argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Technical and Further Education Bill — House of Commons, 2017-04-19
Topic: Education
James Ian Mearns (Labour, Centre-left): In some respects, my hon. Friend is actually being generous to the Government. I do not believe that the careers service as it existed has been decimated; I believe it has been laid waste by the Government’s policy since 2010. We really need to get back to youngsters having independent and impartial advice and guidance on their future career available to them. Without such independence and impartiality, we could unfortunately get back to having those with vested interests giving advice to young people. I remember the late Malcolm Wicks referring to this in the 1990s, when he said that much of the advice given to young people about their future careers was akin to pensions mis-selling because the service was packed with vested interests.
Technical and Further Education Bill — House of Commons, 2017-04-19
Topic: Education
Gordon Marsden (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend makes a very important and valuable point, as he did earlier to the Minister, and we certainly need to think very hard about those things As I have said, the National Careers Service process has migrated substantially, which may not in itself be a bad thing. I genuinely want to know from the Minister what connectivity there is between the National Careers Service and the Careers & Enterprise Company if the coverage starts as early as age 13. I would really like to know what the connectivity is in that process The very disappointing fact is that, as the impact report says, researchers were "unable to identify a positive impact of the National Careers Service on employment or benefit dependency outcomes" Arguably, those outcomes are its main purpose. This is another example of why it is essential for the Government to act on the careers strategy, and of why their failure so far to do so makes Lords amendments 2 and 6 so important. With the expansion of apprenticeships and the addition of technical education to the institute, it will be even more important for students and apprentices to have all the information that they need to make informed decisions Young people who get the best careers advice in college or schools are more likely to be able to seek out the better apprenticeships. That is why I warmly welcome Lords amendment 2, Lord Baker’s amendment, which had our support and cross-party support. It would ensure that schools have to provide access to advice about apprenticeships. Why does that matter? It matters because, as my hon. Friend has said, knowledge in general is power, and unbiased knowledge is very important indeed. Incidentally, that is also why my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) introduced a ten-minute rule Bill to require schools to give access to their premises to representatives of post-16 education institutions to enable them to provide pupils with advice and guidance All of that is why Lords amendment 6 is also important. I am encouraged by the fact that the new chief inspector, Amanda Spielman, to whom I have spoken recently, is sympathetic to Ofsted making a much stronger case for ensuring that apprenticeships rate more highly in the information provided in schools. Incidentally, the Lords have already pointed out that that will require Ofsted to have more resources; my noble Friend Lord Watson pointed that out on Report on 27 March. If we do not get integration between the Careers & Enterprise Company and the National Careers Service, what we ask Ofsted to do will not work. Just what is the Minister’s response to these arguments? Why are the National Careers Service and the Careers & Enterprise Company apparently working on different lines? If he does not want to accept Lords amendment 6, what guarantees can he give to this House or to noble Lords that the necessary work will be done?
Technical and Further Education Bill — House of Commons, 2017-04-19
Topic: Education
James Ian Mearns (Labour, Centre-left): I know that the Minister is determined and full of good intentions, but good intentions do not provide sound careers advice and guidance to young people who are in the system now. We need to see more urgency from the Government in backing up his decent intentions, to make sure that young people get the impartial advice and guidance they so deeply need as soon as possible.
Technical and Further Education Bill — House of Commons, 2017-04-19
Topic: Labor
James Ian Mearns (Labour, Centre-left): I am listening to the Minister. I was a member of the National Careers Service national association board prior to the invention of Connexions. I seem to remember that the national budget for careers at that time was something like £130 million. That was more than 15 years ago. In the current climate, the figures the Minister is talking about are inadequate.
Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 — House of Commons, 2017-04-19
Topic: Government Operations
James Ian Mearns (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend is making a powerful set of points. On the point about local government finance, it is all very well for the Government to withdraw revenue support grant, but at the same time they are not doing anything about the other side of the account: the council tax banding system. The Government are doing nothing to rebalance that system, which makes up local government revenue apart from the revenue support grant. If they do not rebalance that, things are grossly unfair. The RSG was brought in because a band D median did not exist for all parts of the country, and it certainly does not exist for the north-east of England, which is why we have required RSG from its inception in the early 1990s.
Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 — House of Commons, 2017-04-19
Topic: Macroeconomics
Peter Christopher Dowd (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend makes a fair point. This Government have abandoned local government—apart from Surrey County Council We cannot have a fair and prosperous economy until all regions and cities have access to adequate funding and investment in infrastructure—until all regions and cities have the power to implement financial decisions at a local level without the constant heavy-handedness of a Westminster-obsessed Government. The referendum result in favour of leaving the European Union was a vote against not just so-called "unaccountable bureaucrats" in Brussels, but the lack of accountability of the Government here at home at those local levels. For many people in this country, the Government are alien and have no relevance to their lives. For many people, this place has no relevance to their day-to-day living; they see it as a bubble and, as we often see here, it is a bubble. The Government sit here in Westminster and Whitehall making decisions, and little consideration is given to the ramifications and the disastrous effect their policies have on ordinary people’s lives. That is why a post-Brexit Britain must look seriously at devolving economic powers to the cities and regions across the country. The Government can no longer pretend that we are a unitary state that can be ruled by diktat from London, given that we have a Parliament in Scotland, Assemblies in Northern Ireland and Wales, and a Mayor in London, and of course we will have the city region Mayors in Manchester, Liverpool and the West Midlands from next month. [Interruption.] The Minister says that the Government created them, and I completely accept that, but they have to give them significant powers and responsibilities. The Government have been dragging their feet in many regards on that Under seven years of Tory mismanagement, our economy has seen stagnant wages, slow growth and low productivity. I note that the Minister did not mention productivity once in his speech—[Hon. Members: "Yes, he did."] Okay, perhaps he mentioned it once. We have also seen excessive borrowing, rising debt and failed promises. The Chancellor has presided over an economy that has seen tax giveaways for the richest in our society, at the expense of those on middle and low incomes. The Government have drastically cut public services and failed to balance the books. If re-elected, the Conservatives would radically cut tax in a desperate bid to attract overseas investment and transform our country into a low-pay and low-tax economy The assessment of the economy presented by the Government does not account for their catastrophic record and failed economic targets, or for the huge black holes in public spending. It makes no assessment of what the UK’s post-Brexit economy will look like, nor does it acknowledge the economic difficulties ahead. I urge the House to reject the motion.
Domestic Violence: Legal Aid — House of Commons, 2017-04-25
Topic: Law and Crime
Yasmin Qureshi (Labour, Centre-left): The Ministry of Justice committed to reviewing the domestic violence evidence requirements for legal aid. That was a clear admission that the scheme was not working and was not fair. Since the passing of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, the family courts have become more adversarial. Should the Minister not admit that the withdrawal of legal aid for so many family cases has caused real unfairness to families?
Novel Psychoactive Substances — House of Commons, 2017-04-25
Topic: Law and Crime
Ian Colin Lucas (Labour, Centre-left): Wrexham, like many other towns up and down the country, is being blighted by the impact of so-called Spice. I received a letter this month from the Home Office that directly contradicts a letter from the Minister on the question of whether the possession of Spice is an offence. The confusion is causing real enforcement problems for police officers, who have already had their numbers cut by this Government. Will the Minister take this matter more seriously and act urgently to confront this really serious problem?
Extremism in Prisons — House of Commons, 2017-04-25
Topic: Law and Crime
David George Hanson (Labour, Centre-left): Ian Acheson, who reviewed this matter for the Government, told the Select Committee on Justice only last year: "I do not have confidence that the National Offender Management Service…has the capability or, indeed, if I may be frank, the will to implement some of the recommendations that I have made." Does the Minister feel that his changes are not just recommendations but that there is capacity to deliver them?
Extremism in Prisons — House of Commons, 2017-04-25
Topic: Law and Crime
Keith Anthony Vaz (Labour, Centre-left): About 1,000 individuals have been identified as extremist or as vulnerable to extremism, so the creation of those separation units is welcome. However, the key is monitoring people when they come out of prison. Can the Minister reassure us that that will happen?
Extremism in Prisons — House of Commons, 2017-04-25
Topic: Law and Crime
Yasmin Qureshi (Labour, Centre-left): These units will affect only a small section of the prison population, but the rising lack of safety in our prisons is itself a potential breeding ground for extremism. Has the Secretary of State considered the extent to which that environment of violence has contributed to extremism?
Extremism in Prisons — House of Commons, 2017-04-25
Topic: Law and Crime
Yasmin Qureshi (Labour, Centre-left): It is understood that the prisoners designated for these separation units will be able to appeal against that decision, and their places in the units will be reviewed every three months. Given the Court of Appeal’s recent decision that denying legal aid to many prisoners is unlawful, will these individuals have access to publicly funded legal advice?
