argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Public Health Restrictions: Government Economic Support — House of Commons, 2020-10-13
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Apsana Begum (Labour, Centre-left): Local lockdowns will undoubtedly affect small businesses that have already struggled due to the initial lockdown earlier this year. In my constituency, traders at Chrisp Street market and Watney market were impacted by the lack of Government support earlier in the year. Some of those traders operate from rented lock-ups, where their goods are stored, and business rates for those properties are paid for by the leaseholder, meaning that market traders did not benefit from business rates relief and therefore suffered financial hardship. May I ask the Chief Secretary to the Treasury what further financial support can be provided for those local businesses that are not covered by business rates relief in the event of a local lockdown?
Public Health Restrictions: Government Economic Support — House of Commons, 2020-10-13
Topic: Mixed Topics
John Francis Spellar (Labour, Centre-left): It is a shame the Chancellor is not here today because the Treasury needs to get a better answer to the question from the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) and others: what is the evidence, not anecdotes, to back up the case for the curfew and lockdown for the vast hospitality sector, which is facing closures, cashflow crises and job losses across pubs and clubs, restaurants and cafés, betting shops, bingo halls, casinos, theatres and cinemas, gyms and wedding venues? Treasury Ministers either have to secure a change in direction of Government lockdown policy or they have to up the level of support. Which is it going to be?
Public Health Restrictions: Government Economic Support — House of Commons, 2020-10-13
Topic: Mixed Topics
Mary Kelly Foy (Labour, Centre-left): Last week, the Chancellor announced that workers at businesses and workplaces forced to close would be eligible for grants worth two thirds of their salary. That is clearly not enough. Will the Minister tell me whether bills, rents and mortgages will be charged at two thirds of the usual amount? If not, will the Government extend the evictions ban?
Fisheries Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2020-10-13
Topic: Mixed Topics
Emma Ann Hardy (Labour, Centre-left): I have had a fair bit of correspondence with the Minister’s Department and I wonder if she will look again at funding for the enforcement vessel. The reply I had from her states was that no funding is available for the enforcement vessel, but surely if she wants to support her hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) in taking back control of our waters, we must ensure that that is enforced.
Fisheries Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2020-10-13
Topic: Mixed Topics
Stephanie Louise Peacock (Labour, Centre-left): I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. She is right: the Government like to call themselves a global ocean champion, but we want that same commitment back home, because at present our MPA network is nothing more than lines on a map. Our amendment 3 does just that.
Women’s Rugby: Government Support — House of Commons, 2020-10-13
Topic: Mixed Topics
Antonia Louise Antoniazzi (Labour, Centre-left): I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this Adjournment debate on a topic that is also close to my heart, particularly because she is talking about wellbeing in the community of women’s rugby, which extends to France. I also played my rugby for the women’s team at Benetton in Treviso during my year abroad, so obviously there are many links with rugby. Does she agree that we need to ensure that the confidence that all sport gives women continues, particularly during the pandemic, and that women are encouraged to enjoy sport, do more sport and exercise more?
Women’s Rugby: Government Support — House of Commons, 2020-10-13
Topic: Mixed Topics
Antonia Louise Antoniazzi (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the hon. Lady for her generosity in giving way. Because of local lockdowns, Welsh Rugby Union training had stopped. I visited West Swansea Hawks in Gowerton in my constituency and saw its fantastic set-up for covid-regulated training sessions. I pay tribute to all the women’s rugby hubs throughout Wales and the United Kingdom, who are doing a great job in keeping people safe.
Saudi Arabia: Human Rights Defenders — House of Commons, 2020-11-24
Topic: Mixed Topics
Alexander Cunningham (Labour, Centre-left): Women in Saudi Arabia now have the right to drive, but some of those who fought for that basic equality remain behind bars. The UK is, as the Minister suggests, Saudi Arabia’s closest European ally, but does he understand why the detention of women human rights defenders by the Saudi Arabian authorities is an important test of our Government’s commitment to defending human rights? Will he call on them to release these women and all political prisoners immediately?
