argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
European Council — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: International Affairs
Christopher John Bryant (Labour, Centre-left): If I have this right, the agreement says that nothing has been agreed until everything has been agreed, so the agreement is not an agreement at all—it is just a kind of pending operation. May I ask the Prime Minister about Russia? She rightly said at the beginning that, "We were at the forefront of the original call for EU sanctions". Britain has wanted to be tough in relation to Russia, and I praise her for that. But how are we going to do that in the future if we are no longer in the room?
European Council — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: International Affairs
Ann Clwyd (Labour, Centre-left): The Prime Minister has agreed with me three times over the past year about the important role the European Parliament has in the negotiations, because it has the power of veto at the end of the day. Eighty-six MPs have signed a letter that urges the Prime Minister to address a plenary session of the European Parliament. When will she do that?
European Council — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: International Affairs
Michael John Gapes (Labour, Centre-left): Further to the Prime Minister’s answers to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) and the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), will she confirm that the implementation or transition phase will be exactly the same for Gibraltar as it will be for Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK?
European Council — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: International Affairs
Mary Helen Creagh (Labour, Centre-left): Is not the result of this European Council that there will be no negotiations with the EU until March next year and no deal concluded between now and March 2019? The tragedy is that there is no deal that the Prime Minister can get with the EU that will be as good as the one that we have now.
European Council — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: International Affairs
Stephen Nathan Kinnock (Labour, Centre-left): Referring to the transition period, the conclusions of the European Council make the position clear. It says: "In order to ensure a level playing field based on the same rules applying throughout the Single Market, changes to the acquis adopted by EU institutions and bodies will have to apply both in the United Kingdom and the EU." Will the Prime Minister please confirm, therefore, that the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice will apply in precisely the same way now as it will during the transition period?
European Council — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: Foreign Trade
Patrick Bosco McFadden (Labour, Centre-left): The dog that has not barked so far in these discussions has been the voice of the service industries. They dominate our economy and make up 45% of our exports, and we trade in surplus with the rest of the EU in them. Does the Prime Minister accept that any future agreement aimed only at tariff-free access for goods would be selling Britain short, and that the benchmark for judging success must be the same market access that we have now for our global, world-leading service industries such as education, the creative industries and the financial services?
European Council — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: International Affairs
Rupa Asha Huq (Labour, Centre-left): I congratulate the Prime Minister on the applause she got at the EU dinner—something that even George Osborne would never have predicted. But would not the assurance on the rights of EU nationals have been more useful 18 months ago? As we now hear that a compromise is being cooked up to stave off yet another rebellion, were humble pie and fudge on the menu?
European Council — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: Labor
Wesley Paul William Streeting (Labour, Centre-left): One of the most frequent criticisms of this place is that politicians are unable to give straight answers to straight questions, so can I give the Prime Minister another opportunity to answer the questions from Streatham and from Penistone and Stocksbridge? Can she guarantee that, after we leave the European Union, there will be no attempt to water down the 48-hour limit on the working week, provided for by the working time directive? It is a very simple yes or no question.
European Council — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: International Affairs
Ronnie Campbell (Labour, Centre-left): Is the Prime Minister sure and confident that the EU negotiators will not put more obstacles in her way on the second agreement, because quite honestly I would not trust them as far as I can throw them?
European Council — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: Labor
Nicklaus Thomas-Symonds (Labour, Centre-left): On workers’ rights, the Prime Minister promised in her Lancaster House speech that she would ensure "that the voices of workers are heard by the boards of publicly-listed companies for the first time." Why, in the past year, has she not introduced the changes to company law that would make that happen?
European Council — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: International Affairs
Peter John Kyle (Labour, Centre-left): The Prime Minister has spent inordinate amounts of time reconciling the divisions within her own Cabinet, but no time whatsoever doing so for the public. Now that we are entering the most difficult part of these negotiations, what will she do specifically not only to deliver on the aspirations and excitement of those who voted leave, but to take into account the anxieties of people who voted remain?
