argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Foreign Trade
Robert James MacGillivray Neill (Conservative, Centre-right): I cannot let the Minister move on from the important and significant points of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) without observing that he emphasised the role of the Lord Chancellor in consulting with the Lord Chief Justice in the setting of the tariffs. That is an important safeguard. Can the Minister tell us a little more about how it is envisaged that that will work?
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: International Affairs
Roderick James Nugent Stewart (Conservative, Centre-right): I would be grateful to know how Union issues of foreign affairs and defence, which the people of Scotland voted in a referendum should continue to be dealt with by the United Kingdom, would be covered by the hon. Gentleman’s proposal.
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Roderick James Nugent Stewart (Conservative, Centre-right): This is a very interesting point, and I am very happy to follow up on it in more detail. The nature of the regulation in each case is quite distinct. In relation to the insurance industry, the regulation proposed is to ensure that we have the financial information to prove that the savings the insurance industry has derived from these reforms are passed on to customers. In the case of the claims management companies, the regulation is to ensure that they comply with the law, particularly the legal changes introduced by previous legislation. In accordance with the suggestions from the Justice Committee, we are also looking at the advice forthcoming from the judiciary to ensure that we can deal with other issues involving claims management companies If I may, I will come back to the core of the Bill. We are dealing with a perfect storm of three things. First, at the minor end of whiplash injuries—the three-to-six-month end—this is a condition that, in effect, is unverifiable and difficult to disprove. The polite way of expressing this is to say that there is an asymmetry of information. Somebody suffering a whiplash injury will experience genuine and sincere pain, but that pain cannot be detected at the minor end through any medical instruments. That is the first challenge involved in this type of injury The second challenge is of course the level of payments offered to individuals suffering these injuries. The third is the level of recoverable costs which meant, in effect, that a no win, no fee process was operating in which people could apply to a lawyer to represent them and be confident that the legal costs would be recoverable from the defendant. When that is connected to the fact that for all the reasons I have given—particularly the first, asymmetry of information—the insurance companies are not contesting claims, we end up with a discrepancy rapidly emerging between the number of motor vehicle accidents and the number of claims, and between the number of claims made in the United Kingdom and the number made in other jurisdictions Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, a former justice of the Supreme Court, stated that he was "reluctantly persuaded that this provision is justified: it is surely intolerable that we are known as the whiplash capital of the world, so I have concluded that it is open to government, as a matter of policy, to seek to deter dishonest claims in this way."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 June 2018; Vol. 791, c. 1603.]
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Transportation
Edmund Francis Hughes (Conservative, Centre-right): This might sound like an unrelated point, but surely the best way to deal with whiplash is to prevent it from happening in the first place. I believe that in 2015, the Government committed to spending £1.5 billion on 10 smart motorway schemes, the idea of which is to keep traffic flowing at a constant speed. If people are stopping and starting all the time, they lose concentration and are more likely to drive into the car in front of them, resulting in a possible claim for whiplash. The Government are dealing not just with the problem itself but with the root cause.
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Transportation
Roderick James Nugent Stewart (Conservative, Centre-right): That is a very good point. Fundamentally, our prime obligation must be to improve road safety. Both the Labour Government and our own Government have made progress in that regard. In fact, over the past 15 years we have seen a 35% reduction in road traffic accidents, and, as we have heard, the safety equipment in vehicles has improved dramatically. Whereas 15 years ago only 15% of vehicles were fitted with equipment that can protect someone from whiplash, 85% now are, so people are safer in their car and less likely to have an accident. However, my hon. Friend’s central point is absolutely right. Very tragically—I have experience of this through my constituents, as will other hon. and right hon. Members—if someone who was killed in a motor car did not have a dependant, their family would be entitled to almost no compensation at all. Our obligation must be to prevent the accident from happening in the first place.
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Julian Carlton Knight (Conservative, Centre-right): Perhaps the company in question knew that the Minister was in for a bruising time in that debate. The absolute key to this whole debate is that this is about confidence in our legal system and in justice in compensation. The reality is that these phone calls and companies, which try to encourage people to make claims for any particular reason, are destroying confidence in that system. That is why the Bill is so necessary.