Quality Education for Girls — House of Commons, 2020-11-24
Topic: Civil Rights
Sarah Deborah Champion (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister is aware that girls can only benefit from education if we tackle child marriage, female genital mutilation and all gender-based violence. NGOs report that funding for GBV programmes are not keeping up with the rise in cases due to covid-19. In October, the United Nations Population Fund stated that "funding for GBV prevention and response remains unacceptably low." Is the UK going to further increase UK official development assistance for GBV programmes to combat the secondary impacts of covid-19 on women and girls? Is the money ring-fenced? And will the Minister be challenging the Chancellor’s attack on foreign aid, which will undermine all this work?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2020-11-24
Topic: Civil Rights
Stella Judith Creasy (Labour, Centre-left): Tomorrow is International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, as declared by the United Nations. British citizen Caitlin McNamara has spoken publicly about being seriously sexually assaulted by Sheikh Nayhan, the United Arab Emirates Minister of tolerance. Has the Foreign Secretary raised that case with his counterparts in the UAE and demanded action on it? Have the Government looked at using Magnitsky sanctions, given that this gentleman is based in the UK and has property here? What are the Government doing in this case to show that it is not just words but deeds that matter when it comes to gender-based violence?
Leaseholders and Cladding — House of Commons, 2020-11-24
Topic: Housing
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on whether leaseholders are expected to pay for the removal of dangerous cladding from their homes.
Clive James Charles Betts (Labour, Centre-left): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to ask my urgent question. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee has just carried out prelegislative scrutiny of the draft Building Safety Bill. In general, the Bill is very welcome. It implements the recommendations of the Hackitt report, post Grenfell. However, clause 89 contains provisions for leaseholders to be charged a building safety charge. That could cover future costs, but it could also be used to recover the cost of historical defects, such as the removal of dangerous cladding. That is the concern I have a number of questions for the Minister. First, will he confirm very clearly and straightforwardly that leaseholders should not have to pay any of the costs of removing dangerous cladding from their homes, as has been the Government’s policy for some time? Those leaseholders bought their properties in good faith. They have not done anything wrong and they should not be financially distressed as a result If the Minister thinks that leaseholders should have to pay something—the Building Safety Minister said to the Select Committee that he thought an affordable amount was reasonable—how would he define an affordable amount? The Building Safety Minister said it was something that did not bankrupt an individual. However, if leaseholders are not going to pay—I hope the Minister will confirm that point—I accept that he should pursue developers, freeholders and others. In the meantime, if developers have gone out of business or are refusing to pay, does the Minister accept that, at least in the interim, the Government are going to have to step in and fund all the costs If the Minister accepts that point, does he also accept that the £1.6 billion so far made available to remove dangerous cladding will be totally inadequate? The Select Committee heard that to make all high-rise buildings totally safe and remove all defects, the total bill could be as high as £15 billion. Leaseholders should not have to pay that Finally, does the Minister accept that, without assurances on these points, many people are going to have a very miserable Christmas? They are trapped in properties they cannot sell, that they often cannot insure and where they are having to pay for waking watches, and wondering how on earth they are going to pay the bills that could arrive on their doormats at any time.
Leaseholders and Cladding — House of Commons, 2020-11-24
Topic: Housing
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on whether leaseholders are expected to pay for the removal of dangerous cladding from their homes.
Michael Lee Amesbury (Labour, Centre-left): The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee’s scrutiny report on the draft Building Safety Bill, published today, makes for powerful yet sobering reading, not just for Members across the Chamber but, importantly, for the hundreds of thousands of leaseholders that are trapped in this living nightmare, left to foot the cost of a broken building safety system that they did not create. Before this, we had another powerful HCLG Committee report, a Public Accounts Committee report and a National Audit Office report, which repeatedly made it clear that, well over three years on from Grenfell, where 72 people lost their lives, the Government need to step up and step in to make buildings safe with a greater sense of urgency There are too many aspects of the building safety crisis to mention: the cost of remediation being passed to leaseholders and, yes, the interim costs such as waking watch; the snail’s pace of the work; other safety issues, such as firebreaks and wooden balconies not covered by the funding; the lack of prioritisation according to risk other than simply the height of buildings; and the ongoing saga of the external wall survey forms, despite this weekend’s botched announcement by the Secretary of State. How many reports are we going to need By my count, the Government have promised 11 times in this Chamber and beyond that leaseholders should be protected from the cost of remediation. Now we witness Minister after Minister shifting sand, referring to "affordable" costs put on the shoulders of leaseholders and enshrining in the draft Building Safety Bill the building safety charge—clause 89, there in black and white for people to see. Will the Minister tell me and the House what additional invoice paid in 28 days he defines as "affordable" or, as referred to at the Dispatch Box today, "reasonable"? Please answer that question Finally, will the Minister explain why those companies and developers that knowingly engineered false test results for insulation and cladding products, then riddled thousands of homes with flammable materials, are getting away scot-free?
