argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-05-01
Topic: Civil Rights
Margaret Eve Hodge (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention For the sake of clarity, let me just say that, in the past, Conservatives have used this power when they legislated to ensure that capital punishment was abolished in all our overseas territories. A Labour Government used the power to ensure that we brought to an end discrimination on the grounds of sexuality in our overseas territories. One of us—I never remember which—used the power to intervene in the Turks and Caicos when there were problems with the administration of governance.
Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-05-01
Topic: Mixed Topics
Margaret Eve Hodge (Labour, Centre-left): The truth is that the traffic in illicit money has an impact not just on people here in the UK—for example, through the acquisition of properties here—but worldwide. We see that in the losses in tax revenues, particularly to the poorest developing countries.
Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-05-01
Topic: Mixed Topics
Margaret Eve Hodge (Labour, Centre-left): I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman and I are going to agree. I am going to make some progress because I know that other Members wish to say certain things Openness and transparency do not stop the overseas territories from choosing to try to compete on tax. Although I would not approve, they can all set a corporation tax rate of zero. If they believe that that is a way of attracting financial services into their countries, they are free do so. We are asking for openness and not much more. I do agree with their argument that our registers need to be improved, but that is not an either/or; it is a both/and. We need both to improve our registers and ensure transparency in our overseas territories. To those who argue that the money will transfer to other tax havens, I say this: there may well be some leakage, but our tax havens play a disproportionately large role in the secret world that makes tax havens. If we lance that boil, it will be far easier for us to secure transparency elsewhere and much harder for other tax havens to sustain their business models Our campaign on transparency is not and has never been partisan. My party believes passionately that transparency is vital in the battle against financial crime and money laundering, but all Members of this House—from all the political tribes—share our determination to eliminate the wrongdoing that inevitably springs from the secrecy that pervades our tax havens. We cannot sit here and ignore the practices that allow Britain and our British overseas territories to provide safe havens for dirty money. If we can act to root out the corruption, we must do so. Our proposal is simple but powerful. It is easy to implement but lethal in its effectiveness. It is not just legally possible; it is morally vital. Britain and our overseas territories will not get rich on dirty money. We must act now and new clause 6 is an important move in doing so. I ask the House to support it.
Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-05-01
Topic: Mixed Topics
Alexander Gordon Martin (Labour, Centre-left): Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that whatever the actual constitutional position, the British people regard the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands as part of this country and cannot understand why laws and regulations should be different in those places? Does he support my contention that the Government should work towards having the same levels of transparency and financial regulation in those Crown dependencies as are in place in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?
Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-05-01
Topic: Mixed Topics
Catherine Elizabeth West (Labour, Centre-left): I promise to be brief, as there are so many colleagues who wish to speak. As a mere callow youth in this House compared to so many who have campaigned on this issue for a number of years, I just want to put my views on record My right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), my predecessor as leader of Islington Council, has led the way on this matter. I commend her and others for the excellent cross-party nature of their work. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) argued that this measure will enhance not just our standing in international development, so that we can feel good about ourselves, but the work in developing nations to enrich everybody, not just a few who may benefit, often nefariously, from the tax havens that operate and provide cover for bad behaviour. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) for all her work in Committee and all the tiny tit-bits she has let us have, as Members with an interest, as it has progressed. It has been like following a series on television. I am so pleased that we can welcome the Magnitsky clause and new clause 6 As a London Member, I want to put on record how pleased I am that there are measures that may assist in relation to property. It may not be perfect, but those of us who are London Members have very affluent parts of our constituencies where properties are purchased, often at a very high price, but then sit empty as assets, while in other parts of our constituencies families live in overcrowded homes. We need to use such international approaches to try to achieve some sense of equality.
Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-05-01
Topic: Mixed Topics
Catherine Elizabeth West (Labour, Centre-left): Indeed. And I hope that the challenge will be met to reduce inequality in housing in Scotland, because I know that a very small number of people own rather a lot of properties. On the role of other facilitators of tax evasion and avoidance and the big four accountancy firms, many Members feel it is time that they were brought to book. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barking has done a lot of work on that. The next stage is to try to clean up the City of London more effectively and to see the closure of certain poor practices, such as Mossack Fonseca and others. Yes, it was a one hit wonder, but we did see the closure of a number of underperforming legal practices. The next step of this campaign is how to allow the pin-striped enforcers of tax evasion and avoidance to have a more honest and equal way of practising their profession That is all I want to say. It is so good to see consensus in the House today.
Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-05-01
Topic: Mixed Topics
Christopher John Bryant (Labour, Centre-left): I commend the hon. Gentleman for what he has said and fully concur with what he has argued—I have seen the papers as well and I have come to the same conclusion as him. Does he think that the Magnitsky clause will make a significant difference in our being able to tackle this kind of hidden pervasive influence in British society and British politics?
Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-05-01
Topic: Mixed Topics
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Labour, Centre-left): As a member of the CAEC, I urge the right hon. Gentleman to think again about using it as a model for a scrutiny Committee. I sit on it, and it struggles to function—it did not meet for two years—but one thing that it did recommend was a measure to allow the Government to shut down brass-plate companies, on which I have tabled an amendment in the next group.
Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-05-01
Topic: Other
Liam Dominic Byrne (Labour, Centre-left): I want to make two points in support of new clause 6 and to encourage the Government to take on board the arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman). I also want to put on the record my tributes to my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) —my constituency neighbour—and the others associated with this step forward.
Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-05-01
Topic: Mixed Topics
Benjamin Peter James Bradshaw (Labour, Centre-left): Is my right hon. Friend also aware of the relationship between Henley & Partners and the social media data companies that have been allegedly involved in helping with political campaigns, including that of the recently elected Government in Malta?
Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-05-01
Topic: Mixed Topics
Liam Dominic Byrne (Labour, Centre-left): These are very real and very serious allegations, yet when I tabled questions to the Treasury about whether it was exploring the Maltese golden visa route, and the access to the European banking system and the Schengen area that it provides, it said no such conversations were under way The point is that I would like to know more about these brothers and whether they are beneficiaries of the money knocking around the overseas territories that derives from bad sources. I want to know whether that money is derived from Russian sources, and I want to know who the business partners were Global Witness has done this House an incredible service by highlighting how £68 billion of Russian money is now sloshing around the overseas territories. Given the national security situation that now confronts us, and given the update to the national security strategy that has just gone through, how can we be relaxed about our ignorance of where that £68 billion of Russian money, now buried safely and securely in the overseas territories and Crown dependencies, came from If there is innocence, it should be proved. It should be clear. That is why the disinfectant of sunlight is so important. What we cannot have is agents of influence peddling policies and proposals backed by dirty money from one of our country’s enemies. We cannot have that, and we in this House have a responsibility to ensure that we do not run that risk. For far too long, good and bad money has been allowed to mix together in our overseas territories and Crown dependencies. There is good money there, but we need to be honest with ourselves that some of that money comes into too close contact with cash generated by economies of evil. It is our responsibility to take steps to shut down that regime, which is why new clause 6 and the arguments of my hon. Friend the shadow Minister are so important. I hope the Minister will listen.
Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-05-01
Topic: Other
Matthew Toby Perkins (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I made the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) aware, as is the convention, that I intended to raise a point of order about the fact that he spoke very passionately in favour of the Cayman Islands when he has clearly, according to his own entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, done a lot of work on their behalf. That seems to have given him the opportunity to respond in advance to my point of order. Can you advise me, Mr Speaker, whether, on drawing the attention of the House to a particular entry, it makes any difference if a contribution is an intervention or at the start of a grandiose speech?
Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-05-01
Topic: Mixed Topics
Anneliese Jane Dodds (Labour, Centre-left): I shall speak to amendment 21 and new clauses 8 and 13. I will try to be disciplined, as the Minister was, by keeping my remarks as brief as possible, but I would state that while many of us feel that we have seen some progress in terms of transparency for overseas territories, we need a much broader programme of reform so that we stamp out dirty money from the British financial system While the Minister referred to amendment 21, he failed to grasp its significance and intention. As with other Brexit-related Bills, the Opposition have many concerns about the wide-ranging powers that this Bill gives to Ministers, and in particular the way in which it gives Ministers the ability to amend, repeal or revoke legislation through regulations without appropriate scrutiny. We frequently cited Lord Judge in Committee, but it is appropriate that I do so one last time in this Chamber. He was very clear about the dangers of this power. As he said, it gives Ministers "‘regulation-making powers for this, that and the other’" He is a very learned person and, as he put it, "the secondary will override the primary."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 January 2018; Vol. 788, c. 718-19.] I do not think that many Government Members could disagree with that. Clearly this is an excessive power. It is not justified by the need for speed, for reasons that were well rehearsed in Committee The Government have yet again today maintained that these powers are for the sole purpose of combating money laundering and maintaining a sanctions regime, but we heard just a few moments ago that these issues can be highly contentious. There can be different points of view within our parliamentary system on these matters, and that must be reflected in an appropriately inclusive parliamentary procedure The Committee advocated by Her Majesty’s Opposition is necessary precisely because the European Scrutiny Committee will not be operating in its same form after we leave the EU, and our sanctions policy will not be derived from the EU once we have left. That is surely the whole point, so we will need another body that can conduct that scrutiny. We will not want Members turning up on an ad hoc basis to a secondary legislation Committee ill briefed, ill prepared and not expert about the topics at hand. That is why we are making our call, and the arguments for such a body are self-explanatory.
Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-05-01
Topic: Mixed Topics
Anneliese Jane Dodds (Labour, Centre-left): And that Committee has been able to develop its expertise around some very complex issues. We will not have such expertise in the future without the kind of Committee that we are advocating. It will be spread across a range of Departments, as is the case with our sanctions, so there is a need for a group in which expertise can be built up among Members. Surely that is enormously important As the Minister said, new clause 8 would bring forward the timetable for introducing a public register for foreign-owned property in the UK, but it would do so only in relation to the Government’s current proposals. It would actually be behind the initial timetable that we were given by the Government for introducing such a register, according to which we should have seen developments last month, given that today is 1 May. I will not rehearse all the arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West).
Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-05-01
Topic: Housing
Alexander David Sobel (Labour, Centre-left): Global Witness has found that there are 86,000 anonymously-owned properties in the UK, many of which are empty. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should legislate so that we will know who owns these properties, and therefore be able to bring them into use by people in this country?
Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-05-01
Topic: Mixed Topics
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Labour, Centre-left): This is not about tracing. These companies use British registration but undertake activities through a set of subsidiary companies or other companies that they are linked to abroad to take part in the nefarious activity. The individuals might be directors of both companies, for example The current threshold of requirement to disbar individuals or strike off a company is at the criminal level of responsibility, but that level is just far too high. If it were brought down to the civil level of responsibility, the Minister would be able to take action. Now, the Minister may feel that he would not want to take action and I am not compelling him to do so. I am simply giving him the powers, if need be, that already exist in the Insolvency Act 1986. This is not about extending powers that have never been used before The Government say that there is no information about these companies at all. Well, let us look at S-Profit Ltd, a UK-registered company that brokered arms to the South Sudanese Government. This Government have received copies of the contracts involved. The Ukrainian directors of the company have even admitted that the contracts were genuine, as did the Ukrainian state company responsible for brokering the weapons. It is not enough for a criminal action, but it is clearly enough for a Minister to invoke the public test—that is, to ask whether the company is acting against the public interest and breaching sanctions. Such companies should be struck off, so that they cannot use the brand Britain as a front for their activities When Sir John Stanley was in this place, he recommended the same powers in the Committees on Arms Export Controls. I am not trying to bring in something that is hugely controversial. The Government have already said today, in general, that they would like to take action on these things. I was really disappointed that we were not able to get the Government to support this. I tried to meet the Government a number of times, even coming up in recess time to do so, with the meeting being cancelled 20 minutes before it was due. It is a real shame, and I would like the Government to give way. However, I will not press the amendment to a vote on this occasion if they make a commitment to look at this further and to take it on, as I think they have done today. I hope we can work together on this.
Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-05-01
Topic: Mixed Topics
Helen Catherine Goodman (Labour, Centre-left): When the Minister began with his historical overview, I thought he was going to go back to Thucydides, who was of course the first person to write about sanctions; but no, his history was not quite so extensive The Opposition accept the need for this Bill in the post-Brexit environment. When it was first introduced in the other place, it had several major flaws. It presented a bundle of Henry VIII powers that gave the Government and the Executive too much power. An effective coalition of Labour and Cross-Bench peers improved the Bill substantially Another weakness of the Bill was that, although it was titled the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill, only one of its 53 clauses was devoted to anti-money laundering. Through a series of measures, both those that the Government did not support and those that they were forced to support, we have inserted stronger anti-money laundering provisions When the Bill came to this House, it was clear that more needed to be done on the human rights front. We tabled Magnitsky amendments, and we are pleased that the House is now united on the need for a Magnitsky law in this country. The Paradise and Panama papers have shown how British overseas territories and Crown dependencies play a major role in aiding tax evasion and money laundering. Without the great investigative journalism, many of the cases to which we have referred might never have been uncovered. Under David Cameron’s Administration, the Government promised to extend the United Kingdom’s—
Prisons (Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Bill (Money) — House of Commons, 2018-05-01
Topic: Other
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): Order. Who is intervening—I am now beginning to lose even myself at this stage? I think what we should do is hear Maria Caulfield and then we will come back to the Minister to answer. I think that that is the best way to deal with this.
Business without Debate — House of Commons, 2018-05-01
Topic: Housing
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 7 and 8 together Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 18(1)(a)), Veterinary Surgeons That the draft Legislative Reform (Constitution of the Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons) Order 2018, which was laid before this House on 1 March, be approved Social Housing That the draft Legislative Reform (Regulator of Social Housing) (England) Order 2018, which was laid before this House on 28 February, be approved.—(Mims Davies.) Question agreed to. Delegated Legislation
Shop Direct (Greater Manchester) — House of Commons, 2018-05-01
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Elizabeth Anne McInnes (Labour, Centre-left): I wonder if my hon. Friend is aware of the ironic fact that on 23 March, just three weeks before it announced the closures, Shop Direct was crowned best employer at the Retail Week awards 2018 for its "coordinated programme of pioneering initiatives designed to empower colleagues, support new talent and offer opportunities to young people." This is a sad indictment of Shop Direct.
Shop Direct (Greater Manchester) — House of Commons, 2018-05-01
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Deborah Angela Elspeth Marie Abrahams (Labour, Centre-left): Absolutely. The irony is not lost on me, and I will come on to that What was so disappointing was the failure of Shop Direct to engage with anyone. As Shop Direct directors revealed on the morning of this announcement, this move has been planned for more than 18 months, and during that time there have been no discussions with staff, USDAW, Oldham Council, my colleagues and me or the Greater Manchester Mayor, Andy Burnham.
Shop Direct (Greater Manchester) — House of Commons, 2018-05-01
Topic: Mixed Topics
Deborah Angela Elspeth Marie Abrahams (Labour, Centre-left): Absolutely; I could not agree more Shop Direct was created from the merger of the mail order and retail companies Littlewoods and Great Universal Stores, and the sites affected in Shaw, Little Hulton and Raven are the last remaining fulfilment sites in the north-west region. The company has been providing employment for families in Greater Manchester for many decades, and these sites have different generations of the same families working there. The impact of closures will be huge on hundreds of families, as well as local businesses and local communities This decision should in no way be seen as a reflection on the workforce’s capability or dedication. The professionalism and commitment of Shop Direct employees has been second to none. After years of dedication and commitment, many workers have been left reeling by this decision. I have received correspondence, including from one constituent who has worked for the company for more than 20 years, who said: "I am aghast at how the workforce has been treated." I also understand that because of shift patterns, some staff received word of the closure by text message—just imagine how they felt.
Shop Direct (Greater Manchester) — House of Commons, 2018-05-01
Topic: Domestic Commerce
James McMahon (Labour, Centre-left): I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate and on the sterling work she has done to co-ordinate our collective response to this issue. Many people have worked for Shop Direct over many generations, right from the early days of Littlewoods, some with 30 or 40 years of service. What really hurts people and offends me is just how little consideration Shop Direct has given to that loyalty. When the decision was made to relocate to the east midlands, it did not care a jot about the people who had given their lives to build up that company and make it profitable. They were cast aside. Does she agree that that is not the face of good business practice?
Shop Direct (Greater Manchester) — House of Commons, 2018-05-01
Topic: Domestic Commerce
James McMahon (Labour, Centre-left): I accept that the Minister cannot comment on the commercial decisions taken by Shop Direct, but can he confirm whether it has been given any inducements to move to the east midlands, such as business rate benefits or relocation grants?