argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
EU-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement — House of Commons, 2018-06-26
Topic: Foreign Trade
Barry Strachan Gardiner (Labour, Centre-left): I will make a little progress and then, of course, I will very happily give way to the hon. Gentleman, because his Committee has raised a number of questions on the EU-Japan deal that we need to explore further. The Committee insisted, in fact, that the Government bring the deal to a debate on the Floor of the House before the EU Council. Interestingly, in the light of the absurdly tight timeframe that the Government imposed on themselves, the Committee also instructed them to publish their impact assessment on the EU-Japan EPA no later than 4 June The first question that the Minister must answer then is why the Government failed to meet that deadline. The impact assessment was published a week late, on 11 June, on the same day that this debate was announced. It is an extraordinary document. Its own authors openly acknowledge that the assessment cannot be taken as an accurate guide to the future impacts of the agreement. It failed to calculate the specific effects on individual EU member states. The assessment admits that it cannot know what proportion of any aggregate gains from the EU-Japan EPA might come to the UK or to any other EU member state. There has been no proper independent assessment of the impacts on the UK, and the authors—these are the authors of the assessment—say that they have just had to assume proportionate outcomes in line with the UK’s projected share of EU trade with Japan.
EU-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement — House of Commons, 2018-06-26
Topic: Foreign Trade
Barry Strachan Gardiner (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman on two counts—first for showing us precisely what we are talking about. I know that he will have read the full EPA assessment, as I have done. I am equally grateful to him for raising the issue of the balance of trade surplus and deficit that we currently run. I am just about to come to that point, so I hope that he can hold off with his remarks It is perhaps most damning to quote from the impact assessment document itself, which states: "Figures presented here reflect the long run impacts per annum and should be treated as a magnitude of change and not a forecast…It is important to note the results below are not based on the final EU-Japan EPA text and are therefore subject to a degree of uncertainty…Estimates are produced against a baseline of 2008 and reflect a world in which the Doha trade round and EU-Korea FTA are un-concluded." So there we have it. The baseline is 10 years out of date and fails to take account not only of the EU-South Korea FTA, which has been applied ever since July 2011 —seven years ago—but of the terms of the final agreement text that it is supposed to be assessing The European Scrutiny Committee was absolutely right to demand in its report "a clear breakdown of how different UK sectors and stakeholders are expected to win or lose from the agreement." All the independent projections made of the EU-Japan deal calculated that the gains accruing to Japanese firms would be far higher than those seen by European businesses. All the forecasts spoke of major increases in Japanese exports, and the potential loss of jobs and businesses in Europe as a result. The Government assessment has at least picked up on these forecasts, recognising that the UK’s balance of trade with Japan will take a serious hit when this agreement comes into force. Voting to approve this motion will allow the Government to rush ahead and sign a deal that the Government’s own figures show will result in a decline in our trade balance with Japan of between £2.2 billion and £2.9 billion, so the hon. Member for Stone, who chairs the European Scrutiny Committee and asked for the impact assessment to be published, will now see that the effect of this deal is, in fact, to increase our problems in terms of our balance of payments with Japan.
EU-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement — House of Commons, 2018-06-26
Topic: Foreign Trade
Barry Strachan Gardiner (Labour, Centre-left): I will make a little progress, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I know that you want to encourage other Members to speak. The automotive industry offers the clearest indication of the issues posed by the EU’s deal with Japan. The EU-Japan EPA will, for example, remove the 10% tariff that currently applies to all car imports into the UK from Japan, which will—again, according to the Government’s figures—result in a £2.8 billion surge in Japanese car imports into the UK. That will have significant implications for the future viability of our domestic automotive sector and the thousands of jobs attached to it. But this is precisely where the Government’s assessment is so hopelessly unsatisfactory. It fails to ask the real questions as to what the long-term impacts on the UK car industry might be when we remove the existing 10% tariffs on Japanese car imports. This question is clearly of the utmost importance when it comes to safeguarding jobs in the UK auto industry, as there will no longer be a trade incentive to maintain Japanese investment in precisely the way in which my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) and for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith) mentioned earlier.
EU-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement — House of Commons, 2018-06-26
Topic: International Affairs
Christopher Michael Leslie (Labour, Centre-left): I wonder whether my hon. Friend could help me out, because the Opposition are very keen to get to the denouement of this particular question. It feels to me as though he is raising some issues of concern. But, by and large, this is quite a positive deal for the UK, the EU and Japan. Is he saying that we should oppose the motion before the House?
