argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Trade Union Bill — House of Commons, 2015-11-10
Topic: Labor
Kevin Denis Brennan (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. He knows well, and Conservative Members ought to know, that the festering resentment that would arise as a result of this kind of approach to industrial relations would last for many years, and in some communities would never be forgotten The TUC is firmly opposed to this proposal, which in its opinion will breach international law. The International Labour Organisation’s freedom of association committee has confirmed that "the hiring of workers to break a strike in a sector which cannot be regarded as an essential sector in the strict sense of the term...constitutes a serious violation of freedom of association" New clause 1 would insert in the Bill a ban on the supply of agency workers during strikes, and we will therefore support it if it is pushed to a vote tonight. I also want to press amendment 6 to a Division—the lead amendment in this group, which is in my name and the names of my hon. Friends Let me say a few brief words about amendment 5, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy). It would allow check-off if employers and unions agreed that they wanted it, provided that the unions paid for the service. I understand why the hon. Gentleman would table such an amendment, as it seems to reflect some of the basic values that I thought were supposed to be in the DNA of his political party. When one party is willing by agreement to provide a service to another party in exchange for payment, the state should not interfere unless the service forms some kind of criminal or immoral activity. Check-off is a voluntary agreement by an employer to collect through its pay roll the union subscription of trade union members who are its employees. Despite what the Government seem to think, that is not a criminal or an immoral activity. Why on earth would a Conservative Government think it is right for the state to proscribe a voluntary agreement between an employer and an employee where a payment for that service is involved? I completely understand why the hon. Gentleman has tabled his amendment What is wrong with an employer, in whatever sector, voluntarily agreeing, as part of an attempt to maintain good relations with employees, to help collect the trade union subscription in exchange for an administrative payment? How on earth is it the responsibility of Government, particularly a Conservative Government, to introduce a provision of this kind?
Trade Union Bill — House of Commons, 2015-11-10
Topic: Labor
Stephen John Doughty (Labour, Centre-left): There is also the absurdity that there are many other similar arrangements in place for charitable giving, cycle-to-work schemes or childcare schemes. It seems extraordinarily discriminatory to be acting in this way with regard to these voluntary arrangements for trade union subscriptions.
Trade Union Bill — House of Commons, 2015-11-10
Topic: Labor
Dawn Petula Butler (Labour, Centre-left): I noted that nobody on the Government Benches could help my hon. Friend with his question. The only reason I could think of for such a ban is to try to destroy the trade union movement.
Trade Union Bill — House of Commons, 2015-11-10
Topic: Labor
Kevin Denis Brennan (Labour, Centre-left): Well, I am quite shocked by that accusation from my hon. Friend. On a serious note, there are many colleagues on the Government Benches who are members of trade unions. It was not so long ago that my old union, the National Union of Teachers, used to sponsor Conservative Members of Parliament. I will give hon. Members some benefit of the doubt here. I will actually believe for a moment that the majority of Conservative Members do not want to destroy the trade union movement, because they are democrats and we live in a democratic society. What conclusion could somebody looking at this proposal draw, other than that it exists to inflict damage in an illiberal and absolutely inappropriate manner on voluntary trade union associations and employees’ voluntary agreements with their employers?
Trade Union Bill — House of Commons, 2015-11-10
Topic: Labor
Kevin Denis Brennan (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Gentleman is talking my language. I absolutely agree with that proposition, but has he read the clause? Does he understand what it means? Has he read the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Stafford? The Government are banning any opportunity for an individual to enter into an agreement with an employer, and banning the employer from entering into such an agreement with its workforce, even in exchange for ready money. That service is not being given away, but its provision will be banned even when employees are paying for it. I was a teacher, and I was not trying to be didactic; I was trying to tease out a reaction, and obviously I got one from him. He should have a closer look at what his Government are actually doing and what he is actually voting for. A majority may be the best repartee, as Disraeli said, but I do not think Disraeli would have thought that this fitted with the principles of a one nation Conservative party.
Trade Union Bill — House of Commons, 2015-11-10
Topic: Labor
Kevin Denis Brennan (Labour, Centre-left): I am glad that trade unions are strongly supported in the Hoare house, but the hon. Gentleman should read the provision and then the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Stafford, which seeks to tease out the fact that this measure is particularly illiberal.
Trade Union Bill — House of Commons, 2015-11-10
Topic: Labor
Kevin Denis Brennan (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Gentleman does not understand that trade unions are democratic organisations. They do things on behalf of their members because they are elected and chosen to do so as democratic, voluntary organisations. There is no attack on the individual, and unusually for him his intervention is specious.
