argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Contaminated Blood and Blood Products — House of Commons, 2016-11-24
Topic: Social Welfare
Diana Ruth Johnson (Labour, Centre-left): Yes. One point I will come to later is the need for some form of inquiry. To continue my point about why who runs the scheme is so important, a big criticism of the new scheme is the continuation of discretionary payments. Department of Health officials are still not listening to the concerns raised about that. The APPG inquiry uncovered huge issues with the highly conditional and poorly managed discretionary support scheme. One respondent told us: "The whole system seems designed to make you feel like a beggar" I also believe that the trust’s current administrators have not fought hard enough for their beneficiaries, which legally they could have done. Instead, they saw their role as dispassionate managers and conduits to the Department of Health. They left the affected community alone to fight for themselves. If the new support scheme ends up being managed by Atos or Capita it will do nothing to address those fundamental issues, and could even make the situation much worse, adding insult to injury. I call on the Minister to do the right thing and announce that she will scrap plans for a private profit-making scheme administrator, and will replace the current scheme with a more beneficiary run and focused organisation that has no profit motive Will the Minister set out exactly what kind of discretionary support the new scheme will provide? It remains unclear whether any or all of the current support will continue. That contrasts starkly with the Scottish scheme, where the financial review group agreed that no one should receive less financial support under the new scheme. Will the Government urgently provide the same guarantee and publish full details of any obligations that the new scheme administrators will be subject to There are also issues with the current welfare benefits reassessment regime that many people are having to go through—for example, moving from disability living allowance on to the personal independence payment. Those issues need to be addressed urgently, so that individuals can be passported straightaway on to new benefits. I hope the Minister will agree that that is a sensible way forward for the people affected My third concern relates to the families of those affected, who need better support under the scheme. Under the new English proposals, widows and widowers will continue to be eligible for discretionary support—whatever that means; I have raised my concerns about that already—on top of a new £10,000 lump sum, provided their loved ones died at least partially as a result of contracting HIV or hepatitis C. However, many clinicians have already told me that that could mean many people are excluded from assistance simply because their partner’s death certificate does not include mention of HIV or hepatitis C, sometimes at the family’s request. The new proposals could also still be considerably less generous than the support that some widows already receive, because there is a huge question mark hanging over what discretionary help they will get under the reformed scheme.
Contaminated Blood and Blood Products — House of Commons, 2016-11-24
Topic: Social Welfare
Diana Ruth Johnson (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend puts the point very well. The APPG and the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) have spoken to people about what they want from the revised scheme, and they have said they want the option of a lump sum payment, if that would be better for them than regular payments. It is important that we give people the ability to make those decisions for themselves As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) just alluded to, the APPG still believes that we need a Hillsborough-style panel inquiry to allow people to tell their stories and to say what happened to them and how it affected them.
Contaminated Blood and Blood Products — House of Commons, 2016-11-24
Topic: Law and Crime
Diana Ruth Johnson (Labour, Centre-left): I agree with my right hon. Friend, who makes his point very well. We need to make sure that any new support scheme moves quickly. We need to get on with this. The previous Prime Minister, when he apologised on behalf of the nation 18 months ago, also allocated £25 million, but none of that has been spent yet, as I understand it. We need to make sure that a scheme is introduced as quickly as possible, although obviously with our concerns having being addressed. But absolutely the two things can run in parallel, and a Hillsborough-style panel inquiry would give people the opportunity of a truth and reconciliation inquiry. I still think it a key requirement if there is to be any real sense of justice and closure.
Contaminated Blood and Blood Products — House of Commons, 2016-11-24
Topic: Law and Crime
Catherine Elizabeth West (Labour, Centre-left): Families who have suffered a loss following this terrible scandal have expressed a desire to get hold of certain documents and to find out what happened and who knew what. They really just want a sense of justice.
Contaminated Blood and Blood Products — House of Commons, 2016-11-24
Topic: Law and Crime
Christian John Patrick Matheson (Labour, Centre-left): Absolutely. We need to get to the truth. The victims and the surviving members of their families deserve the truth, and the culprits must be held to account as well. As has already been pointed out, it seems that there was knowledge of what was going on at the time The right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) rightly said that this matter is not going to go away. The longer it goes on, and the greater the sense of injustice felt by the victims and their families, the stronger will be the calls for a final resolution. I am glad that the Minister is present, because the Government have an opportunity to do the right thing: to lift the black cloud of uncertainty, and to end what was eloquently described by the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire as a "drip, drip" approach. We need a final answer to this question, which will provide the certainty that has been missing for so long.
