argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Joanna Meriel Stevens (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me again; he is being very generous. He mentioned the purpose of raising the small claims limit to £5,000, and what that would do. What it will do is deny victims of injury access to justice, as the Government’s own impact assessment expressly states.
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Transportation
Ruth Stephanie Nicole George (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Gentleman is indeed being very generous. However, he constantly claims that the injuries sustained in road traffic accidents are minor. Written into the Bill is that an injury caused by the "rupture of a…tendon or ligament in the neck, back or shoulder" that lasts for up to two years will be included within the limits. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that sort of "minor injury", which could affect people for such a large portion of their lives, should be included?
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Eleanor Claire Reeves (Labour, Centre-left): It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I welcome the opportunity to try to counter the worst aspects of this Bill by speaking to Opposition new clauses 1 and 2 Access to justice may sound like a catchphrase or buzzword, but it underpins so much within our society, and it should not be bandied about and dismissed with the cavalier attitude currently shown by this Government. The Bill will cause a regression in the ability of genuinely injured people to seek compensation and justice for their injuries. The narrative of wanting to clamp down on fraudulent claims has long worn thin and the statistics the Government are using to justify these policies are entirely erroneous. Of course fraudulent claims are wrong and should be investigated and clamped down on, but we are not experiencing the epidemic levels we have been repeatedly warned of. In 2017, 0.22% of all motor claims were proven to be fraudulent; bearing in mind that that is for all motor claims, whiplash injuries will be an even smaller percentage Instead of looking at empirical evidence to create legislation, the Government are using disputed statistics to legitimise their agenda. This is wrong, and the impact on access to justice that the Bill will have will be substantial: 350,000 injured people without the free legal cover they are currently able to access. That is the true cost of implementing the Government’s package of measures As I outlined on Second Reading and in Committee, the changes to the small claims limit—although not on in the Bill, they are intrinsically related to its content—will be utterly damning on any reasonable definition of access to justice. The proposal to increase the small claims limit from £1,000 to £5,000 in road traffic injury cases and from £1,000 to £2,000 in all other personal injury claims would mean thousands of injured people could fall out of scope for free legal advice and representation and could be denied justice. Costs are not recoverable from the losing party in the small claims court, so injured people will either have to pay their legal costs themselves, which is likely to be cost-prohibitive, or, more likely, forgo legal assistance altogether, or simply not pursue a claim In giving evidence during the Justice Committee’s inquiry into the small claims limit, the Minister in the Lords, Lord Keen, suggested that injured people could instead seek advice from their citizens advice bureau. I am sure that many Members will understand the great number of cuts that have befallen citizen advice bureaux in recent years, and this suggestion is not only unfeasible but is completely out of touch. If there is to be any change in the small claims limit, it must be done proportionately by pegging it against consumer price inflation.
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Social Welfare
Mathew Richard Allen Rodda (Labour, Centre-left): Does my hon. Friend agree that this is part of a wider package of pressure on people who have some of the lowest incomes in our society? I wish to be associated with her new clauses and her points, and does she agree that the Government’s proposed measures are part of a wider package of pressure on the most vulnerable people in society?
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Eleanor Claire Reeves (Labour, Centre-left): I agree with my hon. Friend. This is yet another attack on ordinary people’s access to justice. Should the Bill pass its remaining stages today, those shunned by LASPO and tribunal fees will be joined by an additional 350,000 injured people who will be left without the free legal cover they can currently access.
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Eleanor Claire Reeves (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point The Bill will have a significant impact on access to justice, and we know that the portal system is nowhere near ready to accommodate the changes. It has not been properly tested. Under successive Tory Governments, access to justice has fast become a luxury available only to the few. A recent survey showed that 63% of Unison members would not proceed or be confident to proceed with a claim without legal representation. The small claims limit changes in the Bill will push nearly two thirds of genuinely injured people away from pursuing a claim if they do not meet the arbitrarily imposed criteria dictated by the Lord Chancellor. The idiom of adding insult to injury has never been more apt, and it is surely time to think again.
