argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Childcare Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2016-01-25
Topic: Mixed Topics
Jessica Rose Phillips (Labour, Centre-left): Yes, that is the word I will use. There is now a firm commitment from the Government I was about to say that I recognise that the Bill includes a three-month grace period, which I welcome, but that the children will still have to give up their place in the end. I do not need to say that anymore because the Minister has made his commitment. He has recognised that it is laughable that a woman, after escaping violence, would be tickety-boo, back in another property and gainfully employed after just three months. Unfortunately, the reducing availability of social housing for families to move on to means that many women and children live in refuge for much, much longer than three months. The cuts in local authority spending have meant that newly localised social funds, which are there to help such families, have limited women in respect of where they can and cannot move across local authority boundaries. That leaves them stuck in supported accommodation, even if they are ready and safe to move on These children need and deserve consistency. I welcome the Minister’s intervention because he said that he will give it to them.
Childcare Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2016-01-25
Topic: Other
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): The trouble is it depends on the Bills. Standing Orders dictate when the procedure is used. We could go a long time without it being used or it could be used every day. I am not sure. The procedures are laid down in Standing Orders, but the hon. Lady has now put her point on the record.
Central and East Africa — House of Commons, 2016-01-25
Topic: Other
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): Order. It is intended that the opening speech lasts between 10 and 15 minutes. We are running over already and many Members wish to speak. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman will want to conclude his speech shortly.
Central and East Africa — House of Commons, 2016-01-25
Topic: Other
Natascha Engel (Labour, Centre-left): Order. Before I call the next speaker, let me say that it might seem as though we have an endless amount of time, but we have eight Members wishing to speak and three Front-Bench speakers, so if we want a fair allocation of time, people need to stick to about 12 minutes, so that we can get everyone in. I call Mr Andrew Mitchell.
Central and East Africa — House of Commons, 2016-01-25
Topic: Immigration
Stephen John Doughty (Labour, Centre-left): I want briefly to make the point that a significant part of that community settled in my constituency in Grangetown in south Cardiff. They have made a huge contribution, as I am sure they have to the hon. Gentleman’s community.
Central and East Africa — House of Commons, 2016-01-25
Topic: Mixed Topics
Graham Peter Jones (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Gentleman makes a valuable point about the connection between some of the mining companies, which are in essence the wealth of Africa and eastern DRC, and some of the Administrations in Africa, particularly South Africa, that benefit from the mining interests in eastern DRC and across the Congo. Nothing seems to be done about that relationship and there is an ongoing problem. The wealth of eastern DRC and Africa is taken and nothing is done about it by those who could do more in terms of the ethics of that mining.
Central and East Africa — House of Commons, 2016-01-25
Topic: Civil Rights
Stephen John Doughty (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister is generous. I wanted to say gently that I was asking specifically about the electoral process in Somaliland rather than in Somalia, important though progress there south-centrally is. What are we doing to support the electoral process in Somaliland?
Women’s Prison Estate — House of Commons, 2016-01-26
Topic: Mixed Topics
Barry John Sheerman (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister might know that New Hall women’s prison is quite close to my Huddersfield constituency. Does she agree that often literacy issues stop women getting back into society and leading a good life? Also, many people—women particularly—are on the autistic spectrum, but are never tested. Could more attention be paid to special educational needs in women’s prisons so that we can help women more?
European Convention on Human Rights — House of Commons, 2016-01-26
Topic: Civil Rights
Questions: What representations he has received from (a) international bodies, (b) the Council of Europe and (c) the UN on the UK’s membership of the European Convention on Human Rights.; What representations he has received from (a) international bodies, (b) the Council of Europe and (c) the UN on the UK’s membership of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Andrew John Gwynne (Labour, Centre-left): But the UN special rapporteur on torture, Mr Juan Mendez, has warned that the Government’s plot to replace the Human Rights Act with a Tory Bill of Rights is "dangerous, pernicious" and would set "a very bad example to the rest of the world" Is he not right?