Trade Union Bill — House of Commons, 2015-11-10
Topic: Labor
Kevin Denis Brennan (Labour, Centre-left): The so-called one regulation in, one regulation out rule—[Interruption.] Oh, it’s two out, is it? The rule is not being followed in the case of trade unions. Clearly, regulation of trade unions is not considered to be regulation at all, when in fact it is an extraordinary piece of regulation.
Trade Union Bill — House of Commons, 2015-11-10
Topic: Labor
Clive Stanley Efford (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The intervention from the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) gives away how the Conservatives are prepared to dance on a pinhead in order to support the Bill. To suggest that an employer would be better off to contract with each employee individually to collect their union dues, rather than to do so collectively through the trade unions, is barmy.
Trade Union Bill — House of Commons, 2015-11-10
Topic: International Affairs
Ian Lavery (Labour, Centre-left): Is the hon. Lady aware of the letter that the Prime Minister sent to Ministers only days ago—it was sneaked out—on the change to the ministerial code, informing Ministers that they can now ignore international law? Does that have anything to do with this issue?
Trade Union Bill — House of Commons, 2015-11-10
Topic: Government Operations
Tom Blenkinsop (Labour, Centre-left): Depending on the union, unions can have several political funds. For example, Unison does, which goes back to agreements made when the National Union of Public Employees and the National and Local Government Officers Association amalgamated.
Trade Union Bill — House of Commons, 2015-11-10
Topic: Labor
Stephen Nathan Kinnock (Labour, Centre-left): I declare an interest as a proud member of Community union. I represent the south Wales constituency of Aberavon which is steeped in the history of the trade union movement—Members will imagine the strength of feeling and amount of correspondence that I have received in opposition to this unjust and vindictive Bill. We now need a cultural change in Britain’s industrial relations, and a move away from the Punch and Judy style that has evolved thanks to legislation such as this Bill. There is an urgent need to move towards more collective bargaining across the economy, as that would have a direct and positive impact on productivity—something that the Government claim they are campaigning for passionately. Regrettably, the Bill will neither change the culture nor increase productivity. Instead, it will lead to an entrenching of the "them versus us" culture that is bad for workers, employers, customers, business, and the public at large Let me draw the House’s attention to the sections in the Bill that deal with picketing. Conservative Members have failed completely to demonstrate why the picketing provisions in this Bill are necessary or justified. The Government’s regulatory policy committee concluded that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills impact assessment on picketing restrictions was not fit for purpose, and that no full impact assessment of the Bill has been published Under these new provisions, trade union pickets will be subject to levels of police scrutiny and control that go far beyond what is fair or necessary. Most importantly, the changes in the Bill will also be a waste of police time. That issue was raised by the National Police Chiefs Council and the Police Federation in oral evidence to the Bill Committee. Steve White from the Police Federation said: "We are finding it extremely challenging to cope with day-to-day policing with the current resource levels, and the likelihood is that they are going to become squeezed even more. If there is an increased requirement for police involvement around the policing of industrial disputes, that would be more challenging." I understand that Conservative Members are friends and supporters of the police, so I hope they will listen carefully to that.
Trade Union Bill — House of Commons, 2015-11-10
Topic: Labor
Stephen Nathan Kinnock (Labour, Centre-left): I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We hear a lot from Conservative Members about smart government and deploying resources according to priorities. Does any hon. Member honestly believe that using police resources on this matter would be a good use of already stretched resources? I think not The digital age has brought a revolution in the world of work. That has thrown up several questions, but also offers employers, trade unions and Government alike a once in a generation opportunity to work in partnership—a chance to shape a framework that provides the blend of flexibility and security that this new reality requires. If all parties were to seize that opportunity, we could potentially see the green shoots of a 21st century industrial relations culture that would, in turn, enable the development of a labour market that is fit for purpose and resilient in this new age. Let us not waste that opportunity with an adversarial and counterproductive Bill such as this
Trade Union Bill — House of Commons, 2015-11-10
Topic: Labor
John Eugene Joseph Dromey (Labour, Centre-left): My dad came here as a navvy from County Cork, joined the British Army to fight Hitler and then became a train driver. Like generations before him and generations after him, he wanted to get on. The evidence is absolutely clear that those who are in a trade union are more likely to be better paid and to enjoy equal pay, less likely to be unfairly dismissed, bullied or discriminated against, and more likely to work in a safe workplace and to enjoy a decent pension I have worked for 40 years in the trade union movement with good employers, including those in the automotive industry such as Jaguar Land Rover, who praise their trade unions for the transformation of the industry to a high-pay, high-quality, high-productivity culture. I have also fought the bad. My whole experience is that trade unions are a force for good and for liberty Now, the so-called party of working people wants to weaken working people. It is part of a wider agenda that will brook no opposition: first the charities, then the BBC, even the House of Lords and now the