argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Armed Forces Bill — House of Commons, 2015-12-16
Topic: Law and Crime
David Anthony Crausby (Labour, Centre-left): With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 6—Removal of Commanding Officer’s discretion to investigate allegations of sexual assault— ‘(1) Schedule 2 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 [Schedule 2 offences] is amended as follows (2) In sub-paragraph (12)(at), leave out "3, 66, 67 or" New clause 7—Civilian investigations and prosecutions relating to murder, sexual assault, and rape— ‘(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows (2) After section 118 [Duty of service policeman to notify CO of referral to DSP] insert— "118A Civilian investigations and prosecutions relating to murder, sexual assault, and rape (1) Criminal investigations into allegations of murder, sexual assault, and rape by and against members of the Armed Forces shall be undertaken by the relevant civilian police authorities. (2) Criminal prosecutions of charges involving murder, sexual assault, and rape by and against members of the Armed Forces shall be undertaken by the Crown Prosecution Service.""
Armed Forces Bill — House of Commons, 2015-12-16
Topic: Law and Crime
Kevan David Jones (Labour, Centre-left): I think it would be rather churlish if I did not! I thank the Minister. What he has said shows his determination to put this wrong right, and, as with many issues, he approaches it not only with compassion but with the aim of ensuring that we do the right thing. This is doing the right thing by these veterans, to whom we owe a huge debt. I congratulate him on his stance and I will look with hope at the other work he is doing on retrospection. I accept that there are difficulties with that and I would not expect solutions tomorrow, but I take his commitment at least to look at retrospection. On the happy note that this is moving in the right direction, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 9 Homosexual acts no longer to constitute grounds for discharging a member of HM armed forces (No. 2) ‘(1) The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is amended as follows (2) In section 146(4), omit the words "discharging a member of Her Majesty’s armed forces from the service or" and the words "or, in the case of a member of Her Majesty’s armed forces, where the act occurs in conjunction with other acts or circumstances," (3) In section 147(3), omit the words "discharging a member of Her Majesty’s armed forces from the service or" and the words "or, in the case of a member of Her Majesty’s armed forces, where the act occurs in conjunction with other acts or circumstances,".’—(Mr Kevan Jones.) This amendment removes the provisions applying to the armed forces from sections 146(4) and 147(3) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Brought up, and read the First time.
Welfare Cap — House of Commons, 2015-12-16
Topic: Social Welfare
Ian Lavery (Labour, Centre-left): The Chancellor stood up and said that he was proud to have these targets set in stone. He tried to set a trap for the Labour party on this issue, but he wanted the benefits cap set in stone. The Minister is now explaining that, for the next two or three years, there is no chance of meeting those targets. Please tell us that you are slightly embarrassed or concerned.
Welfare Cap — House of Commons, 2015-12-16
Topic: Social Welfare
Owen Smith (Labour, Centre-left): It is Christmas, and I think the Minister would like to know that his Government have won first prize for being the first Government ever to breach £1 trillion in welfare spending over five years. That is £130 billion more than the Labour Government spent in their last five years. You have won the prize!
Welfare Cap — House of Commons, 2015-12-16
Topic: Social Welfare
Owen Smith (Labour, Centre-left): I rise in the spirit of the intervention made by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) and to say that I absolutely welcome the decision by the Government today to breach the welfare cap in order to reverse-ferret on the cut for 3 million recipients of tax credits—low-wage workers right across Britain. It is an excellent thing the Government have done and we will be fully supportive of it. I hope that she will be supportive of us when we call for a similar reversal on universal credit work allowances.
