argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Joanna Meriel Stevens (Labour, Centre-left): The UK’s leading insurance companies earned more than £2.6 billion in profits in 2016, up on 2015. The proposed changes do not guarantee any reductions in premiums; they simply say that the premiums may fall. There is no guarantee that they will, and we know from previous Bills that this does not happen. Why does the hon. Gentleman suppose that things will be different this time?
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Ruth Stephanie Nicole George (Labour, Centre-left): Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the rise in the cost of insurance is, as we have heard in the debate, down to insurance companies not tackling possibly fraudulent claims, thereby creating the problem and making huge additional profits? Does he accept that consumers are also victims of accidents and will be severely affected by the Bill?
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Mixed Topics
Ruth Stephanie Nicole George (Labour, Centre-left): I absolutely concur with my hon. Friend’s point, which I raised with the Health and Safety Executive, whose laboratory is in my constituency. It concurred that one of its major concerns is that without claims being made against employers they will cease to militate against risk in the workplace. That is just one of the many problems the Bill will cause, both for victims of accidents and for all other employees in the workplace The Minister has heard many examples this afternoon of how the Government could crack down on fraud and on the costs of insurance without cracking down on innocent victims of accidents. The requirement in the Bill for medical reports prior to offers being made is an important one, which all sides are supporting. We hope that the Government would seek to assess the impact of that change before impacting on victims. We have also heard many calls from Members on both sides of the House for claims management companies to be acted against because they are obviously playing the system and we need to make sure that that cannot continue. This Bill is seeking to make the innocent victims of accidents pay for the fact that insurance companies are not prepared to crack down on fraud and so have come to this Government seeking their help. We have no guarantee that insurance costs will fall, but we do know that insurance companies will make £1.3 billion more a year out of this legislation and that innocent victims of accidents will suffer. I very much hope that the Minister has listened to the arguments being made on both sides of the House today and will accept the new clause.
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Andrew Francis Slaughter (Labour, Centre-left): I congratulate the hon. Lady on getting a helter skelter of nonsense into one intervention, with every prejudice and false statement that has been made in the tabloid press about these matters for about the last 10 years—well done on that. I could make a long speech dealing with the specific issues of—[Hon. Members: "Go on!] We have got time, haven’t we? No, I will not. I could go into detail about some of the myths about whiplash and soft tissue injuries and what is actually happening in relation to accidents, the insurance industry and premiums, because I have been an observer of that for a long time. However, let me limit myself to a fairly narrow point I have listened to the arguments from Government Members, and they are just non-sequiturs, frankly. We have heard that insurance premiums are the issue. Let us imagine that we give the benefit of the doubt there, which I certainly do not, and say that premiums are likely to fall significantly and that that is a factor relating to claims rather than to insurance companies’ profits, the other activities that they indulge in and the way that their businesses are run. I do not accept that, but let us assume that we do for a moment The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) is no longer in his place, but he made a surprisingly illogical—for him—intervention. He said, "Look, people will still get special damages." Of course they will get special damages, but special damages are what the name suggests—they are to compensate for specific items of loss. Why should the fact that someone still gets compensation for their loss of earnings or their medical bills, or something of that nature, mean that it is right to diminish their compensation for pain and suffering and loss of amenity? These are all non-sequiturs. The worst calumny of all is to say, "We are reducing the level of damages from slightly mean levels to absolutely parsimonious levels because of fraud", which is exactly what we heard in relation to the small claims limit. So many members of the senior judiciary and indeed, of Select Committees, including not just the Justice Committee, but the Transport Committee, have said that it is plain wrong to say that because there may be instances of fraud, of which very few are identified, all litigants should suffer by having their damages reduced.
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Other
Andrew Francis Slaughter (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend, who knows far more about these matters than I do—and more, I suspect, than many on the Government Front Bench—is quite right. He draws attention to the fact that there is no logic in the system I feel a bit sorry for the Minister as he has to push these proposals forward; he is normally a very logical and fair man. It is difficult to speak at the Dispatch Box having been given a brief of this quality. When parliamentarians of his stature and of the stature of the hon. Member for Cheltenham, with his spurious points about special damages, are reduced to this level, and when Government Back-Bench Members are hauled in here, as we saw in the previous debate, to make speeches only to be told to stop making them because they are talking such arrant nonsense, one does despair. I hope even at the 11th hour that the Government might take pity on us, listen to the wise voices in the other place and support us on these amendments.