Contaminated Blood and Blood Products — House of Commons, 2016-11-24
Topic: Social Welfare
Sharon Hodgson (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful for that important intervention, which emphasises why we need an inquiry into issues such as the one that the hon. Gentleman has raised I am sure the Minister can understand the concerns across the House and out in the community among the people affected and their families. Before she replies, I ask her not to adopt the same language as that used by the Prime Minister, who attributed the lack of support for an independent panel to the delay in the introduction of a support system. An independent panel with clearly defined terms of reference would not impede the development and implementation of the new system. I hope the Minister will keep that in mind when she responds, and recognise how important it is for those affected to get the reconciliation for which they have fought so long The Government must be committed for reforming the system and listening—must be commended, rather, for reforming the system and listening. I know they are committed to that. However, this is such an important issue that we must get it right, and once more I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North for her steadfast campaigning on this issue over many years. I am sure the community will also recognise that fact. Those people who have had their lives marked so significantly by the failures of the past should rightly be compensated and respected. Those who have died because of that serious mistake, those who are still living with the repercussions of the mistake, and those who have thankfully fought it off but still live with the impact of it all deserve respect and dignity, and I hope that in her reply the Minister will give them just that.
Reducing Health Inequality — House of Commons, 2016-11-24
Topic: Environment
Alan Arthur Johnson (Labour, Centre-left): I had actually finished my speech, but I will answer the hon. Gentleman’s intervention as my conclusion. I have talked to Yorkshire Water, and my understanding is that putting the focus on local authorities changes the whole dynamic of how the various conspiracy theorists can attack on this issue.
Reducing Health Inequality — House of Commons, 2016-11-24
Topic: Social Welfare
Alexander Cunningham (Labour, Centre-left): I know we are trying to make this a non-partisan debate, but does the hon. Lady recognise that all the things she is talking about require resources? Some of our most needy communities have seen a loss of those resources in recent times, and we need to do something to redress that.
Prison Safety — House of Commons, 2016-12-06
Topic: Law and Crime
Yasmin Qureshi (Labour, Centre-left): In every one of Her Majesty’s inspector’s reports on closed male facilities published during the Secretary of State’s time in post—reports on Bedford, Chelmsford, Hindley, Onley, Risley, Swaleside and Winchester, and the youth facilities at Isis and Wetherby—outcomes of the test of prison safety deemed them to be either poor or not sufficiently good. When can we expect a positive report on prison safety in closed male prisons?
Prison Safety — House of Commons, 2016-12-06
Topic: Law and Crime
Yasmin Qureshi (Labour, Centre-left): The Ministry states in the White Paper that it will trial the inclusion of prison co-ordinates in no-fly zones to prevent banned items from being dropped into prisons. How will that work in practice and what is being done now to reduce demand for banned items in prisons?
Mental Health: Prisons — House of Commons, 2016-12-06
Topic: Law and Crime
Keith Anthony Vaz (Labour, Centre-left): Statistics show that 50% of those who are in prison suffer from personality disorders. Does the Minister agree that it is important to assess such issues when people enter the criminal justice system—even at the stage of the custody suite—rather than after their incarceration?
Prison Reform — House of Commons, 2016-12-06
Topic: Law and Crime
Barry John Sheerman (Labour, Centre-left): Government Front Benchers seem to be doing a bit of sleepwalking this morning. I know that it is nearly Christmas, but can I ask them to wake up to the dangers of empowering governors too much? When the former Select Committee that I chaired looked at prison education all those years ago, we found that one real danger was that a very good system of education and training in a prison could suddenly be wiped out by a new governor who wanted nothing to do with it. We need common standards across all prisons. Is that not right?
Prison Safety — House of Commons, 2016-12-06
Topic: Law and Crime
Rosemary Elizabeth Cooper (Labour, Centre-left): At the Justice Committee last week, the prisons Minister said in reply to a question regarding the recent escape from Her Majesty’s Prison Pentonville, that the frequency of cell searches was determined locally by the governor. Does he remain satisfied that the coalition decision to end daily cell searches was right, or does he think they might have prevented this escape and limited the use of mobile phones, drugs and weapons?
Prison Officers — House of Commons, 2016-12-06
Topic: Law and Crime
Kevin John Barron (Labour, Centre-left): We have nearly 7,000 fewer prison officers in our prisons than in 2010. The Government have announced an increase in the prisons budget of £100 million to recruit or re-recruit an extra 2,500 officers. Is it any wonder that the service is in a mess?