Welfare Cap — House of Commons, 2015-12-16
Topic: Social Welfare
Owen Smith (Labour, Centre-left): I was here in the Chamber, and I saw the Secretary of State arrive just before the Minister rose to speak. While we are on the subject, perhaps the Minister can clear up this matter. He said to us on Monday at Department for Work and Pensions questions that the Secretary of State had visited a food bank. We submitted a parliamentary question to the Minister asking when that had taken place. The interesting answer—in truth it was a slightly slippery answer—was that Ministers, not the Secretary of State, have attended lots of things, including food banks. I gather there is another question. Perhaps he could tell us when the Secretary of State went to a food bank. [Interruption.] Clearly, he does not want to say As I was saying before the Minister intervened on me, it was a year ago when, to a packed House, the Chancellor unveiled his latest wheeze, the welfare cap. He had a mile-wide smirk on his face like one of the famous cats from his Cheshire constituency. He was positively purring as he laid down what he thought would be a trap for a future Labour Chancellor. He said: "The welfare cap marks an important moment in the development of the British welfare state…and ensures that never again can the costs spiral out of control".—[Official Report, 26 March 2014; Vol. 578, c. 374 and 381.] He wanted Labour Members to stand up "and say exactly what they think of the welfare cap, and tell us that they support it, and that they should have introduced it when they were in office. They look such a cheery bunch."—[Official Report, 26 March 2014; Vol. 578, c. 380.] Well, we are cheery this afternoon, as we look for the soles of the feet of the Cheshire cat Chancellor who has carelessly and ignominiously fallen into his own welfare cat trap. It is less a case of being hoist by his own petard, as slipping on his own smirk. Where is he today to answer these questions? A year ago, he was insistent that it would be he who would be called to account in this House for the breach in the welfare cap. He said in the same debate: "The charter makes clear what will happen if the welfare cap is breached. The Chancellor— not the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions or one of his Ministers, but the Chancellor— "must come to Parliament, account for the failure of public expenditure control, and set out the action that will be taken to address the breach." —[Official Report, 26 March 2014; Vol. 578, c. 380.] But cometh the hour, there is no sign of the cat. He has disappeared. Even the smirk has disappeared.
Welfare Cap — House of Commons, 2015-12-16
Topic: Social Welfare
Owen Smith (Labour, Centre-left): I would trust my shadow Ministers with my life. However, I thought that this was a very important subject. I thought that the welfare cap was one of those things that—what did I say earlier on?—was a great step forward in the British welfare state. I thought that the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions should respond, and I cannot understand for a minute why the right hon. Gentleman wanted his junior Minister to do this belittling debate. The shadow Chancellor is not here. He has disappeared, much like the Cheshire cat—better than that, like Macavity the cat.
Welfare Cap — House of Commons, 2015-12-16
Topic: Macroeconomics
Owen Smith (Labour, Centre-left): I know, okay, the Chancellor: the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), in Cheshire—the Cheshire cat—and given that he is rather like Macavity, rather than the Cheshire cat, I thought that I would give the House a treat. I read that there were no Etonians on the Front Bench among the new intake, and I was worried that the lack of classical education from which the Treasury Bench normally benefits might mean that the Macavity reference went over Ministers’ heads, so I brought a little book with me, and I shall read a section from it. [Interruption.] It is not Mao; it is T.S. Eliot’s collected poems. It gives us Macavity the mystery cat, who is, of course, the Chancellor: there’s no one like Macavity… he’s very tall and thin; You would know him if you saw him, for his eyes are sunken in— I think that is the 5:2 diet— He’s outwardly respectable although (They say he cheats at cards.)— I bet he does— And when the larder’s looted, or the jewel-case is rifled… He always has an alibi, and one or two to spare: At whatever time the deed took place—MACAVITY WASN’T THERE Macavity is not here today, is he? And the deed that he is ducking, of course, is this embarrassing, humiliating U-turn. The cap has been breached, and the Government have done it, of course, because of the spectacular, screeching U-turn on tax credits.
Welfare Cap — House of Commons, 2015-12-16
Topic: Social Welfare
Ian Lavery (Labour, Centre-left): If my hon. Friend—he is a really good friend of mine—had done what the Chancellor has done in promising that the welfare cap would not be breached, would he have sat there and done nothing? I am sure that he would have been prepared to stand at the Dispatch Box, have the courage of his convictions and perhaps apologise.