European Council — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: International Affairs
Barry John Sheerman (Labour, Centre-left): The Prime Minister has been toiling away in Brussels, trying to get on to the second stage. But when she came back, she must have seen, as my constituents did, her senior colleagues—including the Foreign Secretary—saying in the Sunday papers that she is leading us towards being a "vassal state". Will she give my constituents, and people up and down the country, a crystal clear answer to this question: is she leading us towards being a vassal state, with a subservient role in Europe? If that is not the case, will she sack her Foreign Secretary?
European Council — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: International Affairs
Stephen Creswell Timms (Labour, Centre-left): To avoid, rightly, a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, the Prime Minister has committed the UK, if necessary, to "maintain full alignment with those rules of the internal market and the customs union" that are necessary. Will such full alignment apply just to Northern Ireland, or to the UK as a whole?
European Council — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: International Affairs
Ruth Margaret Cadbury (Labour, Centre-left): The majority of UK citizens would now prefer us to remain in the EU, because they are realising what many of us knew for a long time, which is that leaving the EU means greater costs to the economy and to UK taxpayers than staying in and that we will no longer have a voice at the table in Europe. Will the Prime Minister start leading the country, or will she continue to be led by the hard Brexiteers in her own party?
European Council — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: International Affairs
Albert Owen (Labour, Centre-left): I welcome the progress that has been made on the Irish question, but I am disappointed by the response the Prime Minister gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms). Will she state categorically that Welsh sea ports, including the port of Holyhead in my constituency, which is the busiest on the western seaboard, will have equal status with ports in Scotland, England and, indeed, Northern Ireland when it comes to trade and the movement of people?
European Council — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: Labor
John Eugene Joseph Dromey (Labour, Centre-left): The mask slipped at the weekend, when the Foreign Secretary let slip that changes might be made for the worse to British workers’ rights on working time, even though they are already working the longest hours in Europe. The Prime Minister has today refused to give a cast-iron guarantee that there will be no changes for the worse. Does that not demonstrate that we can never, ever trust the Tories with workers’ rights?
European Council — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: Foreign Trade
Clive Stanley Efford (Labour, Centre-left): The £39 billion is to pay for commitments that we entered into freely when we were a full, operating member of the European Union. If we fell out of the European Union and failed to pay that bill, what freedom would the European Union and independent European Union countries have under WTO rules to interfere with the trade agreements we would be negotiating with other countries?
European Council — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: Foreign Trade
Alexander Cunningham (Labour, Centre-left): My constituency is home to world class chemical companies that are anxious that the European REACH––registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals—standards, which regulate their products and guarantee their markets, will still apply after they leave the EU and beyond the implementation period. As trade talks start, will the Prime Minister do something to assure them that that will be the case?
Harassment in Public Life — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: Law and Crime
Chuka Harrison Umunna (Labour, Centre-left): I believe something very dangerous is going on in our country. As the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) said, it is being perpetrated, unfortunately, by some Members, certainly by members of other bodies and definitely by elements of our media. What they do is to imply to varying degrees that if Brexit—there is undoubtedly a link to that issue—is not delivered in certain terms, there will be violence. For example, the leading UKIP MEP Nigel Farage said at a dinner earlier this year that if Brexit was not delivered to his satisfaction he would be "forced to don khaki" and to "pick up a rifle". Does the Home Secretary agree that this type of talk, whether said in jest or otherwise, is totally and utterly unacceptable because the effect is to justify violence when under no circumstances would it ever be acceptable May I just press the Home Secretary again about the fact that there is no doubt that The Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail have a particular role to play, given their disgusting equivalents of wanted lists on their front pages? What is she doing to engage with those publications in particular?
Harassment in Public Life — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: Law and Crime
Sarah Deborah Champion (Labour, Centre-left): I am sure that everybody in this House recognises that the abuse and intimidation, mainly online, faced by people in public office is replicated and symptomatic of what is happening across the country, including to children. I welcome the Department for Education bringing in relationship education to teach children to respect themselves and others, but will the Home Secretary commit to extra resources for police, not just for training but so they can protect and prosecute?