Prison Officers — House of Commons, 2016-12-06
Topic: Law and Crime
John Robert Cryer (Labour, Centre-left): It is not just the cut of 7,000 prison officers, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Sir Kevin Barron) talked about; another 7,000 non-officer grades are also being cut. That is a total cut of 14,000 staff—2,000 is a drop in the ocean. That is why people are getting hurt and killed in Britain’s prisons. When will the Secretary of State return staffing to pre-2010 levels, which is needed to ensure safety in prisons?
Prison Officers — House of Commons, 2016-12-06
Topic: Law and Crime
Christina Elizabeth Rees (Labour, Centre-left): In a Westminster Hall debate last week, the prisons Minister confirmed that it is his intention for each prisoner to have a dedicated prison officer, who will be responsible for six inmates. He called it the new offender management model and the new staffing model. Will the Secretary of State explain whether that is based on current staffing levels or whether it is an aspiration for the future? What are the details of the new models?
Prison Officers — House of Commons, 2016-12-06
Topic: Law and Crime
Christina Elizabeth Rees (Labour, Centre-left): The prisons Minister also told the Justice Committee last week that, in order to recruit an extra 2,500 prison officers by 2018, the Ministry of Justice would have to recruit a total of 8,000 officers, due to the staff leaving rate. Michael Spurr said that the leaving rate after just the first year as a prison officer is 13.5%. How does the Secretary of State plan to retain the new staff who are leaving and the prison officers that she plans to recruit in future? Will she spend whatever it takes to get a grip on the crisis?
Judicial Independence — House of Commons, 2016-12-06
Topic: Law and Crime
Elizabeth Anne McInnes (Labour, Centre-left): After the press attacks on the judiciary, it took the Justice Secretary nearly 48 hours to release a statement. The former Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge said of that statement that he thought it was "a little too late—and quite a lot too little" Does she agree with Lord Judge, and if so will she take the opportunity to apologise?
Judicial Independence — House of Commons, 2016-12-06
Topic: Law and Crime
Richard Burgon (Labour, Centre-left): Yesterday, the President of the Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger, said at the beginning of the article 50 appeal: "This appeal is concerned with legal issues, and, as judges, our duty is to consider those issues impartially, and to decide the case, according to law. That is what we shall do." Does the Lord Chancellor agree that if she had done her duty and spoken out at the time to defend the judiciary, those words would not have been necessary?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2016-12-06
Topic: Law and Crime
Questions: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that an independent judiciary and a free press are two pillars of a free society, and that, while we might not always like how each acts, we should be proud of, and protect, those freedoms.; As has been stated, last June the Government commenced their review of the future of employment tribunal fees. As of yet, we have not seen any results. Will the Minister give me a firm date for the review’s completion and publication? Is it not time the Government abandoned these unfair fees, which cut across the rights of working people?; I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agrees that one of the main challenges facing the justice system is integrating ex-offenders back into the outside world upon their release. Does she agree that this requires the co-operation of employers as well as former prisoners? What is the Department doing to ensure that such co-operation is both encouraged and increased?; The European criminal records information system enables the UK to access information about the convictions of EU nationals, but the future of our involvement is now unclear. What plans does the Department have to ensure that there is effective engagement post-Brexit?; With care applications rising dramatically in the family courts, what steps is the Minister taking to head off what Sir James Munby, the president of the family division, has referred to as a “looming crisis” in the family courts?
Diana Ruth Johnson (Labour, Centre-left): Three Secretaries of State—for Justice, for Health, and for Communities and Local Government—believe that parents in Hull should have an independent inquiry to find out what happened to their babies’ ashes. Does the Secretary of State fully understand the disappointment of those parents that she will not stand up for justice for them by establishing an independent inquiry to find out what happened to those ashes?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2016-12-06
Topic: Law and Crime
Questions: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that an independent judiciary and a free press are two pillars of a free society, and that, while we might not always like how each acts, we should be proud of, and protect, those freedoms.; As has been stated, last June the Government commenced their review of the future of employment tribunal fees. As of yet, we have not seen any results. Will the Minister give me a firm date for the review’s completion and publication? Is it not time the Government abandoned these unfair fees, which cut across the rights of working people?; I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agrees that one of the main challenges facing the justice system is integrating ex-offenders back into the outside world upon their release. Does she agree that this requires the co-operation of employers as well as former prisoners? What is the Department doing to ensure that such co-operation is both encouraged and increased?; The European criminal records information system enables the UK to access information about the convictions of EU nationals, but the future of our involvement is now unclear. What plans does the Department have to ensure that there is effective engagement post-Brexit?; With care applications rising dramatically in the family courts, what steps is the Minister taking to head off what Sir James Munby, the president of the family division, has referred to as a “looming crisis” in the family courts?; What specific actions are my right hon. Friend and the Government taking to ensure that the UK remains a specialist leader in world legal services?