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Ruth Stephanie Nicole George (Labour, Centre-left): Does the hon. Gentleman therefore agree that, on occasions, statutory instrument Committees do not provide a democratic procedure, as in the case of the cuts to criminal injuries compensation in 2012? At the time, one Committee completely overturned the Minister’s proposals and asked for them to be brought back. A separate Committee was then reconvened, made up of Parliamentary Private Secretaries, and it railroaded through exactly the same criminal injuries compensation cuts. This House should not be seeking to use that kind of procedure for something that is so important to hundreds of thousands of accident victims.
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Labor
Joanna Meriel Stevens (Labour, Centre-left): Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill will make workplaces more dangerous? I know from experience that, if employers are litigated against as a result of accidents in the workplace, they review their safety policies and make workplaces safer. This Bill will have the opposite effect.
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Labor
Ruth Stephanie Nicole George (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister claimed that raising the limit for workplace accidents to £2,000 would allay my fears, but given that USDAW and other unions have said that this will actually increase the numbers needing to go to the small claims court by five times, it certainly does not. There are still wide concerns around taking cases against employers, as he will know. Will he make any assurance that the portal will be tested, and that it will be ensured that an ordinary layperson can use it before any claims are implemented?
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Gloria De Piero (Labour, Centre-left): I beg to move amendment 2, page 3, line 14, leave out clauses 3 to 5 This amendment would remove the creation of tariffs for whiplash injuries and retain the existing system where judges decide compensation levels with reference to Judicial College Guidelines.
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Gloria De Piero (Labour, Centre-left): I am choosing to focus on the injuries incurred. For a soft tissue injury lasting six months, an individual would today get between £2,150 and £3,810 but, if the Bill passes, they would get £805. I am choosing to focus my speech on those huge differences. That is the practical reality of what this tariff system will mean There is another important principle. It is a significant step to mess with the proud tradition of an independent judiciary in this country, and the Government should not take that lightly. The Justice Committee, too, could not have been clearer in its criticism of how the tariff system will harm access to justice. We hope the Government will listen to the Justice Committee and eminent judges—and, yes, us—and accept this amendment to remove the tariff system.
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Andrew Francis Slaughter (Labour, Centre-left): I will speak only briefly, because a number of the points to be made in this debate are the same ones that we made in the previous debate. There is no logic or sense to the Government’s rationale; they simply want to minimise the damages paid to litigants who have legitimate and in some cases serious injuries The noble Lord Woolf has been quoted several times. The Woolf report led to progressive and now legendary reform of the civil justice system, so he very much knows what he is talking about on this issue as on so many others. He said that the tariff "results in injustice and it is known to result in injustice. Indeed, no one can deny that it results in injustice. There has never been a case where legislation deliberately introduces injustice into our law. It may be that it is only in regard to small claims, but surely it is important that we pause before we do that."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 June 2018; Vol. 791, c. 1620.] I agree that the Government should pause, and I would say that there is an objection in principle to the tariff in this case. No good reason has been given why this should not be a judicial process rather than an administrative or politically affected process There is also an issue of quantum to consider. The proposed sums in the tariff are derisory for what are often quite serious injuries lasting for periods up to 24 months. An injury that lasts for two years is likely to be serious and is certainly a persistent one that will cause a lot of pain and suffering. It has been pointed out that at the lower end of the spectrum—nought to three months, which still includes cases of pain and discomfort lasting a significant time—the proposed sum is £235. The Law Society’s briefing compares that with the amount of compensation that somebody might get for a flight that has been delayed for three hours, which could be considerably in excess of that amount. As well as the matter of principle, there is the point that the actual financial compensation is being minimised for no good reason.
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Andrew Francis Slaughter (Labour, Centre-left): Please give me a moment to answer the first point, then I will willingly give way I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is saying that it is unreasonable because these injuries are exaggerated or fraudulent, or that people should not be compensated according to accepted judicial tariffs. Nobody has ever said—that I know of—that the levels of compensation that are awarded under the Judicial Studies Board guidelines are over-generous in this country. What we are doing is simply taking those realistic—some would say, rather parsimonious—levels and reducing them by a substantial degree, so I think the point is nonsense, frankly. However, I give way to the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), who will make a much more sensible point, I am sure.
