argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Breathing Space Scheme — House of Commons, 2019-06-19
Topic: Social Welfare
Fiona Claire Bruce (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank the Minister for the proposals, which will help some of the most vulnerable and their families and, I believe, save lives. Will he clarify which stakeholders he will engage with to ensure effective implementation, and will they include debt advice charities such as Christians Against Poverty, which does such excellent work in this field?
Breathing Space Scheme — House of Commons, 2019-06-19
Topic: Social Welfare
John Philip Glen (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the excellent work of Christians Against Poverty, which is indeed a key stakeholder. We engage widely with the sector, including the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute, StepChange, the Money Advice Trust and the charity National Debtline—it really is a collaborative effort—and I am pleased with their response to where we have got to.
Breathing Space Scheme — House of Commons, 2019-06-19
Topic: Macroeconomics
John Philip Glen (Conservative, Centre-right): I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He played a significant role in the passage of the legislation that led to today’s announcement. He urges me once again on the timeframe, and I can assure him that my Treasury officials are working as rapidly as possible, but we must also ensure that it actually works. One of the questions he asked me previously, about what is included in the scheme and the range of public sector debts, has been a significant driver in those conversations. I acknowledge and take on board his comments.
Breathing Space Scheme — House of Commons, 2019-06-19
Topic: Macroeconomics
John Philip Glen (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Lady raises two points. I was not familiar with the Debt Hacker app, but I will seek it out because it sounds like a very worthwhile initiative. I respectfully say to her that in the fourth quarter of 2018 debt as a percentage of household income was 139%, whereas 10 years previously it was 160%. I recognise that households are experiencing strain, but it is not quite as dire as she makes out.
Breathing Space Scheme — House of Commons, 2019-06-19
Topic: Social Welfare
John Philip Glen (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but that is not an area for which I have direct responsibility. Reclaimed overpayments—for example, from universal credit—will be included in the scheme. I cannot comment on things that are outside my control, but I hear his point about doing this as quickly as possible.
Breathing Space Scheme — House of Commons, 2019-06-19
Topic: Social Welfare
John Philip Glen (Conservative, Centre-right): I acknowledge the hon. Lady’s deep interest in and work on this topic over several years. She has raised points to which it is difficult for me to respond because they are outwith my responsibilities. As she will know, in the Budget we announced a £1.7 billion package of additional financial support for universal credit. I acknowledge that the hon. Lady disagrees with one element, but that additional support did involve the reduction of the maximum deduction from the standard allowance, from 40% to 30%. I cannot speak for a policy area for which I do not have responsibility. I am delivering a breathing space scheme that covers a wide range of debts and reaches deep into public sector debts, which I was keen for it to do from the outset.
Breathing Space Scheme — House of Commons, 2019-06-19
Topic: Social Welfare
John Philip Glen (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Lady will know that, as I said in response to the previous question, that is an issue of the administration of benefits and is the responsibility of the DWP. I will certainly make her observations clear to my colleagues in Government. Universal credit over- payments will be included from day one. I will make sure that I fully address the hon. Lady’s points and write to her on the detail.
Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-06-19
Topic: Government Operations
John Alan Redwood (Conservative, Centre-right): I entirely agree that where work has to be done, it should be spread around the country. Is the right hon. Gentleman envisaging that the audit should take into account the policy issues? For example, will it look at whether it is good value to move MPs out of this building, or whether there is some easier way of doing this without something so fundamental?
Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-06-19
Topic: Government Operations
John Alan Redwood (Conservative, Centre-right): I do not think it does at all, because I have also pointed out that there are a lot of roofing works going on. The hon. Gentleman is using the parts of the building that are being reroofed without being interrupted in his work. Again, I pay tribute to those who are carrying out the works without the need for fundamental change If we want value for money, we need to ensure that before any full plans are adopted, the Delivery Authority has done a proper job of analysing the options I also make a more fundamental point about our democracy. I know that there are many Members here who do not want to restore a proper independent democracy in Britain and are doing their best to ignore the wishes of the British people, as expressed in the referendum. It would be doubly ironic if they not only had their way on that, but said that we cannot use the historic Palace in the way that was intended for a long period. That would be a symbol that the public’s wish—
Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-06-19
Topic: Government Operations
John Alan Redwood (Conservative, Centre-right): I am very willing to do so. As I say, I welcome the principle that where works are conducted, there needs to be a proper audit. However, I go back to the intervention that I made at the start of the debate, when I said that any audit should also look at the policy, because I note that the legislation we are being asked to approve today makes it very clear that the policy has not been finalised. We are setting up authorities and bodies to sort out both the policy and the implementation, so I submit that the audit must apply to the policy as well as to the implementation.
Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-06-19
Topic: Government Operations
Craig Mackinlay (Conservative, Centre-right): I hear what my right hon. Friend says about the Comptroller and Auditor General having access to the records under new clause 1, but I am concerned that there is not a sufficient value-for-money assessment and that we might be, to put it in general language, taken for a ride with this project.
Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-06-19
Topic: Government Operations
John Alan Redwood (Conservative, Centre-right): New clause 1 seems to imply, in answer to a question I was asking earlier, that the Comptroller and Auditor General would have a duty to examine policy value for money with regard to how much work is done, the timing of the work, whether we need to move, and so forth. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely fundamental that that should be part of the process, because the way in which the most money is likely to be wasted is through policy error rather than through contractors slightly overdoing a contract?
Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-06-19
Topic: Government Operations
Edward Julian Egerton Leigh (Conservative, Centre-right): Yes; my right hon. Friend has made a worthwhile intervention, and perhaps I have been too unfair on contractors. My experience of public sector contracts over the years is not so much the importance of those in the private sector who work for us, as that it is our fault for treating these projects like a Christmas tree. We have our own prejudices and policies, we constantly change personnel, and we add things on to the Christmas tree. The private sector—either correctly or incorrectly, depending on the way we feel—then takes the opportunity to charge us more and more. We have to grip this now I am slightly worried about amendment 9, and perhaps the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin), who tabled the amendment, can reassure me that there is nothing in it that takes away the democratic right of us in this Chamber to elect the members of the Sponsor Body and to dismiss them if necessary.
Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-06-19
Topic: Government Operations
Edward Julian Egerton Leigh (Conservative, Centre-right): I do apologise. I am glad that I raised this matter, however, because that has reassured me that we will constantly have control over who we send on to this body. I think I can end there. I hope the Minister will reassure me that even if he cannot accept new clause 1—I accept that that is often the default position of Ministers—he will be able to argue that the Comptroller and Auditor General really can drill down into all these contracts, because that will be absolutely vital.
Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-06-19
Topic: Government Operations
Edward Julian Egerton Leigh (Conservative, Centre-right): This is an important point. Of course we must not tell the Comptroller and Auditor General what to do, but in recent years we have tried with the National Audit Office not just to do this post hoc, as we did in the past when, years after the event, we would look at some scandal or waste of public money. The Comptroller and Auditor General now tries to look at these contracts as they come on stream. He started to do that with the Olympics and, although we cannot tell him what to do, I hope we can encourage him to look at this as it goes through.
Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-06-19
Topic: Government Operations
Kevin John Foster (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. To be clear, the Bill is about setting up the governance framework. I can reassure him that once the Sponsor Body is established, it will set to work on a business plan and detailed set of costings, which then need to be approved by Parliament; it cannot go ahead and implement the project without doing so. There will also be Treasury commentary on the estimates that come before this place. We will reflect on it in engagement with the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, but it is almost certain that the NAO will wish to look at the quality of the Treasury’s work, so that the Public Accounts Committee can make recommendations to the House. It would clearly be inappropriate to modify the Comptroller and Auditor General’s powers on the face of the Bill. Any extension of powers should be properly considered, fully consulted on and affected globally and should not be done as part of this specific case. Indeed, such an extension of powers could make the parliamentary building works less attractive to potential contractors It is worth pointing out that the Bill already puts in place transparent and accountable funding mechanisms for the parliamentary building works. Schedule 2 specifies that the Delivery Authority is required to prepare a statement of resources, which must be submitted to the Sponsor Body annually for the latter’s review and approval or rejection. If the Sponsor Body accepts the statement provided by the Delivery Authority, it will be reflected in the estimate prepared by the Sponsor Body and submitted to the Estimates Commission for the financial year to which the statement relates It is almost certain that the Sponsor Body will be subject to extensive parliamentary scrutiny, and its parliamentary members may, for example, answer oral questions in this House and the other place. I hope the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside feels reassured that there is a range of abilities to audit and that it is unnecessary to press his new clause.
Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-06-19
Topic: Government Operations
Kevin John Foster (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank the hon. Gentleman for his overall constructive intervention. The problem is where the amendment says "in terms of contracts for works", which implies a change to how the Sponsor Body would assess procurement, and where it says "and in any other way", which is an unusually wide statement to put in a piece of primary legislation and could in effect give the Delivery Authority and the Sponsor Body in particular very wide range to do things that may not have been the intention of this House. Unfortunately, while I appreciate the intention of amendment 4, it is not one that the Government can recommend the House to accept or support.
Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-06-19
Topic: Government Operations
Kevin John Foster (Conservative, Centre-right): I will now move on—I am conscious of the time I have been going on for—to amendment 6, which is on the similar theme of having a report. Again, I appreciate the intention behind this amendment, which is the wish to spread this work across the United Kingdom. I have been clear that this is about spreading it not just to the nations, but to the regions. We all wish to see it go to places such as the south-west of England—the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), a fellow south-west MP, is in her place—and to make sure that this work is shared What we do not think is right is to put this in the part of the Bill that the amendment suggests. Given the intention for reporting, this could be put in the part of schedule 1 that already lists, for example, the annual statement of accounts and the report on the building works that must be presented and laid. It would make sense to work on such an option and present in the other place something that sums up these areas, without putting it where it would look unusual and making sure that we do not violate the procurement rules.
Prison Officers: Suicide — House of Commons, 2019-06-04
Topic: Law and Crime
Robert James MacGillivray Neill (Conservative, Centre-right): May I start by welcoming my hon. and learned Friend to his post? I think this is the first question time that he has taken in his new role Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is not only important that we pay the highest tribute to the dedication and professionalism of the men and women of our Prison Service, but recognise that the pressures that they face come in no small measure from the difficulty of establishing secure regimes and stability within our prisons? Will he take on board the recommendations of the Justice Committee—in particular, our suggestion for a workforce strategy across the whole of the Prison Service?
Prison Officers: Suicide — House of Commons, 2019-06-04
Topic: Law and Crime
Robert James Buckland (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend raises an important point. I pay tribute to the work of his Committee. We have seen welcome increases in the number of prison officers, and that will help with stability. Retention rates are very important. I will certainly study very carefully the recommendations of his Committee, and work with him and other Members to make sure that we achieve our common goal.
Prison Officers: Suicide — House of Commons, 2019-06-04
Topic: Law and Crime
Robert James Buckland (Conservative, Centre-right): I am pleased to inform the hon. Lady that there has indeed been a significant increase in the number of prison staff. We are now up to over 4,500 extra prison staff from the low point. I take her point that with increasing staff, more constructive work can be done with prisoners. The key worker scheme that we have now rolled out in the majority of adult male closed prisons, where prison officers work with six named prisoners, is already yielding results and making prisons safer places. I very much take on board the point she makes about assaults.
Prison Officers: Suicide — House of Commons, 2019-06-04
Topic: Law and Crime
Robert James Buckland (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend, as a former prisons Minister, knows this issue very well, and I pay tribute to him for his continued commitment to it. Yes, the question of housing is a difficult one. I am glad to say that recruitment rates in London have proved extremely successful. The extra increments that are paid to certain prison officers to recognise the particular pressures that they are under is a welcome part of the system. However, I will be happy to speak further to him about the issue.
Prison Officers: Suicide — House of Commons, 2019-06-04
Topic: Law and Crime
Robert James Buckland (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am always willing to speak to and learn from experiences in other parts of our United Kingdom, most particularly Northern Ireland. Various therapies, such as cognitive behavioural therapy, are available to prison officers should they wish to seek them. There is also a fast-track referral system, which is particularly encouraged where staff have experienced trauma.
Support for Litigants in Family Courts — House of Commons, 2019-06-04
Topic: Law and Crime
Paul Christopher Maynard (Conservative, Centre-right): Clearly, participation in the family court is difficult for all those involved, whatever stage of the process they are at. Through our legal support action plan, we are committed to working with the Law Society to improve delivery of family legal aid, be that in the court or through mediation.
Support for Litigants in Family Courts — House of Commons, 2019-06-04
Topic: Law and Crime
Paul Christopher Maynard (Conservative, Centre-right): I am pleased to hear about that example at Anglia Ruskin University. Our litigants in person strategy is a very important part of what we do. We have been spending £1.5 million a year hitherto. As part of the legal support action plan, we will improve that to £3 million a year and work with judges to ensure that all litigants in person are supported during the court process.
