argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2017-04-27
Topic: Law and Crime
Seema Malhotra-Saluja (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On Tuesday, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) raised the devastating case of baby Charlie Gard, whose family live in her and my constituency. Her question was met with short shrift by the Government. This continues to be an incredibly tough time for the family, and our hearts go out to Connie and Chris, the parents, as they continue their campaign, which is supported by the huge well of support from those known now as "Charlie’s army". I appreciate that Parliament is being cut short by this election, but is it not right that the family continue to get the support they need and that there is clarity on entitlement to legal aid in such cases? I call on the Justice Secretary also to do all that she can, and I would like to put on the record my support today for the family and my view that, particularly in this complex case, it should be the parents who have the final say on the treatment of their son.
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2017-04-27
Topic: Government Operations
Paul Phillip Flynn (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to raise a matter that strikes right at the heart of the integrity of our democratic system. It is based on the final report of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, as well as two articles in The House magazine, one by a Conservative Member and one by a Labour Member, all of which sound notes of alarm that our electoral system is the most vulnerable it has been since 1880. There is powerful evidence of foreign Governments interfering in the elections in America and possibly here. There is also overwhelming evidence of money being paid in huge amounts, entirely invisible to the system, by the use of methods including algorithms, botnets and artificial intelligence in a manner understood by nobody except those who participate in it. We should be vigilant in this election, because the Electoral Commission does not have the tools to deal with interference of this kind, and we are trying to run a modern election with the tools of the 19th century.
Power-sharing Agreement — House of Commons, 2017-03-15
Topic: Social Welfare
Questions: Having been a Member of Parliament for many years prior to devolution, I am acutely aware of the total inadequacy of direct rule. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he is undertaking the negotiations with the utmost urgency and intensity to get a deal on devolved government?
Stephen Pelham Pound (Labour, Centre-left): I entirely accept that there is good will, but I am slightly concerned about the statement by the leader of one of the Northern Irish parties that some meetings have been cancelled. I wish to give the Secretary of State a fair following wind, as do we all. Has he received any representation from the charitable sector within Northern Ireland about problems it is facing due to the budgetary impasse?
Good Friday Agreement: Institutions — House of Commons, 2017-03-15
Topic: International Affairs
Michael John Gapes (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State will know that, at the time of the Good Friday agreement nearly 19 years ago, the European Union played a role alongside the Irish and British Governments. Does he envisage any role for international support to maintain the institutional frameworks, particularly the all-Ireland institutional co-operation that has been so important over recent years?
Good Friday Agreement: Institutions — House of Commons, 2017-03-15
Topic: International Affairs
Questions: On the Good Friday agreement, will the Secretary of State ensure that the disgraceful treatment of my constituent Corporal Major Dennis Hutchings and others will be addressed as part of any further discussions on legacy issues?
Stephen Pelham Pound (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) is right to refer to the role of the Irish Government, and I praise the Secretary of State for the good working relationship he has established with Minister Flanagan. I thank him for the statements made by his Minister yesterday at yet another of the many St Patrick’s day celebrations, when he paid tribute not only to the role of our co-guarantor of the Good Friday agreement, the Dublin Government, but to Ambassador Dan Mulhall, who will be leaving us in London for Washington. Does the Secretary of State agree that Ambassador Mulhall has been a perfect example of how we can work together in the interests of all?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2017-03-15
Topic: Macroeconomics
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): First, may I wish everyone in my constituency, in Ireland and all around the world a very happy St Patrick’s day on the 17th We have just heard that the Prime Minister is about to drop the national insurance hike announced only a week ago. It seems to me that the Government are in a bit of chaos here with a Budget that unravels in seven days, a Conservative manifesto with a pensive Prime Minister on the front page saying that there would be no increase, and a week ago an increase being announced. If they are to drop the increase, as they are indicating, the Prime Minister should thank the Federation of Small Businesses and all those who have pointed out both how unfair the increase would be and how big business evades an awful lot of national insurance through bogus self-employment.
Engagements — House of Commons, 2017-03-15
Topic: Labor
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): I think the Prime Minister should offer an apology for the chaos that her Government have caused during the past week and the stress they have caused to the 4.8 million self-employed people in this country. Will she offer that apology? Her hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales did so a week ago; it is time she joined him. This measure, if carried through, will create a black hole in the budget. What is she going to do to fill that black hole?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2017-03-15
Topic: Labor
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): Given that this Government propose to borrow more between now and 2020 than the entire borrowing of all Labour Governments put together, we do not need lectures from them on that I hope that in his statement later today the Chancellor will address the question of injustice to many people who are forced into bogus self-employment by unscrupulous companies, many of which force their workers to become self-employed and thereby avoid employer’s national insurance contributions. It is a grossly unfair system where those in self-employment pay some national insurance, but employers do not and benefit from it. That is a gross injustice that must be addressed.