Welfare Cap — House of Commons, 2015-12-16
Topic: Social Welfare
Owen Smith (Labour, Centre-left): I thought I was doing rather better than that. I thought the House might enjoy a bit of Christmas spirit. The real crime that Macavity is hiding from today is not the breach of the welfare cap, however embarrassing that may be. The real larder that has been looted is universal credit. Opening the debate, the Minister said several times that the Government would meet the welfare cap in 2019-20 and he is right that the OBR confirms that, but he signally failed to tell the House how they would do it. I suspect that that is because of the other reason that the Secretary of State did not wish to address the House today. We know precisely how he will meet the cap: through the £10 billion cut to the work allowance that we will see by 2020; a cut of £3 billion a year, nearly making up for the £3 billion that was to be taken away in tax credits, butchering the work incentives that are supposed to make universal credit worth while Who are the victims of this crime? The Secretary of State is for one, because he has had his budget raided once more—the seventh time, I believe. However, the true victims are the millions of constituents in Labour and Tory seats who will still lose thousands of pounds as a result of the Chancellor’s cut to universal credit. Some 500,000 people will be on UC by next April, and according to the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies, 2.6 million households will lose £1,600 by 2020. They are the victims of this crime, the people who are paying for the Chancellor’s hubris with £3 billion of their own money in 2020 and every year thereafter. They are the people being fleeced by the postcode lottery that is being created in support for low-wage workers, whereby those lucky enough to stay on tax credits will be massively better off than their neighbours on universal credit A single mother working full-time on the new national minimum wage with two children will be £2,981 worse off than another mother, perhaps living next door in precisely the same circumstances but still on tax credits. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State says from a sedentary position, "What about child care?" Yes, if that mother has children who are three or four, she may be better off, but if her children are one, five, seven or 12, they will not be. That is the reality and we should not be misleading the House, from a sedentary position or otherwise That disparity cannot be fair and cannot be right. It may not even be legal. We are seeking advice as to the legality of that move. I suspect that is not what the Chancellor told the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) or other Tory Back Benchers when he reassured them that he was making good the tax credit cut, even if it meant breaching the welfare cap.
Welfare Cap — House of Commons, 2015-12-16
Topic: Social Welfare
Stephen Creswell Timms (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend is making some important points. Is it the case—I have seen the suggestion that it may well be—that the small number of people who are currently receiving universal credit will see the enormous reductions in their income that were to have been imposed on tax credit recipients? There has been a U-turn on tax credits, but is it the case that those who are getting universal credit will be hit?
Welfare Cap — House of Commons, 2015-12-16
Topic: Labor
Ian Lavery (Labour, Centre-left): The real issue concerns in-work benefits and people who are in work. The Sports Direct model is failing, but the Conservatives are not prepared to get stuck into the likes of Sports Direct and of Mike Ashley. They believe that that is a fantastic model of employment, but it is not acceptable.
Welfare Cap — House of Commons, 2015-12-16
Topic: Macroeconomics
Marie Elizabeth Rimmer (Labour, Centre-left): The 1997 to 2010 Labour Government paid off more debt than any previous Government on record—debt left by the Conservative Government. We always know when Conservative Members’ arguments are weak, because they come out with the mantra about the financial mess left by the Labour Government. The financial mess was created and started in America with Lehman Brothers. They use that—[Interruption.] This really doesn’t bother me, because I don’t hear what they’ve got to say.—[Interruption.]
Welfare Cap — House of Commons, 2015-12-16
Topic: Macroeconomics
Marie Elizabeth Rimmer (Labour, Centre-left): No. The hon. Gentleman will wait until I have had my say The financial crisis was caused by Lehman Brothers in America and started in 2008. Had Labour been returned to power—had someone not been greedy for power—we would not be in this mess today because the Conservatives would not be in power. Our strategy was actually working. [Interruption.] I am sorry that Conservative Members do not like the truth.