Support for Litigants in Family Courts — House of Commons, 2019-06-04
Topic: Law and Crime
Questions: I am pleased that the Minister has agreed to a review of domestic violence and potential damage to children in courts, but can he look particularly at the recommendation of the Children’s Commissioner that no child should go into court without legal support?
Paul Christopher Maynard (Conservative, Centre-right): I am sure we were all shocked by the example raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh). My first decision was to ensure that the inquiry panel was established, and it will look carefully at what the Children’s Commissioner has to say. The right hon. Gentleman is right to point out that children should always be at the heart of the decision-making process in the courts, and I will look carefully at what the Children’s Commissioner has said.
Support for Litigants in Family Courts — House of Commons, 2019-06-04
Topic: Law and Crime
Questions: I am pleased that the Minister has agreed to a review of domestic violence and potential damage to children in courts, but can he look particularly at the recommendation of the Children’s Commissioner that no child should go into court without legal support?
Paul Christopher Maynard (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s initial support. There is a balance to be struck between speed of action, getting the right decision-making process in place and coming up with the right recommendations. We have lawyers who are experienced in family law on the panel, and we have the victims’ voice through the involvement of Women’s Aid. I think we have the right mix on the panel, and a three-month time limit is right for them to reach their conclusions, which we can then seek to put in place.
Support for Litigants in Family Courts — House of Commons, 2019-06-04
Topic: Law and Crime
Questions: I am pleased that the Minister has agreed to a review of domestic violence and potential damage to children in courts, but can he look particularly at the recommendation of the Children’s Commissioner that no child should go into court without legal support?
Andrew James Bridgen (Conservative, Centre-right): In children’s matters in the family courts, the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service is treated as an expert witness. Is the Minister aware that CAFCASS has no training for the function it performs, has no guidelines, keeps no record of its recommendations and does not give sworn statements, so cannot be held to account for the recommendations it makes?
Support for Litigants in Family Courts — House of Commons, 2019-06-04
Topic: Law and Crime
Questions: I am pleased that the Minister has agreed to a review of domestic violence and potential damage to children in courts, but can he look particularly at the recommendation of the Children’s Commissioner that no child should go into court without legal support?
Paul Christopher Maynard (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful for that interesting perspective in my early days in the job. I will clearly have to go away and look at what CAFCASS says and does, and I look forward to meeting it. It is important to bear in mind that, in these cases, the interests of the child have to be paramount—the Children Act 1989 is very clear about that, and judges are clear in how they interpret that obligation.
Post-conviction Disclosure — House of Commons, 2019-06-04
Topic: Law and Crime
Edward John Comport Argar (Conservative, Centre-right): If material comes to light that, on the face of it, might cast doubt on the safety of a conviction, the police and prosecuting authorities should disclose it, and where it is alleged that such material may exist, they should co-operate in making further inquiries if there appears to be a real prospect that they will uncover something of real value. Failing that, the function of the independent Criminal Cases Review Commission is to investigate possible miscarriages of justice. Access to information about the cases they investigate is integral to their work, and they have substantial legal powers to secure the disclosure they require.
Post-conviction Disclosure — House of Commons, 2019-06-04
Topic: Government Operations
Edward John Comport Argar (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman rightly highlights his extensive work in this area. It has been a pleasure to meet him on a number of occasions, and I am due to do so again. As I said, there are considerable statutory powers for the CCRC, but as he knows, the commission can refer only those cases it considers to meet the statutory criteria, and there are no plans currently to review that.
Post-conviction Disclosure — House of Commons, 2019-06-04
Topic: Law and Crime
Edward John Comport Argar (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the importance of forensic science in convictions —increasing the number of cases that go through court and result in convictions—and therefore of the role it plays in reviewing cases post-conviction. If he wishes to write to me with further details of specific issues in that context, I will be very happy to write back to him responding to those points.
Post-conviction Disclosure — House of Commons, 2019-06-04
Topic: Law and Crime
Edward John Comport Argar (Conservative, Centre-right): My shadow is dextrous in bringing in youth justice in the context of the post-conviction disclosure regime. She is quite right to highlight the Supreme Court case and the current regime, which is something we are looking at carefully.