Prison Staffing — House of Commons, 2017-04-25
Topic: Law and Crime
Questions: What assessment she has made of the effect of increasing the number of prison staff on the (a) safety of prison officers and (b) capacity of prison staff to spend more time directly engaging with and supervising prisoners.; What assessment she has made of the effect of increasing the number of prison staff on the (a) safety of prison officers and (b) capacity of prison staff to spend more time directly engaging with and supervising prisoners.; What assessment she has made of the effect of increasing the number of prison staff on the (a) safety of prison officers and (b) capacity of prison staff to spend more time directly engaging with and supervising prisoners.
Katherine Anne Green (Labour, Centre-left): Of course we all welcome the recruitment of new prison officers, but does the Secretary of State not agree that the problems in our prisons stem from the mistaken actions of her Government in cutting 6,000 prison officers in the first place?
Cammell Laird — House of Commons, 2017-04-25
Topic: Labor
Questions: What plans the Government have to publish a response to the findings of the European Parliament's Committee on Petitions in December 2014 relating to a petition on the treatment of Cammell Laird strikers in 1984.; For what reasons the Government have not responded to the findings of the European Parliament's Committee on Petitions in December 2014 relating to the treatment of Cammell Laird strikers in 1984.; For what reasons the Government have not responded to the findings of the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions in December 2014 relating to the treatment of Cammell Laird strikers in 1984.
Angela Eagle (Labour, Centre-left): In 1984, workers at Cammell Laird’s shipyard took official strike action over job losses just as the Thatcher Government were trying to privatise British shipbuilders. They were dismissed, jailed in a category A prison for 30 days, and lost their redundancy and pension rights. The Minister has tried to give us a technical answer today, but will he now undertake to release all the documents relating to the decision to prosecute and to the severity of the sentence so that this clear miscarriage of justice can finally be put right?
Cammell Laird — House of Commons, 2017-04-25
Topic: Law and Crime
Questions: What plans the Government have to publish a response to the findings of the European Parliament's Committee on Petitions in December 2014 relating to a petition on the treatment of Cammell Laird strikers in 1984.; For what reasons the Government have not responded to the findings of the European Parliament's Committee on Petitions in December 2014 relating to the treatment of Cammell Laird strikers in 1984.; For what reasons the Government have not responded to the findings of the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions in December 2014 relating to the treatment of Cammell Laird strikers in 1984.
James McMahon (Labour, Centre-left): Ten Cammell Laird workers and one apprentice have died since those events without the answers to why the decisions were taken to imprison them and who took those decisions. Surely it is now time to listen to calls from family members and the GMB trade union to do the right thing by having a proper inquiry and publishing the information that the Government have access to. What is there to hide?
Cammell Laird — House of Commons, 2017-04-25
Topic: Foreign Trade
Questions: What plans the Government have to publish a response to the findings of the European Parliament's Committee on Petitions in December 2014 relating to a petition on the treatment of Cammell Laird strikers in 1984.; For what reasons the Government have not responded to the findings of the European Parliament's Committee on Petitions in December 2014 relating to the treatment of Cammell Laird strikers in 1984.; For what reasons the Government have not responded to the findings of the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions in December 2014 relating to the treatment of Cammell Laird strikers in 1984.
Pat Glass (Labour, Centre-left): This is the last time that I will speak in this House. Therefore, I was keen that it should be a really important question. This was something I championed when I was the shadow Europe Minister, and I was delighted when the European Union joined the GMB and the Cammell Laird workers in demanding the release of Government evidence and papers. This is about papers that the Government hold. I hope the Minister will respect the fact that this is my last time speaking in the House by giving me a proper answer, not the fob-off that we have had so far. Will he commit to releasing the papers that the Government hold and putting an end to one of the most shameful episodes in British industrial relations?
Cammell Laird — House of Commons, 2017-04-25
Topic: Labor
Questions: What plans the Government have to publish a response to the findings of the European Parliament's Committee on Petitions in December 2014 relating to a petition on the treatment of Cammell Laird strikers in 1984.; For what reasons the Government have not responded to the findings of the European Parliament's Committee on Petitions in December 2014 relating to the treatment of Cammell Laird strikers in 1984.; For what reasons the Government have not responded to the findings of the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions in December 2014 relating to the treatment of Cammell Laird strikers in 1984.
Richard Burgon (Labour, Centre-left): GMB union research points towards state interference in the Cammell Laird industrial dispute, yet the picture remains incomplete because of withheld documents, as we have heard. That era of Conservative government is becoming defined by suspicion of institutional interference and state wrongdoing. We know the names: Hillsborough, Orgreave and Cammell Laird. If that interference is extended to the prosecution of those trade unionists, do they not have the right to know?