Leaseholders and Cladding — House of Commons, 2020-11-24
Topic: Other
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on whether leaseholders are expected to pay for the removal of dangerous cladding from their homes.
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): I note that we have 62 people to get through, so I am concerned. I recognise that everyone needs to get in, because they all have personal circumstances, so if we can help each other, that might just get us through.
Leaseholders and Cladding — House of Commons, 2020-11-24
Topic: Housing
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on whether leaseholders are expected to pay for the removal of dangerous cladding from their homes.
David Lindon Lammy (Labour, Centre-left): I have to say to the Minister that I never dreamed that, three and a half years after my friend Khadija Saye died with her mother in Grenfell Tower, I would be here begging him to sort this problem out. I have over 1,000 residents in the Tottenham Hale Village in my constituency, a development built by Bellway Homes, which made £500 million profits in 2018, another £500 million profits in 2019, and has shown complete disregard for my constituents living in these buildings with combustible cladding. What is the Minister going to do about leaseholders in that situation when it is clear that his building safety fund is inadequate to meet the task? Will he meet me and my constituents, so we can sort this three and a half years after the Government promised it would be fixed?
Leaseholders and Cladding — House of Commons, 2020-11-24
Topic: Housing
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on whether leaseholders are expected to pay for the removal of dangerous cladding from their homes.
Clive Stanley Efford (Labour, Centre-left): It is a disgrace that three and a half years on, people still do not know whether the properties they live in are safe, and others cannot sell because they cannot get external wall system certificates. I am told by surveyors who would willingly carry out this work that they cannot do so because they cannot afford the huge premiums that are being charged by insurance companies. That is leading to a huge backlog in this area of work. It is essential to get that moving. What is the Minister going to do about that, and would he consider paying those premiums, so that we can remove the backlog and start to get some idea of the problem we are facing?
Leaseholders and Cladding — House of Commons, 2020-11-24
Topic: Housing
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on whether leaseholders are expected to pay for the removal of dangerous cladding from their homes.
Andrew John Gwynne (Labour, Centre-left): I often wonder how Ministers would react if they received a letter, often out of the blue, saying that the cost to make their home safe far exceeded their annual salary, sometimes by multiple amounts. We know that there have been more than 2,800 applications for the building safety fund. Can the Minister inform the House how many have been allowed to proceed to a formal application so far and how much has actually been paid out of the fund to date?
Leaseholders and Cladding — House of Commons, 2020-11-24
Topic: Housing
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on whether leaseholders are expected to pay for the removal of dangerous cladding from their homes.
Karen Patricia Buck (Labour, Centre-left): We have already heard about the difficulties that leaseholders have had with the EWS1 form backlog when they are seeking to sell. At the weekend, the Secretary of State claimed that his proposal to remove the requirement for this certification from properties without cladding had been cleared by and had the backing of mortgage lenders; in fact, UK Finance and the Building Societies Association both said that they did not back the scheme and had not been consulted, and that it did not solve anything and left 1.9 million homeowners in the lurch. Will the Minister tell us whether or not leaseholders who do not have cladding will be required to have the certification, and whether his proposal now has the backing of finance lenders?
Leaseholders and Cladding — House of Commons, 2020-11-24
Topic: Housing
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on whether leaseholders are expected to pay for the removal of dangerous cladding from their homes.
Margaret Olivia Hillier (Labour, Centre-left): I need to declare my interest in that I am a leaseholder in an affected block, but in my case, my developer is paying for the full remediation works. The Minister must acknowledge that this is one of the biggest consumer and safety failures in a generation. For all that I chair the Public Accounts Committee—we have published a report on this issue—and I watch taxpayers’ money very closely, surely the Government need to step up, just as they did when the former Secretary of State signed a ministerial direction sanctioning the expenditure of millions of pounds because he knew that it would take too long to go through the legal process of tracking down the actual owners of buildings for the most dangerous cladding. The Government need to step up. We need 10 times the amount that has been pledged. Surely the Minister must recognise this. Too many leaseholders are trapped and will never be able to move.
Leaseholders and Cladding — House of Commons, 2020-11-24
Topic: Housing
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on whether leaseholders are expected to pay for the removal of dangerous cladding from their homes.