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Roderick James Nugent Stewart (Conservative, Centre-right): This is a really important point. At the core of our legal system there needs to be public trust and confidence in that system, and having an honest, proportionate, credible and calibrated system is absolutely central to the public continuing to have confidence With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to make one slightly technical point relating to the Bill, and in particular to the injuries mentioned in clause 1(2) and (3). Subsection (2) states: "An injury falls within this subsection if it is— (a) a sprain, strain, tear, rupture or lesser damage of a muscle, tendon or ligament in the neck, back or shoulder, or (b) an injury of soft tissue associated with a muscle, tendon or ligament in the neck, back or shoulder." Subsection (3) states: "An injury is excepted by this subsection if— (a) it is an injury of soft tissue which is a part of or connected to another injury" I wish to pause on that point for a second, because we wish to make it clear, as the Government, that when we refer to the question of something being "connected", we are not referring to it being connected simply by virtue of it taking place within the same accident I have the following on a formal piece of paper here, so that I can make my Pepper v. Hart statement to make sure that this is clear for the judiciary. In subsection (3), therefore, we have excluded those soft tissue injuries in the neck, back or shoulder which are part of or connected to another injury, so long as the other injury is not covered by subsection (2). The effect of subsection (3) would be to exclude, for example, damage to soft tissue which results only from the fracture of an adjoining bone or the tearing of muscles arising from a penetrating injury, which would otherwise fall within subsection (2). It has been suggested that the words "connected to another injury" in subsection (3)(a) could mean an injury resulting from the same accident. There is therefore a concern that a number of soft tissue injuries that would otherwise fall under the definition of whiplash injury will be excluded, and so not subject to the tariff of damages, simply by reason of being suffered on the same occasion as a whiplash injury.[Official Report, 3 December 2018, Vol. 650, c. 8MC.] This is absolutely not the intention behind subsection (3). Nor is it an interpretation that stands scrutiny. The effect of that interpretation would be to significantly limit the scope of clause 1, in a quite arbitrary way, based on whether a person happened to have incurred any other injury in the same road traffic accident. That is not the intended effect, and nor do we believe that the clause will be interpreted by the courts in this way, as it would not be the normal meaning of the word "connected" in this context. To clarify then: the words "connected to" do not, and are not intended to, extend to situations where two or more injuries are connected solely by their cause—for example, a road traffic accident.
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Robert James MacGillivray Neill (Conservative, Centre-right): I am pleased the Minister is mentioning that, because although we have concentrated on some controversial areas, putting the discount rate on a more modern footing is important and largely welcome, as is of course the prohibition on settlement without medical reports, which again has not been touched on but is very significant and an advance I want to use this opportunity to thank the Minister for what he said about the Justice Committee and the way he engaged with us and me personally. We have raised caveats with some of the objectives, and he has met us on a number of issues, if not all of them, which has enabled those of us who want to keep an eye on this and hold the Government and the industry’s feet to the fire to adopt Lord Brown of, um, Eaton, um—
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Law and Crime
John Michael Howell (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again. He is being most generous I have been a great champion of the online work that is being done in the judiciary. I have spoken to Lord Briggs, and in my time in the courts, sitting with judges, I have championed it there. Does my hon. Friend agree that a very important element of the online system is the dramatic improvement in access to justice for people who are making claims? I know that a great deal of testing is involved, but does he also agree that the delay in its introduction is regrettable because it deprives people of that access to justice?
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Roderick James Nugent Stewart (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend has made a good point, but there is, of course, a delicate balance to be achieved. It is absolutely true that really good online systems can transform people’s lives and make access to justice much easier for them, but, equally, the Government do not always have an unblemished record when it comes to the delivery of IT systems. It is important to ensure that the system really works and that we have tested it again and again before rolling it out, because otherwise a system designed to increase access to justice may inadvertently decrease that access through the malfunctioning of the online portal.
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Robert James MacGillivray Neill (Conservative, Centre-right): I am very grateful for my hon. Friend’s generosity Some of the powerful evidence given to the Justice Committee came from two members of the judiciary who spoke about the potential unintended consequences and adverse impacts on the courts of the inability of an increasing number of litigants in person to work their way through the portal. Will my hon. Friend undertake to ensure that throughout the ongoing work on its design, the issues raised by members of the judiciary will remain central to the discussions, and that they will have a full role in the testing and roll-out?
