argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act — House of Commons, 2016-11-01
Topic: Mixed Topics
Questions: What steps she is taking to assess the effect of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 on access to justice.; What assessment she has made of the effect on people on low incomes of changes made to the legal aid system by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.
Robert Howard Marris (Labour, Centre-left): Access to justice and legal aid are pillars of the welfare state, yet almost one third of legal aid areas in England and Wales have one or no housing advice providers, including the legal aid area covering my constituency. One provider is not enough, so what steps will the Government take to ensure there are at least two providers for each area?
Orgreave — House of Commons, 2016-11-01
Topic: Civil Rights
Louise Margaret Haigh (Labour, Centre-left): I note that the Minister has failed to answer a single one of the questions asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). I feel sorry for the Minister, because the Home Secretary bottled it yesterday and she has bottled it again today. He knows that she did not review the documents on the basis of which the IPCC reached its decision. Does he honestly believe that she can honestly say that there is no link with Hillsborough and that there are no lessons to be learnt today?
Orgreave — House of Commons, 2016-11-01
Topic: Mixed Topics
Ann Clwyd (Labour, Centre-left): I was elected to the House in 1984, in the middle of the miners strike. I spoke about the strike in my maiden speech, and I stood on the picket lines and saw what happened. I saw the brutality and the intimidation. I saw a pregnant woman kicked in the stomach. There was a lot of violence. That was in the Cynon valley, and people in the Cynon valley still feel very strongly about this issue. They believe that unless the Government have something to hide, they should agree to an inquiry. We are fully behind the people who call for the inquiry: people never forget, and certainly they will never forget the experiences of the miners strike.
Orgreave — House of Commons, 2016-11-01
Topic: Civil Rights
John Mann (Labour, Centre-left): The jobs of ordinary police officers, many of whom came from mining families, were made difficult for many years after the miners strike precisely because of the misuse of police by the state. Is that not the fundamental issue here? Zimbabwe, China and Venezuela are three countries that have recently used the police to undermine individual rights and freedoms. How do we know that senior politicians were not involved, as the Cabinet papers have not been revealed and there is no longer going to be an inquiry? When will we know, for better or for worse, what senior politicians did and what pressure they brought to bear on the police?
Press Matters — House of Commons, 2016-11-01
Topic: Mixed Topics
Benjamin Peter James Bradshaw (Labour, Centre-left): I thought I was going to welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, because she explained in clear detail why the incentives contained in section 40 are essential to the Leveson recommendations, which this House approved overwhelmingly in the royal charter and which, as she said, are already in law—and we now have a recognised regulator. But she went on to say that, rather than commencing section 40, the Government were just going to consider it further. Why does she not just do the right thing by the victims and commence the legislation that this House and the House of Lords have already passed?
Press Matters — House of Commons, 2016-11-01
Topic: Mixed Topics
Christopher Paul Farrelly (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State has a very easy way out of her dilemma, which is to name a future date for the commencement of section 40. She will then get plenty of movement, because there will be plenty of incentive. We have all been circulated things by local newspapers, at the behest of national newspaper owners, but does the Secretary of State agree that that lobbying tells only half the truth? Section 40 gives protection for serious journalism from the chilling effect of deep-pocketed vexatious litigants, because such people would first have to go through a low-cost arbitration system and not to the courts? In that sense, it protects hard-pressed local newspapers in particular, whose investigations have, sadly, not been of the calibre that we have been used to.
Press Matters — House of Commons, 2016-11-01
Topic: Civil Rights
Helen Catherine Goodman (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State says that she wants to come up to date with what is going on now, and not just look back at the tragedies of 10 years ago. Well, she needs only to look at the case of Fatima Manji to see that the same people being complained about were the judges and the jury in the regulator, IPSO. That is the problem.
Press Matters — House of Commons, 2016-11-01
Topic: Mixed Topics
Graham Peter Jones (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State says that press regulation is failing, but let us not forget that this Government set up this system, which is now failing. Is it not the case that this Government have been engaging in political gymnastics on this issue since the beginning to arrive at the very point that we are at today where section 40 and part 2 are going to be scrapped? It has always been the Government’s intention to pay lip service to this issue and not to consider the victims.