Engagements — House of Commons, 2017-03-15
Topic: Social Welfare
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): We have a Government U-turn, no apology, and a Budget that falls most heavily on those with the least broad shoulders, with cuts to schools, cuts to social care and cuts to support for people with disabilities. That is the agenda of the right hon. Lady’s Government, and everybody knows it.
Engagements — House of Commons, 2017-03-15
Topic: Education
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): It would be a very good idea if the Prime Minister listened to headteachers all over the country, who are desperately trying to work out how to balance the books in their schools, but are losing teachers, losing teaching assistants and losing support for their children because school budgets are being cut. She knows that. We all know that. Everybody out there knows that. They also know that, according to figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, average working families will be £1,400 worse off as a result of her Budget that was produced last week. What is she doing to help the worst off and poorest in our society, rather than continuing to cut local government and schools expenditure, and to underfund social care?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2017-03-15
Topic: Education
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): The difference is that we want a good school and a good place for every child in every school in every community. Selective education—the reintroduction of grammar schools—does not achieve that. We want a staircase for all, not a ladder for the few, which is what Conservative policies actually are. The Prime Minister has also not addressed the unfairness of a Budget that cuts tax at the top end, continues to reduce corporation tax and encourages bogus self-employment. She has to address the issues of injustice and inequality in our society, and of a Government who are dedicated to widening the gap, not helping the hard-up or those who are working as self-employed, trying to make ends meet and not getting access to any benefits at the same time.
Personal Independence Payments — House of Commons, 2017-03-15
Topic: Social Welfare
Deborah Angela Elspeth Marie Abrahams (Labour, Centre-left): (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to make a statement regarding the recommendations of the Social Security Advisory Committee on the new Personal Independence Payment (Amendment) Regulations 2017, which are due to come into force tomorrow.
Personal Independence Payments — House of Commons, 2017-03-15
Topic: Social Welfare
Deborah Angela Elspeth Marie Abrahams (Labour, Centre-left): You will recall, Mr Speaker, that on 23 February the Government issued these new regulations by which disabled people or people with a chronic mental health condition would be assessed for eligibility to personal independence payments. These regulations were laid down without any consultation with the Social Security Advisory Committee and without any debate As the Secretary of State said, the Committee examined this issue on 8 March and sent a letter with its recommendations to the Secretary of State, which was published yesterday. The Committee made a number of recommendations, including the need to consult more widely on the proposed changes and to test or pilot them before they come into force, so will the Secretary of State commit to implementing these recommendations in full before the regulations come into force Parliament has had no opportunity to debate the regulations fully, or to vote on them. When will it be able to do so? The Committee found that "it is possible that some claimants may have been awarded the mobility component or a higher rate of mobility component…following earlier decisions by the Upper Tribunal on this issue." That directly contradicts statements by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work that no one would see a reduction in their PIP award. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to correct the record? Will he guarantee that that will not be the case when claimants are reassessed? The Government’s decision to change the law on PIP is a clear demonstration of the fact that people with mental health conditions are not given equal treatment. Does the Secretary of State agree with his Department’s new guidance, issued yesterday, which states that mobility impairments caused by psychological issues are "not relevant"? An analysis published today by Scope shows that 89% of PIP cases resulted in successful decisions for claimants following either mandatory reconsideration or appeal. Will the Secretary of State now review the flawed PIP process as a matter of urgency We have argued for some time in favour of parity of esteem for mental and physical health. The Prime Minister famously said that there needed to be more support for people with mental health conditions. Will not the Government finally honour that pledge?
Personal Independence Payments — House of Commons, 2017-03-15
Topic: Social Welfare
Frank Field (Labour, Centre-left): Despite what the Secretary of State says about the current benefit favouring those who do not have physical disabilities, the evidence coming to the Select Committee which is inquiring into PIP shows that those with other disadvantages find it difficult to qualify. Might he look carefully at the form and at the way his staff interpret it for people who do not have physical disabilities and who have difficulties in qualifying?
Personal Independence Payments — House of Commons, 2017-03-15
Topic: Social Welfare
Angela Eagle (Labour, Centre-left): I have to say that I am finding an increasing discrepancy between the way that the Secretary of State is describing the PIP benefit and the people who are coming to my advice surgeries in tears, having been completely let down by the system. We all want to see a society where we give support to the most vulnerable, and that is who we are talking about here. Will the Secretary of State now undertake to ensure that some of his highest officials come and visit us in our advice surgeries and look at how this system is actually working out on the frontline, because it is not remotely like how he is portraying it today?