Welfare Cap — House of Commons, 2015-12-16
Topic: Social Welfare
Marie Elizabeth Rimmer (Labour, Centre-left): Sit down! I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker We always know when the Government are at their weakest, because they go on and on about the financial crisis. But let us get to the welfare cap. Of the two major cuts to in-work support in the summer Budget—to tax credits and its replacement, universal credit—only the tax credits element has been reversed. The reason we are in this state is that the Chancellor originally set the cap at a level that, in the first instance, simply tracked the Office for Budget Responsibility’s projections for spending on those benefits and tax credits that were in scope—as one of my colleagues mentioned, tax credits are in scope, which is unacceptable. The cap started in 2015-16 and extends for the next five years, meaning that, for now, the cap has no policy effect whatsoever. The Government are simply committed to operating future policy on the basis of not overshooting the current estimate of financial spending over the coming years. We could be in this position next year and the year after, because there are no real policy decisions. It is short term. It is nothing else As predicted, that led to the announcement of emergency cuts, including those to tax credits, but they were resoundingly kicked out by the Lords—the Conservatives at prayer, as someone described them. Although I am not in favour of an unelected second Chamber, I applaud them for taking that action. Only the tax credits element was reversed, however, and working families remain on the front line of further assaults, such as the cap and the universal credit cuts. The latter will affect many people—more than 200,000, I think—from April 2016, and the majority of those on universal credit are in the north-west. They are the ones who suffer the most from unemployment and financial deprivation—much of which is caused by zero-hours contracts, insecure employment, low pay and part-time work—which is why they are on benefits.
Welfare Cap — House of Commons, 2015-12-16
Topic: Social Welfare
Marie Elizabeth Rimmer (Labour, Centre-left): Not at the moment. Hon. Members will hear what I have to say We need reforms that address the structural drivers of social security spending. We need good, secure employment; we need to get rid of zero-hours contracts and low pay; and we need to ensure an adequate supply of affordable homes.
Self-employment — House of Commons, 2017-01-09
Topic: Labor
Peter Christopher Dowd (Labour, Centre-left): A Citizens Advice report in August 2015 said that there were as many as 460,000 people in bogus self-employment, with a cost of hundreds of millions of pounds in lost revenue. Is it not about time that the Secretary of State, rather than hounding disabled people, started tackling exploitative companies, many of which have lucrative public sector contracts, that are forcing people down the self-employment route?
Self-employment — House of Commons, 2017-01-09
Topic: Law and Crime
Rosalie Winterton (Labour, Centre-left): Happy new year, Mr Speaker Will the Secretary of State ensure that there is much closer co-operation between the single fraud investigation service and local authorities on the prosecution of abuse, including on self-employment status, so that councils can be confident that when they report possible scams, including by employers, they are properly followed up?
Self-employment — House of Commons, 2017-01-09
Topic: Labor
Nicklaus Thomas-Symonds (Labour, Centre-left): Happy new year, Mr Speaker Many self-employed people do not earn a great deal of money and will be losing out from cuts to tax credits and the introduction of universal credit. Should not the Government be supporting those who become self-employed?
Self-employment — House of Commons, 2017-01-09
Topic: Labor
Fiona Margaret Mactaggart (Labour, Centre-left): But is not the biggest trend in self-employment the massive increase in women who are self-employed, with 70% of those newly self-employed in 2014 being women? Yet self-employment is the area where the wage gap is biggest. According to the OECD, self-employed men earn an average of £17,000 a year, but average earnings for self-employed women stand at £9,800. We know from the Department’s figures that women are less likely to access loans and so forth for self-employment. What is the Secretary of State doing to deal with gender inequality in self-employment?
