argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Implementation of the 1995 and 2011 Pension Acts — House of Commons, 2017-03-07
Topic: Labor
Chinyelu Susan Onwurah (Labour, Centre-left): It is particularly appropriate that, on the eve of International Women’s Day, I present this petition from the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign in Newcastle upon Tyne Central, and many men, calling for fair transitional arrangements for 1950s-born women affected by changes to the state pension age In my recent Westminster Hall debate, I highlighted how these changes disproportionately affect working-class women of that generation, who are more likely to have started work at 15, more likely to be in manual trades, which take a greater toll on the body as it ages, more likely to die younger and less likely to have private pensions. There are many such women in Newcastle and across the country who wish to highlight the hardship, stress and worry they face as a consequence The petition states: The petition of residents of Newcastle Upon Tyne Central, Declares that as a result of the way in which the 1995 Pension Act and the 2011 Pension Act were implemented, women born in the 1950s (on or after 6 April 1951) have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age; further that hundreds of thousands of women have had significant changes imposed on them with little or no personal notice; further that implementation took place faster than promised; further that this gave no time to make alternative pension plans; and further that retirement plans have been shattered with devastating consequences The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to make fair transitional arrangements for all women born in the 1950s (on or after 6 April 1951) who have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age And the petitioners remain, etc [P002024]
Social Care: Unmet Needs — House of Commons, 2017-03-21
Topic: Social Welfare
Rosemary Elizabeth Cooper (Labour, Centre-left): Does the Minister recognise that the figure he has just given—the additional £1 billion in the Budget—is just half of what is needed to fill the shortfall in social care? Will he tell the House what he is doing to ensure that the sector gets the additional money and to stop councils being bankrupted by their social care requirements?
Social Care: Unmet Needs — House of Commons, 2017-03-21
Topic: Social Welfare
Barbara Mary Keeley (Labour, Centre-left): But 1.2 million older people are living with unmet care needs. The £1 billion that was announced in the Budget for this year is not enough to prop up the failing care sector, when many councils are suffering contracts being handed back. Given that 1 million people over the age of 65 do not have adult children, will the Minister explain how all those people living with unmet care needs are meant to manage?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2017-03-21
Topic: Law and Crime
Questions: I was pleased to see the Government commit to new funding for emergency care in the Budget. As the MP for Derby North, a constituency particularly affected by poor air quality, I am concerned that respiratory admissions to A&E have risen at twice the rate of general admissions over the past five years. What steps is the Department taking to address this issue?; Last Friday, Laurel Bank surgery in my constituency attended a careers fair at Bishop Heber High School. Does the Secretary of State agree that that kind of outreach work by GPs among young people encourages them to study medicine and work in our great NHS?; Is the Secretary of State aware that my constituents are deeply disappointed with what he got out of the Budget? That poor deal for the NHS means that they face the closure of A&E in Huddersfield and the closure of Huddersfield hospital, and they no longer have a dentist who will take on an NHS patient in the whole of my constituency.; Following the publication of the report of the all-party parliamentary group on rare, genetic and undiagnosed conditions on the UK rare diseases strategy, what plans does the Minister have to introduce an implementation plan for NHS England?; Will the Secretary of State explain why my area of Hull, with its in-built health inequalities and poorer health outcomes, is getting just £13 million out of the additional money for social care set out in the Budget, while the local authority area that the Secretary of State represents in Surrey is getting £21 million-worth of additional support?; As the Secretary of State knows, I am the vice-chairman of the all-party group on pharmacy. Will he update the House on the progress of the decriminalisation of dispensing errors by pharmacists? What is the hitch?; Last week, leading trauma surgeon, Dr Duncan Bew, said his surgical team sees more young patients with serious stab injuries than people with appendicitis. This is a societal problem. Will the Minister inform us of his Department’s public health approach to tackling this issue?; As the Secretary of State knows, we have a crisis in GP recruitment in rural north Lincolnshire. Does he agree that the best way to enable doctors to get to know our glorious county would be to establish a medical school at Lincoln University, and will he join our campaign to make that possibility come true?; As the House heard earlier from my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), there is an excellent urgent care centre in that part of north Northamptonshire. There are plans to create a replica in Wellingborough. I understand that the Secretary of State may visit the centre in Corby; if he does, will he drive half an hour down the road and visit the site in Wellingborough where that proposed excellent urgent care centre will be built?