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Other
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): I will now suspend the House for no more than five minutes in order to make a decision about certification. The Division bells will be rung two minutes before the House resumes. Following certification, the Government will table the appropriate consent motions, copies of which will be made available in the Vote Office and distributed by the Doorkeepers.
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Other
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): I can now inform the House that I have completed certification of the Bill, as required by the Standing Order. I have confirmed the view expressed in the Speaker’s provisional certificate issued yesterday. Copies of the final certificate will be made available in the Vote Office and on the parliamentary website. Under Standing Order No. 83M, a consent motion is therefore required for the Bill to proceed. Copies of the motion are available in the Vote Office and on the parliamentary website, and have been made available to Members in the Chamber. Does the Minister intend to move the consent motion?
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Other
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): Order. You did better than normal, Mr Wishart Debate interrupted (Programme Order, 4 September). The Chair put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83M(5)), That the Committee consents to the Civil Liability Bill [Lords] Question agreed to. The occupant of the Chair left the Chair to report the decision of the Committee (Standing Order No. 83M(6)). The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair; decision reported. Third Reading
Bredbury Parkway Industrial Estate Extension — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Housing
Andrew John Gwynne (Labour, Centre-left): I did not want to throw you, Mr Deputy Speaker, by being in my old place, but it is nice to be back up here on the Back Benches for a temporary period I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents opposing proposals to extend the Bredbury Parkway industrial estate in the Tame valley, Greater Manchester. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) for being in the Chamber to present the same petition from his constituents. This shows the value of this green space to both our constituencies. I thank the residents of Denton and Reddish—a total of 1,440 residents in all—who have signed this petition online and in writing The petition declares: The petition of residents of the United Kingdom, Declares that proposals to extend the Bredbury Parkway Industrial Estate deep into the Tame Valley would involve large-scale developments on the Green Belt land, which is a valuable barrier to urban sprawl and is hugely valued by local people, particularly in the areas of Bredbury, Woodley, Denton and Tameside; further declares that this development would destroy the openness of this section of the Tame Valley and damage the visual amenity from the Haughton Dale and Hulme’s Wood Local Nature Reserves; further declare concerns over HGV traffic in the area and the impact that the proposals would have on an already congested Stockport Road and Ashton Road, and the associated effects on the environment The petitioners oppose plans to extend the Bredbury Parkway Industrial Estate. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council, Tameside Council and the Department for Communities and Local Government not to support the extension of the Bredbury Parkway Industrial Estate; and to further urge that the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (GMSF) must follow principles of a ‘Brownfield First’ strategy, so that previously developed land, including derelict or unused sites, must be fully considered before Green Belt is released for development And the petitioners remain, etc [P002273]
Childhood Obesity — House of Commons, 2018-07-24
Topic: Mixed Topics
Luke Pollard (Labour, Centre-left): Sarah, who runs the Devonport Live café in Devonport, one of the poorest parts of the country, used to provide cookery classes for local young mums, but she cannot do that anymore because of a lack of funding to provide the support, facilities and food to help young mums—especially those on low incomes—to get the skills that they need to cook healthy meals for their children. What support can the Secretary of State give to young mums and to people such as Sarah who want to provide cookery lessons to support tackling childhood obesity?
Public Sector Pay — House of Commons, 2018-07-24
Topic: Mixed Topics
Clive Stanley Efford (Labour, Centre-left): Not one of the examples that the Chief Secretary announced is above the consumer prices index inflation rate of 2.4%. This is a real-terms cut for public sector workers. The secretary of the Unison branch at my town hall wants to know the Chief Secretary’s message for his branch members. How are they meant to survive when they are facing yet again—as they have year on year, for the past eight years—a real-terms pay cut?
Syria — House of Commons, 2018-07-24
Topic: Immigration
Thangam Elizabeth Rachel Debbonaire (Labour, Centre-left): This country’s resettlement scheme is good and well respected, and last year 6,200 Syrian refugees were resettled here, but 50% of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ estimated 1.2 million refugees worldwide are Syrian, and we can do so much more. We are one of the states parties signatories to the New York declaration of 2016. Sections 77 to 79 state our intention to expand resettlement and encourage other countries to do the same, but last year only 35 countries accepted resettled refugees, so will the Minister please commit to doing all he can both to expand our very good resettlement programme and to encourage others to do likewise so that more refugees come through safe and legal routes?
