argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
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?
Richard Burgon (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister claims that there is a compensation culture surrounding whiplash when, in reality, the number of claims has been falling for five years. Even if that were true, however, I should like to know why he is penalising workers throughout the country by increasing the personal injury limit to £2,000, rather than focusing solely on whiplash.
Mental Health Problems: Prisoners — House of Commons, 2017-03-07
Topic: Mixed Topics
Questions: What analysis has the Department done on people going into prison with mental health problems, as opposed to acquiring mental health problems in prison?
Yasmin Qureshi (Labour, Centre-left): Last year, 2016, was the worst recorded for suicide in prisons. The Secretary of State introduced the Prisons and Courts Bill, but it contains nothing to address mental health issues. Why has the Justice Secretary missed this valuable opportunity to enshrine in law the way in which we treat prisoners with mental health problems?
Housing Benefits (18 to 21-year-olds) — House of Commons, 2017-03-07
Topic: Housing
John Healey (Labour, Centre-left): My urgent question—this concern is shared by Members on both sides of the House—was: what assessment has been done of the impact of the cuts on homelessness? With respect to the Minister, she has made a statement but she could have given a one-word answer, which is "none". No impact assessment was published with the regulations on Friday. Why not? How many young people will now be denied all help with housing benefit? There are 1,741 18 to 21-year-olds in the Minister’s county of Hampshire claiming housing benefit. How many of them will still get help next month, and how many will get nothing The Minister may not have done an assessment, but the charities that work day in, day out to help the homeless in all our constituencies have done so. Centrepoint says that 9,000 young people will be put at risk of homelessness. Shelter says that "there is no way this isn’t going to lead to an increase in rough sleeping." Crisis, which drafted the very important Homelessness Reduction Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), says that the policy "runs entirely counter" to the aims of that Bill, and that it "could spell disaster for the many vulnerable young people rightly entitled to help." Surely the Minister does not think that those charities are wrong. If she knows they are right, surely the Government are not going to go ahead with these cruel and counterproductive cuts Members on both sides of the House have deeply held concerns about the rapidly rising level of homelessness in our country. Will the Minister accept that none of the arguments that she has made today or previously really stack up? She says that this is about levelling the playing field, but these young people, who are old enough to marry, work, pay taxes and fight for our country, will now be denied the same right as other British adults to basic help with housing costs Ministers have said that the exemptions will protect the vulnerable, but the National Landlords Association declares: "Never mind the nuances, all landlords will hear is that 18-21 year olds are no longer entitled to housing benefit…they just won’t consider them as a tenant." Ministers have said that this will save money, but once the knock-on costs to other services are taken into account the saving will fall to only £3.3 million The Minister talked about the manifesto; it contained a commitment to remove the "automatic" entitlement. Claimants already have to pass multiple checks and tests, so there really is nothing automatic about young people getting housing benefit. Will the Minister recognise that the Government have the opportunity in tomorrow’s Budget to reverse this counterproductive policy? Will she leave the House this afternoon and tell the Chancellor that if he does so, he will have the fullest support not just from Opposition Members but, I suspect, from Members across the House?
Housing Benefits (18 to 21-year-olds) — House of Commons, 2017-03-07
Topic: Housing
Edward Samuel Miliband (Labour, Centre-left): I think we should call this what it is: a nasty, vindictive policy that will make injustice worse, from a Government who said that they would tackle burning injustice. Will the Minister now answer the question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) asked? No impact assessment has been published for the measure—inexplicably, in my view. Will she tell the House what advice she has received from her officials about the impact on homelessness of this proposal?
Housing Benefits (18 to 21-year-olds) — House of Commons, 2017-03-07
Topic: Civil Rights
Luciana Clare Goldsmith (Berger) (Labour, Centre-left): I think that anyone listening to this urgent question would, frankly, be appalled by the responses that we have had thus far from the Minister. She has not answered any of the questions that were rightly asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey). Will she tell us why the equality impact assessment has not been published and when she will bring it forward, so that we can all see exactly the rationale behind this ridiculous policy?
Housing Benefits (18 to 21-year-olds) — House of Commons, 2017-03-07
Topic: Housing
Clive James Charles Betts (Labour, Centre-left): One of the exemptions in the regulations where housing benefit can still be paid is if "in the opinion of the Secretary of State it is inappropriate for the renter to live with each of their parents" Does the Secretary of State assume that this exemption will automatically apply where the parents refuse to have their child living with them?