EU-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement — House of Commons, 2018-06-26
Topic: Foreign Trade
Barry Strachan Gardiner (Labour, Centre-left): The Government have not published any serious analysis as to the potential outcomes of the EU-Japan EPA on the car industry beyond the basic econometric analysis in their impact assessment. It cannot be right to allow the Government to proceed with fast-tracking approval of this trade deal when we have not had answers to the critical questions posed by the hon. Member for Stone and his Committee, based on a proper analysis of what the likely impacts might be.
EU-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement — House of Commons, 2018-06-26
Topic: Foreign Trade
Barry Strachan Gardiner (Labour, Centre-left): I will not, because Madam Deputy Speaker wants me to press on to allow hon. Members to make their own contributions The car industry is far from the only sector involved in what is a comprehensive trade deal. Food and drink producers are also implicated, not least as regards the protection provided in the agreement for products with specific geographical indications. Once again, the Government have failed to defend the interests of British producers on overseas markets. France, Spain and Italy have each listed dozens of their national products for special protection in annex 14-B of the deal and Japan has listed 48 of its products for protection, yet the UK Government could only be bothered to list four products under the geographical indications provisions of the deal—Scottish farmed salmon, west country farmhouse cheddar, Stilton and Scotch whisky.
EU-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement — House of Commons, 2018-06-26
Topic: Foreign Trade
Geraint Richard Davies (Labour, Centre-left): The WTO did get involved, but the essential point—[Interruption.] No, let us get this clear. The essential point of these arbitration courts is that investors invest, and if Governments change the rules and doing so changes their future profits, investors can sue for compensation, as was the case with the sugar tax. That would be the case if there was a plastics tax, for example, or if there was a diesel tax, and so on. That is why people are very worried, and the Government must not trade off the environment, the public interest and wider considerations of public law. Thankfully, there has been concern about this in Europe, which is why such an unnecessary system has not been applied in the Japan deal On Japan, 40% of its inward investment into Europe is to Britain. Why? Is it because the Japanese love British people? We do speak English, which is their second language, but it is basically because we are a platform, through the customs union and the single market, into the biggest market in the world. These are the facts. If we are not in the single market and the customs union, which we will not be after the transition period—if we go ahead with the barmy negotiation that is being suggested—that foreign direct investment will go to mainland Europe, and we may just be left on our own This is the situation we face. In particular, as has been said, President Trump basically has an America first policy. He does not recognise anything except a zero-sum game. We have had a conversation about imports and exports.
EU-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement — House of Commons, 2018-06-26
Topic: Foreign Trade
Geraint Richard Davies (Labour, Centre-left): I will take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention in a moment The hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who is sadly no longer with us—I mean he is not in the Chamber—has always argued that we have to get out of the EU because we have more imports than exports, yet that is the case in Japan, as has been pointed out. There is a bigger picture here, because cheaper imports are often inputs that make our products less expensive relative to elsewhere, and there is a balance in relation to foreign direct investment as well. These are complicated issues, and I do welcome the deal. I will take the intervention of the hon. Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin).
EU-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement — House of Commons, 2018-06-26
Topic: Foreign Trade
Geraint Richard Davies (Labour, Centre-left): It is in the interest of the Americans for us to be separated, isolated and small so that we can be picked off. They obviously intend to impose their standards. They are selling more asbestos, they have lower chemical standards and lower standards of food safety—I am thinking of chlorinated chicken and so on. They will impose those standards because we will be desperate to have a deal and we face problems. We are better as part of team EU There are worries if we find ourselves excluded from the Japan-EU deal as we Brexit. That will include services—80% of our exports are services—and financial services. The axis of yen plus euro would be a danger to the City of London Captain Fox is boldly going to try to establish trade relations that no one has had before, but might find that we currently have a trade relationship that is even better. In the round, when people realise that and lose their enthusiasm for Brexit, they will realise that such trade agreements underpin the need for a public vote on the deal. When we have that, Britain will decide that it wants to stay at home in Europe.
Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-06-26
Topic: Transportation
Karin Marguerite Smyth (Labour, Centre-left): The fact that we were not able to ratify the convention for some 50 years says more about the procedures between this place and the European Union. It would be useful for the right hon. Gentleman to accept that the registration of trailers has been brought up on a number of occasions over the years because of the weight limit of trailers that are not registered. In a case that I have brought before the House, which I will speak to later, that resulted in the death of a young child. This legislation has provided a great opportunity to talk about safety, which I think the right hon. Gentleman would agree is the pre-eminent issue.
Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-06-26
Topic: Foreign Trade
Rachael Helen Maskell (Labour, Centre-left): As ever, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his points. Regarding my amendment 4, clearly having the words on random selection in the Bill is really unhelpful to the Government because it sets the tone on trade. At this time, we must all acknowledge that business needs a confidence-building approach. It is unhelpful to know that a chaotic approach to the provision of permits is even being considered as a possibility. I trust that the Minister has heard that call. I am trying to assist in the passage of the Bill and what happens afterwards.