trade unions. The Tory party wants a one party, one nation state The great Jack Jones once said that the way for working people to access power was through their union card on the one hand and their right to vote for the Labour party on the other Let me show what is so obnoxious about this Bill. When I was treasurer of the Labour party in 2006, against the background of the secret loans scandal and the Hayden Phillips process, it was put to me, "Jack, if we impose a cap on donations of £5,000, it will bankrupt the Tory party." I said no to doing that because it would be immoral for one party to abuse its power to bankrupt another party. Would that the Conservative party had the same moral compass now In conclusion, this is a pernicious and iniquitous Bill. It is born out of malice, informed by prejudice and has no place in a democracy. That is why the true party of working people, the Labour party, will vote against it tonight Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Funding Formula for Leicestershire Constabulary — House of Commons, 2015-11-10
Topic: Law and Crime
Keith Anthony Vaz (Labour, Centre-left): I wish to present a petition on the funding formula for Leicestershire constabulary, which was collected over the past 10 days. Of course, that was prior to the Government’s decision, because of the problems we heard about in the urgent question on Monday, to pause the formula to allow local constabularies to make fresh representations. Happily, that is exactly what the Government decided to do on Monday, so I present the petition in celebration: the results of the petition have already been accepted and there will be a further review I thank the 216 people who signed the petition, which was collected by volunteers in the north Leicester area: Sanjeev Sharma, Baljeet Singh and Pradeep Dullabh. I also thank Councillors Mo Chohan, Manjula Sood, Ross Willmott and Rita Patel for their support The petition states: The petition of residents of Leicester East, Declares that current proposals to change Leicestershire’s policing budget through the revision of the funding formula as well as other cuts could jeopardise the safety of thousands of residents; further that this will result in an unacceptable loss of £700,000 from the force’s budget; and further that the proposals will lead to fewer officers keeping Leicester safe and give a green light to criminals The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to immediately review the proposed funding formula for Leicestershire Constabulary And the petitioners remain, etc [P001553]
Prison Governors — House of Commons, 2015-11-03
Topic: Law and Crime
David George Hanson (Labour, Centre-left): I am pleased that the Justice Secretary has said that accountability remains important. Will he consider how we can strengthen prison boards through more community involvement to give local direction to local decisions, while retaining accountability to the director general of the Prison Service and to Ministers?
Prison Governors — House of Commons, 2015-11-03
Topic: Law and Crime
Jenny Chapman (Labour, Centre-left): Having listened carefully to the last reply, I should say that psychoactive substances are not the only factor. We broadly support the Secretary of State’s aim to increase governor autonomy. I have long believed that governors are the best at finding new ways to reduce reoffending. The big problem that he has—he cannot just blame it on psychoactive substances—is that prisons are becoming very dangerous. So far this year, there have been 95 suicides and seven murders in our prisons. Is it not time that he took a fundamentally new approach? Have not the last six years been a wasted opportunity, dogged by petty interference from the centre? We look forward to him changing that.
Ex-offenders — House of Commons, 2015-11-03
Topic: Law and Crime
William Roffen Esterson (Labour, Centre-left): Businesses can employ ex-offenders only if those ex-offenders have the skills that businesses need. Will the Minister therefore ensure that the shortage of staff in prisons—the shortage appears to be making it more difficult for prisoners to take part in education—is addressed as quickly as possible, which must happen if the scheme is to be successful?
Ex-offenders — House of Commons, 2015-11-03
Topic: Education
Questions: With reoffending rates as high as 59% for those sentenced to a year’s imprisonment or less, and with the clear link between not reoffending and securing employment, what steps can the Minister take to encourage more employers in Dorset and elsewhere to take on ex-offenders as apprentices?
Sharon Hodgson (Labour, Centre-left): I am sure that we all agree that education is the key to ex-offenders becoming employable. Given that 25% of our young people in young offenders institutions have special educational needs, will the Minister confirm that all teachers in those institutions will be qualified and able to identify and support children with special educational needs?
Litigants in Person — House of Commons, 2015-11-03
Topic: Law and Crime
Questions: What assessment he has made of trends in the number of litigants in person since the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 came into effect.; What assessment he has made of trends in the number of litigants in person since the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 came into effect.
Ian Colin Lucas (Labour, Centre-left): It seems the Minister, in the company of the head of the Courts Service, is alone in thinking there is no crisis because of the increase in the number of litigants in person in our legal system. If the Minister really wants to know what is going on, will he commission an anonymous survey of district judges and court clerks to find out the truth of the crisis in our court system that is happening as we speak?
Litigants in Person — House of Commons, 2015-11-03
Topic: Law and Crime
Questions: What assessment he has made of trends in the number of litigants in person since the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 came into effect.; What assessment he has made of trends in the number of litigants in person since the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 came into effect.
