argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Housing Costs (Reformed Welfare System) — House of Commons, 2015-03-03
Topic: Housing
Helen Catherine Goodman (Labour, Centre-left): I begin by congratulating the Select Committee, in particular the Chair, on an excellent and extremely useful report. It is a thoughtful and well-informed cross-party report, so I hope that the Minister will be able to explain why, after a whole year, the Government have not been able to respond to it As the report points out, the Government set themselves three targets for their welfare reform programme and changes to housing benefit: reducing benefit expenditure, improving incentives to work and making the situation fairer. It is quite clear that the first test has been failed. The Office for Budget Responsibility shows that expenditure on housing benefit in 2009-10 was £20 billion. In 2013-14, the last year for which we have full statistics, it was £24 billion; and the OBR is predicting that by 2018-19, the spend will be £27 billion I was particularly struck by the table at the beginning of chapter 2 on the local housing allowance, which sets out the maximum amounts payable. For a one-bedroom flat or shared accommodation, the maximum amount payable is £250 a week. Everybody here will know, however, that a £1,000 monthly payment sustains a mortgage of £200,000. In my constituency, that would buy a four-bedroom house. The average cost of a new social housing unit is £120,000. How much better it would be if we could shift the finance from benefits to bricks and spend the money on building new homes. The problem with this Government’s policy is that it has made life more difficult for many people, while the benefits bill has continued to rise. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) said, that has happened because the Government have not addressed the underlying issues. The OBR shows that while housing benefit to unemployed people has fallen and is projected to continue to fall, housing benefit to those in work will rise steadily between 2012 and 2019. This is yet another indication of the cost of living crisis that people face, and it demonstrates that the new poverty is in-work poverty The Select Committee quotes Lord Freud as saying that the case load in the private rented sector is up "by around 8% nationally and by around 5% in London" That is because rents are going up, even though the quality of housing is going down. I hope the Minister will be able to clarify the position on rents, since the Select Committee reported before the Office for National Statistics admitted that mistakes were made in the assessment of rents in London. In other words, more people are in the private rented sector today, and more of them are on housing benefit.
Housing Costs (Reformed Welfare System) — House of Commons, 2015-03-03
Topic: Housing
Margaret Anne Begg (Labour, Centre-left): While I can appreciate there may be problems on the bedroom tax, would it be possible for the Government to publish a partial response to our proposals, addressing all the other points on which there presumably is agreement across Government? Our Committee had a lot of very interesting things to say on a whole range of other issues.
Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services — House of Commons, 2015-03-03
Topic: Other
Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Centre-left): Order. Let me give Members guidance about how long we have for this debate. The wind-ups will start at 6.30 pm, so I do not think it necessary to have a time limit as long as Members take about 10 minutes each, including interventions. If everyone takes 15 or 16 minutes, we will not fit every Member in. We do not need a time limit just yet, but if those speaking could aim for 10 to 12 minutes, including interventions, that would be helpful.
Forced Marriage — House of Commons, 2015-07-02
Topic: Mixed Topics
Keith Anthony Vaz (Labour, Centre-left): Of the 1,271 cases, 11% involve victims who are under the age of 16. In the last Parliament, the Select Committee on Home Affairs specifically asked the Education Secretary to write to every headteacher to make them aware of this problem, especially before the summer holidays. Has this been done? If not, can it be done?
Gender Pay Gap — House of Commons, 2015-07-02
Topic: Civil Rights
Questions: As my right hon. Friend has said, the group of women who endure the largest gap in pay by comparison with their male peers is those over the age of 40. What is she doing specifically to address that? Many of those women are highly talented and highly skilled, but we as a country are not getting the best out of them.; In a letter from the Minister’s Department in March, I was informed that the greatest gender pay gap could be found in the finance and insurance sectors, in which it is 35.2%. Is that a problem? If so, what specifically is she doing about it with those sectors?
Colleen Margaret Fletcher (Labour, Centre-left): The gender pay gap in Coventry increased to 16.2% in 2014, up from 15% the previous year. What targeted action are the Government taking to address the issue in areas such as mine where the gender pay gap has widened rather than narrowed in recent years?
Career Progression — House of Commons, 2015-07-02
Topic: Mixed Topics
Chinyelu Susan Onwurah (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State mentions executive search firms. All too often, board appointments are made by executive search firms that do not actually conduct comprehensive searches but go for the same old candidates. What is she doing specifically to ensure gender balance on shortlists? Does she welcome the launch this evening of Harvey Nash’s Inspire apprentice board programme?