Legal Aid — House of Commons, 2018-06-05
Topic: Law and Crime
Questions: What assessment he has made of the effect of the decline in the number of people receiving legal aid for early legal help on access to justice.
Anna Catherine Turley (Labour, Centre-left): I appreciate the Minister’s response, but the cuts in legal aid are having a devastating effect. One of my constituents is seeking legal aid after leaving a coercive, controlling relationship in which she suffered not just physical but financial abuse. Her former partner left significant debts in her name. She works, but she does not qualify for legal aid now due to her salary. Because the payments are taken out under court order before she receives her pay, she is left with no money for legal costs. He gets legal aid because he works. Surely this is not fair, and will the Minister review it?
Legal Aid — House of Commons, 2018-06-05
Topic: Law and Crime
Questions: What assessment he has made of the effect of the decline in the number of people receiving legal aid for early legal help on access to justice.
Richard Burgon (Labour, Centre-left): The Government’s cuts in legal aid have caused widespread damage to access to justice. The Information Commissioner has now taken serious action against the Ministry of Justice, owing to its refusal to publish in full the findings of its own research, which reveal judges’ deep concerns about the damage that is being caused. Would not the Government have spent their time better in trying to fix the broken justice system, rather than engaging in crass attempts to cover up embarrassing research findings showing the failures of their legal aid policies?
Legal Aid — House of Commons, 2018-06-05
Topic: Law and Crime
Questions: What assessment he has made of the effect of the decline in the number of people receiving legal aid for early legal help on access to justice.
Richard Burgon (Labour, Centre-left): The truth is that our legal aid and wider justice system is in crisis—a crisis created by this Government’s reckless cuts agenda—and the Government seem to be trying to bury the truth about the legal aid crisis. The research I referred to that was hidden away said that the judges "believe unrepresented defendant numbers have increased and this is disproportionately reducing the efficiency of the courts." So will the Government today come clean and explain to this House why such evidence from judges about the scale of the damage the Government’s cuts are causing to access to justice was removed from the published report?
Offenders: Housing and Benefits — House of Commons, 2018-06-05
Topic: Law and Crime
Grahame Mark Morris (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Minister for his response, but I recently supported a constituent who, after six months in prison, had successfully kicked his drugs habit. After being released from prison with no housing or benefits in place, he had to rely on former associates for support. He has now returned to drugs and his chaotic lifestyle—the one he wanted to escape. Does the Minister believe that lack of supervision and support for offenders leaving prison is likely to increase or decrease reoffending?
Offenders: Housing and Benefits — House of Commons, 2018-06-05
Topic: Law and Crime
Christopher Philip James Elmore (Labour, Centre-left): Release from prison is particularly difficult for women, and I have raised this issue with the Prisons Minister, the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), in Westminster Hall. Will the Secretary of State set out what he will do to support women up for release, not just in respect of when they are released from prison but also in keeping the family link, which is extremely important?
Youth Justice System — House of Commons, 2018-06-05
Topic: Law and Crime
Eleanor Claire Reeves (Labour, Centre-left): Worryingly, among young offenders, those aged 10 to 14 have the highest reoffending rate—a rate of 42.7%. Overall reoffending rates among the youth prison population are up between three and four percentage points since 2005. What steps is the Minister going to take to reduce reoffending among young offenders?
Youth Justice System — House of Commons, 2018-06-05
Topic: Law and Crime
Richard Burgon (Labour, Centre-left): Youth offending teams have a crucial role to play in preventing our young people from becoming offenders or victims of crime, but the Ministry of Justice has halved the funding for those teams since 2010. We have now found out that they are facing another real-terms cut this year, despite the spate of knife and gun attacks. Does the Minister believe that the Government’s cuts to youth offending budgets leave us more safe or less safe?
Personal Independence Payment Appeals — House of Commons, 2018-06-05
Topic: Social Welfare
Stephen Hepburn (Labour, Centre-left): Does not the fact that two out of three appeals in the north-east are successful prove that the privateers that the Government employ to carry out PIP assessments in the first place are not fit for practice by callously letting down disabled people and ripping off the taxpayer?
Prisons: Mobile Phones — House of Commons, 2018-06-05
Topic: Law and Crime
Benjamin Peter James Bradshaw (Labour, Centre-left): After last week’s shocking report on the state of Exeter Prison, including the availability of mobile phones and drugs, will the Minister reassure me that the prison is getting all the support, resources and supervision that it needs to implement the inspector’s recommendations as a matter of urgency?