Press Matters — House of Commons, 2016-11-01
Topic: Immigration
Yasmin Qureshi (Labour, Centre-left): Academic research has shown conclusively that the false lies printed on a daily basis on most of the front pages of our newspapers against migrants and minority communities have led to the rise of violence and prejudice towards those people. When complaints are made, all we get is a two-line correction at the bottom of the page. Has not IPSO singularly failed to deal with that?
Press Matters — House of Commons, 2016-11-01
Topic: Other
Clive James Charles Betts (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State deliberately refused to answer the precise questions that my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) put to her from the Front Bench. Will she now say, having spoken to Lord Leveson, what are Lord Leveson’s views on the statement she has made today and whether she will allow him to speak publicly about his views?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2016-11-01
Topic: Other
Tom Watson (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I misattributed a quote earlier. I was in error about which Prime Minister’s promise to the Dowlers is not being kept. It is David Cameron’s promise that is not being kept, not the current Prime Minister’s. I have put that right as early as I could.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Commons, 2016-11-01
Topic: Mixed Topics
Diane Julie Abbott (Labour, Centre-left): We are not in the habit of artifice or crutches. Let us see what Members in the other place do with the Bill, and then we will make our position clear The Opposition have consistently called for the Leveson recommendations to be implemented in full. The public have waited long enough. In 2013, following extensive consultation with victims of press intrusion, a new system of independent self-regulation was agreed by what were then the three main political parties. It is therefore disappointing that Members in the other place have had to table an amendment, and that we have to debate it, to get the Government to honour their promises. It is disappointing also that the Minister calls legitimate amendments, which have been passed in good faith in the other place, blackmail. What kind of way is that to talk about our friends in the other place?
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Commons, 2016-11-01
Topic: Other
Christopher John Bryant (Labour, Centre-left): Is not the point that the amendments almost exactly replicate legislation that was introduced by Conservatives in another Act? It would be bizarre in the extreme for the Government to say that they should not become law. If the Government want their Bill, they can have it today. All they have to do is say, "Yes, we agree to all the amendments."
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Commons, 2016-11-01
Topic: Other
Diane Julie Abbott (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making an important intervention. Nobody is trying to hold up or halt the Bill. If the Government wish to have it, all they have to do is agree to the amendments.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Commons, 2016-11-01
Topic: Other
Diane Julie Abbott (Labour, Centre-left): I do not deal in supposition. Let us see what Members in the other place do with the Bill, and at that point we will debate it and the House will hear Her Majesty’s Opposition’s position.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Commons, 2016-11-01
Topic: Mixed Topics
Christopher John Bryant (Labour, Centre-left): I was struck by the Minister—well, not physically—I was struck by the Minister’s accusation that I was an impatient man. That felt just a little bit patronising. It reminded me of the time I was in the theatre and the couple in front of me, as the curtain was about to rise, were having a terrible row. The woman said, "The worst of it is that you are so blasted paytronising." The man kissed her on the forehead and said, "It’s ‘pahtronising’, dear." [Laughter.] I don’t know how Hansard will write that up The Minister’s only argument was that this is the wrong Bill—that was his only argument. Interestingly, the Minister in the House of Lords, when these Lords amendments were carried, said that a clear message had been sent by the debate, which would not be lost on her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport as she considered these matters. Well, that was then. Today, we have seen that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has no interest whatever in what their lordships have to say on this matter, even though this was a Cross-Bench Lords amendment carried by a majority of very nearly 100. She has decided today to effectively try to unwind the whole of the Leveson provisions. That is the problem we face. Let me take the House back to 18 March 2013. It was an extraordinary day. Lord Justice Leveson had produced his report on 29 November 2012. For the first time in our history, the Prime Minister came to the House to seek a Standing Order No. 24 motion, so that we could urgently debate the regulation of the press and the royal charter that had been agreed over the weekend in 48 hours of negotiations in the Leader of the Opposition’s office. The royal charter, which can be amended only by a two-thirds majority in this House and a two-thirds majority in the House of Lords—it is here to stay, I would suggest—would set up a press recognition panel. Accompanying that was to be an amendment to the then Crime and Courts Bill. Why do those who argue that the Investigatory Powers Bill is the wrong Bill because it does not relate to press regulation think it was right to amend the Crime and Courts Bill on the matter of press regulation, something the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) advocated?