Housing Benefits (18 to 21-year-olds) — House of Commons, 2017-03-07
Topic: Housing
Karen Patricia Buck (Labour, Centre-left): Further to the question from the Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), will the Minister confirm what I believe she said earlier, which is that the only thing necessary for a young person to demonstrate before being entitled to the housing element of universal credit is that their parent has said that they cannot live at home?
Housing Benefits (18 to 21-year-olds) — House of Commons, 2017-03-07
Topic: Mixed Topics
Maria Eagle (Labour, Centre-left): Given that the Minister has conceded that there is an impact assessment—she said that she has not published it because she does not need to—and in view of the concern that exists, would she care to think again and publish the impact assessment?
Housing Benefits (18 to 21-year-olds) — House of Commons, 2017-03-07
Topic: Housing
Ivan Lewis (Labour, Centre-left): Last Thursday, as part of the work I am doing on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) on homelessness in Greater Manchester, I went around the streets of the city centre of Manchester and was shocked to see the risk that young people face from the dealing of psychoactive substances and the threat that they face from violence. Does the hon. Lady not understand that this will force significantly more young people in our country into rough sleeping and make them increasingly vulnerable? Is this not the personification of the return of the nasty party?
Housing Benefits (18 to 21-year-olds) — House of Commons, 2017-03-07
Topic: Housing
Helen Elizabeth Hayes (Labour, Centre-left): The vast majority of my young constituents who need to access housing benefit are doing so in the private rented sector, which means that they already face crippling costs and great insecurity. Why can the Minister not see that, across the board for young people, this policy simply makes precarious situations more precarious, stigmatises young people and is nothing short of a kick in the teeth? Why are the Government ignoring the overwhelming evidence from those who work with young people showing that this policy will make homelessness worse, and why will she not drop it?
Housing Benefits (18 to 21-year-olds) — House of Commons, 2017-03-07
Topic: Civil Rights
Yvonne Helen Fovargue (Labour, Centre-left): May I return to the definition of "inappropriate to return"? Would that include a case that I have heard about: a young man who was kicked out by his stepfather for being gay, but was told he could return home if he denied his sexuality?
Housing Benefits (18 to 21-year-olds) — House of Commons, 2017-03-07
Topic: Housing
Nicklaus Thomas-Symonds (Labour, Centre-left): I have come across many reasons that 18 to 21-year-olds have left home, but I have never seen claiming housing benefit as an incentive. Given the long list of exemptions, would it not just be easier for the Minister to scrap the policy altogether?
Children and Social Work Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2017-03-07
Topic: Immigration
Yvette Cooper (Labour, Centre-left): It is welcome that the Minister will publish information on each local authority. Will he publish the number that each one will be prepared to take from abroad, including from Europe? That is the content of new clause 14, which refers to "unaccompanied refugee children who could be transferred to the area from abroad" Does this also mean that the Government will continue to take children under the Dubs scheme after the 350 that they have specified? Yes or no?
Children and Social Work Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2017-03-07
Topic: Immigration
Yvette Cooper (Labour, Centre-left): I welcome the Government’s measures on compulsory sex and relationship education and pay tribute to those on both sides of the House who have campaigned for it at a time when we know that violence in teen relationships is increasing and teenagers are exposed to so much more than we were as children In the short time available, I wish to confine my remarks to new clause 14, following on from the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen). Yesterday, the Home Affairs Committee published a report that was limited in its recommendations because it was an interim report. We called for the Government to clarify and publish local authorities’ capacity to take children, including those from Europe under the Dubs scheme, and their further capacity in the next financial year. We also called on the Government to seek the views of the Anti-slavery Commissioner before making any changes to the Dubs scheme or closing it We made those recommendations because of the evidence we heard. First, on council capacity, Ministers have said that councils had only 350 places to provide for children coming from Europe under the Dubs scheme. We heard from councils that said they had not been properly consulted; that many of them, including Hammersmith and Fulham, Lewisham, Birmingham and Bristol, had more capacity; and that they could potentially deliver thousands more places, if they were properly funded. That is why new clause 14 is so sensible.