Personal Independence Payments — House of Commons, 2017-03-15
Topic: Social Welfare
Katherine Anne Green (Labour, Centre-left): I want to understand exactly what the Secretary of State said a few moments ago when he said that nobody would face a cut in their benefit. Did I understand him correctly when he said that, while people would not see their initial DWP benefit award cut as a result of these regulations, they could see their benefit reduced to the original award level when the benefit has been increased by a tribunal and these regulations now supersede the judgement of that tribunal?
Personal Independence Payments — House of Commons, 2017-03-15
Topic: Social Welfare
Owen Smith (Labour, Centre-left): Further to the Secretary of State’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), will he confirm that he is saying that some people who have been awarded additional resources by a tribunal will see their income cut as a result of these regulations? Will he also confirm that an extraordinary number—89%—of the relatively low number of appeals relating to PIP are overturned? Does that not show that there is something deeply wrong with the system?
Personal Independence Payments — House of Commons, 2017-03-15
Topic: Social Welfare
John Derek Twigg (Labour, Centre-left): I want to press the Secretary of State on the question of assessments. Will he look again at the quality and professionalism involved? I just cannot understand why some of the people who come to see me have not been awarded their benefit. I have had experience of cases such as these over a number of years now, and I have never come across such difficult cases as those I have seen recently.
Personal Independence Payments — House of Commons, 2017-03-15
Topic: Social Welfare
Ian Colin Lucas (Labour, Centre-left): The only clarity and certainty that PIP is bringing to my constituents is real distress every day. At 12.14 pm today, I received an email that said: "I would be grateful if you would contact PIP and address my complaint about taking PIP off me. I do fear that this has caused me to consider taking my own life" Complaints of that type come in to our constituency surgeries on a daily basis. The system is broken. It needs to be completely revisited and reconstructed. It cannot be mended.
Personal Independence Payments — House of Commons, 2017-03-15
Topic: Social Welfare
Clive Stanley Efford (Labour, Centre-left): Will the Secretary of State guarantee that no PIP assessors are required to turn down a quota of their assessments? I find it impossible to understand some of the decisions they make. There can be an arm’s length of medical evidence in front of them, but they turn some people down, particularly those with mental health issues. If he does not know the answer, will he go away and investigate the situation? Something is wrong. So many examples have been given to him that he cannot dismiss them as the odd case.
Personal Independence Payments — House of Commons, 2017-03-15
Topic: Social Welfare
Julie Elizabeth Cooper (Labour, Centre-left): Does the Minister accept that many people with mental health issues who apply for PIP are so distressed by the whole process that they never even go to appeal when they are turned down? Also, far from spending more on this, we are actually spending less as a proportion of our GDP.
Personal Independence Payments — House of Commons, 2017-03-15
Topic: Social Welfare
Lilian Rachel Greenwood (Labour, Centre-left): The Royal College of Psychiatrists, charities including Rethink Mental Illness and Scope, the Select Committee on Work and Pensions and many of our constituents all tell us that the Government are failing properly to support all disabled people who need help. Now the Social Security Advisory Committee has said that the Government should not proceed with the changes without further testing and consultation. What does it take to get the Secretary of State to listen?
Personal Independence Payments — House of Commons, 2017-03-15
Topic: Social Welfare
Mary Theresa Glindon (Labour, Centre-left): Further to a previous question, Muscular Dystrophy UK has said today that figures show that 900 mobility vehicles a week are being removed from people due to the PIP reforms but that many of the vehicles are subsequently returned on appeal. Will the Government ensure that a mobility vehicle cannot be taken away from any individual until there is a final decision on their eligibility for the enhanced rate?