Career Progression — House of Commons, 2015-07-02
Topic: Mixed Topics
Gloria De Piero (Labour, Centre-left): May I take this opportunity to congratulate the England women’s football team? Last night’s result was gutting, but as captain Steph Houghton said, they can walk away with their heads held high—they did their country proud Since 2011, fewer than 10 women have been appointed to executive positions on FTSE 100 boards. Will the Secretary of State set a target?
English Votes on English Laws — House of Commons, 2015-07-02
Topic: Civil Rights
Gerald Bernard Kaufman (Labour, Centre-left): Even the title of the statement sounds racist. [Interruption.] Yes! Yes! The Leader of the House talked repeatedly about constitutional arrangements, but is it not a fact that the glory of this country is that we do not have a constitution, and that we are governed by the Queen in Parliament? Furthermore, is it not a glory of this House that all its Members, from those who hold the highest office to the most newly elected Member of Parliament, are equal in the Division Lobby? Is it not a fact that the Government are not just underlining whatever differences there may be between the outlooks of people from different countries within the United Kingdom, but undermining the whole basis of British democracy, all the way back to when Magna Carta was signed? I hope that there will be enough Conservative Members of Parliament who have sufficient love of this wonderful House not to co-operate in destroying it.
English Votes on English Laws — House of Commons, 2015-07-02
Topic: Other
Ian Colin Lucas (Labour, Centre-left): The right hon. Gentleman is a Member of Parliament from England. I am a Member of Parliament from Wales. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me one additional power I have in this House because I am from Wales?
English Votes on English Laws — House of Commons, 2015-07-02
Topic: Other
Fiona Margaret Mactaggart (Labour, Centre-left): I proudly represent an English constituency, but I am also a proud Unionist. I am shocked by this nasty little measure, which has not been properly debated. Will the Leader of the House say why the House has a proper system of debating legislation when it has a simple majority on, for example, issues such as Standing Orders? Will he agree to bring legislation before the House, because the questions from my colleagues from Northern Ireland and Scotland—
English Votes on English Laws — House of Commons, 2015-07-02
Topic: Other
David George Hanson (Labour, Centre-left): Will the Leader of the House ponder for a moment on the fact that had his proposals been in place over the past hundred years, Alec Douglas-Home, Andrew Bonar Law, James Callaghan, Lloyd George and Gordon Brown would not have been able to vote on their own Governments’ proposals in this House of Commons? Does that not strike him as incongruous, coming as it does from a Conservative and Unionist party?
English Votes on English Laws — House of Commons, 2015-07-02
Topic: Mixed Topics
Susan Elan Jones (Labour, Centre-left): It is something of an irony that this announcement is made today when the first item of business was the Transport for London Bill. Under the new proposals, who would vote on that? Would my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith)be precluded from doing so while the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris),whose constituency is rather further away, could vote on it? Why would my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) and the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) not be of equal status with other Members of this House under these proposals while their predecessors, now in the House of Lords, would be?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2015-07-02
Topic: Other
Natascha Engel (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the hon. Gentleman for notice of his intention to make a point of order. As I am sure he is aware, departmental matters are the responsibility of the Government, so it is not for the Chair to make decisions on them. The Leader of the House is in his place and will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said, and the hon. Gentleman has put the matter on the record.
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2015-07-02
Topic: Other
Natascha Engel (Labour, Centre-left): I will certainly take the matter back to the Speaker. The hon. Gentleman might also like to take it to the Backbench Business Committee as a matter for debate and discussion with the rest of the House.
Britain and International Security — House of Commons, 2015-07-02
Topic: Immigration
Stephen John Doughty (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State will be aware of the very concerning incidents in my constituency of individuals travelling to fight for ISIL. Will he say a little about what is being done to step up the co-ordination between agencies in order to prevent travel? We need to ensure that passport agencies, airlines, security services, police and community organisations are all working together to share information on vulnerable individuals who might be considering travel. We are still seeing cases every week, which is deeply worrying.
Hatfield Colliery — House of Commons, 2015-07-02
Topic: Mixed Topics
Angela Rayner (Labour, Centre-left): My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) talked about the economic benefits of keeping the mine open at the moment. The Minister’s earlier rhetoric was really positive, but what comes out of this same old Tory Government are ideological attacks on the miners. When will the Government give them a break and give them what they deserve?