Catherine Elizabeth West (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State will be aware of a recent High Court case concerning a surrogacy issue that has led to legal limbo. Does he agree that the existing legislation has let children down, and that reform is urgently needed?
Money Laundering: British Banks — House of Commons, 2017-03-21
Topic: International Affairs
Benjamin Peter James Bradshaw (Labour, Centre-left): Are the Government or any other public agency in Britain investigating whether laundered Russian money was channelled to any individuals in either the leave campaign or the Trump presidential campaign? Is the Minister aware of any other investigations?
Money Laundering: British Banks — House of Commons, 2017-03-21
Topic: Law and Crime
Catherine McKinnell (Labour, Centre-left): Having previously claimed that "there is little evidence of corporate economic wrongdoing going unpunished", the Ministry of Justice is now considering whether it should extend the criminal liability offences to money laundering. Does the Minister now agree that the "global laundromat" allegations clearly highlight that the law needs to be toughened up in this area?
Money Laundering: British Banks — House of Commons, 2017-03-21
Topic: Law and Crime
Ian Austin (Labour, Centre-left): The Home Affairs Committee estimates that £100 billion is laundered through London every year, but only 0.17% of that has been frozen, so the Minister might as well go to Heathrow and put up a welcome sign for Russian murderers and money launderers. Five criminal complaints have been submitted to UK law enforcement agencies about money laundering connected to the Magnitsky case. Not a single one has resulted in the opening of a criminal case, whereas 12 other countries have opened investigations on the same evidence. So the question is this: what is necessary to get UK law enforcement agencies to do their jobs and prosecute money launderers? Why has that not been working, and what is the Minister going to do about it?
Money Laundering: British Banks — House of Commons, 2017-03-21
Topic: International Affairs
Kerry Gillian McCarthy (Labour, Centre-left): Investigators at the National Crime Agency are saying that Russian officials have been hampering their investigations by refusing to co-operate. What discussions has the Minister had, or will he have, with his Foreign Office counterparts to see whether they can broker a better relationship with those Russian officials?
Rectification Procedure — House of Commons, 2017-03-21
Topic: Government Operations
Ian Lavery (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On Thursday 16 March, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards published her report on a complaint about my declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which concluded that I had breached the rules relating to how I registered information and, in a subsequent and inadvertent omission, had failed to draw the House’s attention to these interests while asking a question about the future of deep coal mining in the UK on 13 March 2013. Mr Speaker, I wish to apologise to the House fully and unreservedly for what was a genuinely inadvertent breach of the rules, with which I have at all times sought to comply.
Fuel Poverty — House of Commons, 2017-03-21
Topic: Energy
Matthew Thomas Pennycook (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister is talking about partnership at the local level. A huge variety of organisations in Greenwich and Woolwich are working on this very issue, not least South East London Community Energy. Is the Department giving any thought to how such organisations can link up with local authorities to avoid the fragmentation that can exist at the local level, and ensure they work in partnership to target people who need their help the most?
Fuel Poverty — House of Commons, 2017-03-21
Topic: Macroeconomics
Rebecca Long-Bailey (Labour, Centre-left): They need to give greater consideration to it and provide greater investment. I will move on Fuel poverty has a greater social impact. Children who live in cold homes see an impact on their ability to achieve, whether because of illness or simply because of a poor quality home environment. The financial and emotional stress it can place on families can damage relationships and lead to long-term stress-related mental health issues I am concerned that, although some work has been done in this area, the fact remains that the number of homes in fuel poverty has slowly been creeping up. The fuel poverty gap, which is a measure of the difference between a household’s energy bill and what it can afford to pay, increased from £235 in 2003 to £371 in 2014. At the same time, we have seen stagnating wages, or a lost decade in earnings as the Bank of England has termed it. What is more worrying is that after the recent Budget, the Institute for Fiscal Studies stated that, on the Government’s current economic trajectory, average wages in 2022 will be worse in real terms than before the financial crash. The Minister will appreciate that as inflation pushes up, the differential between price increases and wage growth will continue to close. Even if energy prices are capped, which I know is an option being considered by the Government, the amount that families have to spend on bills will still get smaller and smaller It is not enough, therefore, simply to tackle fuel poverty as a stand-alone issue. The Government must tackle the causes of fuel poverty. Without investing in the tools that businesses need to drive up wages and productivity, wages will continue to stagnate in the long term. Sadly, in the Budget we did not see the investment required from the Government that would in any way go towards bringing us in line with other industrial countries. It is therefore no shock that Britain is the only large developed country where wages fell even as economic growth returned after the crash. I digress slightly, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Fuel Poverty — House of Commons, 2017-03-21
Topic: Energy
James Dolan Cunningham (Labour, Centre-left): Is the hon. Lady aware that electricity prices have risen by about 125% overall, and gas prices have risen by about 75%? More important from the point of view of older people, the Government have withdrawn their green deal. Houses could have been insulated against cold weather. I hope that the Minister will respond to that point when he winds up the debate.
