argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2015-02-03
Topic: Civil Rights
Questions: I should like to take this opportunity to extend my deepest sympathy to the family of Shaquan Sammy-Plummer, who was tragically and senselessly stabbed to death on Friday night in the borough of Enfield. The Secretary of State knows that there are many complex reasons surrounding the causes of knife crime, but he will also know that the House has approved a change in the law proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and me which would mean that the possession of a knife for a second time would carry a guaranteed jail sentence. Will he update me on the progress of that legislation? To kill someone with a knife, you first have to possess a knife.
Sadiq Aman Khan (Labour, Centre-left): We already know how little the Justice Secretary thinks of our international human rights obligations, given that he wants to repeal the British Human Rights Act and walk away from the European convention on human rights. What is the Ministry of Justice’s motivation for signing a £5.9 million contract with a country whose justice system is widely condemned for the use of torture—which is what a sentence of 1,000 lashes amounts to—and of execution by beheading?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2015-02-03
Topic: Mixed Topics
Fiona Margaret Mactaggart (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier in this question session, the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) heard me scoff as he spoke. I scoffed when he referred to the Daily Mail as the source of his research, not because I do not care about the issue of rape, which is an issue I raised on the BBC in a "Newsnight" programme when the hon. Gentleman was eight years old.
Insurance Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-02-03
Topic: Other
Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Centre-left): As the Minister has outlined, this is a non-controversial Bill overall, and we did indeed debate and discuss it last week. I have no issue with clause 1 and think that it is important to get on to the other areas of the Bill on which the Minister might wish to answer some questions Question put and agreed to. Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 Application and interpretation Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Insurance Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-02-03
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Centre-left): There is nothing particularly controversial in clause 2, or indeed in clauses 3 to 8 and schedule 1. As the Minister said, the clause provides that the duty of fair presentation, which is set out in the remainder of the part, applies in the event of a variation to a non-consumer insurance contract as well as upon the initial agreement or the contract Clause 3 introduces a requirement on the insured to "make to the insurer a fair presentation of the risk" before the contract is entered into. That replaces existing duties in relation to disclosure and representations contained in the Marine Insurance Act 1906, but retains essential elements of those provisions in ensuring that the insured provides insurers with the information they require to decide whether to insure a risk and on what terms.
Insurance Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-02-03
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Centre-left): Again, it has been helpful to hear the Minister’s comments. We have no difficulty with these clauses On clause 9, under the current law, an insurer may add a declaration to a non- consumer insurance proposal form or policy, stating that the insured warrants the accuracy of all the answers given or that such answers form the "basis of the contract". That has the legal effect of converting representations into warranties. The insurer is discharged from liability for claims if the insured made any misrepresentation, even if it was immaterial and did not induce the insurer to enter into the contract. The Law Commission gave the example of a claim for flooding being refused, as the Minister suggested, because the insured had failed to install the right model of burglar alarm. The clause seeks to put an end to this practice by abolishing "basis of the contract" clauses in non-consumer insurance. Clause 10 replaces the existing remedy for breach of a warranty in an insurance contract Clause 11 was initially not included in the Bill. That gave rise to the introduction in the other place of a new clause that replicated a similar clause originally included by the Law Commission pertaining to situations in which an insured had breached a term of contract but could show that "its breach of the term could not have increased the risk of the loss which actually occurred in the circumstances in which it occurred." In the Lords Committee, some expressed the view that this omission was an error. The Minister, Lord Newby, explained that the clause as originally drafted was "too controversial to go through the special procedure for uncontroversial Law Commission Bills." He did, however, admit that it was "difficult to argue against the policy and to say that insurers should be entitled to refuse liability for a loss that is of a completely different nature from that contemplated by the breached term." At the Government’s prompting, the Law Commission submitted a new draft, which became the current clause 11 and which was "intended to minimise the uncertainty inherent in the first formulation" The clause acts to rectify the situation prior to the Bill when the actual nature of a breach of term was irrelevant. This has been a helpful process to ensure that that piece of tidying up was done. On that basis, we have no problem with these clauses Question put and agreed to. Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 10 and 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 12 Remedies for fraudulent claims Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Insurance Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-02-03
