argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
HMP Birmingham — House of Commons, 2018-09-04
Topic: Law and Crime
Christopher Michael Leslie (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister has already made reference to the situation at Nottingham Prison, in my constituency. For at least the past year, it has been going through considerable challenges, not only with deaths in custody, but with endemic psychoactive substance misuse. Will he explain and put a timeline on the interventions that he is making and on when we will be able to see some improvements in performance?
HMP Birmingham — House of Commons, 2018-09-04
Topic: Law and Crime
Emma Elizabeth Reynolds (Labour, Centre-left): How on earth did G4S’s management of HMP Birmingham lose control of the prison so dramatically? What is the Minister going to do about the poor level of retention of experienced officers, with the number of those leaving their jobs having doubled in the past two years?
HMP Birmingham — House of Commons, 2018-09-04
Topic: Law and Crime
Christopher John Bryant (Labour, Centre-left): Of course I fully agree with the points that have just been made, but I wish to ask about brain injury in Birmingham Prison. The work that has been done in Leeds Prison shows that there is a very high incidence of traumatic brain injury in the prison population, and the work done in a pilot in Cardiff Prison shows that we can make dramatic differences to reoffending if we screen everybody who comes on to the secure estate and provide full neuro-rehabilitation to those who require it. Will that be available in Her Majesty’s prison in Birmingham?
HMP Birmingham — House of Commons, 2018-09-04
Topic: Law and Crime
Alexander James Jorden Norris (Labour, Centre-left): It is clear that drugs have played a significant role in the problems in Birmingham; similarly, drugs have played a significant role in the challenges in Nottingham Prison, and I suspect across the prison estate. What is the Minister’s latest assessment of the use of body scanners, and what is the latest legal advice he has been given about how widely they can be used?
HMP Birmingham — House of Commons, 2018-09-04
Topic: Law and Crime
Maria Eagle (Labour, Centre-left): Given that the Minister has accepted that, in the short-term at least, increasing the number of staff and cutting the number of prisoners is a way to stabilise the situation, will he make sure that if he does hand this prison back to G4S, which I do not think he should do, it does not then immediately cut the staffing levels again, because that is how it makes its money?
HMP Birmingham — House of Commons, 2018-09-04
Topic: Law and Crime
Mary Theresa Glindon (Labour, Centre-left): Birmingham is one of the four most violent prisons in England and Wales, and all those prisons are privately operated. Does the Minister agree that, logically, this level of violence is a consequence of running prisons for profit where costs are cut to the bone to maximise returns for shareholders?
Brexit Negotiations and No Deal Contingency Planning — House of Commons, 2018-09-04
Topic: Foreign Trade
Emma Elizabeth Reynolds (Labour, Centre-left): At the weekend, Michel Barnier said that after Brexit, European car makers would have to be careful not to use too many parts made in Britain if they wish to benefit from EU trade deals with third countries, such as South Korea. What is the Secretary of State’s response to those comments and what will the Government do to mitigate that devastating impact on our car industry?
Brexit Negotiations and No Deal Contingency Planning — House of Commons, 2018-09-04
Topic: International Affairs
Catharine Letitia Hoey (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister will know that with genuine co-operation and good will on all sides the issue of the border between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland can be sorted. If it is sorted, which it should be, can we then think of the Canada-plus-plus-plus option?
Brexit Negotiations and No Deal Contingency Planning — House of Commons, 2018-09-04
Topic: International Affairs
Seema Malhotra-Saluja (Labour, Centre-left): Following discussions with the Secretary of State on Friday, Michel Barnier said that the backstop was critical to the conclusion of the negotiations, because without a backstop there would be no agreement. He has asked the Secretary of State and his team to provide his own team with the data that is needed for the work on the nature, location and modality of the controls that will be necessary on the Irish border. When will the Secretary of State be supplying that data to Michel Barnier, and will he also be making it available to the House?
Brexit Negotiations and No Deal Contingency Planning — House of Commons, 2018-09-04
Topic: International Affairs
Chuka Harrison Umunna (Labour, Centre-left): Let us be clear: there is no majority in this House for crashing out of the European Union with no deal, given all the damage that will entail for communities in this country, but if no consensus can be reached in this House on how we leave the EU, how does the Secretary of State envisage resolving that issue if not by referring it back to the people? If he disagrees with me on that, does he at least accept that the Government may have to ask for an extension to the article 50 process so that a deal can be reached?