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Andrew Francis Slaughter (Labour, Centre-left): There is an element of semantics going on here. We have guidelines at the moment. Judges do not pluck figures out of thin air. They look at the guidelines and hear submissions, or they would have heard submissions when representation was available—it seems it no longer will be—and they make a decision, but they have discretion around the individual circumstances of the case. That is a basic and fundamental principle of law, but one that we are deviating from. I cannot say strongly enough that that is wrong To add insult to injury—if I may put it that way—rather than taking the average in the guidelines and having a rough rule of thumb that someone will get a bit more or a bit less than their individual case deserves, or going for an average and calling that a tariff, we are saying that a tariff should be a tiny percentage of the current award. This is nothing but an attempt to say, "We do not wish to pay out money in this way. We wish to diminish both the ability to make a claim and the compensation paid." Whatever one’s view on fraud, the massive majority of cases will be meritorious and honest cases in which people have genuinely suffered injury I will conclude with the words of the former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Judge, on Report in the other place: "What I cannot accept is a solution which means that a dishonest claim is handled in exactly the same way as an honest one. We cannot have dishonesty informing the way in which those who have suffered genuine injuries are dealt with. That is simply not justice. There should not be any idea that an honest claim for a whiplash injury made by the victim of a car accident should be less well compensated than an identical injury suffered by someone at work."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 June 2018; Vol. 791, c. 1600.] That is what the Government are doing in the Bill and what is so inherently unfair, and they are doing it at the behest of special interests. They may genuinely believe that there is a problem to be resolved with whiplash. I could dispute that—we could go on for a lot longer than we are today—but even if they are right, there are other, better and fairer ways to tackle that issue.
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Charalambos Charalambous (Labour, Centre-left): Is my hon. Friend aware that under the criminal injuries compensation scheme someone gets £1,000 for a whiplash injury lasting six to 13 weeks but that under this tariff scheme the proposal is for £470 for three to six months?
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Charalambos Charalambous (Labour, Centre-left): Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, under the criminal injuries compensation scheme—one of the Government’s own schemes—a person can get £1,000 for a criminal injury of whiplash? Under these tariffs, however, someone would get £470 for the same injury, except it would not have been the result of a criminal event.
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Andrew Francis Slaughter (Labour, Centre-left): I should say that I have secured a three-hour Westminster Hall debate on the LASPO review, access to justice and all such matters on 1 November. I look forward to having the hon. Gentleman join us and to his being fully supportive of my speech. On this issue, the hon. Gentleman may want to address specifically the issue of the level of the tariff. I hear what he is saying, but what about the level of damages, which cannot in any way compensate for what are in many cases real injuries?
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Eleanor Claire Reeves (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that special damages are not included in the tariff. However, the point that needs to be made is that under the tariff system someone could, as he rightly points out, be off work for a very, very long time, but because of the way that the tariffs are set, their claim would fall into the small claims track, meaning that they would not be able to have their legal costs covered, so would be unlikely to get representation for their claim. That is likely to mean that they could have a big special damages claim that is never recoverable because they will be unable to afford to pursue their claim. Does he agree?
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): I remind hon. Members that, if there is a Division, only Members representing constituencies in England and Wales may vote Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Committee consents to the Civil Liability Bill [Lords].—(Rory Stewart.)
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Richard Burgon (Labour, Centre-left): It is regrettable that we are here for the Third Reading of yet another Conservative Bill that unleashes a Tory attack on the rights of victims and undermines access to justice. When the record of this Conservative Government is written—probably sooner rather than later, if the media reports are to be believed—the way in which they have entrenched a two-tier justice system will be writ large on the political epitaph of the Prime Minister and this Government. The cruelty of the Conservatives’ cuts to legal aid will be one example of that. Their wilful policy of making it harder for people to take on dodgy landlords or to challenge a flawed benefits decision or cruel immigration decision will be another, at a time when people need that kind of support more than ever. The Conservatives’ record on employment tribunal fees will also be something that we in this country will look back on shame. It is not only unlawful, as the Supreme Court decided, but immoral.
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Labor
Richard Burgon (Labour, Centre-left): I will not The Government’s intent was clear for all to see. They are making it harder for workers to take on unscrupulous bosses—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) wishes to speak for the insurance industry, he can do so. Step up!
Elder Abuse — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Social Welfare
James Dolan Cunningham (Labour, Centre-left): I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. I am sure he is aware as I am that families have often had to hide cameras in care homes to film the abuse going on there—we have seen documentaries about that. I agree with him that something should be done about the problem, because elderly people have made a major contribution to this country. Does he agree that there should be better training and better pay for carers, and that the law should be tightened up?