Class 4 National Insurance Contributions — House of Commons, 2017-03-15
Topic: Macroeconomics
John Martin McDonnell (Labour, Centre-left): This is chaos. It is shocking and humiliating that the Chancellor has been forced to come here to reverse a key Budget decision announced less than a week ago. If the Chancellor had spent less time writing stale jokes for his speech and the Prime Minister less time guffawing like a feeding seal on the Treasury Bench, we would not have been landed in this mess Let us be clear: this was a £2 billion tax hike for many low and middle earners, and a clearcut and cynical breaking of a manifesto promise. Sickeningly, at the same time as the Chancellor was cutting taxes for the rich and corporations, large numbers of self-employed people have been put through the mangle over the past week, worried about how they would cope with this tax increase, yet today there is not a word of apology. Nobody should be too arrogant to use the word "sorry" when they blunder so disastrously Let me thank all those who helped to force this reversal. My right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party was the first to raise the matter in his response to the Budget. Labour MPs, many other Members across the House, the Federation of Small Businesses and several trade unions forced the Chancellor to see sense, but this blunder has consequences that he now has to address. The £2 billion that would have been raised was to go some way to tackling the social care crisis. We need to know where these desperately needed funds will come from now. We need guarantees from the Chancellor that no working people will be hit, either now or in the autumn statement, with stealth or other tax rises, and that there will be no further cuts to public services to pay for this blunder. The Prime Minister and the Cabinet would have been briefed on the contents of the Budget in advance. Did the Prime Minister or any Cabinet Member raise their concerns with the Chancellor before he announced the measure? The Chancellor has announced a review. We need him to set a clear deadline for that review, and to give a commitment that its findings will be reported and debated on the Floor of this Chamber. We need him to address the real issues facing the self-employed: the scourge of bogus self-employment; the exploitation that goes on under that guise; the pressure from large corporations to reduce costs relating to the self-employed unrealistically; the problem of late payments; the lack of access to maternity pay; no paternity pay; no adoption pay; no sick pay; no compassionate leave; and no carer’s leave. That is the real agenda that should have been addressed last week, not tax hikes We welcome this reversal, but we now need an honest and forthright commitment that the self-employed agenda will be addressed. These people are the engine of our economy. They deserve to be respected, not attacked in the way they were seven days ago.
Class 4 National Insurance Contributions — House of Commons, 2017-03-15
Topic: Macroeconomics
Angela Eagle (Labour, Centre-left): Of 28 measures in this Budget, the Chancellor has had to come in a humiliating fashion to the House today to cast away the one that actually raised money. He has just told us that £14 billion of tax revenue is at risk because of the way national insurance is encouraging people to become, apparently, self-employed, and encouraging other abuses. He has told us he is not going to deal with that in this Parliament, so what is he going to do to safeguard the tax base in the meantime, while he does his review and belatedly puts into effect the manifesto commitment on which he fought the last election?
Class 4 National Insurance Contributions — House of Commons, 2017-03-15
Topic: Labor
Frank Field (Labour, Centre-left): To make up the loss in revenue, might the Chancellor consider bearing down on those employers who force their employees into self-employment against their wishes, destabilise their lives and thereby get out of paying national insurance contributions, which all good employers do pay?
Class 4 National Insurance Contributions — House of Commons, 2017-03-15
Topic: Macroeconomics
Yvette Cooper (Labour, Centre-left): May I just confirm the slightly astonishing thing that the Chancellor said a few moments ago—that the first person to raise the Tory manifesto with him was the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg? Is it actually the case that nobody in No. 10 and nobody in No. 11 checked the Conservative manifesto before he wrote the Budget?
Class 4 National Insurance Contributions — House of Commons, 2017-03-15
Topic: Macroeconomics
Wesley Paul William Streeting (Labour, Centre-left): More than 10,000 people in Ilford North will welcome the Chancellor’s damascene conversion to the novel idea that parties might keep the promises in their manifesto. What does it say about the competence of this Government, on a day when they reveal that there are no costings for a hard Brexit, that this year, on his watch, we will have two Budgets, two policies on national insurance in a week, and a £2 billion black hole in his Budget? Whatever happened to the long-term economic plan?
Class 4 National Insurance Contributions — House of Commons, 2017-03-15
Topic: Government Operations
Christian John Patrick Matheson (Labour, Centre-left): The clear impression given by today’s announcement is of a reactive Government who are not in control of their own agenda. Following on from the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), may I specifically ask the Chancellor whether he knew that his policy contradicted the 2015 Conservative manifesto? If he is such a good listening Chancellor, why did he not listen to representations before he made his statement and not go ahead with his announcement last week?
Class 4 National Insurance Contributions — House of Commons, 2017-03-15
Topic: Labor
Andrew Francis Slaughter (Labour, Centre-left): Unlike some of my hon. Friends, I can readily understand why the Chancellor resisted reading the Tory manifesto until Laura Kuenssberg drew his attention to it last week, but I cannot understand his position now. Is it, "I was absolutely right to raise national insurance contributions for the self-employed, and that’s why I’m not going to do it"?
Class 4 National Insurance Contributions — House of Commons, 2017-03-15
Topic: Macroeconomics
Christopher James Evans (Labour, Centre-left): Will the Chancellor give small businesspeople an assurance that the three years he talks about is not simply a stay of execution and that we will not see another Tory tax hike in three years’ time?