Katherine Anne Green (Labour, Centre-left): Prisoners serving IPP—imprisonment for public protection—sentences have remained in custody long beyond their tariff and long after the coalition Government abolished such sentences. I understand that a dedicated Ministry of Justice unit is looking into the position of IPP prisoners. Will the Secretary of State tell us exactly what it is doing?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2016-12-06
Topic: Law and Crime
Questions: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that an independent judiciary and a free press are two pillars of a free society, and that, while we might not always like how each acts, we should be proud of, and protect, those freedoms.; As has been stated, last June the Government commenced their review of the future of employment tribunal fees. As of yet, we have not seen any results. Will the Minister give me a firm date for the review’s completion and publication? Is it not time the Government abandoned these unfair fees, which cut across the rights of working people?; I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agrees that one of the main challenges facing the justice system is integrating ex-offenders back into the outside world upon their release. Does she agree that this requires the co-operation of employers as well as former prisoners? What is the Department doing to ensure that such co-operation is both encouraged and increased?; The European criminal records information system enables the UK to access information about the convictions of EU nationals, but the future of our involvement is now unclear. What plans does the Department have to ensure that there is effective engagement post-Brexit?; With care applications rising dramatically in the family courts, what steps is the Minister taking to head off what Sir James Munby, the president of the family division, has referred to as a “looming crisis” in the family courts?; What specific actions are my right hon. Friend and the Government taking to ensure that the UK remains a specialist leader in world legal services?
Rushanara Ali (Labour, Centre-left): Reoffending rates among young offenders remain stubbornly high. Earlier this year, the Association of Youth Offending Team Managers said that there had been a record cut in funding for youth offending teams. What is the Secretary of State doing to address that?
Rail Infrastructure (Train Operating Companies) — House of Commons, 2016-12-06
Topic: Transportation
Andrew Joseph McDonald (Labour, Centre-left): Private companies will only engage with the Secretary of State’s plans if they believe that they will be able to extract yet further value from Britain’s railways at the expense of taxpayers and commuters. Not only does this mean poor value for the public, but it also risks compromising safety. The last time the Tories privatised the rail tracks it resulted in a series of fatal accidents, which led to the creation of Network Rail in the first place. Now the Secretary of State wants to start us on a slippery slope back to the bad old days of Railtrack, with profit-chasing companies being entrusted with the safety-critical role of being responsible for our rail infrastructure. Has he not learned the lessons of Railtrack, or is he simply choosing to ignore them? Why does he expect things to be different this time Will the Secretary of State explain how his planned "integrated operating teams" will be different from the "deep alliances" between Network Rail and South West Trains, which were abandoned, and from the similar arrangement between Network Rail and ScotRail, which is performing abysmally? Will the same system of regulation apply in his new landscape? What discussions has he had with the Office of Rail Regulation about this? What costings have been done for this programme? Has a cost-benefit analysis been carried out? It is time for our railways to be run under public ownership, in the public interest, as an integrated national asset in public hands, with affordable fares for all and with long-term investment in the railway network. Sadly, today’s announcement will take us further away from that than ever before, but an incoming Labour Government will redress that as a matter of urgency.
Rail Infrastructure (Train Operating Companies) — House of Commons, 2016-12-06
Topic: Transportation
Louise Joyce Ellman (Labour, Centre-left): A joined-up approach could bring benefits and has been called for on many occasions by, among others, the Transport Committee. How will safety be protected in the specific model that the Transport Secretary now advocates? Could it be the beginning of a highly expensive fragmentation of the system?
Rail Infrastructure (Train Operating Companies) — House of Commons, 2016-12-06
Topic: Transportation
John Derek Twigg (Labour, Centre-left): Some of the main causes of delays and problems on the network include failures of signals, points and trains. Will the Secretary of State explain in specifics what will be different under his proposals from what currently happens?
Rail Infrastructure (Train Operating Companies) — House of Commons, 2016-12-06
Topic: Transportation
Diana Ruth Johnson (Labour, Centre-left): In east Yorkshire did we not have a plan for joined-up thinking, using a train operator called First Hull Trains to improve services for local people by electrifying the line to Hull? Was not that joined-up thinking abandoned by the Government just a few weeks ago?
Rail Infrastructure (Train Operating Companies) — House of Commons, 2016-12-06
Topic: Transportation
Alison McGovern (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State has mentioned South West Trains and how some of this integration is already in place in our network. So either we are talking about that, in which case this is not really a change, or this is the predecessor to a privatisation which will go badly—which is it?