EU Withdrawal Agreement: Legislation — House of Commons, 2018-07-24
Topic: Immigration
Hilary James Benn (Labour, Centre-left): Paragraph 24 states that "all EU citizens lawfully residing in the UK" by 31 December will be able to stay. Can the Secretary of State give the House and those 3.5 million European citizens an assurance that that commitment from the Government will still hold in the event of us leaving without a deal? Yes or no?
EU Withdrawal Agreement: Legislation — House of Commons, 2018-07-24
Topic: Immigration
Michael John Gapes (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State said that UK nationals in the EU will be able to "live their lives broadly as they do now" Will he confirm that the existing rights to move freely between EU countries and to work and study in other EU countries will apply to all UK citizens currently living in France, Germany, Estonia, Poland and elsewhere?
EU Withdrawal Agreement: Legislation — House of Commons, 2018-07-24
Topic: Mixed Topics
Tracy Lynn Brabin (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State and other Conservative Members have said many times that no deal is better than a bad deal, but the Foreign Secretary said yesterday that no deal would be economically challenging. However, with still no evidence of what the Government have put in place for a no deal Brexit, will the Secretary of State please take this opportunity to give manufacturers in Batley and Spen advice on how to prepare for a potentially chaotic economic crisis?
EU Withdrawal Agreement: Legislation — House of Commons, 2018-07-24
Topic: Immigration
Thangam Elizabeth Rachel Debbonaire (Labour, Centre-left): I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Will the Secretary of State please commit to meeting the Minister for Digital and the Creative Industries, the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), who in a recent meeting with me and the Musicians’ Union agreed about the need for there to be some form of visa so that musicians and others in the creative and other industries, including sportspeople, can continue to tour the EU? Paragraph 26 on frontier workers does not deal with self-employed people who need to tour the EU.
EU Withdrawal Agreement: Legislation — House of Commons, 2018-07-24
Topic: Mixed Topics
Adrian Edward Bailey (Labour, Centre-left): Given the White Paper’s underwhelming commitment to EU citizens’ rights in the UK, and given the Secretary of State’s most unconvincing reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), can the Secretary of State give the sort of assurance on EU citizens’ rights being maintained in this country that they and, above all, British businesses need?
Immigration Detention: Shaw Review — House of Commons, 2018-07-24
Topic: Immigration
Yvette Cooper (Labour, Centre-left): I welcome the measures that the Home Secretary has announced today and look forward to scrutinising them in our ongoing immigration detention inquiry. I should say to him that we have heard some quite shocking evidence in that inquiry, including recognised torture victims still being locked up for many months. There is repeated evidence that the indefinite nature of detention is not only traumatising for those who are being held, but means that there is no pressure on the Home Office and immigration system to make the swift decisions that we need, so I join the shadow Home Secretary in urging him, as speedily as possible, to bring an end to indefinite detention.
Immigration Detention: Shaw Review — House of Commons, 2018-07-24
Topic: Immigration
Thangam Elizabeth Rachel Debbonaire (Labour, Centre-left): There is so much to welcome in the Home Secretary’s announcement today. I am particularly pleased to hear about the pilot and evaluation of the new system for vulnerable women. I urge him to take that evaluation very carefully and make sure that we get it right. He mentioned a lack of evidence on the question of a time limit. Will he look, or look again, at the report on detention written by my predecessor as chair of the all-party group on refugees, the previous hon. Member for Brent Central? The co-chair is my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield). That report was carried out in 2014 and published in 2015. I think that the Home Secretary will find that there is a great deal there to recommend it. Will he meet me and my hon. Friend to discuss the findings of that report?