Self-employment — House of Commons, 2017-01-09
Topic: Labor
Deborah Angela Elspeth Marie Abrahams (Labour, Centre-left): A happy new year to you, Mr Speaker, and to everyone Resolution Foundation data show that self-employment accounts for 81% of the net change in employment since 2008. The Government’s plans to abolish class 2 national insurance contributions could leave low-income, self-employed women paying five times as much to access maternity allowance. Given that nearly 2 million self-employed workers earn less than the national living wage, why have the Government decided to make social security support harder to access for so many of Britain’s entrepreneurs?
Disabled and Terminally Ill Children — House of Commons, 2017-01-09
Topic: Social Welfare
Barry John Sheerman (Labour, Centre-left): Many of us who liked some of the elements of the big society when we first heard about it now quite like some of the utterances about the shared society. However, if the programme is to work for children, and not just for those who are terminally ill but people with disabilities—some disabilities are abilities; I am thinking here of autism—it must have teeth, leadership and resources.
Health Outcomes: Work — House of Commons, 2017-01-09
Topic: Labor
Questions: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Health on ensuring that GPs and other healthcare professionals take account of the value of work as a successful health outcome; and if he will make a statement.; What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Health on ensuring that GPs and other healthcare professionals take account of the value of work as a successful health outcome; and if he will make a statement.; The benefits of an autistic constituent of mine were taken away by a DWP caseworker after my constituent told that person that he enjoyed his hobby of being a disc jockey. He received a bill showing a fictional figure, invented by the DWP, representing the amount of income that the Department needed to recover. A work coach should be assisting individuals, not penalising them, so will the Secretary of State please do better?
Stephen Creswell Timms (Labour, Centre-left): After the big cut in employment and support allowance takes place in April and the new Work and Health programme is established, will the Department be spending more or less on employment support for ESA claimants than is currently the case under the Work programme and Work Choice?
Ex-offenders — House of Commons, 2017-01-09
Topic: Law and Crime
Seema Malhotra-Saluja (Labour, Centre-left): Her Majesty’s inspectorates of prisons and probation found that not a single prisoner had been helped into employment by the Through the Gate provision, which is the Government’s flagship programme for achieving a step change in rehabilitation. Did that surprise the Minister, and what is his response?
Ex-offenders — House of Commons, 2017-01-09
Topic: Labor
Karen Patricia Buck (Labour, Centre-left): Our Work and Pensions Committee report found that reoffending costs £15 billion to the public purse, yet fewer than one in four ex-offenders goes on to find work. Alarmingly, Westminster Council’s report on rough sleeping that was published before Christmas found that one in three of its rough sleepers had come directly from prison. Why is the Department unable to provide proper transitional support for people leaving prison to make sure that they are not on the streets and that they are assisted into employment?
Pension Investments — House of Commons, 2017-01-09
Topic: Labor
Questions: What steps the Government are taking to ensure that people have the information they need to make informed decisions about how they use their pension investments.
Alison McGovern (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister’s warm words will do nothing to reassure the women in my constituency for whom the Government’s advice on pensions has a terrible reputation because of the injustices highlighted by the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign. The one thing the Government could do to persuade the public to believe their pronouncements on pension entitlements would be to give justice to the WASPI women by looking again at the 2011 changes.
Pension Investments — House of Commons, 2017-01-09
Topic: Labor
Questions: What steps the Government are taking to ensure that people have the information they need to make informed decisions about how they use their pension investments.
Alexander Cunningham (Labour, Centre-left): I know that the Minister agrees with me on the need for greater transparency in the pensions world, particularly around costs. He will therefore be keen to address the widespread criticism of the Government’s failing to act to ensure that people get the best possible returns. The Financial Conduct Authority’s interim report in November highlighted a number of failures in the asset management industry relating to the transparency of costs and charges applied to pension investments, stating that "weak price competition" was having a "material impact" on investment returns. Labour is committed to implementing all the FCA’s recommendations. Are the Government?