argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-24
Topic: Civil Rights
Philip Andrew Davies (Conservative, Centre-right): I am going to resist the temptation to give way to my hon. Friend for now, Mr Deputy Speaker, just to show that I always take notice of the Chair They are attempting to fillet this Bill without anybody noticing, claiming to be champions of the Istanbul convention while getting the Government off the hook of ever having to actually implement it. These amendments are all about making sure either that the Istanbul convention is never ratified or that its ratification is delayed as much as possible. Only SNP Members will know why on earth they have agreed to this. Only they will be able to explain that, or perhaps they are so embarrassed about it that they will not be willing to explain it at all. I hope they will have the guts to admit to what they have done Government new clause 1 would remove clause 1 and therefore would remove the ratification of the convention on violence against women, because clause 1 imposes a "duty" on the Government "to take all reasonable steps as soon as reasonably practicable to enable the United Kingdom to become compliant with" the Istanbul convention. The Government want to delete that. They want to leave out clause 1, yet clause 1 is the whole point of the Bill, in that it imposes a duty on the Government "to take all reasonable steps as soon as reasonably practicable to enable the United Kingdom to become compliant" with the convention. The Government want to remove that provision from the Bill, and the SNP is quite happy for them to do so. This is absolutely extraordinary stuff, Mr Deputy Speaker! You literally could not make it up.
Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-24
Topic: Civil Rights
Philip Andrew Davies (Conservative, Centre-right): Do not worry, the House will hear it in all its glory. Government amendment 16—and, with it, Government amendment 17—is an absolute pearler. The Bill is so bad that not only are the Government taking out clause 1, which is the whole point of the Bill, but they are even changing the title because it is no longer applicable to what they are prepared to sign themselves up to—with SNP support The title says that this is: "A Bill to require the United Kingdom to ratify the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (the Istanbul Convention); and for connected purposes." Everyone outside this place thinks that that is what we are debating today. They think this is a Bill to require the United Kingdom to ratify the Istanbul convention. Well, not any more. The Government and the SNP have caved in on what the Bill was supposed to be about, because now they are changing the title. The requirement on the United Kingdom to ratify the convention will no longer be in the Bill’s title if the Government and the SNP get their way. The Bill will just: "Make provision in connection with the ratification by the United Kingdom of" In other words, "Let’s kick this one into the long grass. We’ll just have a few things that need to be done before we actually ratify the convention." The Bill will no longer require the Government to ratify the Istanbul convention, and even "and for connected purposes" will be removed. Nothing that might actually help to ratify the Istanbul convention will be included in the Bill There we have it: a whole range of amendments. Some of my amendments are about transparency, and some would strengthen the measures expected of the Bill—people would certainly know what has to be reported on so that we can see what is happening in other countries. On the other hand, we have the Government amendments, supported by the SNP, that water down the Bill and even remove the requirement to ratify the Istanbul convention. The public outside need to know that they are being conned by people who claim to support ratification and who claim to be on the campaign group. The public have been sold a pup. At least some of us are honest about not liking this convention, which has to be a better way to operate than this rather shabby deal between the Government and the SNP I hope that we can test the will of the House on the weakening of the Bill, and we will see how we get on.
Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-24
Topic: Other
Tania Mathias (Conservative, Centre-right): I greatly appreciate how the hon. Lady has acknowledged the cross-support on this issue and everything she has done in the Chamber and outside it. She has the full backing of female Conservative Back Benchers, but I also applaud my male colleagues, who are also behind her.
Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-24
Topic: Civil Rights
Christopher Robert Chope (Conservative, Centre-right): This is an extraordinary occasion. We are discussing a Bill, the long title of which—as put down on 29 June last year—was: "To require the United Kingdom to ratify the…Istanbul Convention." We have just heard the promoter of the Bill explaining why she now wishes that long title effectively not to require the United Kingdom to ratify the Istanbul convention. I congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) on the charming way in which she has been able to explain a complete volte-face in her approach to this important subject The Minister has spelt out all the wonderfully effective and good measures that the Government have introduced to address the really serious issues of violence against women and domestic violence. I commend her and the Government for the work they have already done and the work they will do. However, she has not addressed the questions implicit in the amendments I have tabled as to whether, when the Government ratify the convention, they will do so with any reservations. We have not had an answer to that. I would be grateful if the Minister would intervene to assure me that when the ratification occurs, it will be without any reservations.
Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-24
Topic: Other
Philip Andrew Davies (Conservative, Centre-right): The Minister asked whether I would be minded to withdraw my amendment. For the benefit of the House, I would like to make it clear, through my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), that I will be very happy to withdraw my amendment and will not push any of my amendments to a vote.
Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-24
Topic: Mixed Topics
Sarah Louise Newton (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene to address amendment 4—he is quite right that I did not address it in my few words. The replacement of "Her Majesty’s Government" with "the Secretary of State" is to ensure that the Bill reflects the usual drafting conventions. In no way does it alter the overall responsibilities of the Government.
Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-24
Topic: Other
Christopher Robert Chope (Conservative, Centre-right): I hear what my hon. Friend says, and I am grateful to her for that intervention. I am sure that others will be able to check out the issue to see whether it will need further discussion when the Bill gets to the other place. However, having said that, and in light of her intervention, I am not going to speak to the new clauses and amendments that I have tabled, because I get the feeling that the House would like to move on to debate other issues.
Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-24
Topic: Civil Rights
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): There is not a Question before us to be put, because new clause 6 has been withdrawn, and therefore the correct procedure now is for me to move on to Government amendment 1. Clause 1 Ratification of the Istanbul Convention on violence against women Amendment proposed: 1, page 1, line 1, leave out clause 1.—(Sarah Newton.) This amendment leaves out clause 1. Question put, That the amendment be made.
Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-24
Topic: Civil Rights
David Nuttall (Conservative, Centre-right): The short answer is no; I cannot think of anything. I would be very interested if anyone else present could come up with any measure that we are prevented from introducing because we have not yet ratified the convention. In fact, as the previous intervention demonstrated, the Government have quite happily brought forward lots of proposals to tackle these matters already, and quite rightly. I have my own ideas about what we could do to try to tackle domestic violence, and I am interested in whether Opposition Members would support me. For example, we could start by saying that those who are convicted of domestic violence and sent to prison are required to serve the full length of their sentence, rather than being let out halfway through. If we are talking about sending signals, let us send the good signal that if someone commits an act of domestic violence and is sent to prison, they would have to serve the full length of their sentence. There are things we could do that I would be very much willing to support It is not even the final step when the report is finally tabled by the Secretary of State— "as soon as reasonably practicable"— and sets out the timetable. The final step comes afterwards. Even when the Secretary of State has finally determined that the United Kingdom is compliant with the Istanbul convention, a date by which the convention will be ratified does not have to be set. Following the amendments made, the Bill simply states that "the Secretary of State would expect the Convention to be ratified", so another small delay is built in there. But then what happens? What is the purpose of the Bill then Previously, the purpose of the Bill would have been to report on progress every year until ratification and then, after ratification, to report on how the Government were doing. All the reporting after ratification has now been removed, and reports will be prepared only until ratification. There is no mechanism under this Bill—I stress under this Bill—to measure the various things set out in it, which the promoter must have thought were important at the time it was drafted. Those include measures to "protect women against violence, and prevent, prosecute and eliminate violence against women and domestic violence"— there is a long list.
Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-24
Topic: Other
Peter William Bone (Conservative, Centre-right): I have come along today to support the Bill, but it has been watered down so much that I am not entirely sure which way to vote on Third Reading. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say before I make my mind up, but what would by hon. Friend’s advice be?
Awards for Valour (Protection) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-24
Topic: Housing
Christopher Robert Chope (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend has obviously done a lot of work on defining what he means by a family member for these purposes. Did I hear him correctly when he said that this was based on housing legislation?
Awards for Valour (Protection) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-24
Topic: Housing
Philip Andrew Davies (Conservative, Centre-right): I took the basic definition of a family member from section 113 of the Housing Act 1985, although I am conscious that my definition is wider. The 1985 Act’s definition was a starting point, but I would like to think that I have brought it a bit more up to date.
Awards for Valour (Protection) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-24
Topic: Other
Philip Andrew Davies (Conservative, Centre-right): I apologise to my hon. Friend for not being well enough prepared to answer his question, but I do not have that information. I do not even know whether anyone has that information. Someone might have it, but I do not New clause 9 states: "(1) This Act shall expire at the end of 2022 unless an order is made under this section (2) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument; but no order shall be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament." Basically, this is a sunset clause. If it became apparent that the Bill was not doing as intended, new clause 9 would be a nice way for the Bill to fall without any fanfare. Of course if the Bill were enacted and doing particularly well, someone would be able to rehash it.