Fuel Poverty — House of Commons, 2017-03-21
Topic: Transportation
Daniel Owen Jarvis (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend made an important point about the contribution made by local authorities in drawing together the work that happens at a local level. Does she agree that, to reduce the number of excess winter deaths, it is important at a national level that the Government co-ordinate across Whitehall and that meaningful conversations happen between Departments?
Fuel Poverty — House of Commons, 2017-03-21
Topic: Environment
Gillian Furniss (Labour, Centre-left): No, I must move on The Government’s flagship green deal policy is universally recognised as a failure. It was well intentioned, but we warned at the time that implementation was going very badly. By the end, the green deal improved only 15,000 homes at a cost of £17,000 per home. No replacement policy is in sight so far as I am aware The Government have cancelled the zero-carbon homes initiative. By contrast, Labour would build 1 million new carbon-neutral homes and insulate 4 million more. Labour would roll out a £90 million "homes for heroes" programme that offers free home insulation to disabled veterans. The Labour party has committed to making energy efficiency a key infrastructure priority. That makes economic sense and is the right thing for the future of the UK.
Delegated Legislation — House of Commons, 2017-03-21
Topic: Macroeconomics
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 4 to 7 together Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), Rating and Valuation That the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention) and (Levy and Safety Net) (Amendment) Regulations 2017, which were laid before this House on 20 February, be approved Constitutional Law That the draft Crown Estate Transfer Scheme 2017, which was laid before this House on 1 March, be approved. Income Tax That the draft Scotland Act 2016 (Income Tax Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2017, which were laid before this House on 30 January, be approved Electricity That the draft Electricity Supplier Payments (Amendment) Regulations 2017, which were laid before this House on 20 February, be approved.—(Steve Brine.) Question agreed to.
Social Care Budgets — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: Social Welfare
Questions: What assessment he has made of the effect of changes to local authority social care budgets on the provision of adequate health and social care services.
Marie Elizabeth Rimmer (Labour, Centre-left): There is no comfort for our elderly people. It is not too late for the Government to act. I ask the Minister to look at protecting social care funding. Will he bring forward the £6 billion and the £700 million—
Social Care Budgets — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: Social Welfare
Questions: What assessment he has made of the effect of changes to local authority social care budgets on the provision of adequate health and social care services.
Elizabeth Anne McInnes (Labour, Centre-left): My local council of Rochdale has had to make cuts of £200 million in the past six years. It has a further £40 million of cuts to implement, which will pile the pressure on our social care budgets. The 2% precept will raise only £1.4 million, which is a drop in the ocean when our total adult social care budget is £80 million. With our hospitals reporting a 70% increase in delayed discharges, I call on the Minister to bring forward the better care fund scheduled for the end of this Parliament so that our social care services can cope now.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: International Affairs
Natascha Engel (Labour, Centre-left): I think the hon. Gentleman knows the answer to his question. This is very early for points of order, as we have not even started. As he knows, the grouping of amendments was the subject of the programme motion that was voted on last week. As he says, there will be a Division on the lead amendment. As for subsequent amendments, it depends on what happens in the rest of the debate New Clause 1 Parliamentary approval for agreements with the Union "(1) Where a Minister of the Crown proposes to conclude an agreement with the European Union setting out the arrangements for the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union— (a) the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statement of the proposed terms of the agreement, and (b) no Minister of the Crown may conclude any such agreement unless the proposed terms have been approved by resolution of both Houses (2) The requirements of subsection (1) also apply where a Minister of the Crown proposes to conclude an agreement with the European Union for the future relationship of the United Kingdom with the European Union (3) In the case of a proposed agreement setting out the arrangements for the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, the statement under subsection (1)(a) must be laid before the proposed terms are agreed with the Commission with a view to their approval by the European Parliament or the Council."—(Keir Starmer.) This new clause requires Ministers to seek the approval of Parliament of any proposed Withdrawal Agreement before final terms are agreed with the Commission and prior to endorsement by the European Parliament and Council. Brought up, and read the First time.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: Government Operations
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): I am not sure how helpful interventions like that are to a debate, which is actually really important, about scrutiny and accountability. Just to be clear, nagging away, pushing votes and making the argument over three months, we have got a White Paper, and it is important. Nagging away and making the arguments, we have got commitments about reporting back. Nagging away and making the arguments, we have got a commitment to the vote at the end of the exercise. So when the charge is levelled at the Opposition that they have not made the case, and are not succeeding on the case, for scrutiny and accountability, that simply does not match what has happened over the last three months.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: Government Operations
Angela Eagle (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. and learned Friend is right to point out that progress has been made, but does he agree that to make a vote at the end of the process meaningful, we have to have meaningful scrutiny as the process goes on, and as a Parliament we have to have the chance to say to the Government, "You must go back and try to do better"? Having an all-or-nothing vote at the end, when all the discussions and negotiations are over, is not, in my definition, meaningful scrutiny. Does he agree?
