment income support scheme, the Chancellor told self-employed people that they have not been forgotten and no one will be left behind, but the Treasury Committee has found that more than a million people have been unable to benefit from either that scheme or the job retention scheme. That is certainly what I am finding in Rotherham. Will he commit to acting to ensure that, true to his word, no one is left to face this crisis alone?