Awards for Valour (Protection) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-24
Topic: Other
David Nuttall (Conservative, Centre-right): Does my hon. Friend agree that new clause 9 strengthens the case for accepting new clause 8? New clause 8 would make things far easier for those wanting to assess the success, or otherwise, of the Bill.
Awards for Valour (Protection) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-24
Topic: Other
Philip Andrew Davies (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend is absolutely right. New clauses 8 and 9, in many respects, go together. If we had a sunset clause, we would need to be able to measure the success, or otherwise, of the legislation, and the reporting set out in new clause 8 would help with that task. He is right to draw attention to the fact that, in many respects, new clauses 8 and 9, though not reliant on each other, flow nicely from each other I appreciate that that was a quick canter around the course of new clauses.
Awards for Valour (Protection) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-24
Topic: Other
Gareth Alan Johnson (Conservative, Centre-right): I have deliberately not intervened on my hon. Friend until now because it is quite clear that he is trying to talk the Bill out, and it is absolutely clear that his amendments are wrecking amendments that are not based on logic. Does he accept that it is a great shame that there is support on both sides of the House—from Her Majesty’s Opposition, the Government, the Scottish National party—yet he seems hellbent on preventing it from becoming law?
Awards for Valour (Protection) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-24
Topic: Other
Philip Andrew Davies (Conservative, Centre-right): I am sorry that my hon. Friend takes that attitude. I have tabled some amendments that have been found to be in order by the Speaker. I do not know whether my hon. Friend is questioning the Speaker’s selection of amendments, but they are all in order, which is why they have been selected for debate. If they were not, they would not have been selected. I am going rather rapidly through each of them, which is what we are supposed to do on Report—we table amendments and go through them to explain the purpose behind them, and then people can explain why they disagree. That takes as long as it takes. I do not think I have been dwelling unnecessarily on any particular amendment, so I am sorry that my hon. Friend takes that view. I do not set the timings for debates; if the debate could last longer, I would be happy for it to do so, but I do not set the rules. I am going to go through the amendments and explain why I have tabled them. I am sorry that he does not like people doing that with legislation in the House of Commons, but that is what the House is for.
Awards for Valour (Protection) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-24
Topic: Other
Philip Andrew Davies (Conservative, Centre-right): As it happens, I very much agree with the hon. Lady’s Bill, but it is seventh on the list, so she was a bit optimistic ever to have thought we would reach it. I cannot remember the last time we got to debate the seventh Bill on a Friday. She well knows that her Bill was never going to be reached for debate. I absolutely agree with her Bill, though, and she will get my wholehearted support if she persuades the Government to take up her proposal. Nevertheless, unfortunately the luck of the draw meant that we were never going to reach it today.
Awards for Valour (Protection) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-24
Topic: Mixed Topics
Gareth Alan Johnson (Conservative, Centre-right): Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very sad that, come this Remembrance Sunday, any individual can parade in front of widows, veterans, families and loved ones wearing medals that they have not won themselves—they may not have even served—with the intent to deceive and to curry favour? The reason why they will be able to do so is that he has filibustered this Bill.
Awards for Valour (Protection) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-24
Topic: Other
Philip Andrew Davies (Conservative, Centre-right): No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman has not yet made any sensible contributions. He seems to talk a load of old nonsense, so I will press on with the whole point of my amendments, which is to try to turn this Bill into something worth while. We still have other days on which to consider other private Members’ Bills in this Session. I hope that we can conclude this if time allows.
Awards for Valour (Protection) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-24
Topic: Other
Christopher Robert Chope (Conservative, Centre-right): It is disappointing that anyone should wish to try to use emotional blackmail against my hon. Friend and what he is proposing. In his last intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) referred to people who were wearing medals that they had not been awarded. He did not deal with the issue of them wearing things that had the appearance of being an award. I cannot understand why some of the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) are not acceptable to the Bill’s promoter.
Awards for Valour (Protection) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-24
Topic: Other
Philip Andrew Davies (Conservative, Centre-right): I agree with my hon. Friend. Perhaps if the Bill had been drawn as narrowly as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford is now trying to draw it, it may well have been acceptable to all concerned. Unfortunately, he did not do so, and decided to go way over the top to include all sorts of people who were never envisaged to be included originally. That is why we must try to sort out some of these issues.