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: International Affairs
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful for that intervention, and I will come to that, but the central theme of the case I will seek to make this afternoon is that a vote in this House must be before the deal is concluded; that is the dividing line that makes the real difference here.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: International Affairs
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): Minister, I am very grateful for that intervention. That is a huge and very important concession about the process that we are to embark on. The argument I have made about a vote over the last three months is that the vote must cover both the article 50 deal and any future relationship—I know that, for my colleagues, that is very important—and that that vote must take place before the deal is concluded, and I take that from what has just been said.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: International Affairs
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): I am dealing with this intervention, if you don’t mind What is significant about what has just been said is that it covers the article 50 agreement and it covers any future relationship. That is the first time we have heard this. It is a very significant position by the Government, and I am grateful that it has been made. It is very important that it has been made, because, on both sides of the House, there has been real anxiety that it should cover both bases Whether it goes far enough for the fall-back position, I will reflect on. Ideally, of course, one would want that covered, but I do not want to underplay the significance of what has just been said about the two deals, because this is the first time that clarity has been given; it is the first time the point has been conceded. It is an argument I have been making for three months, and it is very important that it has now been conceded: it is important for my colleagues, and I am sure it is important for people across the House Equally important is the timing—that the vote should be before the deal is concluded. The great fear was that there would be a concluded deal, which would make any vote in this House meaningless What I hope can now happen on the back of that concession is what I anticipate will happen in the European Parliament: by regularly reporting, updating the House and setting out the direction of travel, there can be agreement about progress, and what happens at the end will not come as a surprise to any of us in this House. But what has been said by the Minister is a very significant statement of the position, which meets in large part everything I have been driving at in new clause 1.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: International Affairs
Benjamin Peter James Bradshaw (Labour, Centre-left): I welcome, as my hon. and learned Friend does, the concession from the Government Benches, but does he agree that, as well as the timing, it is the scope of that vote that will be absolutely vital? As the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) says, if we are faced with a choice between a hard Brexit and World Trade Organisation rules, that is no choice—the Government will have to go back and renegotiate.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: Government Operations
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): At the moment, I agree that we should have as big a say as possible on all of this, but I do not want to understate what has been conceded in the last 10 minutes. I do take the point, but where we have made significant progress on scrutiny and accountability, we should recognise where we have got to.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: International Affairs
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): I hear what my hon. Friend says. I think we will have to wait to hear from the Minister So far as the vote is concerned, there has been a change of position, and it is important that I set that out. Initially, the Secretary of State for Brexit said back in October that he would observe the requirements of treaty ratification. Then in December, at the Dispatch Box, he almost said that we would get a vote—he said that it was "inconceivable" that we would not. Then, just before Christmas at the Liaison Committee, the Prime Minister appeared to back away from that altogether under questioning from the Chairman of the Brexit Committee, and the fact of a vote was only conceded after Christmas. Then in paragraph 1.12 of the White Paper, there was a commitment to a vote on the final deal. Today has taken us a lot further forward. That demonstrates how, by chipping away and arguing away, we are making progress on accountability and scrutiny.