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Commons, 2016-11-01
Topic: Civil Rights
Christopher John Bryant (Labour, Centre-left): Well, I do not think the hon. Gentleman will be allowed to make a very long speech, as we do not have much more time. He is completely and utterly wrong. He has dragged himself into a hermeneutic circle and he will never get out of it When the amendment—which was carried by 530 votes to 13 to become section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013—was tabled, the then Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) said: "Today marks a turning point. We can move on from simply talking about Lord Justice Leveson’s report to start acting on it, with a new package...The package includes a new royal charter, as announced by the Prime Minister earlier; a new costs and damages package that seeks to maximise incentives for relevant publishers to be part of the new press self-regulator; and one short clause reinforcing the point that politicians cannot tamper with the new press royal charter, which is the subject of debate in the other place."—[Official Report, 18 March 2013; Vol. 560, c. 698.] Why was there an all-party deal? Because the Leveson inquiry exposed real failings both in the press and in the regulatory system. Many of us felt that we, the elected politicians of this country, had failed. Whether out of partisan ambition, deference, cowardice or a genuine determination to do everything in our power to protect the freedom of the press, we had nonetheless failed. We had developed relationships with the press and the media that were so cosy that the people no longer trusted us to make the best decisions on these issues in the national interest. We were on trial as much as the press itself. That is why we all agreed that we had to find a better way forward Above all, we knew there had to be a genuinely independent system of redress. I do not often agree with the hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), but he said that it could not just be "an updated version of the Press Complaints Commission. God forbid that it is"—[Official Report, 18 March 2013; Vol. 560, c. 662.]— because that would be doomed to failure. But without the commencement of section 40, that is precisely what we have got. IPSO is the Press Complaints Commission in all but name. It is not independent in terms of its finances, the membership of its board or the decisions it makes. It is entirely compromised, as recent decisions have shown. The press marks its own homework and, surprise, surprise, it always gives itself gold stars. Five hundred and thirty Members wanted it to be independent of government and independent of the press, too.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Commons, 2016-11-01
Topic: Other
Diane Julie Abbott (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his, as usual, very wise observation. There is no question but that the amendments that the Government have been forced to table, and the work of Members on both sides of the House, have made this a much better Bill than the one that was originally presented to this House.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Commons, 2016-11-01
Topic: Civil Rights
Diane Julie Abbott (Labour, Centre-left): Right at the beginning of this debate, I made a point of acknowledging the very hard work of hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, including hon. Friends of mine, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not here at that stage. The first thing I did was to acknowledge the diehard work of Members on both sides of Chamber. There is no question but that this is a better Bill than the one that was originally presented to us. We are very grateful, and, more importantly, the stakeholders are very grateful, for the possibilities for a review, but I would not be performing my role as a member of Her Majesty’s Opposition if I did not put on the record the reservations that still exist among some of our stakeholders A number of stakeholders, campaigning groups and other bodies have expressed their continuing dissatisfaction with elements of the Bill. They include Amnesty International, Article 19, Big Brother Watch, the Centre for Investigative Journalism, Don’t Spy On Us, English PEN, Index on Censorship, Labour Campaign for Human Rights, Liberty, the National Union of Journalists, OpenMedia, Open Rights Group, PEN International, Privacy International, Scottish PEN, the Society of Editors and the World Wide Web Foundation. In addition, I have held meetings with the TUC and a number of other trade unions that still have concerns about this Bill. I would be grateful if the Minister explained why, despite all the efforts that have been made to improve the Bill, there continue to be concerns among such a wide array of stakeholders.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Commons, 2016-11-01
Topic: Civil Rights
Diane Julie Abbott (Labour, Centre-left): I have no doubt that stakeholders will look at the amended Bill, and if it returns to us from the Lords, there will no doubt be another opportunity to tease out some of these issues This Bill has all-party support and that is significant, because getting the balance right between updating legislation to deal with an internet and high-tech age and defending the civil liberties of subjects is very important, and this House is best placed to do that. We have been grateful to Ministers for being willing to listen to Members in all parts of the House in seeking to improve the Bill.
Financial Services — House of Commons, 2016-10-20
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Questions: What progress his Department has made in engaging with the financial services sector on the potential effect on its revenues of the UK leaving the EU.
Patrick Bosco McFadden (Labour, Centre-left): Can the Secretary of State confirm, in relation to press reports earlier this week, that the Government may in future pay the European Union, in some form or another, for access for financial services? Is it the Government’s position that under no circumstances will they in future pay for market access for financial services?
Financial Services — House of Commons, 2016-10-20
Topic: Mixed Topics
Questions: What progress his Department has made in engaging with the financial services sector on the potential effect on its revenues of the UK leaving the EU.