Harassment in Public Life — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: Law and Crime
Christian John Patrick Matheson (Labour, Centre-left): In welcoming the Home Secretary’s statement, may I press her on this idea of focusing on the attackers? Just as a clockwork mouse will only scamper across the floor if it is wound up, so some of these keyboard warriors will only take to their computers if they are incited by billionaire tax-dodging newspaper owners—or their editors. Does the Home Secretary accept that there is an element of incitement in some of the shocking newspaper headlines and that that incitement corrodes the quality of our democracy?
Harassment in Public Life — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: Law and Crime
Martin David Whitfield (Labour, Centre-left): The Government have rightly said that offences online are the same as offences offline, and that the punishment should be the same. Is the media vehicle carrying such offences not as responsible as the driver of a bank robber?
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: Government Operations
Peter Christopher Dowd (Labour, Centre-left): I will come to that in the course of my speech I was asking about the context for these measures. First, there is the political context; then there is the ideological context. Politically, we saw a new low for the Government last week. We witnessed an increasingly weak and ineffectual Prime Minister being pulled between the troika of the Democratic Unionist party, her hard-line Front-Bench Brexiteers and, latterly, rebels on her own Back Benches.
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: International Affairs
Peter Christopher Dowd (Labour, Centre-left): I will come to that in due course as well, if I may. I am beginning to think that my staff have been leaking my notes. I shall have to have words with them Last week, in true one nation mode, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), among others, gave the Brexit Front Benchers every opportunity to acquiesce to his reasonable requests. In effect, he tried to give them a "get out of jail" card, but they could not take yes for an answer, and the remnants of the Government’s credibility went down the pan. There is a civil war going on within the Government, and this goes to the heart of the matter. The Government are throwing everything into the mix to try to distract us from the civil war that is going on in the Tory party.
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: Macroeconomics
James Dolan Cunningham (Labour, Centre-left): Let us get real and say to the Government that at the end of the day, when we are in government, our Chancellor will carry out the policies of that Labour Government, whatever his personal views are. More importantly, many comments have been made about the previous Labour Government tonight, but the previous Chancellor said that it was not the Labour Government who created the financial crisis. If we had not capitalised the banks, many of those on the Conservative Benches would be in the poorhouse today.
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: Macroeconomics
Peter Christopher Dowd (Labour, Centre-left): As ever, my hon. Friend makes a reasonable point. The Government are so lacking in confidence that they are gerrymandering Public Bill Committees to reflect their control-freakery. We have to ask ourselves how long the Government can treat the House with such disdain. It is the kind of disdain that saw the Government ensure that there was no amendment of the law resolution, which has deliberately restricted the scope of the Bill and effectively limited parliamentary scrutiny and debate. [Interruption.] A Whip says from a sedentary position that that has happened before, but the procedure is used rarely and not in these circumstances. It is the Government’s control-freakery and fear of scrutiny that makes them do such outrageous and virtually unprecedented things Perhaps if the Bill set out a bold plan—let us call it a long-term economic plan—to get the economy back on track, we could all put up with the Government’s guileful procedural gymnastics. However, as I said on Second Reading, there is little in the Bill to solve the growing problems facing our economy—from sluggish growth and slow productivity to a lack of investment in our infrastructure and our people. The Government have instead decided to dedicate their efforts to offering the banks another tax break by further limiting the scope of the bank levy, ensuring that from 2020 UK banks will pay the levy only on their UK balance sheets, not their overseas activities. It is the same old Tories looking after the same old interests.
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: Macroeconomics
Peter Christopher Dowd (Labour, Centre-left): We discussed this issue last week, but the bottom line is that we are here to talk about the tax policies of the Government, not the Labour party. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads "Funding Britain’s Future", which we call the grey book. As I said to one of his colleagues last week, I am not his research assistant. The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority provides the hon. Gentleman with enough money to employ his own research assistant, so he should not need a shadow Minister to do his research for him Labour’s position on the bank levy has been clear. We have consistently argued for a higher bank levy and pointed out that the levy, introduced in 2011, would raise substantially less then Labour’s bankers’ bonus tax. In short, we have always stood against the Government’s divisive austerity agenda. That was why we voted against the 2011 Finance Bill, which introduced the bank levy along with cuts to corporation tax and tax giveaways for the most well-off. That was also why we voiced our concern in 2015 over the Government’s cuts to the bank levy and the introduction of a corporation tax surcharge. It is why we will vote against the measures in the Bill.