Children and Social Work Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2017-03-07
Topic: Mixed Topics
Yvette Cooper (Labour, Centre-left): I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes, but his view is rather different from the one taken by the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner, who was appointed by the Government to champion action against modern slavery. I pay tribute to the Prime Minister and the Government for leading the way on a lot of work against modern slavery—they are right to do that—but the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner has described the Dubs scheme as a "safe and legal route" that has protected children who were being exploited. We have also heard from UNICEF that the "cancellation of the Dubs scheme is a good win for people traffickers—there is money to be made, because children will try to get to their families or to places of safety one way or another." The point of the Dubs scheme was to prevent slavery. Surely the minimum the Government should do is to seek the further advice of the expert anti-slavery commissioner before they make any changes or close the scheme. If they want to persist in their view, they should at least test it against the evidence, not to mention listen to the many organisations and charities that have been arguing so strongly on the basis of the work they are doing with children and young people throughout Europe and other places who are at risk of being trafficked and being sucked into exploitation and sexual abuse. Children and teenagers have already come to Britain under the Dubs scheme who have been trafficked, sexually abused, raped and exploited. Now they are safe, thanks to Britain—thanks to the work that Britain has done as a result of the Dubs and Dublin schemes.
Children and Social Work Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2017-03-07
Topic: Immigration
Yvette Cooper (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. He and I have both raised the need to ensure that once children are here they do not fall prey to the same trafficking gangs, which will sometimes go to children’s homes to seek them out. We know that, as a result of the Dubs scheme so far—in the mere six months for which it has been running—many children and teenagers are now safe with foster carers or in children’s homes. They are now back in school—somewhere they had often not been for years because of the exploitation, trafficking and abuse they have suffered We also know that, as we speak, there are in Greece more than 2,000 unaccompanied child refugees or those seeking asylum, only half of whom have places in children’s homes or foster care because the Greek system is overstretched. The Dubs scheme simply allows all countries to do their bit. It allows Britain to do its bit in a very small, modest way, given the scale of the refugee crisis. I pay tribute to the work done by Britain and the British Government on other aspects of the refugee crisis, but the Dubs scheme is an important part of Britain being able to do its bits to help those who are most vulnerable of all—children Ministers have said they will continue to consult, but only as part of the national transfer scheme and, as I understand it, only for those children who have already arrived in the country. That is important, but it is not a substitute for also consulting on children who could come here under the Dubs scheme. It is not an either/or.
Children and Social Work Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2017-03-07
Topic: Immigration
Yvette Cooper (Labour, Centre-left): No, I am saying the opposite—that we have to do both. Kent does need support from all over the country; so, too, do Hillingdon and Croydon. Some councils have done most to take the strain and to provide support. There has to be a national transfer scheme; I have supported it, when the Government have proposed it, every step of the way, and it needs to do more It is interesting that when the Select Committee took evidence, the Local Government Association told us that if there was further funding, councils throughout the country would be able to meet that 0.07% target set by the Government, and that that would allow councils to provide around 4,000 additional places. That is more than enough to take far more of the children who are currently being supported in Kent to other places across the country and to do our bit to help a small number of additional child refugees from Europe to prevent trafficking. The reason why the Government should focus on those coming from Europe as well as those who have arrived on their own is that if we provide help only to those who make the dangerous and illegal journey on lorries and trucks and often with traffickers and not to those who take the safe legal route, all we do is drive more people into the arms of the traffickers and on to the dangerous routes.
Children and Social Work Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2017-03-07
Topic: Mixed Topics
Natascha Engel (Labour, Centre-left): I remind hon. Members that if there are Divisions, only Members representing constituencies in England and Wales may vote on the consent motion for England and Wales, and only Members representing constituencies in England may vote on the consent motion for England Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83M(5)), That the Committee consents to the following certified clauses of the Children and Social Work Bill [Lords] and the certified amendment made to the Bill— Clauses certified under Standing Order No. 83L(2) as relating exclusively to England and Wales and being within devolved legislative competence Clauses 8 and 9 of the Bill as amended in the Public Bill Committee Amendment certified under Standing Order No. 83L(4) as relating exclusively to England and Wales. Amendment 13 made in the Public Bill Committee.—(Edward Timpson.)
Children and Social Work Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2017-03-07
Topic: Other
Angela Rayner (Labour, Centre-left): I echo the thanks given by the Minister, particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), who cannot be with us today. She did a tremendous amount of work on the Bill. I also thank the Committee members who contributed to the Bill and all Members from across the House who have made it a much better Bill. I commend the Government on the work they have done towards finding consensus within the House on the Bill. I also thank all the organisations that have contributed to the Bill throughout its passage We have had a fantastic debate. I am disappointed that we have not managed to add new clause 14 to the Bill, but I hope the Minister was listening in particular to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) when she talked about the model of good housekeeping in the amendment we voted on. I hope the Minister will look at that and see how we can make progress on it in later stages.
