argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Sub-Postmasters: Compensation — House of Commons, 2022-03-22
Topic: Social Welfare
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy if he will make a statement on the steps taken to ensure that the group of 555 sub-postmasters are fairly compensated.
Kevan David Jones (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Minister for his statement. I congratulate him on moving this matter further than his predecessors who made pathetic attempts and showed such ignorance The Treasury statement this morning said that the 555 group will be fully and fairly compensated. Similar things were said by the Prime Minister, and the Minister said that before the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. Can he outline what that means in practice? Is it just reimbursing the legal costs, or will we have a more sophisticated scheme? Certainly, my constituent Tom Brown, who paid back £84,000 that he did not need to pay, is £84,000 out of pocket. He needs that back I am also interested to know about interim payments. The sad fact is that there are people in abject poverty now, who are living from week to week, so the quicker we can get some interim payments to those people, the better On the overall historical shortfall scheme, has the Minister any idea about how many people were affected by it? I would like to reopen that, because the window given to these sub-postmasters was very short, so it needs to be looked at in detail The other question I would like to ask the Minister is about those who have died. He points to the fact that, tragically, some have taken their lives, but there are many others who have died. Will the scheme involve their estates? It would be a complete injustice if those families did not get any of that compensation. I urge him to take the administration of the scheme out of the hands of the Post Office. I, the 555, the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) and others have no faith at all in the Post Office to administer it. It is important that it is seen to be independent of the Post Office The Minister talks about the 555. I am happy to meet the Minister and, I am sure, the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire and Lord Arbuthnot to talk about the details of the scheme, but I reiterate the point that we need to get this right now. I accept that this is a step forward, but this will not go away. The Minister knows that—can he tell the Treasury that? It will cost quite a lot of money, and I do not know whether he has established yet how much. Does he have an open cheque book now from the Treasury? He might need one.
Sub-Postmasters: Compensation — House of Commons, 2022-03-22
Topic: Law and Crime
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy if he will make a statement on the steps taken to ensure that the group of 555 sub-postmasters are fairly compensated.
Andrew John Gwynne (Labour, Centre-left): I add my thanks to the Minister for his tenacity in pushing this through some of the barriers that we have faced over a long time. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) for sticking with this for such a long time. It is great that we are now getting a clearer picture of the compensation. I support what my right hon. Friend said about interim payments being key, because there is real hardship in this injustice, but I want to ask the Minister about the 736 who have been wrongly convicted of misdoing. Only 72 of them have had their convictions quashed or overturned. What are the Government doing to ensure justice for all sub-postmasters?
Sub-Postmasters: Compensation — House of Commons, 2022-03-22
Topic: Law and Crime
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy if he will make a statement on the steps taken to ensure that the group of 555 sub-postmasters are fairly compensated.
Andrew Joseph McDonald (Labour, Centre-left): I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) on securing this urgent question. I also congratulate the Minister, who has stuck at this and been candid with us on every occasion. This is one of many battles—it is won, and I congratulate him—but the purpose of compensation is to put people in the position they would have been in had the insult not occurred in the first place. It is essential that this scheme properly compensates people for their past and future pecuniary losses, as well as compensating for their pain, suffering and loss of amenity, including the loss of liberty. Will he ensure that those principles are adhered to in this scheme, because nothing less than that will satisfy the people who have been so badly wronged by this terrible episode?
Sub-Postmasters: Compensation — House of Commons, 2022-03-22
Topic: Law and Crime
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy if he will make a statement on the steps taken to ensure that the group of 555 sub-postmasters are fairly compensated.
Katharine Helen Brooks-Osborne (Labour, Centre-left): I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and the Minister for their work in this area. I also pay tribute to the 555 for their long battle to get justice and compensation in one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in our history. I pay particular tribute to my constituent Chris Head, who is one of the 555 and a tireless campaigner on the issue. Chris would like me to ask the Minister whether the scheme will have independent oversight so that victims are fairly and independently assessed.
Sub-Postmasters: Compensation — House of Commons, 2022-03-22
Topic: Government Operations
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy if he will make a statement on the steps taken to ensure that the group of 555 sub-postmasters are fairly compensated.
Anthony Joseph Lloyd (Labour, Centre-left): I add my thanks and I welcome the Minister’s statement. The reality is that sub-postmasters have lost enormously and compensation will go only so far. One thing that they want is to know that there is genuine accountability. I know that the Minister does not want to anticipate the inquiry, but can he make it clear that where there is individual wrongdoing, it will be properly dealt with at whatever level is appropriate?