Prisons: Mental Health Provision — House of Commons, 2017-04-25
Topic: Law and Crime
Kelvin Peter Hopkins (Labour, Centre-left): There were 119 prison suicides in 2016—an increase of 32% on the previous year—and cases of self-harm were up by 19%, at more than 10,000. Does the Minister agree that these are appalling statistics? What are the Government going to do to address this human misery?
Women’s Centres — House of Commons, 2017-04-25
Topic: Law and Crime
Fiona Margaret Mactaggart (Labour, Centre-left): But is it not a fact that most women in prison are extremely vulnerable and have been victims themselves, including of domestic abuse, addiction and mental health problems, and that women’s centres actually deal with the whole problem? I was a Home Office Minister who helped to persuade Baroness Corston to produce her excellent report, and the reason why we did that was the number of women who were killing themselves in jail. The Government are planning new women’s jails, but more women will murder themselves—we are at a record level. How is the Minister going to stop that happening without investing in women’s centres?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2017-04-25
Topic: Law and Crime
Diana Ruth Johnson (Labour, Centre-left): With three former Secretaries of State, including the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) last year, taking the view that families in Hull deserve to find out what happened to their babies’ ashes, why does the current Justice Secretary refuse to back those families’ calls for an independent inquiry in Hull?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2017-04-25
Topic: Law and Crime
Questions: Following the important work done by the parents of my constituent Sean Morley, who was tragically killed in a hit-and-run incident in Bedworth, and the representations that I have made to the Secretary of State, will she confirm whether she intends to see through the progress that has been made towards much tougher sentences for dangerous drivers in the next Parliament, should the Conservatives be returned to government?
Richard Burgon (Labour, Centre-left): Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition confirmed that a Labour Government would launch inquiries into blacklisting and Orgreave; the current Government have blocked all such efforts. Successive Conservative Justice Secretaries have also refused to release papers concerning the Shrewsbury 24. As her final act, will the Justice Secretary do the decent thing, review that decision, and release the papers to give those men and their families a chance of justice?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2017-04-25
Topic: Law and Crime
Questions: Following the important work done by the parents of my constituent Sean Morley, who was tragically killed in a hit-and-run incident in Bedworth, and the representations that I have made to the Secretary of State, will she confirm whether she intends to see through the progress that has been made towards much tougher sentences for dangerous drivers in the next Parliament, should the Conservatives be returned to government?
Richard Burgon (Labour, Centre-left): According to the legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg, this is the Secretary of State’s very last Justice questions, so I will give her one last chance. In March, the Lord Chief Justice said that the Secretary of State was "completely and utterly wrong" to say that she could not speak up for the judiciary in the face of personal abuse. Will she finally admit that rather than doing her duty, she kowtowed to her friends in the press?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2017-04-25
Topic: Government Operations
Sue Hayman (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your advice and guidance regarding parliamentary protocol in the case of a Member writing to another Member’s constituents as part of an election campaign. The hon. Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) has written, as a Member of Parliament, to postal voters in my constituency on Conservative-branded paper ahead of the Cumbria County Council elections asking them to vote for the Conservative candidates. I know of postal voters in her own constituency who have not received any such letter from her This is the second time since her election to this place only two months ago that the hon. Lady has campaigned for the Conservative party in my constituency using her status as an MP without informing me. I did not make a fuss the first time as she was new to the House. However, she is now fully aware that in the British parliamentary system one Member represents a single constituency and conventions have developed so that one Member’s relations with her constituents are very much a preserve that other Members should not interfere with I have had complaints from constituents, some of whom are now confused about who their Member of Parliament is. My constituency office is receiving phone calls from constituents who think that this must mean that the boundary changes have gone through and that I might no longer be their representative. As far as I am concerned, this is unacceptable. Mr Speaker, I would be grateful for your comments and advice on this serious matter.
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2017-04-25
Topic: Government Operations
Clive Anthony Lewis (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have often stated from the Chair that answers to written parliamentary questions from Back-Bench Members from all parts of the House should be answered in both a timely and a substantive manner by Ministers. On 24 March, I tabled a named day question to the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), asking, very simply, how much the Government had spent on advertising in the Evening Standard in the last financial year. Three days later, I received a holding answer. Now, over a month later, I still have not received a substantive answer. I am concerned that the Government might now simply be winding down the clock, with the intention of not providing an answer before we prorogue. The public might also draw the conclusion that they have something embarrassing to hide that they do not want to reveal during an election campaign. Is there anything you can do from the Chair, Mr Speaker, to encourage Ministers to answer such questions substantively this week, so that both Members of the House and the public can know the truth?