Tax Avoidance (HSBC) — House of Commons, 2015-02-23
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Edward Michael Balls (Labour, Centre-left): We know when they shout that it is because they have something to hide, Mr Speaker. That is the truth First, let me ask the Chancellor about what he knew and when. Two weeks ago, Downing street announced that no Minister found out about the HSBC issues until two-and-a-half weeks ago. At the weekend, the Chancellor said that he should not be involved in the tax dealings of any individual bank. Today, he has told us he knew in 2009. If he knew about systemic abuse on this scale in 2009, why did he not act when he became Chancellor? That is the first question Secondly, given that the Chancellor says he knew about this in 2009, why, five years on, has there been only one prosecution after the provision of 1,100 names? We know that in November 2012 HMRC confirmed that the Government had adopted a selective prosecution policy. Let me ask the Chancellor: given he knew what was happening at HSBC, did he confirm he wanted a selective prosecution policy in these cases Thirdly, why in 2012 did the Chancellor sign a deal with the Swiss authorities that has prevented the UK from actively obtaining similar information in the future? The agreement states that the UK and Swiss Governments will "not actively seek to acquire customer data stolen from Swiss banks" Why sign up to a declaration that clearly impedes HMRC’s and the Government’s ability to act in the future? Two weeks ago, they told us it was because they did not know, but we now know that the Chancellor has known for six years. Why did he sign that deal Fourthly, if the Chancellor and the Prime Minister knew what was happening at HSBC in 2009, why, one month after the Government received these files, did they appoint the chair of HSBC during the period in question as a Conservative peer and Minister? What due diligence did the Government carry out in advance, and did the Prime Minister and the Chancellor see the details? Fifthly, did Lord Green have any involvement in the Swiss tax deal when he was a trade Minister? Did he ever advise the Treasury on it? Did the Chancellor discuss what happened at HSBC with Lord Green in the almost three years he was a Conservative Minister? Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister was unable to answer that question. Did the Chancellor discuss the Swiss deal and those past events at HSBC with Lord Green, who was appointed as a Minister after this scandal came to light It is not good enough for the Chancellor to shout and bluster, and to try and sweep these questions under the carpet and claim he did not ask the questions. Since the Government were given the files, he has been the Chancellor for five years. Is it not clear either that he and the Prime Minister were negligent in failing to act on the evidence the Government received, including about HSBC and Lord Green, or, just as with the appointment of Mr Coulson, that they deliberately turned a blind eye?
European Council — House of Commons, 2015-02-23
Topic: Immigration
Keith Anthony Vaz (Labour, Centre-left): Of course, Greece’s problems are of its own making. However, Greece provides a vital service to the rest of the EU because it polices the external borders of the EU. Every month 7,000 illegal migrants cross the border between Turkey and Greece, and if we do not support Greece, that becomes our problem in the future. On the issue of our borders, will the Prime Minister confirm that we will have 100% exit checks by the end of March?
European Council — House of Commons, 2015-02-23
Topic: Mixed Topics
Helen Catherine Goodman (Labour, Centre-left): One of the schoolgirls was lured over Twitter by another girl from the same school who had gone to Syria just before Christmas. Surely, that demonstrates to the Prime Minister the weakness of his relying on a voluntary approach with social media firms. Will he explain why the authorities did not keep track of the girl who had already gone to Syria?
European Council — House of Commons, 2015-02-23
Topic: Mixed Topics
Andrew McCulloch Love (Labour, Centre-left): The Prime Minister says that he understands the arguments on both sides of the Greece-euro divide, but does he understand the implications for the United Kingdom of the instability of a four-month negotiation? The difficulties that are being created for our economy and our ability to export make it critical that we do everything we can to resolve the situation. He mentioned the word "encourage". Will he tell us how he can encourage a successful negotiation between the parties?
Serious Crime Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-02-23
Topic: Civil Rights
Diana Ruth Johnson (Labour, Centre-left): I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point. Research undertaken by Dexter Dias QC with survivors of FGM from around the country highlighted the need for measures to tackle the encouragement of FGM, whereby parents can be put under extreme pressure to cut their girls. Not only are parents told that their daughters will never get married, but whole families can be ostracised and isolated as unclean. We need to support those seeking to change the culture in affected communities that they are part of and send out the message that this practice is against the law. That is why Labour has proposed adding a new offence of the encouragement of FGM to this Bill. As I say, it was tabled in Committee and we feel it is important that we have brought it back today.
Serious Crime Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-02-23
Topic: Civil Rights
Diana Ruth Johnson (Labour, Centre-left): I am listening carefully to the Minister, and of course we all want to get this issue right. I am struck by the fact that the Government managed to have a consultation on the reporting of FGM, and the Bill now contains amendments to take that forward. It seems to me a missed opportunity that we are not able to do that with mandatory reporting at the same time.