Court Closures — House of Commons, 2018-06-05
Topic: Law and Crime
Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Centre-left): It is hardly surprising that towns like Scunthorpe feel that they are being left behind by this Government when it is our courts and magistrates courts that close. It is always things in our towns that close, even before the new technologies that need to be in place have been properly evaluated and investigated. When will the Minister evaluate the impact of these court closures on communities, and when will she evaluate the effectiveness of new technologies?
Court Closures — House of Commons, 2018-06-05
Topic: Law and Crime
Yasmin Qureshi (Labour, Centre-left): The recent National Audit Office report on the courts programme says: "Expected costs have increased and planned benefits have decreased." Given that the National Audit Office says the courts programme will now cost £1.2 billion—£200 million more than the Government previously stated—will it lead to even deeper cuts elsewhere in the Ministry of Justice’s budget?
No Body, No Parole Law — House of Commons, 2018-06-05
Topic: Law and Crime
Barry John Sheerman (Labour, Centre-left): Is the Minister aware that many of us would support such legislation, particularly if it were also linked to miscarriages of justice? People who are found to have been wrongly convicted and are released after spending years in prison come out with no compensation and no reintegration into society—surely that cannot be right.
Prison Officer Safety — House of Commons, 2018-06-05
Topic: Law and Crime
David George Hanson (Labour, Centre-left): Given that the number of assaults on prison officers has risen by 23% in the past 12 months, what assessment has the Minister made of new psychoactive substances causing that problem? When does he expect the roll-out of body-worn cameras to be complete?
Prison Officer Safety — House of Commons, 2018-06-05
Topic: Law and Crime
Imran Hussain (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister can dress it up however he wants, but the bottom line is that cutting 7,000 frontline prison officers between 2010 and 2016 has caused prison safety to plummet. Will he tell the House how many more officers are needed to end this emergency in our prisons and when he will recruit them by?
Offenders: Education and Employment — House of Commons, 2018-06-05
Topic: Law and Crime
Thangam Elizabeth Rachel Debbonaire (Labour, Centre-left): I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests Domestic violence offenders are particularly prone to repeat offending, so what commitment will the Secretary of State give to ensuring that the mandatory provision of domestic violence perpetrator programmes is made available to domestic violence offenders in all prisons through the domestic abuse Bill?
Offenders: Education and Employment — House of Commons, 2018-06-05
Topic: Law and Crime
Christopher John Bryant (Labour, Centre-left): May I urge the Secretary of State to look at the correlation and causation between traumatic brain injury and reoffending? The most recent survey that has been done in the prison in Leeds showed that nearly 50% of prisoners had a traumatic brain injury, and that 30% of them had more than five. Does it not make sense to screen every single prisoner when they arrive in prison and ensure that they have rehabilitation for their brain injury?
Offenders: Education and Employment — House of Commons, 2018-06-05
Topic: Labor
Imran Hussain (Labour, Centre-left): We welcome the Government’s emphasis on education and employment skills, as they are the best route out of poverty and the cycle of reoffending, but when the Secretary of State made the announcement, he forgot that he had scrapped the National Careers Service in prisons, and presented an employment strategy that omitted to mention the provision of employment and careers advice. Why was that absent from the strategy?
Victims Law — House of Commons, 2018-06-05
Topic: Law and Crime
Sarah Deborah Champion (Labour, Centre-left): I hear what the Minister says, but Rotherham Council is today debating the support available to adults who survive child abuse in my constituency. I have now spoken to two Home Secretaries, two Prime Ministers and countless Ministers, and the Ministry of Justice was in Rotherham last week. Still we are not getting the cash we need to enable 1,520 victims—at the current count—to turn into survivors. Will the Minister please give us the cash we need?
Victims Law — House of Commons, 2018-06-05
Topic: Law and Crime
Joanne Marie Platt (Labour, Centre-left): Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), a new victims law would ensure that victims of crime are supported and can seek closure on their ordeal. Most importantly, it may encourage more people to come forward and report crime safely. Why, therefore, three years on from the Government’s manifesto commitment to introduce this important law, are we without any legislation in this House?
Victims and Witnesses — House of Commons, 2018-06-05
Topic: Law and Crime
Ruth Stephanie Nicole George (Labour, Centre-left): Has the Minister made an assessment of the report by the Justice Committee that raising the small claims limit would represent an unacceptable barrier to justice for victims of road traffic accidents, workplace accidents, and public liability incidents? Will the Department revisit those proposals in that light?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2018-06-05
Topic: Law and Crime
Katherine Anne Green (Labour, Centre-left): Releasing prisoners immediately before the weekend, when housing offices, benefits offices and other sources of advice are closed, leaves vulnerable individuals without support and more likely to reoffend. Will the Justice Secretary take immediate steps to address this ridiculous practice?