argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2019-02-12
Topic: Mixed Topics
Andrew Joseph McDonald (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In answer to an urgent question on 8 January, the Transport Secretary claimed that his decision to award a contract to Seaborne Freight incurred no cost to the taxpayer, telling the House that "we are not spending money unless these ferries operate."—[Official Report, 8 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 191.] Yesterday, the National Audit Office found that £800,000 had been spent on external consultants to assess the bid. The ministerial code says that "it is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister" Has the Secretary of State indicated to you that he plans to make a personal statement to the House on his conduct in relation to this matter?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2019-02-12
Topic: Other
Rosalie Winterton (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. I understand that he has also advised the Secretary of State’s office that he would be raising the matter. If the Secretary of State believes that he has inadvertently misled the House, I am sure that he will take steps to correct the record. Of course, he may have a different view of the facts, but I am sure that all of this will be the subject of further scrutiny and debate. The shadow Secretary of State has put his view on the record, so the Treasury Bench will have heard it, and there are many other ways in which he can pursue this matter for further information.
Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2019-02-12
Topic: Mixed Topics
James Dolan Cunningham (Labour, Centre-left): While we are talking about sport, may I say that this does not involve only rugby players? There is now evidence that footballers, particularly those heading the ball, suffer sustained brain injuries. It used to be interpreted as dementia, but it is a lot more serious than that. Has my hon. Friend had any discussions with the Football League about that?
Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2019-02-12
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Christopher John Bryant (Labour, Centre-left): I have had lots of discussions, some of them more fruitful than others, with the Football Association It is wholly to be deprecated that FIFA still will not allow a full substitution for an assessment of brain injury during a match. Ten minutes are needed to do a proper assessment on the pitch, but at the moment only three minutes is available in a FIFA match. There can be no substitution, and it is not therefore in the team’s interests to take the person off the pitch. I think that this must change. If there is one thing that I hope Parliament will say to FIFA about this in the next few months, it is that this must change. People we talk of as heroes, such as Jeff Astle, have died because of heading the ball. If those who are heroes to our young people today end up suffering in later life because of what they sustained in their footballing career, we will have done them a terrible disservice.
Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2019-02-12
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Christopher John Bryant (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend makes a very good point. One of the things about rugby league and about rugby union, which I know rather better, being from south Wales—[Interruption.] I do not think it is parliamentary to tut-tut from the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, if you don’t mind my saying so. The truth is that many of the players today are bigger, stronger and faster, so the impacts may be much more significant than they were in the past. Curiously, when we watch some of the commentary on Twitter and Facebook about matches, we see a kind of rejoicing in the physical pain that people are going through, and I think we really need to roll that back. We need to roll that back so that we are actually caring about the players. Quite often the players themselves will be desperate to go back on. It should not be the player who makes that decision; it should be an independent doctor who makes it. [Interruption.] I think you want to intervene on me, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2019-02-12
Topic: Mixed Topics
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): The tut-tut was to say that the hon. Gentleman would benefit from knowing both types of rugby. The only thing I would add, just to help his case, is that in rugby league a player is taken off for a full assessment by a doctor and not allowed back on. That is the benefit on which rugby league is leading the sport.
Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2019-02-12
Topic: Other
Christopher John Bryant (Labour, Centre-left): I think the hon. Gentleman has just read, in some weird way, what I was about to say—he has a very special mental capacity of his own if he is able to read my notes from that distance. He is absolutely right, however, and I do not want to drive a coach and horses through the Bill at all. I fully accept that there is a requirement for some elements of it. I have an anxiety about the pace at which the Bill is going. It is a shame that the code is not yet available, because it would significantly affect how we viewed some of the issues that we are talking about today. All the things in my amendments should probably be in the code, rather than on the face of the Bill—that is what the Minister said to me yesterday, and I should have given her a much harder time, by the way—but why do we not have the code now? We are not going to have it before the Bill receives its Third Reading, and I think that is a mistake. It is not as though we have lots of wonderful business to be getting through.
Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2019-02-12
Topic: Civil Rights
Janet Jessica Daby (Labour, Centre-left): A young person in my constituency has contacted me—she has a disability and works for a disabled people’s organisation called Inclusion London—to raise concerns about the speed at which the Bill is going through Parliament. There is a sense of it being rushed through without adequate consultation, which it needs, and with little regard for the people who are likely to be affected by it. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2019-02-12
Topic: Other
Christopher John Bryant (Labour, Centre-left): Yes, I do have that anxiety. I want to be a bit critical of the Government on that, because this is a two-year Session of Parliament and there is no reason why this could not have been done in a proper way. I am slightly conscious that there is not a great deal of time left today, however, so I am keen to bring my remarks to a close.
Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2019-02-12
Topic: Civil Rights
Catherine Elizabeth West (Labour, Centre-left): May I pursue the intervention from the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb)? Is the Minister satisfied that the definition of the deprivation of liberty will not lead to litigation in the courts? Some constituents have written to me saying that the proposed changes could open a legal can of worms. Can the Minister reassure me that this will not end in expensive litigation, either for constituents or for the Government?
Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2019-02-12
Topic: Other
Barbara Mary Keeley (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister has just mentioned case studies, and she has mentioned them before. She has circulated case studies to a few people, but they were not circulated to me or to any other members of the Committee, which I think was very discourteous. We keep hearing about things that are in the distance—over there—and will come together at some point, but those case studies have not been circulated, and they should have been.
Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2019-02-12
Topic: Other
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): The opening two speeches have taken 55 minutes, and we have to finish at 6 pm. I recognise that a lot of other people want to speak, and I certainly do not want to put pressure on the Opposition spokesperson, who also wants to make a speech. When other people come in, please remember that we want to get through everybody.
Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2019-02-12
Topic: Civil Rights
Stephen James McCabe (Labour, Centre-left): While my hon. Friend is on the subject of care home managers, may I ask whether she agrees that if they are responsible for the consultation, which is supposed to be one of the safeguards protecting a person’s liberty, the person cannot possibly be at the heart or centre of the Bill? Such a provision drives a coach and horse through the notion that their liberty is being protected.
Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2019-02-12
Topic: Civil Rights
Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Labour, Centre-left): I thank my hon. Friend and I fully agree with him. The cuts to local government have been devastating and the Bill will merely exacerbate the situation Finally, we have come a long way in our understanding of mental illness, dementia and neurodiversity. I note with pride that a new group was founded this weekend—the Labour neurodiversity group—to build on the success of our party’s neurodiversity manifesto. We wish the group all the very best. We have made great strides in tackling stigma and prejudice, thanks to the efforts of people such as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), who deserve nothing but praise We are learning all the time and our laws must reflect our enlightened attitudes and the latest thinking, not the outdated views of previous eras. I am happy to associate myself with the Labour amendments being discussed this afternoon. If there is one I would highlight, it is the proposed amendment that guarantees a vulnerable person the right to an advocate. In too many cases, they have no one to speak up strongly on their behalf, to articulate their wishes and to champion their best interests. It is surely right that such a person should always be available As a member of the Bill Committee, I know that we made some progress in improving the Bill, but I remain unconvinced that it will be enough to rescue this piece of legislation and to provide a fair, workable system that ensures the best possible care for hundreds of thousands of people and guarantees their human rights. Many hon. Members have highlighted the 2017 Law Commission review.
Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2019-02-12
Topic: Civil Rights
Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but in terms of human rights, this issue is being raised not just by me, but by more than 100 pre-eminent organisations in the field. The only way to solve that is through funding—that is the only way in which we can lay this matter to rest. The hon. Lady highlighted the 2017 Law Commission review of the deprivation of liberty safeguards, which stated that the current regime is "in crisis and needs to be overhauled." I agree. There is a crisis and the current system cannot cope, but surely the answer is not to replace bad laws with yet more bad laws, and that is what we are in danger of doing.
Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2019-02-12
Topic: Mixed Topics
Deborah Angela Elspeth Marie Abrahams (Labour, Centre-left): I will be brief. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has tabled an excellent amendment, which I support. We know that the system is broken. What we are doing is replacing it with an even worse system. Just to acknowledge how broken the system is, the Alzheimer’s Society’s national dementia helpline receives over 100 calls a month about the Mental Capacity Act, which is clearly confusing and complicated for people with dementia, as well as for their families and carers. However, as we have heard, so many different disability organisations and a whole range of charities, as well as the Law Commission, are saying that this Bill is not fit for purpose I particularly support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda. The Greater Manchester Neuro Alliance, which I have supported for several years now, has several concerns, particularly about a person who presents inconsistently and has a cognitive impairment, mental health problems or is simply vulnerable and does not accept or appreciate their illnesses and the limitations. One member of the alliance from Oldham told me: "My son has been deemed as having capacity because he can answer questions yes or no but he can’t be left alone or allowed to go out unsupported, he doesn’t take his medication and doesn’t have the ability to plan or manage anything including lifesaving treatment every three weeks" Such examples are not addressed in the Bill I will move swiftly on, Madam Deputy Speaker. I share the concern that my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) has expressed so clearly about care home managers and the conflict of interest in the Bill. It is a minefield and needs to be addressed. She made that point clearly Amendment 48, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), would rightly prevent cared-for people from being charged for the assessments required by the system, potentially providing a financial incentive to do the mental capacity assessments. Without the amendment, we cannot be sure that people will not be charged more for their care solely because they require liberty protection safeguards to be granted. If the Minister does not accept the amendment, I would like to know why. On advocacy, we need to ensure that the "best interests" test is changed to place more weight on a person’s wishes There are several other issues with the Bill. It has not had a sufficient airing. It has not been consulted on greatly, but I will hand over to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North.
Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2019-02-12
Topic: Civil Rights
Barbara Mary Keeley (Labour, Centre-left): It is appalling that we should have had less than two hours for Report stage of a Bill affecting the human rights of some 2 million vulnerable people who lack capacity—and we had less than two hours for Second Reading. Given that there is no appreciable business to occupy ourselves with next week, it is ludicrous that the Government should have forced the Bill through today The Bill that we are being asked to pass today is simply not fit for purpose; it simply replaces the current flawed system, which the Minister has just described, with a new one that is actually more flawed. There are a number of issues that we still consider unacceptable. The largest is that the Bill still creates a major conflict of interest in relation to the managers of private care homes. It is simply wrong that a business with a financial stake in seeing a deprivation of liberty authorisation granted can do all the legwork and then just have its recommendation rubber-stamped by the local council I hope that care home managers will seek to carry out their new role well, but we know that they are already overstretched. The Bill creates extra pressures.
Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2019-02-12
Topic: Civil Rights
Barbara Mary Keeley (Labour, Centre-left): I do not have time, I am afraid The Government have consistently tried to push the Bill through as fast as they can, with minimal consultation. It should be clear that stakeholders are united in thinking this a poor piece of legislation, and on many issues the Government have failed to address their concerns. On Second Reading in the House of Lords we heard the Bill described by Baroness Barker as "one of the worst pieces of legislation ever brought before this House."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 December 2018; Vol. 794, c. 1247.] The Bill may have improved slightly, but there has been too little progress for us to support its becoming law. It would enshrine a fundamental conflict of interest and weaken the current safeguards of people without capacity It was clear from the start that the Bill was intended to shift the costs of authorising deprivation of liberty away from the state and on to private providers. This matter is too important for us to pass a Bill that we know will not work properly simply because Government budget cuts have created a problem. The Government chose to continue to cut local council budgets; as a result of that lack of resourcing, tens of thousands of people are being deprived of their liberty without authorisation. Letting the backlog build up was a political choice, but this Bill is not a solution. It will not adequately protect people’s human rights, and replacing one bad system with another will not be progress. If the Government were serious about protecting people’s liberty, Ministers would have paused the Bill, which we called on them again today to do, and given local authorities the resources they need to address the backlog. They could then have given this matter the time, consultation and consideration it needs before beginning a new Bill that does not weaken the protections that vulnerable people rely on I thank members of the Public Bill Committee, our excellent Whip, all the hon. Members who contributed to this shortened debate tonight and, particularly, the Clerk to the Committee. I urge right hon. and hon. Members to join us in voting against this flawed piece of proposed legislation that undermines the human rights of vulnerable people who lack capacity Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
TV Licences: Over-75s — House of Commons, 2019-01-31
Topic: Mixed Topics
Questions: If he will make it his policy to maintain free TV licences for people over the age of 75 after the end of the current scheme in 2020.; If he will make it his policy to maintain the provision of free TV licences for people aged 75 and over after the current scheme expires in 2020.; If he will make it his policy to maintain the provision of free TV licences for people aged 75 and over after the current scheme expires in 2020.