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Roderick James Nugent Stewart (Conservative, Centre-right): The answer to both those questions is yes. An important concession was made in the House of Lords to extend the amount of time for testing, so that there is more time in which to make sure that the portal has been properly tested by, among others, the judiciary Part 2 of the Bill relates to the discount rate, and results from a very sudden change in the way in which compensation was paid to catastrophically injured victims. After 16 years in which the discount rate was set at a positive 2.5%, the last Lord Chancellor but one decided to reduce it to minus 0.75%, which radically changed what happens when someone is allocated a lump sum Let me remind the House of the formula that is applied. If, Mr Deputy Speaker, you were attempting to receive compensation for a projected 10 years of life, you were seeking £100,000 of care costs for each of those years, and inflation was, for the sake of argument, zero, you would receive only £1 million to cover you for your 10 years of projected life. Obviously, if inflation was higher, the real-terms increase in your care costs would mean that you would have to be afforded more, and the calculation that would need to be made in the awarding of the money would be how much of a return you could reasonably expect to receive for your money. If you could reasonably expect to receive a higher return for your £1 million, it might be possible to cover you for more years, and vice versa: fewer years would mean a lower return. The discount rate has been applied since the 1970s by the judiciary, and since 2001 by the Lord Chancellor, to enable the courts to calculate the fair rate to apply to a lump sum in the case of catastrophic injury. That sudden change from 2.5% to minus 0.75% meant that in the single year 2017-18 the NHS faced £404 million of costs. Projected forward at that rate, there are potentially not just hundreds of millions, but billions, of pounds of costs attached to the public Exchequer and through insurance premiums on the public themselves. Therefore, through the pre-legislative scrutiny conducted by the Justice Committee and the Government Actuary’s Department we have attempted to strike a proportional balance between the interests of often very vulnerable, catastrophically injured victims and those of society as a whole.
Business without Debate — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Energy
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): We come now to a number of motions that would, if objected to, be subject to the deferred Division procedure. I would like to take motion 3 first, and on its own Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), Electricity That the draft Electricity and Gas (Energy Company Obligation) Order 2018, which was laid before this House on 19 July, be approved.—(Iain Stewart.) The Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 24 October (Standing Order No. 41A).
Business without Debate — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: International Affairs
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): With the leave of the House, I propose to take motions 4 to 8 together Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), Exiting the European Union (Fees and Charges) That the draft Department for Transport (Fees) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 19 July, be approved Local Government That the draft Newcastle Upon Tyne, North Tyneside and Northumberland Combined Authority (Establishment and Functions) Order 2018, which was laid before this House on 4 September, be approved Armed Forces That the draft Armed Forces (Terms of Service) (Amendments Relating to Flexible Working) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 18 July, be approved Exiting the European Union (Civil Aviation) That the draft Civil Aviation (Insurance) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 23 July, be approved Exiting the European Union (Merchant Shipping) That the draft Merchant Shipping (Monitoring, Reporting and Verification of Carbon Dioxide Emissions) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 23 July, be approved.—(Iain Stewart.) Question agreed to.
Elder Abuse — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Giles Francis Watling (Conservative, Centre-right): It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair for my first Adjournment debate, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you were for my maiden speech. Long may this tradition continue I want to raise the increasingly important issue of elder abuse, a terrible and perhaps poorly understood crime. At its heart is the trust that an older person may rightly expect to establish with another person for reasons of care, but sadly that trust is frequently violated, leading to physical, financial, psychological and even sexual abuse and to some deeply troubling outcomes for victims I want to express my disappointment that, to my mind at least, the issue is too often overlooked at national level. Here in Parliament there have been only a handful of mentions of elder abuse in recent years, even though it is a real and growing problem that can occur in an institutional care setting or a private home. Despite elder abuse being such a widespread concern, it does not dominate our discourse in the way that such a despicable act should. That is disappointing, and perhaps some newspapers are right when they accuse us here in Parliament of marginalising a forgotten generation.
Elder Abuse — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Technology
Giles Francis Watling (Conservative, Centre-right): I agree that there should be financial support, and I also agree about CCTV—I shall come on to those points a little later We clearly have a lot to make up for in Parliament, and I hope that today’s debate will prompt some constructive action and, at the very least, go some way towards raising awareness at national level.