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister has again clearly outlined what the clauses do. As she said, clause 12 sets out the insurer’s remedies where the insured makes a fraudulent claim. It puts the common law rule of forfeiture on a statutory footing. Where the insured commits a fraud against the insurer, the insurer is not liable to pay the insurance claim to which the fraud relates. Where the insurer has already paid out insurance moneys on the claim and later discovers the fraud, the insurer may recover those moneys from the insured. As we have heard, that provides the insurer with a further remedy giving it an option to treat the contract as if it had been terminated at the time of the "fraudulent act". That does not apply where a third party commits a fraud against the insurer or the insured, such as where a fraudulent claim is made against an insured party who seeks recovery from its insurer under a liability policy Clause 13 gives the insurer the remedies where there is fraud by one member of a group scheme. Again, we have no difficulty with these clauses standing part of the Bill Question put and agreed to. Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 14 Good Faith Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Insurance Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-02-03
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Centre-left): Under the Marine Insurance Act 1906, insurance contracts are ones of "utmost good faith". Clause 14 removes avoidance of the contract as a remedy for breach of that duty of good faith, both from the 1906 Act and at common law. The intention of clause 14 is that good faith will remain an interpretative principle, with section 17 of the 1906 Act and the common law continuing to provide that insurance contracts are contracts of good faith Clauses 15 and 16 prohibit insurers from inserting in an insurance contract terms that would leave the insured—be they a consumer or a non-consumer—in a worse position than that required by the Bill Clause 16 defines transparency in respect of what an insurer must do to draw the insured’s attention to the disadvantageous terms of the contract. Clause 17 sets out the transparency requirements. For example, the insurer should take sufficient steps to draw disadvantageous terms to the insured’s attention within a reasonable time frame prior to their entering into the contract, but when an insured has knowledge of the term, they may not claim that the insurer has not brought it to their attention. Clause 18 deals with the insurer’s remedies where a member of a group insurance contract makes a fraudulent claim. Again, we do not think that these clauses are controversial and we are content for them to stand part of the Bill Question put and agreed to. Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 15 to 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 19 Power to change meaning of "relevant person" for purposes of 2010 Act Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Insurance Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-02-03
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Centre-left): As the Minister has said, clause 21 makes provisions consequential on part 2 and amends or repeals various sections of the Marine Insurance Act 1906, the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, as well as the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012. She has also confirmed that clause 22 ensures that those provisions relating to fair presentation and good faith apply only to insurance contracts entered into after the end of the period of 18 months from the Bill’s entry into force. Clause 23 ensures that the Bill extends to the whole of the UK, apart from consequential provisions in clause 21 relating to Northern Ireland. Again, we are happy for these clauses to stand part of the Bill Question put and agreed to. Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 22 and 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to. The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair. Bill reported, without amendment. Third Reading
Insurance Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-02-03
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Centre-left): I, too, thank everyone who has worked on this important Bill, including the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission. It has been interesting to follow the special procedure. There is no doubt that the Bill was rigorously scrutinised in the other place, and a number of amendments were tabled. That perhaps makes our task in Committee and on Third Reading somewhat easier, and will help to ensure that the Bill safely completes its passage through the House I raised one issue that was originally suggested in the Law Commission reports but did not make it into the Bill: late payment. I want to give the Minister the opportunity to reply, but to recap briefly, the Law Commission report states: "We consider that a policyholder should have a remedy where an insurer has acted unreasonably in delaying or refusing payment." It recommended "an implied term in every insurance contract that the insurer will pay sums due within a reasonable time", with appropriate caveats. Those points were deemed too controversial to be included in a Law Commission Bill, and as I have said before, although the recommendations have merit, I recognise that a Law Commission Bill may not be the appropriate vehicle for putting such provisions into statute because of the way that "controversial" is interpreted I asked the Minister whether she would consider legislating for late payment by some other means. She offered encouragement on that and also said that "evidence presented to the Law Commission, the Treasury and the Special Public Bill Committee demonstrated that the problems in the existing law are worse in theory than in practice."––[Official Report, Insurance Bill Second Reading Committee, 26 January 2015; c. 9.] Although the Minister provided some encouragement, she perhaps also suggested that such measures would not be a priority for the immediate future. It would be helpful if she clarified that point and said whether the Government have plans to take the issue forward and to what time scale. In general terms, the Bill has taken us forward and is largely technical in how it updates insurance law in statute. We have given it a good airing and should see it successfully enacted.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology — House of Commons, 2015-02-03
Topic: Mixed Topics
Robert Charles Douglas Flello (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister says that there is no point in further review, but the safety tests recommended by the HFEA in its three reports have not yet been completed, written up or peer reviewed. Does that sound like a completed analysis?