Elizabeth Anne McInnes (Labour, Centre-left): One suggestion in the consultation is that the TV licence is means-tested and linked to pension credit, yet in my constituency 1,211 over-75s do not claim the pension credits to which they are entitled so would miss out on the TV licence if it were to be linked. Does the Minister agree that that option is totally unworkable and that it is wrong of his Government to lay the burden of their own manifesto promise at the door of the BBC?
Social Media Platforms and Hate Speech — House of Commons, 2019-01-31
Topic: Civil Rights
Mary Elizabeth Twist (Labour, Centre-left): On 8 January the Petitions Committee produced its report on its inquiry into internet trolling of people with disabilities. Will the Minister commit to our recommendation to ensure that the internet is no more dangerous for disabled people than for everyone else, and will he include people with disabilities in his consultation?
Social Media Platforms and Hate Speech — House of Commons, 2019-01-31
Topic: Civil Rights
Tom Watson (Labour, Centre-left): I agree with the Secretary of State that the White Paper should provide remedies for dealing with hate speech; the real test will be whether it protects our children. Last week, we heard of the tragic case of a young girl taking her own life after being exposed to harmful material about depression and suicide online. This week, we have learned that online bullying has doubled. If I got to talk to Nick Clegg, I would tell him that, rather than focusing on protecting children, Facebook and others are focused on profiting from children. This morning, the Science and Technology Committee has called for a legal duty of care on social media companies, and we support that important report. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he supports that call, and will he state explicitly that it has to be underpinned and enforced by a regulator that has teeth?
Tourism — House of Commons, 2019-01-31
Topic: Mixed Topics
Louise Margaret Haigh (Labour, Centre-left): Tourism is greatly boosted by our music industry. Sheffield’s musicians are renowned the world over, building their reputations on shoestring-budget European tours that are guaranteed because the movement of music equipment around Europe does not require a customs document known as the ATA Carnet. Will the Minister guarantee that musicians in Europe will not require such a document post Brexit, that the movement of music equipment will be frictionless and that the people of Europe will not be deprived of the Arctic Monkeys of tomorrow?
International Sport — House of Commons, 2019-01-31
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Chinyelu Susan Onwurah (Labour, Centre-left): I am sure the Minister will join me in welcoming the fact that the 2021 rugby league world cup opening ceremony will take place at Newcastle’s St James’ Park. Does she agree that all sport played at St James’ Park should be played in the interest of the fans, not of finance, and that the Premier League would do well to learn that?
International Sport — House of Commons, 2019-01-31
Topic: Mixed Topics
John Timothy Grogan (Labour, Centre-left): There are concerning reports this week that Six Nations rugby, one of the great annual sporting events that unites the nation, is about to be subsumed in a world tournament and disappear off to subscription TV. Will the Minister take steps to add Six Nations rugby to the listed events that must be offered live to free-to-air TV?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2019-01-31
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Stephanie Louise Peacock (Labour, Centre-left): As was recently brought up in my digital surgery in Barnsley, the copyright directive is at a crucial stage, while YouTube continues to rip off musicians. Will the Secretary of State confirm the Government’s full support for the directive?
Internet Trolling: Prosecution Rates — House of Commons, 2019-01-31
Topic: Mixed Topics
Danielle Rowley (Labour, Centre-left): We all know in this job how harrowing and tough trolling and online abuse can be. When I visit schools in my constituency, young people tell me that they not only experience a lot of online abuse but see it happening to people in jobs that they might aspire to and worry about the level of abuse they might face if they went into such jobs. What is being done to ensure that online abuse is given the serious treatment that other types of abuse is given, so that people can see that it will not be taken lightly?
Internet Trolling: Prosecution Rates — House of Commons, 2019-01-31
Topic: Mixed Topics
Mary Elizabeth Twist (Labour, Centre-left): On 8 January, the Petitions Committee produced its report, "Online abuse and the experience of disabled people". Will the Solicitor General look at that report and ensure that every step is taken to prosecute cases of online abuse against disabled people?
Hunting Act: Prosecution Rates — House of Commons, 2019-01-31
Topic: Mixed Topics
Justin Piers Richard Madders (Labour, Centre-left): I am disappointed that I did not hear from the Attorney General, because I wanted to hear about his recent field visit to a hunt, where I am sure the law was perfectly observed. The Solicitor General will be aware that there have been many reports up and down the country over the Christmas period of transgressions of the law. The public expect the law to be enforced in full. Is it not time we strengthened the Hunting Act?