argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Agriculture
Questions: A constituent has just written to me saying that his diabetic care has been moved from John Coupland Hospital to Lincoln Hospital under the mistaken bureaucratic belief that bigger is better. United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust, which covers Lincoln Hospital, is struggling. It is treating only 69% of people in A&E within four hours, when the figure should be 95%. What is the Minister going to do to ensure that large rural areas get the best and the same healthcare as large cities?; North West Ambulance Service NHS Trust spent £30 million in the past three years on private ambulances. Does the Minister agree that that money would have been far better spent on the recruitment and retention of NHS ambulance staff?; I can personally testify to the passion, the care and the professionalism of staff at Hillingdon Hospital. They do a fantastic job, but, sadly, too much of the physical environment in which they work is no longer fit for purpose. I invite my right hon. Friend to visit and see it for himself and to commit to providing the medical facilities that my constituents will need for the long term.; I welcome Baroness Cumberlege’s ongoing review of the impact of the use of Primodos pregnancy tests, but for the families affected to have confidence in this review they must be given sufficient time to give evidence. Will the Health Secretary ensure that that happens?; The NHS diabetes prevention programme, which was one of the first of its kind, has helped many people since 2016. As someone who has been diagnosed as a type 2 diabetic since that point, it is of particular interest to me. Will the Minister assure me that when the long-term NHS plan is published, we will be even more ambitious?; Will the Minister provide an update on the revised capital bid by Warrington and Halton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust to provide Halton General Hospital with a secure future?; Spina bifida is one of the most prevalent causes of infant mortality and disability, and a campaign has been running for quite a long time to try to fortify flour to prevent it. Successive Governments have ducked the issue, so will we now please seize it?
Stephen Charles Brine (Conservative, Centre-right): We are continuing to review the advice from our expert advisory groups on safe levels of folate intake, but, continuing our tradition of announcing things to the House first, I want to inform the House today that we are going to issue a public consultation, as of now, on adding folic acid to flour.
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Environment
Questions: A constituent has just written to me saying that his diabetic care has been moved from John Coupland Hospital to Lincoln Hospital under the mistaken bureaucratic belief that bigger is better. United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust, which covers Lincoln Hospital, is struggling. It is treating only 69% of people in A&E within four hours, when the figure should be 95%. What is the Minister going to do to ensure that large rural areas get the best and the same healthcare as large cities?; North West Ambulance Service NHS Trust spent £30 million in the past three years on private ambulances. Does the Minister agree that that money would have been far better spent on the recruitment and retention of NHS ambulance staff?; I can personally testify to the passion, the care and the professionalism of staff at Hillingdon Hospital. They do a fantastic job, but, sadly, too much of the physical environment in which they work is no longer fit for purpose. I invite my right hon. Friend to visit and see it for himself and to commit to providing the medical facilities that my constituents will need for the long term.; I welcome Baroness Cumberlege’s ongoing review of the impact of the use of Primodos pregnancy tests, but for the families affected to have confidence in this review they must be given sufficient time to give evidence. Will the Health Secretary ensure that that happens?; The NHS diabetes prevention programme, which was one of the first of its kind, has helped many people since 2016. As someone who has been diagnosed as a type 2 diabetic since that point, it is of particular interest to me. Will the Minister assure me that when the long-term NHS plan is published, we will be even more ambitious?; Will the Minister provide an update on the revised capital bid by Warrington and Halton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust to provide Halton General Hospital with a secure future?; Spina bifida is one of the most prevalent causes of infant mortality and disability, and a campaign has been running for quite a long time to try to fortify flour to prevent it. Successive Governments have ducked the issue, so will we now please seize it?; The recent report from the Royal College of Physicians, “Hiding in plain sight: Treating tobacco dependency in the NHS”, made clear the cost savings and health benefits there would be if doctors identified smokers and referred them to smoking cessation services, so will next month’s plan include that, particularly for pregnant women and mental health patients?
Stephen Charles Brine (Conservative, Centre-right): We will be taking evidence, including from the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, which is meeting as we speak, to look at the safe upper limit of folate levels. I am particularly keen to get that right, but I am convinced that the evidence shows overwhelmingly that this is something we should be doing.