Stephen Creswell Timms (Labour, Centre-left): Tens of thousands of jobs in Britain depend on euro-denominated clearing. The United States has secured equivalence for its clearing houses. How confident is the Secretary of State that euro-denominated clearing will be permitted in the UK after we have left the European Union?
UK Citizens in EU Countries: Rights — House of Commons, 2016-10-20
Topic: Immigration
Questions: What rights he plans to secure for UK citizens living in other EU countries; and whether he plans to negotiate a reciprocal agreement with EU partners on the rights of EU citizens living in the UK.; What rights he plans to secure for UK citizens living in other EU countries; and whether he plans to negotiate a reciprocal agreement with EU partners on the rights of EU citizens living in the UK.
Paul Christopher Blomfield (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister is seeking to brush away concerns about this issue. Last month, the British Chambers of Commerce reported that 41% of companies said that their staff had expressed uncertainty about their future. Across the country, EU staff in our universities, who make up 15% of academics and contribute hugely to our research, are reconsidering their position. NHS England’s chief executive is so concerned that he has called for early reassurance about the future of EU workers. Will the Government simply resolve this uncertainty by committing to implement the decision of this House on 6 July and acting with urgency to give EU nationals currently living in the UK the right to remain?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2016-10-20
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Questions: In Camden, where I live, the Back to Business and FastForward programmes benefit enormously from the European social fund. Those programmes create a more inclusive labour market employing 400 people in my constituency, many of whom are disabled. Will the Minister outline what plans he has to protect the funding for such programmes, which promote social inclusivity?; I did not quite catch the Minister’s response earlier, so will he tell us again what priority he is giving to ensuring that universities and research funding more broadly will not be adversely affected by Brexit, and that current research protocols will be protected?; My right hon. Friend may be aware that according to Cornwall Council’s own figures, only 1,300 jobs will be created from a £350 million EU spend between now and 2020. Does he agree that a much more tailored approach to regional funding could create more jobs more quickly for Cornwall?
Alison McGovern (Labour, Centre-left): Given the Secretary of State’s answer to Question 1 on financial services, I am sure he is well aware that Merrill Lynch has 1,000 staff in Chester and that Santander has more than 1,000 staff in Bootle. However, he has staff only in London and Brussels. Will he therefore commit to base staff from his Department in every region of England so that businesses can share their views directly with them?
BHS — House of Commons, 2016-10-20
Topic: Other
Dennis Edward Skinner (Labour, Centre-left): Only a small point: this Napoleon thing has reared its head. I had always thought that Sir Philip Green was more of a Maxwell. He had the money and he had the yachts. He had the workers and he robbed them of their pensions. It is almost a parallel.
BHS — House of Commons, 2016-10-20
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Frank Field (Labour, Centre-left): Sir Philip has threatened to sue me over my comments about that. I am still waiting for the writ to arrive. I long to be in court to have a trial by jury, but that will be for another day I return to what I see as the main findings. There was some pretty important engineering going on from the early years in respect of the profitability of the company. We were much amused in Committee when Sir Philip said that his business prowess extended to halving the cost of coat hangers. It would have been more interesting, of course, for him to have told us about his secret share dealing with one main supplier who during those early years, because they were party to BHS decisions, knew the costs of other orders for which tenders were coming in and was therefore able to bid accordingly I maintain that thanks to that measure, Sir Philip was able to get perhaps artificially low supply costs, boosting BHS profits during that period, so it looked even more profitable than it was. That individual shareholder, as I say, was involved in a secret share deal. When he came to sell his shares, he managed to sell them for £90 million. Going on from there, we know that this played a key part in allowing £400 million in dividends to be taken from BHS, which most observers would not necessarily have seen as anything extraordinary The next stage of this sorry saga—my second theme—is, what was Sir Philip able to achieve from that BHS base? Gaining ownership—control—of BHS allowed him to acquire the group of companies known as Arcadia. From Arcadia, he managed to sponsor a huge gearing operation. Was it £2.6 billion? Was it £2.9 billion? However, the key thing about the ownership of Arcadia, which came only from what appeared to be the adequate —or more than adequate—running of BHS, was that there were huge sums of money sloshing around Arcadia. All too soon, £1.3 billion of money geared—loans acquired—on Arcadia through a number of companies found its way up to Lady Green.