Sub-Postmasters: Compensation — House of Commons, 2022-03-22
Topic: Law and Crime
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy if he will make a statement on the steps taken to ensure that the group of 555 sub-postmasters are fairly compensated.
Barry John Sheerman (Labour, Centre-left): I congratulate the Minister; there is light at the end of the tunnel for a lot of people now. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has played a blinder, but this is another example of cross-party Back Benchers in this House working hard for their constituents and making a difference. I briefly mention the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which has a very small staff who have worked really hard on the issue. The chief executive Helen Pitcher and her team have done a solid amount of work. Can we recognise that and can the Minister give Helen and her team some help, because they desperately need to retain some commissioners to finish this work?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2022-03-22
Topic: Government Operations
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): First, I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of the point of order. It is important that Members receive timely answers to questions, especially named day questions—it is in the nature of the named day question that it tells Ministers when they should be answered. The hon. Member’s point is on the record, and it will no doubt be drawn to the attention of the Leader of the House, who I am sure will pursue this matter. I know the previous Leader of the House was very concerned when the Government were letting down Members of this House by not answering those questions on time—or within what we would say was the right time—which is in the nature of named day questions The hon. Member may also consider whether she wants to draw this to the attention of the Procedure Committee, which monitors the performance of the Government in timely responses to questions. I have to say that we seem to be going backwards again. We were doing really well, so I appeal to all Departments to treat Members with respect, because in the end they are answerable to the constituents who are asking the questions of them. Please, let us get our act together within the Government.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Commons, 2022-03-22
Topic: Social Welfare
Stephen Nathan Kinnock (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are many dreadful aspects to the whole story, but the impact on children who are utterly innocent and deserve nothing but our compassion and care, but who are not being treated with either of those values and principles, should make the Government hang their head in shame.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Commons, 2022-03-22
Topic: Government Operations
Stephen Nathan Kinnock (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The whole thing smacks of a kind of bureaucratic trickery whereby every option is blocked off by some additional piece of bureaucracy. The Bill should have been an opportunity to unlock some of that, but instead it leaves us in stalemate.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Commons, 2022-03-22
Topic: Foreign Trade
Stephen Nathan Kinnock (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Minister for that intervention Offshoring in Australia costs roughly $1 billion a year, for about 300 people. Experts in Australia have also said that it is not effective as a deterrent, and that the vast majority of those offshored are now back in Australia as a result of mental and physical suffering.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Commons, 2022-03-22
Topic: Social Welfare
John Martin McDonnell (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful to be called to speak again, as I spoke in the earlier debate. I think I have less than a minute and a half, so I will be brief. I want to speak to Lords amendment 22 Those of us who have dealt with children who have gone through the age assessment process recognise just how traumatising it is for those children, many of whom are already suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. That is why it is important that we minimise the numbers going through the process and make sure that it causes the least harm possible. I cannot fully understand why the Government object to this amendment, which, in my view, sets out the best practice we have been arguing for over a number of years The new clause introduced by Lords amendment 22 would reduce the number of people who go through the process by making sure that there is a "significant reason" to doubt the age. It would also ensure that the assessment is carried out by a local authority social worker, because—we have to be honest—Home Office social workers have been found lacking. That is not my judgment—it is the judgment of the courts. There is a difference of culture. The Home Office is about enforcement; the local authority is about supporting those who have been traumatised The new clause also introduces an element of best practice by making sure that the Association of Directors of Children’s Services draws health and other professionals into multidisciplinary teams, which we have been arguing for, so that we get the best possible and most objective assessment. There would also be an objectivity in the process that we doubt would be the case under the Home Office.
Business without Debate — House of Commons, 2022-03-22
Topic: International Affairs
Rosalie Winterton (Labour, Centre-left): With the leave of the House, we will take motions 4, 5 and 6 together Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), Sanctions That the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2022 (SI, 2022, No. 203), dated 1 March 2022, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1 March, be approved. That the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2022 (SI, 2022, No. 205), dated 1 March 2022, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1 March, be approved That the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 6) Regulations 2022 (SI, 2022, No. 241), dated 8 March 2022, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8 March, be approved.—(David T. C. Davies.) Question agreed to.