Human Fertilisation and Embryology — House of Commons, 2015-02-03
Topic: Other
Luciana Clare Goldsmith (Berger) (Labour, Centre-left): I shall be dealing with the expert panel reviews that have been conducted since the date to which my hon. Friend has referred It is right that we have had a chance to hear all the arguments and to give them full and proper consideration, but it is critical to the integrity of the decision that is eventually reached for the debate to be based on the facts. When debating matters such as this, we will naturally hear a number of contradictory assertions. I am sure that the Minister will reassure the House about any further issues that are raised during the debate.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology — House of Commons, 2015-02-03
Topic: Other
Luciana Clare Goldsmith (Berger) (Labour, Centre-left): That point was raised in an earlier intervention. I think it is clear from reports following reviews by the expert panel that it has already been specifically addressed, but I shall deal with it in more detail later.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology — House of Commons, 2015-02-03
Topic: Other
Luciana Clare Goldsmith (Berger) (Labour, Centre-left): Unfortunately, it is not in the Opposition’s gift to determine the time allocated for these debates. I would have welcomed further debate, and we had an opportunity in a previous Backbench Business Committee-initiated debate to discuss these matters.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology — House of Commons, 2015-02-03
Topic: Mixed Topics
Andrew Peter Miller (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but there are plenty of occasions when such tests are not carried out. In central Africa we have been testing Ebola vaccines without first testing them on primates, because the benefits outweigh the risks. We are in that position already. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South referred to research undertaken in China 10 years ago. He rightly said that that work took place, but I put it to Members of this House that the ethical and scientific rigour applied to experimentation in the UK far exceeds anything in China 10 years ago. Indeed, the technologies have also moved on to a very high degree since then.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology — House of Commons, 2015-02-03
Topic: Mixed Topics
Andrew Peter Miller (Labour, Centre-left): The ethical basis on which science is conducted in this country is world leading. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we should be immensely proud of the successes—again—of our scientific community in a range of life science disciplines. This one affects a very small group of the population but does so in such a profound way. Although there are issues that need properly regulating, the regulatory structure that we have created does that properly. The Minister was asked about, and indeed mentioned, the issues associated with designer babies. Of course this House would want to impose limits, but we are considering a specific set of regulations about dealing with mitochondrial disease—they do nothing else. I, for one, would not stand here to defend the concept of designer babies and people choosing eye colour and so on. Today, we are dealing purely with those terrible illnesses.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology — House of Commons, 2015-02-03
Topic: Other
Robert Charles Douglas Flello (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have just had a 90-minute debate during which a number of right hon. and hon. Members from across the Chamber and with different views had to rush through their speeches. We had people putting on the record views—sometimes genuinely held views although not necessarily correct—that nobody was able to challenge. Some hon. Members did not even have the chance to contribute to the debate Could you confirm, Mr Speaker, that there were indeed hon. Members who indicated that they would have liked to speak? Secondly, do you think it right that we have had a 90-minute rush and will now have three hours on a Backbench Business Committee motion?
Rural Phone and Broadband Connectivity — House of Commons, 2015-02-03
Topic: Other
Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Centre-left): Order. A large number of Members wish to take part in this debate. There will be an eight-minute time limit starting from now. I hope that that will last for the entire debate and will not need to go down any further. But we will have to keep an eye on the time.
Rural Phone and Broadband Connectivity — House of Commons, 2015-02-03
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Christopher John Bryant (Labour, Centre-left): The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We need greater competition because that would deliver results faster for everybody. However, I query his last comment. With 44 small tenders, it was remarkably difficult for anybody to presume that they might gain more than one, other than BT. My worry is that the way the tender process was set up created the monopoly in the first place.
Rural Phone and Broadband Connectivity — House of Commons, 2015-02-03
Topic: Other
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): Order. Look, this debate is not going to degenerate now. If the Minister can control himself, he will be on shortly, and if Back Benchers want to intervene, will they please do it in the correct manner?
Private Members’ Bills — House of Commons, 2015-01-22
Topic: Mixed Topics
Questions: If he will review the effectiveness of the procedure for tabling money resolutions for private Members’ Bills; and if he will make a statement.; If he will review the effectiveness of the procedure for tabling money resolutions for private Members’ Bills; and if he will make a statement.