Brexit Negotiations and No Deal Contingency Planning — House of Commons, 2018-09-04
Topic: International Affairs
Caroline Louise Flint (Labour, Centre-left): I have tried to avoid most of the summer chatter involving a strange alliance between hard-core leavers and hard-core remainers who seem to want no deal. I think that the British public want a deal. Should the Secretary of State return to the House this autumn with a deal that is basically a divorce arrangement, will he confirm that that will not be the final deal? Will he confirm that it would contain the architecture, the structure and the principles, but that long after that, during the transition period, further deals will have to be made after we leave the European Union as part of our ongoing positive relationship with the EU?
Brexit Negotiations and No Deal Contingency Planning — House of Commons, 2018-09-04
Topic: International Affairs
Owen Smith (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State says that he does not want a no deal outcome, but he also says that there are countervailing opportunities and used to say that we would thrive under a no deal scenario. Will he therefore explain to us whether he thinks the people of Northern Ireland and the Good Friday agreement will thrive under a no deal scenario?
Brexit Negotiations and No Deal Contingency Planning — House of Commons, 2018-09-04
Topic: International Affairs
Deborah Angela Elspeth Marie Abrahams (Labour, Centre-left): It is absolutely clear that the European Commission’s chief negotiator, Monsieur Barnier, does not support the Chequers proposal. I share the concern of Members on both sides of the House that we have no plan B, and I would like clarity on the feedback the Secretary of State has had from EU Heads of Government and Heads of State, who will ultimately decide on the deal that is brought to the European Council.
Brexit Negotiations and No Deal Contingency Planning — House of Commons, 2018-09-04
Topic: International Affairs
Michael John Gapes (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State did not mention the two British overseas territories that border European Union states. What progress has been made in the negotiations relating to Gibraltar and to Anguilla, which borders France and the Kingdom of the Netherlands?
Brexit Negotiations and No Deal Contingency Planning — House of Commons, 2018-09-04
Topic: International Affairs
Christian John Patrick Matheson (Labour, Centre-left): Would the Secretary of State care to put on record a couple of examples of what he would consider to be positive outcomes for the UK were we to crash out of the EU without a deal?
Brexit Negotiations and No Deal Contingency Planning — House of Commons, 2018-09-04
Topic: Environment
Alexander Cunningham (Labour, Centre-left): Ministers have implied in the past that the chemical industry can take comfort that good progress has been made on the future of the EU regulation concerning the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals, which governs, among other things, the production and quality standards for chemicals. Can the Secretary of State give chemical companies on Teesside the assurance that REACH will apply and that there will be no other impediments to their business if we get a no deal Brexit?
Brexit Negotiations and No Deal Contingency Planning — House of Commons, 2018-09-04
Topic: Foreign Trade
Wayne David (Labour, Centre-left): In the event of a no deal scenario, there will inevitably be a huge increase in the number of customs declarations. Do the Government therefore have any plans to reverse their cuts to HMRC and to increase the number of HMRC workers instead?
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-09-04
Topic: Law and Crime
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): The Speaker has certified the Civil Liability Bill [Lords] under Standing Order No. 83J as relating exclusively to England and Wales on matters within devolved legislative competence. I remind the House that this does not affect proceedings in the debate on Second Reading, or indeed in Committee or on Report. After the Report stage, the Speaker will consider the Bill again for certification and, if required, the Legislative Grand Committee will be asked to consent to certified provisions.
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-09-04
Topic: Transportation
Gareth Thomas (Labour, Centre-left): Does not the Minister accept that one of the further flaws in the Bill is that the genuine victim of a road traffic accident faces receiving less compensation than someone who has a similar accident but not in a road traffic scenario, who receives compensation set not by the Lord Chancellor, but under the judicial guidelines that exist at the moment?
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-09-04
Topic: Law and Crime
Deborah Angela Elspeth Marie Abrahams (Labour, Centre-left): I am very grateful to the Secretary of State. I have real concerns about the reduction again in access to justice. The group Access to Justice has highlighted that, each year, people injured in road traffic accidents will be denied access to legal advice if they want to go to court to claim for their injuries. How can he guarantee that that will not happen?