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Chris Ian Brian Mynott Philp (Conservative, Centre-right): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for calling me so early in this debate. I rise to oppose the Opposition’s new clause 1, which seeks to prevent the Government or any other public body from increasing the small claims track limit in relation to these personal injury cases, particularly road traffic personal injury cases, above £1,500 I strongly oppose the measure. I touched on one of the reasons for doing so in my intervention on the shadow Minister earlier. For the vast majority of general commercial claims and indeed personal claims, the small claims track limit is £10,000. The reason it is as high as £10,000 is that some level of materiality is applied to the claim in question. The view taken by Parliament in the past, rightly, is that matters below the £10,000 limit should be sufficiently simple for a small claims track procedure to be used without the involvement of often very expensive lawyers In response to my intervention, the shadow Minister, before she was distracted by another intervention, drew attention to the fact that these are personal injuries. I accept that point, of course. However, the fact of their being personal injuries is not germane, in my view, to the question, which is: is the matter sufficiently simple to be adjudicated via the small claims track rather than through lawyers? That is the question—not whether the matter is serious or not serious but whether the matter is sufficiently simple to be dealt with properly by the small claims track rather than through lawyers. That is why I think there is a strong a case, on the grounds of consistency, for a £10,000 rather than a £5,000 limit.
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Transportation
Chris Ian Brian Mynott Philp (Conservative, Centre-right): Of course the £10,000 small claims track limit applies to a far wider range of issues than simply whether a fridge functions or not. The hon. Lady mentions as an example the question of culpability for a road traffic accident. Given that we are talking about much less serious types of injury if the limit is, say, £5,000, determining responsibility for that road traffic accident does not need to be an enormously complicated procedure. For those of us who have been involved in such road traffic accidents, the minor ones we are talking about here, determining responsibility is not a highly complicated matter. I accept that, in much more difficult cases where very serious injuries have been suffered, one must of course take a lot more legal care and attention. For very minor injuries, however, where by definition the accident is a minor one, I suggest that determining responsibility and culpability does not need to be an extremely complicated matter.
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Chris Ian Brian Mynott Philp (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman’s arguments are ones that the legal community often advance, whether in this arena or others, to justify very high levels of legal and judicial intervention, which is often very expensive. We need to maintain a sense of proportionality, lest legal costs and expenses get out of control.
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Transportation
Chris Ian Brian Mynott Philp (Conservative, Centre-right): I shall in just a moment. I have seen figures suggesting that 47% of the pay-outs made by insurance companies for these relatively minor road traffic injuries get consumed by legal fees. If such a high proportion of pay-outs is being consumed by expenses, it suggests to me that the entire system is out of proportion, and that some reform is therefore needed. I give way to the Chair of the Justice Committee.
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Robert James MacGillivray Neill (Conservative, Centre-right): I am afraid that my hon. Friend is not making the best case on the Government side that I have ever heard. Does he accept that lawyers act in the interests of their clients and that when they do, they are bound by professional obligations? Is not a better point that we should assist people through the system by working up a very good and accessible online portal, which the Minister has sought to do, so that we find the means of balancing cost with people’s ability to seek access to justice? I gently say to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) that that is perhaps a stronger point that the Government have been able to advance. The Minister has taken care to delay the implementation of aspects of the Bill in order to get the online portal up and working, and I suggest that that might be a more fruitful area to consider.
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Chris Ian Brian Mynott Philp (Conservative, Centre-right): In many cases there are, but in many cases those costs inflate. I referred to the fact that 47% of the value of pay-outs get consumed by legal fees. I hope that the fixed tariffs provision, which is not the subject of any amendment but is in the Bill, will further simplify matters One reason why we have a problem that needs solving in this area—new clause 1 would inhibit that solution—is qualified one-way costs shifting, which was introduced a few years ago. I understand why it was introduced—the shadow Minister referred to David and Goliath—but under a system of qualified one-way costs shifting, unless the respondent can prove quite a high level of intention, deceit or malfeasance, the claimant’s legal costs are borne by the respondent in any event, even if the claim is dismissed. That creates significant moral hazard, as it means that claimants can bring claims, even if those claims have relatively little merit, safe in the knowledge that they, or indeed their advisers, will never have to bear the cost of the claim. It is a one-way bet, which means that claimants may as well just have a go and see what happens. The number of cases in which a claimant is shown to be so egregiously fraudulent that they have to pay the cost is extremely small. This one-way bet—this free option—that the legal system now provides is one of the reasons why there has been such an explosion in claim numbers.