Elder Abuse — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Social Welfare
Giles Francis Watling (Conservative, Centre-right): I could not agree more. Those boards should have a key role in ensuring that our older people are safe and secure—that is what this is all about I am the MP for a constituency where more than 32% of residents are aged over 65—including me, incidentally. That is the highest percentage of any constituency in the country, so it is hardly surprising that I am leading this debate.
Elder Abuse — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: International Affairs
Giles Francis Watling (Conservative, Centre-right): I absolutely take my hon. Friend’s point that this happens all over the world, but we must clean up our own act first and make sure that we are far ahead of the game, as far as the rest of the world is concerned. Where we lead, others follow.
Elder Abuse — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Giles Francis Watling (Conservative, Centre-right): I could not agree more, and I have seen those statistics. We have to remember that this happens not only in care homes, but in private homes where carers come to look after elderly people I must admit that since my election last year, elder abuse has not been as prominent in my mind as perhaps it should have been. In fact, it was a meeting with some of our local pensioners who formed the very good group TenPAG—the Tendring Pensioners’ Action Group—in August this year that made me fully appreciate the need to tackle this problem. Having gone away from that meeting and investigated the matter further, I was deeply disturbed by what I found. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the statistics are truly shocking. There are 1 million victims of elder abuse every year in the UK, but here is another statistic: only 0.3% of the reported incidents result in a successful criminal conviction. That is not good enough. Convicted abusers often escape with flimsy sentences and trivial fines.
Elder Abuse — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Victoria Atkins (Conservative, Centre-right): Thank you for calling me, Sir Deputy Speaker! I did not have a chance to say that the other day I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) on securing a debate on a matter that is of immense importance to all of us. He has done a great deal to represent his constituents in relation to policing and community safety issues. I understand that a further 12 officers will be sworn in soon in Tendring district, and I thank him for the important contribution that he is making to the House in this regard No older person in the United Kingdom should have to suffer abuse or exploitation at the hands of those who prey on the vulnerable. Criminals should not have the opportunity to target the elderly, but those who do should know that they will not get away with it. Older people should not have to fear being targeted, but those who are should receive the right support. It is a fundamental Government responsibility to keep people safe, and never does that responsibility carry greater weight than when it comes to protecting the most vulnerable in our society. That is why the Government take a multi-pronged approach to tackling this issue, working with local government, the police, and the private and voluntary sectors. First, we need to ensure that we have the right legislative powers to deter and tackle criminals who target the elderly. Secondly, we need to ensure that all older people are connected to the fabric of society. While society as a whole becomes ever more interconnected, older people across the country still suffer loneliness and social isolation—themes that my hon. Friend drew out so cogently. Thirdly, when older people do suffer abuse, we need to ensure that the justice system treats them appropriately, and that they have ready access to the right support.
Childhood Obesity — House of Commons, 2018-07-24
Topic: Government Operations
Matthew John David Hancock (Conservative, Centre-right): We published chapter 2 less than a month ago. There is further work to do, because that sets out a whole series of areas in which we are going to take action, and I am already working on pushing it faster.
Leaving the EU — House of Commons, 2018-07-24
Topic: Social Welfare
Geoffrey Robert Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Centre-right): Nearly 10,000 EU citizens work in the social care sector, caring for some of the most vulnerable people in society. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that there will be no shortage of people working in that sector once we have left the EU?
Leaving the EU — House of Commons, 2018-07-24
Topic: International Affairs
Questions: The number of vulnerable adults in Newcastle is rising by 20% each year. The over-85 population is set to rise by 60% in the next decade, and additional cost pressures will mean £30 million in extra costs over the next three years. How is Newcastle City Council supposed to meet the adult social care budget, given the cuts that have been made in it? I ask the Minister please not to mention the adult social care precept, because it does not even begin to cover those costs.
Stephen Paul Barclay (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend is right to draw the House’s attention to the fact that there are a number of benefits from leaving the EU, not just in terms of the dividend to which he refers, but in terms of flexibility, for example in—[Interruption.] Labour Members do not seem to want to hear about the opportunities: opportunities on life sciences for example, in terms of getting medicines through in shorter timescales; opportunities on immigration; opportunities on professional qualifications; opportunities even on food labelling. It is important that we take those opportunities, as my hon. Friend says.