Social Mobility — House of Commons, 2022-03-30
Topic: Social Welfare
Alison McGovern (Labour, Centre-left): Social mobility is a laudable aim that everyone in the House agrees with, but this week I was shocked to see Action for Children report that nearly half of children surveyed from low-income backgrounds say that they worry about their families’ finances. That kind of stress will help no child to do well at school and will help no child to succeed. We know that family finances and the ability to work are also constrained by childcare. So can the Minister say what she is doing in her role to work across Government to help on family finances and, in particular, to help parents who need to fund the cost of childcare?
HM Prison and Probation Service: Equality Assessment for Fitness Testing — House of Commons, 2022-03-30
Topic: Law and Crime
Justin Piers Richard Madders (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister will be aware of concerns, particularly from the Prison Officers Association, that far more female officers than male officers are failing this test. Will he meet the Prison Officers Association to discuss this issue?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2022-03-30
Topic: Macroeconomics
Questions: I welcome the Down Syndrome Bill and fully support its passage through Parliament. How will the Minister ensure that from the perspective of equality the Bill will not have the unintended consequence of prioritising support for Down’s syndrome over other genetic and chromosome disorders? Some of those, although not as well-known, are thought to be just as prevalent, if not more so, and certainly no less impactful for the families affected, for example, 22q11.2 deletion syndrome. [Interruption.]
Anneliese Jane Dodds (Labour, Centre-left): Thank you, Mr Speaker. First, may I associate myself with the warm and supportive remarks made from all across this House to the hon. Member for Bridgend Women are bearing the brunt of the Conservative cost of living crisis. At the sharp end, as the Women’s Budget Group has said, they are the "shock absorbers" of poverty, cutting essentials for themselves so that their kids do not go without. So will the Minister inform the House as to what assessment her Government have made of the financial impact of the Chancellor’s autumn Budget last year and his spring statement last week?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2022-03-30
Topic: Social Welfare
Questions: I welcome the Down Syndrome Bill and fully support its passage through Parliament. How will the Minister ensure that from the perspective of equality the Bill will not have the unintended consequence of prioritising support for Down’s syndrome over other genetic and chromosome disorders? Some of those, although not as well-known, are thought to be just as prevalent, if not more so, and certainly no less impactful for the families affected, for example, 22q11.2 deletion syndrome. [Interruption.]
Anneliese Jane Dodds (Labour, Centre-left): In practice, it is disappointing that it did not include that analysis and the Minister does not appear aware of the impact of her Government’s policies on women. I can enlighten her: put together, the 2021 autumn Budget and the 2022 spring statement take £28 billion from the pockets of women over the next six years. That is £1,000 for every woman in the country. So why is her Government still refusing to impose a windfall tax to reduce bills for everyone and provide up to £600 for the households who need it, many of them run by women?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2022-03-30
Topic: Macroeconomics
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): Cut the nonsense and treat the British people with a bit of respect. Let me take the Prime Minister through this slowly: 15 tax rises and the highest tax burden for 70 years. For every £6 the Government are taking in tax rises, they are handing only £1 back. Prime Minister, is that cutting taxes or is that raising taxes?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2022-03-30
Topic: Macroeconomics
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): I can only hope that the Prime Minister’s police questionnaire was a bit more convincing than that This year, the British people face the worst fall in living standards on record. While they are counting every penny, the Prime Minister is hitting them with higher taxes, but in 2024, when there just so happens to be a general election, the Government will introduce a small tax cut. That is not taking difficult decisions; that is putting the Tory re-election campaign over and above helping people pay their bills. How did he find a Chancellor as utterly cynical as he is?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2022-03-30
Topic: Macroeconomics
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): The tough decisions—give me a break! We know who those two always ask to pay: income stealth tax—a tax on working people; the tuition fee raid—a tax on working people; the national insurance hike—a tax on working people. All of this while oil and gas companies see unexpected bumper profits. A windfall tax would raise billions and ease the burden on working people. The former chief executive office of BP, Lord John Browne, says a windfall tax is "justifiable". The current CEO says that BP has, in his words, "more cash than we know what to do with." Why is the Prime Minister more interested in shielding oil and gas profits than supporting working people?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2022-03-30
Topic: Law and Crime
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): There we have it: the Conservatives are the party of excess oil and gas profits; we are the party of working people Talking of parties, the Prime Minister told the House that no rules were broken in Downing Street during lockdown. The police have now concluded that there was widespread criminality. The "Ministerial Code" says that Ministers who "knowingly" mislead the House should resign. Why is he still here?