Chinyelu Susan Onwurah (Labour, Centre-left): My constituent is a leaseholder in one of the 2,700 blocks —I think that is what the Minister said—that have applied to the building safety fund, which has approximately enough money to remedy about 600 blocks. She does not know whether her flat is safe. She cannot sell it and she does not know how much her liabilities may be. The Minister can talk about finding innovative solutions, but it is three and a half years since Grenfell and we still do not see builders, owners or developers paying for remediation. Will he guarantee to my constituent that she will not have to be liable—that she will not have to pay for these costs—and does he agree that this is just one more example that shows that the leasehold system is broken and needs to be reformed?
Leaseholders and Cladding — House of Commons, 2020-11-24
Topic: Housing
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on whether leaseholders are expected to pay for the removal of dangerous cladding from their homes.
Stella Judith Creasy (Labour, Centre-left): Hundreds of families in Walthamstow have finally managed to get their foot on the property ladder through shared ownership and now, as a result of this crisis, find themselves in properties that are almost worthless and facing huge bills. Will the Minister reconsider the decision to exclude those bills that were incurred before 11 March, because many of those people have already tried to do the right thing and have incurred huge cost to themselves through the remediation works. Surely we should not penalise those people who have tried to act promptly on this matter.
Leaseholders and Cladding — House of Commons, 2020-11-24
Topic: Housing
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on whether leaseholders are expected to pay for the removal of dangerous cladding from their homes.
Ruth Margaret Cadbury (Labour, Centre-left): In October, more than 1,000 of my constituents—leaseholders, shared owners, tenants and students—were asked to leave the Paragon Estate in Brentford within seven days because the current owners, Notting Hill Genesis, found significant fire safety and structural issues. They were unrelated to flammable cladding, because that had been removed two years ago. In September 2019, Richmond House in Worcester Park, a four-storey block of only 23 leasehold flats, was destroyed by fire in 11 minutes. Both estates were developed by the Barclay Group, and both had the same significant fire safety defects. The week before last, the Sunday Times said that "the scandal over building safety spreads far beyond dangerously clad tower blocks" and could affect 4 million people. What are the Government doing right now to protect all those at risk of dying at home because of failures in the building safety regime?
Leaseholders and Cladding — House of Commons, 2020-11-24
Topic: Housing
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on whether leaseholders are expected to pay for the removal of dangerous cladding from their homes.
Andrew Francis Slaughter (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister answered a series of questions on this subject yesterday, and his answers all contained the same formulation of words: "to protect leaseholders from unaffordable costs". Does he realise that that leaves leaseholders in limbo? What he needs to do now is either define what "unaffordable" means better than "just below the bankruptcy threshold", as in a previous attempt by one of his colleagues, or he needs to recommit to exempting leaseholders from those costs, as well as social landlords, as there are costs not only for leaseholders but for tenants?
Leaseholders and Cladding — House of Commons, 2020-11-24
Topic: Housing
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on whether leaseholders are expected to pay for the removal of dangerous cladding from their homes.
Barry Strachan Gardiner (Labour, Centre-left): The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government blames the building control inspectors. The building control inspectors blame the construction company. The construction company blames the developer. The developer blames the lack of proper regulation. What is clear is that no one blames the thousands of leaseholders in my constituency who are now trapped in their homes, paying for everyone else’s mistakes. So will the Minister accept that the buck stops with him to get those who are responsible to pay up, if necessary with a windfall tax on the industry, to sort out the regulation and to keep my constituents safe and solvent?
Leaseholders and Cladding — House of Commons, 2020-11-24
Topic: Housing
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on whether leaseholders are expected to pay for the removal of dangerous cladding from their homes.
Stephen John Doughty (Labour, Centre-left): The bottom line is that this is a national scandal. It is a UK-wide problem that is going to require UK-wide solutions, such as the Minister has described, regarding the EWS1 forms that have affected my constituents. I have been absolutely appalled by the utterly amoral behaviour of many of the developers and construction companies, raking in billions while trying to dump the costs on to leaseholders in my constituency and so many others around this country. Has the Minister actually hauled in the likes of Redrow, Laing O’Rourke and Taylor Wimpey? If he is saying that they are ultimately responsible, what is he actually going to do to make them pay? Will it be a levy or some other measure? When will we see these innovative insurance products, because the reality is that my constituents are paying thousands in increased premiums right now?