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Robert James MacGillivray Neill (Conservative, Centre-right): The House will know about my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am glad that my hon. Friend has mentioned claims management companies. Would he agree that some of the concerns about balancing access to justice with discouraging fraudulent claims—we all agree about them—would be met by continuing to revise and strengthen the regulation of claims management companies, which are not regulated to the degree that solicitors are, and in particular by bearing down on the employment of paid McKenzie friends—non-qualified, quasi-lawyers who are particularly rife in the claims management sector? Will he work with me in persuading the Government to move swiftly to ban them?
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Chris Ian Brian Mynott Philp (Conservative, Centre-right): As I said a moment ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, an outright ban would be welcome—it might be something the Government are looking at in any case—but because these people are so ingenious at circumventing even the best-written rules and regulations, there would still be a problem.
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Chris Ian Brian Mynott Philp (Conservative, Centre-right): I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend, who I know has a distinguished legal background. Both he and the Chair of the Justice Committee have powerfully made the point that McKenzie friends should be voluntary and unpaid. I hope the Minister heard that excellent recommendation, which has now been made by two learned hon. Members of this House.
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Transportation
Edmund Francis Hughes (Conservative, Centre-right): I just wondered if my hon. Friend would comment on a previous interaction between me and my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) about stock car racers, who obviously are involved in multiple collisions and yet do not seem to suffer any whiplash, or at least not to the same extent as others. In addition, people in Greece make far fewer claims than we do in the UK. Will he comment on that?
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Transportation
Chris Ian Brian Mynott Philp (Conservative, Centre-right): Once again, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Not only has the number of claims for such injuries dramatically increased over the past 10 years, at a time when the number of road traffic accidents has fallen, but they are far more prevalent here than in other European jurisdictions—not just Greece but countries such as France and Germany. Could it be that British necks are weaker than French and German necks, or could it be that our system encourages fraudulent claims?
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Chris Ian Brian Mynott Philp (Conservative, Centre-right): The two cases are treated differently because there is an entirely different legal system in Scotland, and there is a devolved Government there. It is perfectly within the competence of that devolved Government to take a different view. Clearly the Government in Scotland, and the Scottish Parliament, have taken a different view, as they are entitled to do so, but I, as an English MP—as a London MP—take my own view, and it is the one that I have been expressing here today.
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: International Affairs
Chris Ian Brian Mynott Philp (Conservative, Centre-right): It may well affect residents of Scotland. Of course, it also affects residents of France, Germany, the United States and Kazakhstan who may choose to visit my constituency. I strongly encourage all of them to do that, by the way. If, heaven forbid, they were to suffer an injury in Croydon South, they would be equivalently affected. The mere fact that there are different rules in different jurisdictions is no reason not to change the rules in this one. Which jurisdiction is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we align ourselves with? Scotland? France?
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Law and Crime
John Michael Howell (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank the hon. Lady and fellow Select Committee member for giving way. She has talked about access to justice, but she has not mentioned at all the impact of the online courts. Does she have a feeling about what sort of effect that would have for increasing access to justice?
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Government Operations
Abimbola Afolami (Conservative, Centre-right): That is an interesting point. I have served on many Committees, as we all have, and some have huge amounts of engagement from lots of Members while others have less. But this House is not just this Chamber; it is also all the Committee Rooms. Negative statutory instruments provide a way for significant amounts of secondary legislation—I do not know how many pieces of legislation; probably hundreds—to go through Parliament. I cannot agree with the hon. Lady 100% that using that procedure will always result in a lack of democratic accountability, because frankly, in modern government, it plays a significant part in our governance process. I recognise the point she makes, however, and it is fair to say that sometimes people do not pay as much attention in Committees as they might do, but that is fundamentally the case for this Chamber, too.
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Government Operations
Abimbola Afolami (Conservative, Centre-right): I do not want to leave the House, or the hon. Lady, with the impression that I believe that statutory instruments are undemocratic. They are democratic, and they are a form of how we do things in this House. I was unaware of the case that she mentioned. The broader point is that getting primary legislation through, particularly in a hung Parliament such as this, will always be difficult—[Interruption.] No, primary legislation is not always the place where we make every single change. That is why we have a Committee system.