Willie Bain (Labour, Centre-left): On Monday, the House adjourned after barely three hours of Government business, so is it not an outrage that the Leader of the House cannot find time to bring to the House important money resolutions on private Members’ Bills, such as that of the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), which would exempt thousands of disabled people from the terrible effects of the Government’s hated bedroom tax?
Private Members’ Bills — House of Commons, 2015-01-22
Topic: Other
Questions: If he will make more time available in Public Bill Committees and on the Floor of the House for consideration of private Members’ Bills.
Hugh Bayley (Labour, Centre-left): In 23 years as a Member of the House I have never been fortunate enough to have my name come up in the ballot for a private Member’s Bill, and I do not think that as a legislator I should have to wait a generation for an active chance to legislate in this House on behalf of my constituents. Will the Leader of the House set up a working party, which includes my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) and the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, to consider better ways of giving Back Benchers the opportunity to legislate?
Child Abuse Inquiry — House of Commons, 2015-01-22
Topic: Mixed Topics
Andrew Sawford (Labour, Centre-left): Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) about the confidence of survivors, in my experience, having talked to some survivors, these people have very little confidence in a system that they feel has failed them. The appearance over the past six months or so is of an establishment stitch-up. I appreciate that that is not necessarily the fault of the right hon. Lady, who has good intentions, but that is how it appears to the public. She says, "I make a decision," but can it be, "We make a decision," so that we can be inclusive and so that from the outset survivors have confidence in the chairperson?
Draft Scotland Clauses — House of Commons, 2015-01-22
Topic: Civil Rights
Sandra Currie Osborne (Labour, Centre-left): I thought my ears were deceiving me when I heard the Minister say that there would be powers for gender quotas in public bodies in Scotland. That is excellent news, and something from which the rest of the UK would benefit. A popular measure is the devolution of air passenger duty, which is very important for Prestwick airport and has the potential to help it tremendously with the problems it has been having. Will the Government consider bringing that forward before the general election and giving those powers to Scotland now?
House of Commons Governance — House of Commons, 2015-01-22
Topic: Other
Peter Hain (Labour, Centre-left): May I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend personally and to all of the Committee, especially as this was a unanimous report? There were differences among Committee members, as I saw when giving evidence. On the question of speed, is that not true of all the recommendations? No doubt he will come on to that in respect of the director general.
House of Commons Governance — House of Commons, 2015-01-22
Topic: Mixed Topics
Mark Richard Tami (Labour, Centre-left): I do not understand how we have reached such a state, but the fact that the building is listed makes it difficult to do certain things, such as putting up a sign. I was amazed to learn that there is a signage committee in the House, which will decide on the type of sign and the size and colour of the signs that are permitted. It takes ages to get even the simplest thing done.
House of Commons Governance — House of Commons, 2015-01-22
Topic: Mixed Topics
Hazel Anne Blears (Labour, Centre-left): My right hon. Friend is generous in giving way again. He raised the issue of culture. That is fundamental and it is why many of us supported the idea of a chief executive. I understand that the proposals now have unanimous support. On culture, there are two things in particular that have changed in this House over recent years, led by Mr Speaker. One is to make this House a living wage organisation and the second is the emphasis on diversity and inclusion. That initiative, led by Anne Foster and the diversity and inclusion team, has meant that we have made tremendous strides forward. I seek the reassurance of my right hon. Friend, the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House that when we recruit the new director general, we ensure that issues relating to the diversity and culture of this organisation are paramount in that recruitment process.
House of Commons Governance — House of Commons, 2015-01-22
Topic: Civil Rights
John Whitaker Straw (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. We make recommendations about and acknowledge the work that has been done. In recruiting to any senior post, including the Clerk and the director general, we must take full account of the need to improve diversity in all ways in this place.
House of Commons Governance — House of Commons, 2015-01-22
Topic: Other
Angela Eagle (Labour, Centre-left): I see absolutely no reason why not. I know that the Commission will, if the House passes the motion, have that issue on its agenda on Monday. I for one—I am not the only one—am anxious to get on with both appointments as speedily as possible.
House of Commons Governance — House of Commons, 2015-01-22
Topic: Other
Angela Eagle (Labour, Centre-left): I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman. I hope that anyone who wishes to apply for the post will read the Committee’s report, as well as all the fascinating evidence people gave in such a short time, so that they are well aware of the nature of the job and the authority that we intend should go with it.