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-09-04
Topic: Law and Crime
David Drew (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State is being very generous in giving way. Does he accept that we will have to watch the impact of this Bill on personal injury lawyers, as it is already difficult to get lawyers to stay in that field? Will he monitor the situation to ensure that all those involved in serious accidents get proper legal representation?
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-09-04
Topic: Law and Crime
Richard Burgon (Labour, Centre-left): Today we are discussing yet another attack from this Government on our justice system: yet another attack on the vulnerable that, perhaps not coincidentally, will enrich the Conservatives’ friends in the insurance industry. The Civil Liability Bill is presented by the Government in its press spin as being about cutting back on fraudulent whiplash claims—and, of course, who could disagree with doing that? But given this Government’s record in justice, I am sure that Ministers will understand why we do not take their assertions at face value, and why we fear that these reforms may in fact be a smokescreen—because under the Conservatives our civil justice system has been undermined all too often, with basic rights rolled back, creating a two-tier justice system Take, for example, the Conservatives’ unlawful employment tribunal fees, which made it harder for workers to take on unscrupulous bosses. Eventually, the Supreme Court ruled them unlawful, but only thanks to the dogged campaigning of trade unions and others. Or take the Conservatives’ cuts to legal aid, which make it harder for people to take on dodgy landlords, or to challenge a flawed benefits decision that leaves people out of pocket and relying on food banks. We fear that this set of justice reforms will also undermine people’s basic rights This Bill attracted widespread opposition in the House of Lords, with the Government only narrowly defeating amendments that would have substantially altered the Bill for the better. But to do so the Government had to ignore pre-eminent legal experts.
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-09-04
Topic: Labor
Michael Lee Amesbury (Labour, Centre-left): Hundreds of thousands of workers could be denied access to justice for genuine comprehensive claims. The Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers estimates that up to 350,000 workers could be denied access because of these measures.
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-09-04
Topic: Labor
Richard Burgon (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend makes a very important point. USDAW and other organisations are right to say that hundreds of thousands of people could be negatively impacted Through statutory instrument, the Government seek to increase the small claims limit from £1,000 to £2,000 in all cases and from £1,000 to £5,000 in road traffic accident cases. We are very concerned about what that means in practice. A significant number of claims henceforth will be dealt with through the small claims track procedure, where even in a successful claim, no legal costs are usually awarded Without legal fees being covered, tens of thousands of working people will simply be priced out of obtaining legal assistance. Many will drop their cases altogether. Others will fight on but do so representing themselves, not only making their pursuit of justice more difficult, but placing serious pressures on the courts. Others will pay their own legal fees out of their compensation, which in effect means a cut in their compensation levels. Of course, other workers will conclude that when their route to justice through a court or tribunal is removed, they have no alternative but to resort to industrial action to achieve redress.
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-09-04
Topic: Law and Crime
Richard Burgon (Labour, Centre-left): We need to ask ourselves what "minor injuries" and "small amounts of money" mean. What is being referred to as a "minor injury" may last up to two years. I do not think that that is a minor injury. What is being referred to as "small amounts of money" is actually, in practice, a lot of money for working people who are struggling to make ends meet There was a 90% drop-off in employment tribunal claims when employment tribunal fees were introduced. We fear something similar in personal injury cases, with genuine victims priced out of justice and deterred from pursuing a claim for an injury that was not their fault.
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-09-04
Topic: Transportation
Catherine Elizabeth West (Labour, Centre-left): Does my hon. Friend agree that for cyclists who have accidents, their bicycle may be their means of getting to work, and therefore that is not minor, petty or small? We should take that into account when looking at what we call "minor injuries".
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-09-04
Topic: Law and Crime
Richard Burgon (Labour, Centre-left): I will not give way when I want to talk about real-life examples. We need to hear from the people who will be affected by these reforms. Once I have given them a voice, I will give the hon. Gentleman his chance to speak. These people include a warehouse operative who suffered a head injury when a heavy metal bolt fell from a roller shutter door and struck him on the head, and a caretaker in a council who was pushing rubbish bags down a chute when he was injured by a needle that had pierced through one of the bags. He suffered a physical and, indeed, psychological injury; just imagine all that worry as he was waiting for the tests. Those are real cases that have been sent to my office and that would be penalised by the new system. We cannot have those voices being drowned out by the rhetoric that calls people fraudsters and says they are on the make when they are anything but.