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Transportation
Abimbola Afolami (Conservative, Centre-right): I take the hon. Lady’s point. The industry has pledged to pass this on. My understanding is that premiums fell by an average of roughly £50 a year in 2012. When we talk about averages, we must bear in mind that if premiums were to fall by an average of, say, £35 under this legislation, the figure in some instances would be much greater—especially for young drivers, for example. Those are my remarks, based on what I have seen and heard today, and I commend this speech to the House.
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Macroeconomics
Simon Richard Clarke (Conservative, Centre-right): I rise to support the Bill and speak against new clauses 1 and 2 because, whether through ending rip-off energy bills, freezing fuel duty or increasing the personal allowance for income tax, the Government’s constant focus has been to make sure that the consumer is at the heart of their work and to reduce the cost of living for millions of people I am therefore pleased that Ministers have identified another area in which the cost of living is artificially and unfairly inflated. At a time when our cars and roads are safer than ever, one would expect the price of motor insurance to come down. Instead, the opposite has happened. Since 2010, there has been an almost 50% increase in the cost of comprehensive insurance premiums, and a near 80% increase in the cost of third-party fire and theft insurance premiums.
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Transportation
Simon Richard Clarke (Conservative, Centre-right): I am saying that there is a need for a proportionate system for compensation. The number of road traffic accident-related personal injury claims has increased by 200,000 since 2006—a rise of approximately 40%. That suggests to me that the incentives in the system are skewed. Insurers predict that, without reform, motor premiums could continue to rise at a rate of about 10% annually. That constitutes a significant burden on the cost of living for millions of us who are dependent on our cars for daily travel, especially in rural communities.
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Transportation
Roderick James Nugent Stewart (Conservative, Centre-right): Let me begin by paying tribute to the high quality of debate today from hon. and right hon. Members on all sides of the House. This has been a serious business. The consultation on the issue began in 2012 and the detailed measures we are debating today were announced in the Budget in autumn 2015. There are disagreements on every side of the House, which are expressed in new clauses 1 and 2, but, more generally, I hope that everybody in the House will recognise that the Bill has been adapted as we have listened a great deal to suggestions made by the Opposition and others. I pay tribute to the hon. and right hon. Members on all sides who pushed for the changes we have introduced on vulnerable road users, on the new role of the consultation with the Lord Chief Justice and on definitions, particularly in respect of whiplash. I also pay tribute to what happened in the other House, where this legislation was considerably revised and improved by efforts from Cross-Bench peers, as well as Labour, Lib Dem and Conservative peers.
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Labor
Alexander John Gervase Chalk (Conservative, Centre-right): Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that claims against employers above £2,000 are taken outside the scope of this? It is right in those circumstances, where it can be difficult to make the claim stick, that people should be entitled to recover their costs in the event of a successful claim. Does he agree that making that change was a critical improvement to this Bill?
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Roderick James Nugent Stewart (Conservative, Centre-right): This is an issue on which my hon. Friend has been very thoughtful in his role as Chair of the Justice Committee. There are obviously three things that we are endeavouring to do and we are open to more ideas. One of them, of course, is that, through this package of measures, we disincentivise claims management companies from having a significant financial interest in pursuing this type of case. The second, as my hon. Friend pointed out, is the setting up of an online portal to reassure individuals that they will have a more predictable, more transparent and more straightforward system for pursuing their claims in person. Finally, through consultation with the judiciary, we are looking at the issue of paid McKenzie friends. We are waiting for the judiciary to report back so that we can take action on that issue.
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Alexander John Gervase Chalk (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Lady is making fair points, but it is important to take into account that the claim may consist partly of a general damages component and also a special damages component. Does she agree that if the individual had, for example, been required to take time off work and had incurred costs—or losses—in the process, he would still be able to litigate and seek to recover those damages?
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-10-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Alexander John Gervase Chalk (Conservative, Centre-right): We have to be really careful in this debate to draw a distinction between general damages, which are for pain, suffering and loss of amenity, as with whiplash, and special damages, such as the cost of taxis or lost employment. Does the hon. Lady agree that special damages will still be recoverable in the normal way and that we should not be confusing the two?