Serious Crime Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-02-23
Topic: Other
Diana Ruth Johnson (Labour, Centre-left): I will be interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say about new clause 18, because it will be helpful to have the details. What I am saying to him is that we have concerns about the drafting of it. We support the principle of it.
Serious Crime Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-02-23
Topic: Other
Diana Ruth Johnson (Labour, Centre-left): I want to hear the comments that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Esher and Walton will make about their new clauses. Time is limited, and on the instructions of Mr Speaker I am trying to keep my comments short. I am pointing out that there may be unintended consequences of how the clauses are currently drafted.
Serious Crime Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-02-23
Topic: Other
Diana Ruth Johnson (Labour, Centre-left): I am very flattered to be the focus of such attention from the hon. Gentleman, but perhaps it would be wiser at this stage if he were to direct his comments more to his own Front-Bench colleagues as they are in government and can bring forward legislation, which clearly we as shadow Ministers in the Opposition cannot.
Serious Crime Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-02-23
Topic: Civil Rights
Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Centre-left): With this it will be convenient to discuss New clause 25 —Termination of pregnancy on grounds of sex of foetus— ‘(1) The Secretary of State shall arrange for an assessment to be made of the evidence of termination of pregnancy on the grounds of the sex of the foetus in England, Wales and Scotland (2) The arrangements made under subsection (1) shall be such as to enable publication of the assessment by the Secretary of State within 6 months of the date of Royal Assent to this Act (3) The Secretary of State shall consider the assessment made under subsection (1) and— (a) determine and publish a strategic plan to tackle substantiated concerns identified in the assessment made under subsection (1); or (b) publish a statement and explanation in relation to why a plan under subsection (3)(a) is not required (4) Any strategic plan under subsection (3)(a) must include, but need not be limited to, steps— (a) to promote change in the social and cultural patterns of behaviour with a view to eradicating prejudices, customs, traditions and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority of women and which may amount to pressure to seek a termination on the grounds of the sex of the foetus; (b) to ensure best practice exists in identifying women being coerced or pressured into seeking a termination on the grounds of the sex of the foetus, or at risk of being so, and in the provision of protection and support to potential victims; and (c) to promote guidance to service providers, health professionals and other stakeholders. (5) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the plan, determined under subsection (3)(a), before each House of Parliament within 6 months of the publication date of the assessment under subsection (2).’
Serious Crime Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-02-23
Topic: Civil Rights
Katherine Anne Green (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Lady spoke rightly a few moments ago about the importance of clarity in law. Does she not agree that there would be reluctance and confusion when the grounds for a termination were the genetic disorder, but the only way in which that genetic order could arise is in relation to the gender of the foetus?
Serious Crime Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-02-23
Topic: Mixed Topics
Ann Coffey (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of new clause 25, tabled by me, the right hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott), my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell), my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) and the hon. Members for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) and for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). I will seek to test the opinion of the House on the new clause The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 makes it a criminal offence intentionally to unlawfully procure a miscarriage, including for a woman to procure her own miscarriage. The Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 makes it a criminal offence intentionally to kill a child capable of being born alive before it has a life independent of its mother. The Abortion Act 1967 creates exceptions to those offences in limited circumstances and abortion on the grounds of gender is not one of those exceptions. It is therefore illegal and subject to criminal prosecution. Indeed, guidance was reissued as recently as May 2014 by the Department of Health that said again categorically that abortion on the grounds of sex was illegal. I am therefore not quite sure why the new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) is needed or how inserting it into the 1967 Act would address her concerns.
Serious Crime Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-02-23
Topic: Civil Rights
Ann Coffey (Labour, Centre-left): If the hon. Gentleman will wait, I am coming to that point The statement the hon. Member for Congleton proposes would sit alongside the existing seven grounds for termination in the 1967 Act, but of course the sex of the foetus can be a factor in causing so much distress for the woman that she meets the existing medical criteria for a termination. The British Medical Association supplied two case studies that demonstrated how that can occur. In both cases, gender was a key factor in affecting the state of mind of the pregnant woman and her wish not to continue the pregnancy. It is not clear how new clause 1, if added to the Bill, would affect the decision of doctors on the legal grounds on which they might agree a termination, if at all. It would inevitably be subject to legal challenges that would, I believe, dilute the clarity of the 1967 Act. As far as I am aware, there is no evidence that doctors are granting terminations to women who do not meet the medical grounds laid down in the Abortion Act 1967.
Serious Crime Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-02-23
Topic: Civil Rights
Ann Coffey (Labour, Centre-left): I repeat that as far as I am aware there is no evidence that doctors are granting terminations to women who do not meet the medical grounds laid down in the Abortion Act 1967. That would be a criminal offence.