Insurance Premiums — House of Commons, 2017-03-07
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Questions: What assessment the Government have made of the effect of recent changes in the discount rate for compensation for accident victims on the level of insurance premiums.
Jonathan Simon Djanogly (Conservative, Centre-right): There seems to be some element of confusion in the minds of the public. The insurance industry says that car insurance premiums will go up because of the fall in the discount rate, while the Government, quite rightly, say that insurance premiums should come down because of the proposed changes in the Prisons and Courts Bill. Is this a question of netting off, with no change to premiums at all, or can the Lord Chancellor be slightly more scientific?
Whiplash Claims — House of Commons, 2017-03-07
Topic: Mixed Topics
Questions: Six thousand vulnerable road users—pedestrians and cyclists—responded to the Justice Department’s consultation on the reforms, expressing concerns that cyclists and pedestrians would be disproportionately affected by any increase in the small claims limit. Will the Minister discuss the proposals with officials and consider excluding vulnerable road user claims from the increase, as discussed yesterday by Cycling UK?
Michael Louis David Fabricant (Conservative, Centre-right): A few years ago, I was shunted up the backside—my car was, I mean. Although I was perfectly well, I received a phone call from someone who asked me whether I had whiplash. I said, "No, I do not have whiplash." The person said, "Oh, go on! Say that you do have whiplash." I did not do that, because I am an honourable person. My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right to reduce the number of bogus claims.
Whiplash Claims — House of Commons, 2017-03-07
Topic: Other
Questions: Six thousand vulnerable road users—pedestrians and cyclists—responded to the Justice Department’s consultation on the reforms, expressing concerns that cyclists and pedestrians would be disproportionately affected by any increase in the small claims limit. Will the Minister discuss the proposals with officials and consider excluding vulnerable road user claims from the increase, as discussed yesterday by Cycling UK?
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman is so accident-prone. I remember serving on a Bill Committee with him many years ago, and receiving the distressing news that he had been bitten in a sensitive place in the course of an excursion overseas. He really does seem to suffer a disproportionate share of ill fate.
Whiplash Claims — House of Commons, 2017-03-07
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Questions: Six thousand vulnerable road users—pedestrians and cyclists—responded to the Justice Department’s consultation on the reforms, expressing concerns that cyclists and pedestrians would be disproportionately affected by any increase in the small claims limit. Will the Minister discuss the proposals with officials and consider excluding vulnerable road user claims from the increase, as discussed yesterday by Cycling UK?
Oliver Heald (Conservative, Centre-right): As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are plagued by a series of minor, exaggerated and fraudulent whiplash claims, and we want to tackle that. We believe that the combination of no settlement of claims without a medical report, the tariffs in the Bill, and the raising of the small claims threshold will disincentivise those claims. The hon. Gentleman should also bear in mind that the limit for ordinary money small claims is £10,000.
Personal Independence Payments: Inverclyde — House of Commons, 2017-03-07
Topic: Other
Desmond Angus Swayne (Conservative, Centre-right): Indeed, Mr Speaker. The successful proportion would not matter nearly so much if the Minister could arrange for those appeals to happen a hell of a lot quicker, and if he can fix it in Inverclyde—well, I need not spell it out, Mr Speaker.
Legal Advice — House of Commons, 2017-03-07
Topic: Mixed Topics
Oliver Heald (Conservative, Centre-right): Huddersfield University is known as a beacon in this area, and it has done tremendous work. I was pleased to meet some of the students during pro bono week last year. I pay tribute to them and to all the universities and other bodies that set aside time to help people with their legal work.
Legal Advice — House of Commons, 2017-03-07
Topic: Mixed Topics
Oliver Heald (Conservative, Centre-right): I am not going to make my declaration about that now, Mr Speaker. This is a complex issue. There is a role for the local authorities to play, and there is some legal aid available, but I am in correspondence with Amnesty and am looking into the matter in detail.
Prison Officers: Recruitment and Retention — House of Commons, 2017-03-07
Topic: Mixed Topics
Elizabeth Mary Truss (Conservative, Centre-right): I am determined to ensure that we recruit the right number of officers right across the country. In the south-east, where costs are high and where there is much competition for highly skilled individuals, we have specific issues with recruiting and retaining people. However, the 2,000 new more senior roles that I mentioned are available right across the country, and people in HMP Berwyn will be able to apply for them with that extra training and get that extra pay.