Susan Elan Jones (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State and other Ministers will be aware of the concerns raised by the Justice Committee, the National Audit Office and others regarding litigants self-representing. Will the Department bring forward, from 2017, the planned review of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012? It is sorely needed.
Litigants in Person — House of Commons, 2015-11-03
Topic: Law and Crime
Questions: What assessment he has made of trends in the number of litigants in person since the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 came into effect.; What assessment he has made of trends in the number of litigants in person since the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 came into effect.
Karl Turner (Labour, Centre-left): In the first quarter of the year, at least one party was not represented in 76% of private family cases, while the Master of the Rolls has warned that civil courts are experiencing significant impacts from the rise in the number of litigants in person. Part 1 of LASPO has been an unmitigated disaster. Will the Justice Secretary now bring forward the much-needed review of LASPO to mitigate the shambles of his predecessors?
Prison Estate — House of Commons, 2015-11-03
Topic: Law and Crime
Rachael Helen Maskell (Labour, Centre-left): Given that the reoffending rate is nearly 50%, but that at Askham Grange open women’s prison just outside York it is 6%—the lowest in the country—and it has the best outcomes on all measures, why do the Government want to close that prison?
Court and Tribunal Estate — House of Commons, 2015-11-03
Topic: Law and Crime
Matthew Thomas Pennycook (Labour, Centre-left): Two courts in my constituency, Greenwich magistrates court and Woolwich county court, face closure under the Government’s proposals to reform the HMCTS estate. Although I do not dispute that there can be a case for the closure of under-used or inadequate facilities in some cases, I am extremely concerned that these proposals will further restrict access to justice for my constituents, particularly older people and those on low incomes who may face far longer journey times. Will the Minister guarantee today that in constituencies such as mine that face court closures, a local HMCTS presence will be retained?
Criminal Courts Charge — House of Commons, 2015-11-03
Topic: Law and Crime
Tulip Rizwana Siddiq (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State will be aware of disturbing case studies highlighted by campaigners such as the Howard League showing that this charge is putting pressure on people to plead guilty in order to avoid legal costs, thereby restricting access to a free trial. I am pleased to hear that he is reviewing the charge, but will he admit that signing off such an absurd policy should not have happened in the first place?
Criminal Courts Charge — House of Commons, 2015-11-03
Topic: Law and Crime
Andrew Francis Slaughter (Labour, Centre-left): May I help the Secretary of State on the issue of collection? Earlier this year, the courts Minister told me that the minimum net sum that would be raised by the criminal courts charge in this Parliament would be £265 million. Last night, the Chair of the Justice Committee told the BBC that, as well as distorting the criminal justice system for most defendants and sentences, it may well run at a loss. The Secretary of State does not need to review the charge; it is worthless as well as dangerous. Should he not just scrap it now?
Legal Aid — House of Commons, 2015-11-03
Topic: Social Welfare
Questions: What assessment he has made of the effect of changes to civil legal aid on access to justice; and if he will make a statement.; What assessment he has made of the effect of changes to civil legal aid on access to justice; and if he will make a statement.
Deborah Angela Elspeth Marie Abrahams (Labour, Centre-left): The Government rejected the Work and Pensions Committee’s recommendation that an independent body should be set up to investigate the deaths of social security claimants, saying that their relatives could seek redress through the courts. Given that the same Government have cut access to legal advice or representation on social security by 80%, how exactly are they meant to do that?
Legal Aid — House of Commons, 2015-11-03
Topic: Law and Crime
Questions: What assessment he has made of the effect of changes to civil legal aid on access to justice; and if he will make a statement.; What assessment he has made of the effect of changes to civil legal aid on access to justice; and if he will make a statement.
Judith Mary Cummins (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister talks about the scandal of our two-nation justice system, but under this Government many hundreds of thousands of ordinary people no longer have access to legal advice or representation. Other than asking lawyers to do more work for free, what does the Minister plan to do about that?
Open Resettlement Establishments — House of Commons, 2015-11-03
Topic: Law and Crime
Caroline Louise Flint (Labour, Centre-left): I am one of 14 Members of Parliament—including you, Mr Speaker—whose constituencies contain open prisons. Some 61 murderers have gone on the run from those prisons in the past five years. The opening of a new open prison unit in Don Valley, which has been given the welcoming name of Hatfield Lakes, has prompted concern about the kind of prisoners who are transferred to such establishments. The governor of an open prison often has little prior knowledge about a transfer, and may even have no say when it comes to the suitability of prisoners who are coming into their care. Will the Minister meet me, and other interested Members, to discuss the criteria for putting people in open establishments?