argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2018-05-21
Topic: Social Welfare
Questions: Universal credit is scheduled to be introduced in Crawley on 6 June. What support will be offered to my constituents who will be affected?; Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the record levels of employment that this Government have delivered in office have predominantly involved full-time and higher-skilled roles?; People with progressive conditions are meant to be exempt from ESA reassessments, although my constituent Glenn, who has multiple sclerosis, has one coming up, but they will not be exempt from a PIP reassessment. Will the Minister commit to removing that cruel and unnecessary burden on people living with progressive conditions?; With 1,000 more people in jobs in Harlow than in 2010, and with 5,000 more apprentices over the same time, will my hon. Friend congratulate Harlow College and Harlow’s jobcentre?; Recently, two constituents with serious and deteriorating cerebral palsy both scored zero points on their PIP assessments. Both require round-the-clock care, but both were forced to appeal the decisions. Is it acceptable that people with serious and deteriorating disabilities are being forced to go through the courts to get the support that they deserve?; My 20-year-old constituent Lucy has severe autism and learning disabilities. She has been told that she must attend a medical assessment to transition from employment and support allowance to universal credit. Medical advice says such an assessment will cause unnecessary stress and anxiety, but that advice has been ignored by the DWP. Will the Minister commit to reducing this burden on the most vulnerable in society?; This morning I was contacted on behalf of a constituent who has an inoperable tumour on her spine all the way down to her pelvis, leaving her unable to walk and compounded by arthritis and severe depression. Her ESA has been suspended, her housing benefit has been suspended and she is now threatened with the possibility of eviction. Can the Minister help me make sure my constituent is protected? Can she also help me understand why so many disabled people feel they are living in a hostile environment?
Paul John Sweeney (Labour, Centre-left): The loss of the protected places scheme is likely to have a devastating impact on disabled workers, particularly in my constituency, where Royal Strathclyde Blindcraft Industries employs 250 people, half of whom have a registered disability. What has the Minister done to assess the impact this move will have on disabled workers?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2018-05-21
Topic: Social Welfare
Questions: Universal credit is scheduled to be introduced in Crawley on 6 June. What support will be offered to my constituents who will be affected?; Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the record levels of employment that this Government have delivered in office have predominantly involved full-time and higher-skilled roles?; People with progressive conditions are meant to be exempt from ESA reassessments, although my constituent Glenn, who has multiple sclerosis, has one coming up, but they will not be exempt from a PIP reassessment. Will the Minister commit to removing that cruel and unnecessary burden on people living with progressive conditions?; With 1,000 more people in jobs in Harlow than in 2010, and with 5,000 more apprentices over the same time, will my hon. Friend congratulate Harlow College and Harlow’s jobcentre?; Recently, two constituents with serious and deteriorating cerebral palsy both scored zero points on their PIP assessments. Both require round-the-clock care, but both were forced to appeal the decisions. Is it acceptable that people with serious and deteriorating disabilities are being forced to go through the courts to get the support that they deserve?; My 20-year-old constituent Lucy has severe autism and learning disabilities. She has been told that she must attend a medical assessment to transition from employment and support allowance to universal credit. Medical advice says such an assessment will cause unnecessary stress and anxiety, but that advice has been ignored by the DWP. Will the Minister commit to reducing this burden on the most vulnerable in society?; This morning I was contacted on behalf of a constituent who has an inoperable tumour on her spine all the way down to her pelvis, leaving her unable to walk and compounded by arthritis and severe depression. Her ESA has been suspended, her housing benefit has been suspended and she is now threatened with the possibility of eviction. Can the Minister help me make sure my constituent is protected? Can she also help me understand why so many disabled people feel they are living in a hostile environment?
Jessica Elizabeth Morden (Labour, Centre-left): Constituents who cannot afford a driving licence or a passport cannot do an initial online verification of their universal credit claim, meaning that they have to wait up to two weeks in order to be seen for a personal appointment. That is driving people to see loan sharks in some cases, so will the Minister look at it?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2018-05-21
Topic: Social Welfare
Questions: Universal credit is scheduled to be introduced in Crawley on 6 June. What support will be offered to my constituents who will be affected?; Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the record levels of employment that this Government have delivered in office have predominantly involved full-time and higher-skilled roles?; People with progressive conditions are meant to be exempt from ESA reassessments, although my constituent Glenn, who has multiple sclerosis, has one coming up, but they will not be exempt from a PIP reassessment. Will the Minister commit to removing that cruel and unnecessary burden on people living with progressive conditions?; With 1,000 more people in jobs in Harlow than in 2010, and with 5,000 more apprentices over the same time, will my hon. Friend congratulate Harlow College and Harlow’s jobcentre?; Recently, two constituents with serious and deteriorating cerebral palsy both scored zero points on their PIP assessments. Both require round-the-clock care, but both were forced to appeal the decisions. Is it acceptable that people with serious and deteriorating disabilities are being forced to go through the courts to get the support that they deserve?; My 20-year-old constituent Lucy has severe autism and learning disabilities. She has been told that she must attend a medical assessment to transition from employment and support allowance to universal credit. Medical advice says such an assessment will cause unnecessary stress and anxiety, but that advice has been ignored by the DWP. Will the Minister commit to reducing this burden on the most vulnerable in society?; This morning I was contacted on behalf of a constituent who has an inoperable tumour on her spine all the way down to her pelvis, leaving her unable to walk and compounded by arthritis and severe depression. Her ESA has been suspended, her housing benefit has been suspended and she is now threatened with the possibility of eviction. Can the Minister help me make sure my constituent is protected? Can she also help me understand why so many disabled people feel they are living in a hostile environment?