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-09-04
Topic: Law and Crime
Richard Burgon (Labour, Centre-left): The evidence does not bear that out. Proven fraudulent whiplash claims amount to 0.25%. To hear some Conservative MPs, we would think that the majority of whiplash claims were fraudulent, when only 0.25% have been shown to be. It is not justice if the honest vast majority are penalised because of a tiny dishonest minority. That is no way to reform things or make the law.
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-09-04
Topic: Law and Crime
Richard Burgon (Labour, Centre-left): I have to make some progress, I am afraid The Government have said that they will drop vulnerable road users from their reforms. They should indeed do so, but they should also concede that the inclusion of people injured at work is equally unjustified It is not only we who oppose these measures. The Justice Committee concluded that "increasing the small claims limit for personal injury creates significant access to justice concerns."
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-09-04
Topic: Law and Crime
Richard Burgon (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend makes an important point. This goes completely against the principle of equality of arms We agree with the Justice Committee and the recommendation of the Jackson review that there should be an increase in the small claims limit only in line with inflation. That would mean a rise to £1,500, not the £2,000 currently proposed. If the Government were to propose a £1,500 limit today or to accept Labour’s amendment that we will propose in Committee, that would help to build a much broader consensus around this currently divisive legislation.
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-09-04
Topic: Labor
Ruth Stephanie Nicole George (Labour, Centre-left): Does my hon. Friend agree that in employment cases, it is not just about an inequality of arms, but the fact that a worker has to take on both their employer and their insurance company? It is very difficult for a vulnerable worker who has been injured to look their employer in the eye one on one and take them on. That is why they need legal support.
Civil Liability Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-09-04
Topic: Law and Crime
Eleanor Claire Reeves (Labour, Centre-left): It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) Since 2010, under this Government and the coalition before, changes made by the Ministry of Justice have left us with a legal system in a state of utter disrepair. Colleagues across the House, trade unions, lawyers and legal experts have all expressed deep concern about the implications of the Bill and the Government’s policy agenda, put forward under the auspices of cracking down on fraudulent claims. Of course, fraudulent claims are wrong and should be clamped down on, but the Bill is not the appropriate way to do so and its implementation would see a wholly disproportionate impact on access to justice Even the statistics being used in the Government’s bid to warrant such widespread changes are highly contested. Recent freedom of information requests showed that the number of whiplash-related injury claims recorded by the compensation recovery unit fell by 18% between 2017 and 2018. Insurance industry data has shown that, in 2016, 0.17% of all motor claims were proven to be fraudulent—a fall from the 0.25% recorded in 2015. We are simply not in the midst of a fraudulent claims epidemic, as Ministers would have us believe. What are indisputable, though, are the consequences of the full implementation of the Government’s legislative agenda and the vast impact it would have on access to justice for many across the country On the face of it, the Bill appears innocuous enough, yet it is a shell Bill whose true effect is felt only when combined with the raft of other proposals the Government are bringing forward—namely, the changes to the small claims limit. My concerns with this Bill are threefold: the measures detailed in part 1; the lack of a mechanism to pass on predicted insurance savings to customers; and the overwhelming impact this package of measures with have on access to justice for injured people The Bill paves the way for the long-standing and established Judicial Studies Board guidelines to be replaced with a rigid tariff system that would undermine judicial discretion and leave injured claimants much worse off. The draft tariff system presented by the Ministry has shown the reduction in payments for pain, suffering and loss of amenity for road traffic accident-related soft tissue injuries to be overwhelming. Injured claimants could receive up to 87% less than the 2015 average paid out under the existing guidelines Moreover, as a result of the proposed changes in the small claims limit—which is closely associated with the Bill—injured people would struggle to achieve access to justice. The raising of the small claims track from £1,000 to £5,000 for road traffic-related personal injury claims, and to £2,000 for all other types of personal injury claim, will cause thousands of injured people to fall out of the scope for free legal advice and representation, and potentially to be denied justice.