European Convention on Human Rights — House of Commons, 2016-01-26
Topic: Civil Rights
Questions: What representations he has received from (a) international bodies, (b) the Council of Europe and (c) the UN on the UK’s membership of the European Convention on Human Rights.; What representations he has received from (a) international bodies, (b) the Council of Europe and (c) the UN on the UK’s membership of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Harriet Ruth Harman (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister is yet to issue his consultation on the repeal of the Human Rights Act and its replacement with a British Bill of Rights, but it is eight weeks until the Scottish Parliament is dissolved and goes into purdah—it is the same with Northern Ireland and Wales. Will he give an absolute guarantee that he will not squash out Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales from this important consultation by issuing his proposal before, or worse still during, the election purdah period? Will he give that absolute guarantee?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2016-01-26
Topic: Other
Andrew Francis Slaughter (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During Justice questions, I was alarmed to see the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), who is in his place, dissenting from a quote I ascribed to him from the Justice Committee this morning. I now understand why: the quote was correct, but it was uttered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), not the hon. Member for Cheltenham. Having known and liked the hon. Gentleman for many years, I am anxious to correct that error, while noting that it shows his independence of thought that I could have credited him with the quote, and his magnanimity in trusting me to set the record straight.
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2016-01-26
Topic: Public Lands
Jamieson Ronald Reed (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would be grateful for your advice on how we can determine the Government’s policy on a time-sensitive issue. Following the flooding in my constituency at the beginning of December, I wrote to the Prime Minister asking him to formally apply for funding from the European Union solidarity fund. Applications to this fund must be made within 12 weeks of flooding taking place. As it was time-sensitive, I also submitted a named-day written question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, asking if the FCO would make it its policy to apply for funding. On the last day before the House rose for Christmas, the Foreign Office replied that it would not be able to answer in time. On 20 January, however, I finally received an answer from the FCO, saying that that was not its responsibility and that the matter was one for the Department for Communities and Local Government. It took more than a month for the FCO to tell me that it was not its responsibility On the same day, 20 January, I received a letter from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, saying that the Prime Minister had forwarded to it my original correspondence, but that it was not a matter for DEFRA. Why would the Prime Minister transfer my correspondence to a Department that does not have responsibility for the matter at hand? Since my original correspondence, six weeks have passed and my constituency and many parts of Cumbria are again flooding today. We are coming closer and closer to the deadline for applications to the European fund. If I was unkind, I would suggest that the behaviour of the Government appears to have been to delay my query until it was too late to apply for assistance. Can you advise me, please, how an individual Member of this House can scrutinise Government policy if the Government will not tell us what it is or if they do not have one?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2016-01-26
Topic: Other
Barry John Sheerman (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a point of order about the rights of Back Benchers to be heard in this Chamber. You will know that some of us are very good attenders at business questions on Thursdays. Last Thursday, contributions from the Front Benches took 25 minutes. I know you are very generous and we carry on with our questions, but the predominance of all three Front Benches went on for a very long time, which squeezes the genuine Back Bencher. On the Labour Benches, we genuine Back Benchers are fighting for space all the time against the Front Benchers who are also Back Benchers part-time. Perhaps you could have a word. Also, I have never known such nasty, acrimonious jousting as there was between the two Front Benches last Thursday. It was not funny and it was not nice.
Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2016-01-26
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Barry John Sheerman (Labour, Centre-left): I congratulate my hon. Friend on her excellent speech. I am a trustee of many charities; one of the concerns that those of us who work in the charitable sector have had for a long time is the weakness of the Charity Commission. Usually, its legal department is terrified of a case ending up in the High Court. I support the Bill: we need a strong commission that can do its job as it has not been able to do it for many years.
Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2016-01-26
Topic: Housing
Anna Catherine Turley (Labour, Centre-left): That is very helpful indeed. I really appreciate the Minister being so quick and forthcoming with his clarity on that, which will give the sector a lot of reassurance. I now move on to our new clauses 2 and 3. New clause 2 seeks to replace a clause that was put into the Bill during its passage through the other place but removed in Committee. I pay tribute to our noble Friends in the other place who successfully added the clause to the Bill. As with so much legislation at the moment, we are finding them to be great defenders of social justice and fairness New clause 2 would support trustees in carrying out their existing duties by ensuring that they can adhere to their charitable aims and objectives, and it would protect them from being compelled to undertake an action at odds with their charitable purposes. As we have always made clear, especially in Committee, the provision is particularly relevant to housing. It aims to protect charities and housing associations if the Government mandates them to sell their charitable property under the right-to-buy proposals Labour Members want those who desire to be homeowners to achieve their aspiration. While the number of homeowners has fallen by more than 200,000 under this Government, the number rose by more than 1 million under Labour between 1997 and 2010. I want to be clear that we support people’s aspiration to own their own home.
Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2016-01-26
Topic: Housing
Kelvin Peter Hopkins (Labour, Centre-left): I agree with what my hon. Friend is saying, but the level of owner-occupation is declining because house prices have risen way beyond the ability of most people to afford them. Is not the real problem the need to have decent social rented housing, and should we not keep all existing social housing in the public sector to make sure we can house people properly?
Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2016-01-26
Topic: Housing
Kelvin Peter Hopkins (Labour, Centre-left): Even those who support the sale of council houses and of housing association properties say that if the subsidy came directly from the Treasury, that would be very different from making housing associations and local authorities pay for the subsidy out of their assets.
Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2016-01-26
Topic: Housing
Anna Catherine Turley (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It has been apparent throughout the proceedings on the Housing and Planning Bill that there is a black hole in the plans to fund the whole proposal There are currently 2 million people on waiting lists due to the dearth of homes on affordable rents for low earners. Our new clause 2, which protects housing associations from being compelled to sell off homes, would prevent the further reduction in the supply of affordable social housing. Too often, history has shown that right-to-buy homes are resold. Many homes are rapidly rented out by private landlords at the full market rent, which serves to drive up market prices and increase poverty through higher housing costs, as well as reducing the housing stock available on affordable rents. All of that goes against the charitable objectives of most housing associations In summary, we are concerned that the Government want to interfere with the duties of charity trustees to put their beneficiaries first and to comply with their fundamental charitable purposes in how they manage their assets. Housing associations can already partake of right-to-buy options for their tenants where that accords with their charitable objectives. The problem arises where that conflicts with their objectives and trustees’ duties risk being overridden by the Government, which is simply not acceptable. That is what the new clause seeks to prevent New clause 3 would enshrine in legislation the right of charities to undertake political campaigning activity. We are clear that this is a direct attempt to challenge the unfair and poorly applied Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014, commonly known as the gagging Act. Campaigning is an important part of democracy and civil society. One of the fundamental principles of a thriving and healthy democracy is that individuals and organisations can speak out on the issues they care about.
Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2016-01-26
Topic: Civil Rights
Peter John Kyle (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend makes an incredibly powerful point. This is about freedom of speech for everyone—every citizen and every organisation in this country—but it is also about making sure that the disempowered, both individuals and communities who lack a voice, have advocates that can speak in as unencumbered a way as is humanly possible and with the ferocity that those in our society who lack a voice deserve.
Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2016-01-26
Topic: Mixed Topics
Susan Elan Jones (Labour, Centre-left): I am slightly mystified by some of the comments about so-called political activity. We are talking about basic advocacy. We only have to go back to the end of the first world war to see the Royal British Legion campaigning for jobs for veterans and so on. We are not talking about party political campaigning. That is what the voluntary sector objected to in the 2014 Act.
Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2016-01-26
Topic: Civil Rights
Susan Elan Jones (Labour, Centre-left): Surely the big problem that people had was that they did not like the idea of dodgy lobbyists giving money to dodgy politicians. It was not about victimising groups such as the Salvation Army. The hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) says that it was just the Badger Trust that was affected. If he had heard what the Countryside Alliance said at the all-party parliamentary group on civil society and volunteering about what it thought of the gagging Act, he would accept that a wide variety of groups are affected.
Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2016-01-26
Topic: Civil Rights
Anna Catherine Turley (Labour, Centre-left): I am afraid that I am nearly at the end of my speech, so I will finish The lobbying legislation looks to many in the sector too much like another deliberate and shameless act by a Government who are too scared to debate their record or to be open to scrutiny and challenge. The health of our democracy depends on people’s right to campaign on the issues they care about. The 2014 Act was an attack on our democracy. It limits the rights of charities to fight for important causes. It has left expert organisations that have a vital contribution to make to public debate unsure whether they are allowed to speak out. We seek to protect the right of charities to have a loud and respected voice in our democracy. I commend new clause 3 to the House.
Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2016-01-26
Topic: Mixed Topics
Peter John Kyle (Labour, Centre-left): Does the hon. Lady not agree that the way in which a charity collects and spends its money in order to deliver its charitable mission on behalf of its service users is the preserve of its trustees, and that it is not for us to decide such operational or, indeed, moral matters in the House of Commons? It is certainly not for us, as individual Members of Parliament, to dictate to charities how they should spend their money and deliver their charitable aims; that is up to the trustees.
Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2016-01-26
Topic: Housing
Andrew John Gwynne (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend is making an important point. All of us as Members of Parliament will from time to time be contacted by charitable organisations that seek to influence policy makers and policy informers to change the laws of the land. For example, it would not be outwith the role of an organisation like Shelter to campaign for MPs to get changes to homelessness policies that we might be debating. That is political.
Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2016-01-26
Topic: Mixed Topics
Paul Phillip Flynn (Labour, Centre-left): Charitable ends can never be justified by uncharitable means. Terrible revelations were made last summer by the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday, to their great credit—I do not say that very often—about the abuse of the means that charities were using to achieve their ends. We all strongly support such charitable ends, but those charities engaged in the fierce fundraising that goes on among charities and that is becoming even fiercer. One charity spends an astronomical amount— £20 million—on fundraising to get the money in. Understandably but wrongly, certain charities fell into the trap of using means that were thoroughly unjustified and in too many cases abused their donors We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) about a terrible case, though it should be pointed out that the relatives of Olive Cooke have pointed out since that her death had no connection with the pressure that was put on her and was due to other reasons. But there have been other cases of people who were suffering from dementia being plagued by repeated phone calls, letters and pressure on them. We have considered the case of chuggers. Highly respectable charities were using chuggers to accost people in the street and offer them a deal. That was fine for the charities because they got a huge amount of money in, but it was a very poor deal for donors. Of the donations they give for the first full year, virtually none goes to the charity. Such deals are very poor value for the donors As a senior member of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, I have been asked to speak today by the Chair of that Committee, who tabled new clauses 4 and 5. The Committee was shocked by the evidence we had. We saw that all the charities were in confessional mood. They were penitent and agreed that they had overstepped the mark. As members of the Committee with supervisory roles over the charities sector, we were tempted to call for new regulations, but we decided unanimously that we did not want to cage the entire charity movement in a new prison of regulation that would limit their powers of innovation Charities have clearly poisoned their own well. So many people have turned not only against the charities involved when that scam was announced last year, but against the whole idea of charity giving, so we want to make the point powerfully in new clauses 4 and 5, which seek to introduce reforms. We are strongly behind the Charity Commission. If it is to do a bigger job, it must have the money restored—30% of its funding was taken away from it. The Committee’s message, which will be in our report on Kids Company that comes out on Monday, is that charitable ends can never justify uncharitable means.
Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2016-01-26
Topic: Other
Peter John Kyle (Labour, Centre-left): Will the Minister join me in congratulating the charity Unlock on working with the right hon. Gentleman? That partnership between a party politician and a charity produced a fantastic speech. He made some very important points, and that is clearly having an impact on legislation on the Floor of the House of Commons. Is that not to be welcomed?
Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2016-01-26
Topic: Housing
Anna Catherine Turley (Labour, Centre-left): To take up that point, the right to buy affects charities, and we are debating charities legislation. The right to buy affects the ability of housing associations to control their assets, which is a fundamental change to the balance of the relationship between their role and the Government’s ability to tell them what to do. That is why we have debated it today.
Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2016-01-26
Topic: Other
Natascha Engel (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Lady is aware that it is up to the Minister to move the motion formally or to speak to it, but she is perfectly entitled to speak in the debate now, if she so wishes.
Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2016-01-26
Topic: Other
Natascha Engel (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. I remind the House that we are discussing the consent motion, rather than the rights and wrongs of EVEL. I have allowed the debate—it has been a rather two-way exchange—to go on a little because we are right at the beginning of the EVEL process; this is certainly my first time in the Chair during a Legislative Grand Committee, and it is only the third time that this has happened. However, as the hon. Gentleman said, the Procedure Committee is looking at the EVEL process in the round. The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) should really make a submission to that Committee. It would be good if we could now move on to discuss the consent motion or put the question.
Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2016-01-26
Topic: Other
Natascha Engel (Labour, Centre-left): I remind hon. Members that if there is a Division on the consent motion, only Members representing constituencies in England and Wales may vote. That extends to expressing an opinion by calling out aye or no when the question is put Question put and agreed to.