Parole System: Public Protection — House of Commons, 2022-03-30
Topic: Law and Crime
Stephen James McCabe (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and welcome the broad thrust of his recommendations. I notice that the second reform deals with the assessment of risk. The Secretary of State’s proposal is to employ more people with a law and order background, which I am quite happy to accept. I also notice that the report by the charity Justice published in January this year recommended: "Enhancing the Parole Board’s programme of training to include"— among other things— "critical analyses of offending behaviour programmes and risk management tools" Does the Secretary of State have any plans to take that recommendation on board?
P&O Ferries — House of Commons, 2022-03-30
Topic: Law and Crime
Benjamin Peter James Bradshaw (Labour, Centre-left): Don’t worry, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a common and embarrassing mistake—for the other one Will the Secretary of State explain in a bit more detail why he thinks he does not have the powers to seek an injunction to prevent this company from behaving deliberately, disgracefully and, as he just described, illegally?
P&O Ferries — House of Commons, 2022-03-30
Topic: Labor
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): I welcome the statement made by the Secretary of State today, and in particular his reference to international seafarers. I recognise that he spoke about minimum wage conditions on ferries, but he then went on to talk about international seafarers, who often face disgraceful, almost slave-like conditions of work on international transport. Will he commit to working with the International Transport Workers Federation of transport trade unions, as well as the ILO, to try to get rid of this scandal on a global scale? Obviously Britain can only play one part in that, but we can have a very big influence on changing the whole mood internationally.
P&O Ferries — House of Commons, 2022-03-30
Topic: Labor
William Roffen Esterson (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State says that P&O should reinstate every worker on their original terms and conditions, with which I completely agree, but he needs to take every action available to him to support the group of workers who have just been sacked, as what he announced today is largely about the future. Will he suspend or cancel P&O and DP World contracts, including the lucrative freeport contracts? That is how he will show them that the Government are really serious and how he will have the greatest chance of putting the pressure on them that will lead to the reinstatement of those workers.
P&O Ferries — House of Commons, 2022-03-30
Topic: Labor
Eleanor Claire Reeves (Labour, Centre-left): Awards for compensation in employment tribunals are notoriously low, with average awards for unfair dismissal at just £10,800. The Secretary of State has announced an uplift of 25%, but an extra £2,700 will not deter unscrupulous employers such as P&O. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), the shadow Transport Secretary, has called for unlimited punitive damages in circumstances such as these. Will he back those calls?
P&O Ferries — House of Commons, 2022-03-30
Topic: Transportation
Andrew John Gwynne (Labour, Centre-left): I, too, thank the Transport Secretary for his statement and for the seriousness that he has given the issue, because it has been appalling for those P&O Ferries workers. He talks about amending the Harbours Act 1964, which I wholeheartedly welcome, and he has urged ports to do that now, irrespective of the legislation not yet being changed. As futile as legal action may be from P&O Ferries, what assurances is he giving to British ports to do the right thing, notwithstanding that not yet being the law?
P&O Ferries — House of Commons, 2022-03-30
Topic: Transportation
Daniel Joseph Carden (Labour, Centre-left): I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and his action plan, but if the only legislative changes are to give new statutory powers to ports, the issue of fire and rehire will not go away. What conversations has he had with the Business Secretary about legislation so that the outrage that there rightly is in the Chamber is not brought back again next month and the month after?
P&O Ferries — House of Commons, 2022-03-30
Topic: Law and Crime
Barry Strachan Gardiner (Labour, Centre-left): I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State is considering injunctive procedures where consultation has been ignored and not respected by the employer. It is just a shame that his party failed to vote for it in October. Will the Secretary of State say if the statutory code he is introducing will create any new criminal offence? If so, what is it, who can enforce it and what is the penalty? Alternatively, does it, like previous codes of conduct, simply issue a set of recommendations that bad companies can ignore?
P&O Ferries — House of Commons, 2022-03-30
Topic: Transportation
Rachael Helen Maskell (Labour, Centre-left): I welcome the statement from the Secretary of State, but the reality is that P&O could adjust its measures and continue to operate—and, of course, operate with different staff, with 800 staff losing their jobs. What consideration has the Secretary of State given to a 10th option of an operator of last resort, such as operates in the rail industry, so that he could immediately take such routes back into public ownership?