Colleen Margaret Fletcher (Labour, Centre-left): The latest quarterly figures show that in Coventry, 81% of PIP, 76% of ESA, 83% of income support and 100% of jobseeker’s allowance appeals heard by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service were decided in favour of the appellant. Does the Minister accept that the high proportion of successful appeals highlights the flawed nature of the DWP’s decision-making processes?
Gaza: UN Human Rights Council Vote — House of Commons, 2018-05-21
Topic: International Affairs
Richard Haines Burden (Labour, Centre-left): (Urgent Question): To ask the Foreign Secretary if he will make a statement on the decision of the UK Government to abstain from voting on the resolution of the United Nations Human Rights Council held on 18 May, calling for an independent investigation into recent violence in Gaza.
Gaza: UN Human Rights Council Vote — House of Commons, 2018-05-21
Topic: International Affairs
Richard Haines Burden (Labour, Centre-left): Last Tuesday, the Minister assured the House that he endorsed calls for an international, independent and transparent inquiry into the appalling events unfolding in Gaza, yet when United Nations Human Rights Council resolved on Friday to set up a commission of inquiry to undertake precisely that kind of investigation, the UK failed to join 29 partner countries and instead abstained from the vote. The Government alleged that, as the Minister said today, the UN Human Rights Council resolution was "partial, and unhelpfully unbalanced". May I remind the Minister that the remit of the UN inquiry is to investigate "all violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law" and that it calls on Israel and "and all relevant parties" to co-operate fully with the inquiry? That includes Hamas and other Palestinian factions, as well as Israel. Which bit of the resolution and the remit do Ministers not understand May I put it to Minister that the Government’s feeble response to last week’s events in Gaza only encourages the culture of impunity that the Government of Israel too regularly display these days, apparently believing that whatever they do, they will in practice never be held to account? Will the Minister confirm that now the UN Human Rights Council has made its decision, the UK Government will get behind it? What consequences should follow if Israel, or anybody else, either refuses to co-operate with the inquiry or is otherwise found to be in breach of international law?
Gaza: UN Human Rights Council Vote — House of Commons, 2018-05-21
Topic: International Affairs
Emily Thornberry (Labour, Centre-left): Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) on securing it. I join him in welcoming the independent UN investigation into violence in Gaza. While we have already heard debate about the wording of the resolution agreed by the Human Rights Council, I have to say, as I did last week, that that debate is frankly immaterial as long as the objective of setting up an independent investigation is achieved. The issue today is why the British Government, which claimed repeatedly last Tuesday to support that objective, chose three days later not to vote for it. The crux of that decision was made clear in the Government’s statement on Friday, which called for the Israeli authorities to be allowed to conduct their own so-called independent inquiry. If that sounds like a contradiction in terms, I am afraid we should not be remotely surprised. After all, this is the Government that say that Saudi Arabia should be allowed to investigate itself for bombing weddings in Yemen. This is the Government that say that Bahrain should be left to investigate itself for torturing children in prisons. Time and time again we see this: if you are an ally of the Government, you get away with breaking international law with impunity, and you are also allowed to be your own judge and jury, too Before the Minister gets up and extols the virtue of the Netanyahu Government, may I remind him of the last time that that Government were allowed to investigate themselves over an alleged breach of international law? In July 2014, four children were blown to pieces on Gaza beach while playing hide and seek in a fisherman’s hut. And the resulting investigation: a blatant piece of nonsense, full of basic untruths, exonerating the IDF completely and saying that the old fisherman’s hut was in fact a Hamas compound. That is what an independent investigation by Israel looks like. That, instead of an international commission of inquiry, is what this Government on Friday decided to support, and that is nothing short of a disgrace.