Immigration Detention: Shaw Review — House of Commons, 2018-07-24
Topic: Civil Rights
Rupa Asha Huq (Labour, Centre-left): I welcome this Home Office-commissioned review. I also welcome the Secretary of State’s words on the women in Yarl’s Wood, who often do not know what they have been detained for. I have a letter from the Home Secretary in which he rightly condemns harassment and intimidating behaviour towards women, but regarding a Home Office review into women seeking abortion healthcare he also says: "I will…make an announcement before the summer recess" and that he will do so "with a view to making recommendations" That review was announced by the Secretary of State’s predecessor in November, and it closed in February. It took 160 Members from both sides of the House, including the Father of the House and the Chairs of the Select Committees on Home Affairs, on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs and on Health and Social Care, to get the undertaking in this letter. There are four hours left until the recess. Will the Secretary of State be able to deliver on his word for vulnerable women everywhere?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2018-07-24
Topic: Mixed Topics
James Fitzpatrick (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I believe that yesterday Mr Speaker received an email from a law firm, Trowers & Hamlins, which represents Octagon Overseas Ltd and Mr John Christodoulou in enforcement action against leaseholders at Canary Riverside in my constituency. The law firm asked for my Adjournment debate scheduled for later today—"First tier tribunals, section 24 powers and enforcement on freeholders"—not to take place, claiming that the debate will be subject to sub judice rules. I have no intention of raising any sub judice matter. My debate is about the weaknesses in the rules concerning both first-tier tribunals and the section 24 powers of the court in general Mr Deputy Speaker, can you first confirm that my debate will go ahead, despite the attempted gagging email? Secondly, will you agree such efforts to direct you and Mr Speaker to stifle debates and to prevent MPs from raising matters of concern for their constituents are heavy-handed and wholly inappropriate?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2018-07-24
Topic: Other
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice that he wished to raise this matter. It may be helpful if I first make it clear that the House’s sub judice resolution is not an externally-imposed rule, but a self-denying ordinance by which the House has agreed to limit its freedom of speech by avoiding references in debate to cases that are active before the UK courts. Certain exemptions apply and the resolution is subject always to the discretion of the Chair. It is not always practicable for the Chair or those who advise us to identify all cases that might come up in debate, or to ascertain in a timely way what the current status of those cases is. It can be quite helpful to be alerted to such cases, and there is nothing wrong with outside parties writing to draw our attention to potential sub judice concerns In response to the hon. Gentleman’s questions, I can confirm that his Adjournment debate will go ahead today. I am grateful for his assurance that he has no intention of raising any matter that is sub judice. I would not characterise the letter that Mr Speaker received yesterday as "wholly inappropriate", though I agree that the final paragraph was ill conceived in arguing that it was imperative that the debate should not go ahead. I hope that this response is satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman.
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2018-07-24
Topic: Other
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): First, I know that the hon. Gentleman always uses discretion—I would expect nothing else from such a senior Member. Regarding the second part of the hon. Gentleman’s point of order, I would like to refer to colleagues and come back to him.
Summer Adjournment — House of Commons, 2018-07-24
Topic: Housing
Roberta Carol Blackman-Woods (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have been informed via a written ministerial statement that the Government have today published the revised national planning policy framework. It has not yet been laid before the House, and copies are therefore not available for Members in the Vote Office. This seems extraordinary, given the importance of the document to Members on both sides of the House. Is there anything that you can do to ensure that the document is available to Members before the House rises today?
Summer Adjournment — House of Commons, 2018-07-24
Topic: Housing
Rosalie Winterton (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her point of order. As she says, there is a written ministerial statement today announcing the publication of the national planning policy framework. There is no legal requirement to lay this paper. As she says, it has been published online, although it is not available in the Vote Office. She has put on record her point about the inconvenience that this has caused to her and, I suspect, to other Members, and I think it would be good practice if such documents were available in the Vote Office. I am sure that her comments will have been noted by those on the Treasury Bench and that perhaps arrangements could be made for this document to be in the Vote Office before we rise.
Summer Adjournment — House of Commons, 2018-07-24
Topic: Mixed Topics
James Dolan Cunningham (Labour, Centre-left): We have similar problems in Coventry to those that my hon. Friend mentions, and what he says is right. Many years ago, we used to have proper sites where Travellers could go. They could arrange for their children to go to school and, more importantly, there were facilities on those sites to provide cleanliness. Does he agree that we should do something similar?
Summer Adjournment — House of Commons, 2018-07-24
Topic: Mixed Topics
Stephen James McCabe (Labour, Centre-left): I agree, and I think that the Government could help by offering some action. The process requires local authorities to work, and the Government need to give a lead Last Friday, I saw two women in succession at my advice centre who were living in a local Travelodge with their children. They are homeless, and both the victims of domestic violence. What is happening in the 21st century in this country that means our response to women and children fleeing domestic violence is to condemn them to a life of hostels and Travelodges? These establishments have no cooking or laundry facilities; children are forced to live on McDonald’s and other takeaway meals.