Elder Abuse — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Social Welfare
Rachael Helen Maskell (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the need to raise the issue. I, too, have had constituents who have experienced elder abuse. As people grow older they become more isolated, so the risk of abuse increases. Does he agree that safeguarding adults boards should have a specific focus on older people, and should assess the risk to them and come up with prevention plans?
Elder Abuse — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Social Welfare
Rachael Helen Maskell (Labour, Centre-left): The all-party parliamentary group for ageing and older people carried out an inquiry recently with a view to establishing a commission for the rights of older people, so that they can have a voice and an agency in society. Would the Minister support such a proposal?
NHS Workforce — House of Commons, 2018-07-24
Topic: Social Welfare
Barbara Mary Keeley (Labour, Centre-left): I welcome the new Secretary of State to his post. He has said that the whole workforce of the NHS and social care should have the chance to fulfil their potential, but the care workforce has an annual turnover of 27% and a vacancy rate of 7%, and, sadly, care staff learned last week that they would not even be paid the national minimum wage for sleep-in shifts, which will potentially drive even more people away from working in social care. Will the Secretary of State demonstrate the leadership that this Government have lacked on this issue and ask the Chancellor to change the regulations on the national minimum wage for sleep-in shifts, to show care staff that they matter?
South Tees CCG — House of Commons, 2018-07-24
Topic: Macroeconomics
Questions: If he will ensure that funding for services commissioned by South Tees clinical commissioning group will not be reduced as a result of that group being placed in special measures.
Anna Catherine Turley (Labour, Centre-left): I appreciate the Minister’s reply, but does she agree that, instead of dismissing this as a failure of bookkeeping, as her colleague in the Tees Valley has done, she should look carefully again at the rising demand in our area and at the unique challenges we face as a result of high levels of deprivation, ageing demographics and the economic shock we suffered three years ago? Will she look again at a fairer funding allocation to make sure that we can serve everyone’s needs in the Tees Valley?
Public Sector Pay — House of Commons, 2018-07-24
Topic: Government Operations
Peter Christopher Dowd (Labour, Centre-left): These uninhabited proposals will do nothing to repair the damage done to our brilliant public sector workers by this Government’s slash-and-burn policy in relation to public sector pay. Over the past seven years, our teachers have lost £2,500, our firefighters £3,000, our prison officers £4,000 and our paramedics £4,000 in real-terms pay cuts. Even the armed forces have been affected by this stingy Government Yet the Government think it is enough to announce to the press—to the press, Mr Speaker, yet again—an uncosted proposal that will, at best, leave workers just about breaking even on their austerity-slashed pay, while civil servants and others continue to see their pay cut. This is a mendacious PR exercise. Based on today’s announcement, after eight years of real-terms pay cuts for employees in the public sector, our police officers, junior doctors, some specialist doctors, GPs and dentists are all being offered a further real-terms pay cut Will the Minister now confirm what the additional cost of each announcement is to Departments? Will she also confirm that this cost is being siphoned from existing departmental spend, with no new money made available? This will have a disastrous effect on Departments already close to ruin from austerity; they will be forced to cut staffing levels and services to cope. Can she guarantee that there will be no reductions in staffing levels across the public sector because of this unfunded increase in pay? Can she guarantee that public services will not be adversely affected by her failure to provide proper funding? Will she explain why civil servants continue to see real-terms pay cuts? They are always at the back of the queue when it comes to pay. How much additional social security expenditure has resulted from seven years of cuts to public sector workers’ pay? Does she agree that it has been this Conservative Government’s policy for the past seven years to force thousands of public servants on to social security by cutting their income The Conservative party should be ashamed. The Government’s announcements today leave public sector workers treading water. These proposals will force threadbare Departments to make further cuts to vital services and to reduce staffing levels, and what for? All so that the Prime Minister can get a cheap PR hit to try to cling on to power. We do not buy it. Labour demands that public sector workers get the pay that they deserve.
Public Sector Pay — House of Commons, 2018-07-24
Topic: Education
Katherine Anne Green (Labour, Centre-left): Cuts to school budgets have meant that some schools have had to make cuts to payments for support staff such as lunchtime assistants, for example, including by removing their holiday pay. How will today’s announcement benefit those lowest paid workers who have already suffered?