Gaza: UN Human Rights Council Vote — House of Commons, 2018-05-21
Topic: International Affairs
Paula Michelle Sherriff (Labour, Centre-left): Israel has maintained a temporary occupation for 51 years. It builds settlements illegally, demolishes homes illegally, confiscates land and water from occupied territory and blockades Gaza by air, land and sea. At what point do these illegal acts ever meet with any consequences?
Gaza: UN Human Rights Council Vote — House of Commons, 2018-05-21
Topic: International Affairs
Grahame Mark Morris (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister does not like the UNHRC. He says that there must be another way. There is little or no confidence in the United States acting as an honest broker. What discussions are the UK Government having with other EU Governments about restoring the original United Nations mandate over the occupied Palestinian territories to make a more serious move on an international peace process?
Gaza: UN Human Rights Council Vote — House of Commons, 2018-05-21
Topic: International Affairs
Andrew Francis Slaughter (Labour, Centre-left): The Government of Israel will not tolerate any independent scrutiny of their actions, and increasingly obstruct and persecute international and domestic human rights organisations. What representations has the Minister made about the current plan to deport Omar Shakir, the well respected director of Human Rights Watch in Israel?
Gaza: UN Human Rights Council Vote — House of Commons, 2018-05-21
Topic: International Affairs
Rushanara Ali (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister has stated that the UK decided to abstain because the UK Government accept that the process is likely to be biased. Given the UK’s position that the Israeli Government should lead the inquiry, how can we continue to play the role of honest broker, which has been a very important role for our Government historically, given our unique historical relationship with that region? Can the Minister explain how that is possible?
Gaza: UN Human Rights Council Vote — House of Commons, 2018-05-21
Topic: International Affairs
Lyn Carol Brown (Labour, Centre-left): The other place recommended last year that the Government stop treating Israel with kid gloves and display some political robustness. This Government’s abstention is worse than weak; it is deplorable. How can the people of Palestine trust our Government when we refuse even to look seriously at these issues, let alone challenge them?
Gaza: UN Human Rights Council Vote — House of Commons, 2018-05-21
Topic: Government Operations
Clive Stanley Efford (Labour, Centre-left): When the Government came to the conclusion that they could not support the resolution, what efforts were made to try to bring together a resolution that everyone could support, so that there could be a fully independent inquiry?
Gaza: UN Human Rights Council Vote — House of Commons, 2018-05-21
Topic: International Affairs
Rupa Asha Huq (Labour, Centre-left): Both America and Israel are our allies, yet we are powerless when the US moves its embassy and we are onlookers when the UN votes to hold an inquiry into the killings in Gaza. True friends offer advice and criticism, but are we now content just to hold hands rather than holding anyone to account?
Gaza: UN Human Rights Council Vote — House of Commons, 2018-05-21
Topic: International Affairs
Jessica Rose Phillips (Labour, Centre-left): I apologise, Mr Speaker, that I am not in full voice today. Will the UK set out its criteria for assessing the independence, impartiality and effectiveness of an internal Israeli investigation? What action will we take, should those criteria not be met?
Gaza: UN Human Rights Council Vote — House of Commons, 2018-05-21
Topic: International Affairs
Yasmin Qureshi (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister has come to the House a number of times on this issue, and he has accepted the fact that there have been real abuses of the Palestinian people in Gaza through the use of poisonous water, through illegal settlements and through all sorts of cruelty to the Palestinian people, yet the international community rewards Israel with billions of pounds-worth of aid and armaments. Is it not about time that we—
Gaza: UN Human Rights Council Vote — House of Commons, 2018-05-21
Topic: International Affairs
James Dolan Cunningham (Labour, Centre-left): Following the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), regardless of the outcome of the Israeli investigation, surely the Government should try to initiate a further resolution to resolve the problem?
Gaza: UN Human Rights Council Vote — House of Commons, 2018-05-21
Topic: International Affairs
Ruth Margaret Cadbury (Labour, Centre-left): Protesting adults and children have been shot in the back and shot while standing hundreds of metres away from the border fence. The Israeli authorities are clearly killing and maiming people in Gaza who pose no threat to them. If this was happening in Iran, the Government would completely and utterly condemn it, so why will the Minister not condemn the Israeli authorities for such actions?
Gaza: UN Human Rights Council Vote — House of Commons, 2018-05-21
Topic: International Affairs
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Labour, Centre-left): The IDF and people here in this Chamber constantly refer to the "Gaza border" despite it not being internationally recognised. If it is a border, what state are the victims of Israel’s latest shooting spree in? If it is not a fence that entraps 2 million people, will the UK recognise the state of Palestine and push for an independent investigation, not just a whitewash by one party?
Gaza: UN Human Rights Council Vote — House of Commons, 2018-05-21
Topic: International Affairs
Mohammed Afzal Khan (Labour, Centre-left): The international community’s immediate focus after last week’s events was on the number of fatalities, but it is also important to dwell on the consequences for the thousands of injured people. Have the Government offered any additional humanitarian assistance to the people of Gaza to ensure that the injured receive the medical treatment that they so desperately need?