Children and Social Work Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2017-03-07
Topic: Other
Natascha Engel (Labour, Centre-left): Order. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct: on Third Reading, he is perfectly entitled to debate anything in the Bill, but not anything that is not in the Bill; if he could restrict himself to the former, that would be great.
Standing Orders (Public Business) — House of Commons, 2017-03-07
Topic: Mixed Topics
Ian Murray (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is the very distinguished Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee on which I serve. For clarity, will he re-emphasise that he and his party previously supported English votes for English laws?
Rural Policing and Hare Coursing — House of Commons, 2017-03-07
Topic: Mixed Topics
Paul Phillip Flynn (Labour, Centre-left): I am listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. Can he give us some idea of the extent of the hare coursing, badger baiting and illegal foxhunting that take place and the percentage of those incidents for which people have been prosecuted in the recent past?
Money Laundering: British Banks — House of Commons, 2017-03-21
Topic: Mixed Topics
Angela Eagle (Labour, Centre-left): The Economic Secretary has shown real complacency about the huge and building scandal that has been revealed by The Guardian today. Given that our banking sector is very large and that the consequences of its being destabilised by such criminal behaviour are very serious for our economy, does he not realise that his complacent, process-driven answers today are simply not good enough?
Money Laundering: British Banks — House of Commons, 2017-03-21
Topic: Domestic Commerce
John Mann (Labour, Centre-left): To counter the impression that he has been promoted beyond his competence, can the Minister tell us which British banks have been convicted of money laundering over the past five years? What specific, individual thing has he learned from reading those judgments? [Interruption.]
Money Laundering: British Banks — House of Commons, 2017-03-21
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Helen Catherine Goodman (Labour, Centre-left): Has the Minister discussed the matter with the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), who the US House of Representatives found intervened with the American authorities to prevent HSBC from being prosecuted in 2012? What has the FCA specifically done since the "global laundromat" was discovered in 2013?
Money Laundering: British Banks — House of Commons, 2017-03-21
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Rushanara Ali (Labour, Centre-left): May I ask why the Chancellor is not here, because, frankly, the Minister’s answers today have been appalling? Some £80 billion could have been laundered, according to this story. Should we not think again about the powers the FCA and other regulators have to prevent these things from happening? Can he please answer some questions?
Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2017-03-21
Topic: Domestic Commerce
William Roffen Esterson (Labour, Centre-left): I am glad that the Minister said that he was already having discussions with businesses; that is incredibly important. I urge him to make it clear very publicly, sooner rather than later, exactly what the nature of those discussions are. Businesses are already exceedingly worried about the consequences for intellectual property. I thank him for picking up the points that I made about the relationship between EU patent law and UK patent law. I think that he understands that a great deal of reassurance is needed. I do not agree that we would make life more difficult by having this requirement on Government. In fact, it is a sensible move. I would be surprised and very concerned if we did not see a degree of reporting back during negotiations on these and many other matters. None the less, he has put forward the Government’s view in response to the points that I have raised, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion Clause, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 1 Patents
Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2017-03-21
Topic: Mixed Topics
William Roffen Esterson (Labour, Centre-left): I beg to move amendment 1, page 2, line 15, after "do," insert "or claims to do," This amendment deals with people or companies who hold themselves out as the primary infringer: ie, they claim to be the manufacturer or importer of a product (and therefore can be written to freely) when, in fact, they are not. A definition is provided in amendment 3.
Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2017-03-21
Topic: Domestic Commerce
William Roffen Esterson (Labour, Centre-left): Amendments 1 and 3 are related to primary infringers and those who claim "to do". Amendment 1 addresses the concern about the impact on those who claim to make a product and the potential for action to be taken against them. Amendment 3 defines "claims to do" We are dealing here with communication and threats. As the Bill stands, the onus is on a rights holder not to communicate with a party that claims to be a primary infringer of rights. The example that springs to mind is that of an own-label brand in a supermarket. Under the Bill, a manufacturer who believes that a product contravenes their rights may not communicate with the supermarket unless they are confident that there is no other way of finding out who the manufacturer really is. The problem is that smaller manufacturers wanting to challenge the bigger players may not have the expertise or access to expertise needed to comply with the provisions of the Bill. They do not have the staff, time or money to engage legal services or to search for the true identity of the manufacturer. The Minister said in Committee that if action were taken against a rights holder, they would be able to defend themselves in court. Now, that is entirely accurate in legal terms, but the problem is that smaller organisations lack the resources to be able to do so.