Private Members’ Bills: Money Resolutions — House of Commons, 2018-05-21
Topic: Government Operations
Mohammed Afzal Khan (Labour, Centre-left): I beg to move, That this House has considered the expectation that the Government brings forward a Money resolution relating to a private Member’s bill which has received a second reading Five months on from Second Reading, the Government have yet to bring forward a money resolution on my private Member’s Bill, the Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill. This is an abuse of Parliament. The Government are making a mockery of the private Member’s Bill process. They are defying the will of Parliament and going against explicit commitments given to a Select Committee. These are the actions of a weak Government who are hiding behind procedure to avoid a vote they know they cannot win. We will not stand for it. We will fight for democracy, and we will always fight for what is morally and ethically right to serve our people It is an established parliamentary convention that the Government bring forward a money resolution on private Members’ Bills that have received a Second Reading. Until recently, the Government largely followed this convention; they are now running roughshod over it In 2013, giving evidence to the Procedure Committee when he was Leader of the House of Commons, Andrew Lansley said: "To my knowledge, Government has provided the money resolutions…whenever we have been asked to do so." The Procedure Committee’s 2013 report therefore concluded: "Government policy is not to refuse a money or ways and means resolution to a bill which has passed second reading." During debate on the money resolution for the Access to Medical Treatments (Innovation) Bill, the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Life Sciences, clearly stated "I just want to confirm that once the House has given a private Member’s Bill a Second Reading, the convention is that the Government, even when they robustly oppose it, always table a money resolution… Doing so is not a signal of Government support; it is absolutely in line with the convention of the House with all private Members’ Bills, whether we oppose or support them."—[Official Report, 3 November 2015; Vol. 601, c. 926.]
Private Members’ Bills: Money Resolutions — House of Commons, 2018-05-21
Topic: Government Operations
Mohammed Afzal Khan (Labour, Centre-left): Absolutely. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Government can table the money resolution but not then have to agree with it The Government have changed their line. Last week, the Leader of the House said: "money resolutions will be brought forward on a case-by-case basis as soon as possible."—[Official Report, 10 May 2018; Vol. 640, c. 894.] There is clear water between saying the Government will always table a money resolution and saying that this will be considered on a case-by-case basis. What has changed since 2015? We have had the disastrous 2017 election, when the Government lost their majority.
Private Members’ Bills: Money Resolutions — House of Commons, 2018-05-21
Topic: Government Operations
Mohammed Afzal Khan (Labour, Centre-left): Let me make some progress and then I will be happy to give way. Too weak to defeat my Bill on a vote, the Government are hiding behind a procedure that they know is wrong. The convention is also that money resolutions are brought forward in the order that Bills pass Second Reading. Members will have seen on today’s Order Paper that the Government have tabled a money resolution for a health and social care Bill. It is the second Bill the Government have leapfrogged over mine. The Prisons (Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Bill was given a money resolution at the beginning of May, even though its promoter came out 13th in the ballot, whereas I came out third The only logic to when the Government are bringing forward a money resolution is: what will help them avoid challenge? We know many on the Government side are willing to vote against them on my Bill, both for principled reasons and because reducing the number of MPs will mean that some Conservatives will lose their seats—turkeys do not vote for Christmas. Based on the 2017 general election results, 34 Conservative MPs are set to have their seats abolished or to lose to Labour at the next election, with the list including six Cabinet Ministers and six other Ministers. The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), who is in charge of my Bill for the Government, is set to lose her seat to Labour if the current boundary proposals go ahead. The Government’s motives are clear: this is not about principles, but about electoral maths. This is not just happening with my Bill; money resolutions are part of a pattern of this weak Government abusing Parliament to avoid scrutiny and challenge.
Private Members’ Bills: Money Resolutions — House of Commons, 2018-05-21
Topic: Government Operations
Mohammed Afzal Khan (Labour, Centre-left): Last week, the Government made a statement on an Opposition day to crowd out debates on Grenfell and Brexit later in the day. The Government denied the Opposition prior sight of that statement, which ended up being a damning indictment of transport policy. The week before, the Chair of the Select Committee on Home Affairs called out a Minister and officials for being "slippery" and for "playing games" with the Committee on the incredibly serious topic of Windrush. Looking back, some could say that the Government’s evidence to the Procedure Committee now looks slippery. Of course, we also have the ongoing scandal of the Government first refusing to vote and then refusing to act on Opposition day motions. In Grenfell, Brexit and Windrush, we are talking about the defining issues of our day, yet even on those, this weak Government are comfortable abusing parliamentary procedure to avoid scrutiny and challenge.