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: Macroeconomics
Peter Christopher Dowd (Labour, Centre-left): No matter how many times Government Members ask rather tangential questions, I will not be drawn down that particular avenue, much as I would love to have that debate with the hon. Gentleman. The bottom line is that we have always stood against this Government introducing austerity measures at the same time as giving banks a tax cut. That is what it comes down to.
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: Macroeconomics
Peter Christopher Dowd (Labour, Centre-left): No, I will push on for a moment It is worth pointing out that the bank levy was not the brainchild of a Conservative Government. It was not introduced by the previous Chancellor after he had listened to the clear public outrage aimed at the reckless decisions made by some in the banking sector, who plunged the world into one of the greatest economic crises in modern times. As much as Government Members would like to blame the Labour Government for a world financial crisis, that is stretching credibility a little too far. [Interruption.] It is nice to see that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is shouting across the Chamber, but I cannot quite hear her, so if she wants to intervene—or shout a little louder—so that I can actually hear her question, I will be more than happy to answer. It is nice to see her in the Chamber.
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: Macroeconomics
Gareth Craig Snell (Labour, Centre-left): If we are talking about the 1980s, let us remember that corporation tax spiked to over 50% in 1983 under a Conservative Government. Government Members are giving us lectures, but they should perhaps look at their own history rather than judging ours.
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: Macroeconomics
Peter Christopher Dowd (Labour, Centre-left): That is a fair comment The threshold was established despite Treasury officials considering it to be far too low. Under the original plans, the levy would have raised £3.9 billion a year—nearly £1.5 billion more than £2.6 billion—but the Government of the few ensured that the threshold remains low At 0.078% for short-term liabilities and 0.039% for long-term liabilities, the level set was—not to put too fine a point on it—an embarrassment when compared with that in other countries that introduced a similar levy. It was less than a third of France’s level, substantially smaller than Hungary’s, which was set at 0.53%, and even lower than that of the USA. They are all well-known Marxist countries In 2015, under pressure from the Minister’s and the Government’s chums, once more the then Chancellor cut the bank levy rate, and the current occupant of No. 11 has continued on that sojourn. In so doing, he has ensured that, by 2020, the UK’s biggest banks will have received a tax giveaway worth a whopping £4.7 billion. That is £4.7 billion that could have been spent on our public services—notably on children’s services, for example.
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: Macroeconomics
Peter Christopher Dowd (Labour, Centre-left): If the hon. Lady wants to take back to the Conservative party the independence of the Bank of England, she should feel free. We will not support it— [Interruption.] That is what I heard her say. She was complaining about the independence of the Bank of England. So a new policy has been introduced by the Conservatives to take away the independence of the Bank of England To offset the cuts to the bank levy, the Government introduced the 8% corporation tax surcharge, which they falsely claimed would offset the reduction. If we look at their Red Book and the forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility, however, we can clearly see that the surcharge will not make up the fall in the bank levy. Under the forecasts, the surcharge is set to increase by £0.3 billion a year, while the receipts the Exchequer receives from the levy will fall by £1.7 billion a year, which is a £1.4 billion gap. That is a fact. That is in the Government’s own Red Book.
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: Macroeconomics
Daniel Joseph Carden (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. There is a lot of displacement activity coming from Conservative Members in the form of interventions. This is the second debate I have attended on the Finance Bill in which not one Conservative Member has mentioned living standards, wages, public sector pay or any real life conditions I encourage my hon. Friend to carry on with his speech and to talk about the review that should take place into the bank levy and the real life consequences of this Tory Government’s policies.
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: Social Welfare
Peter Christopher Dowd (Labour, Centre-left): I suggest that the hon. Gentleman goes back and reads Hansard when it is printed to see exactly what I said Once we can see the true costs of the Government’s policies, we can grasp the extent of the choices they have been making and how they have favoured a small, wealthy group over the many citizens of this country time and again. Let us look at the example of children’s services. Only a week before the Budget, the chief executive of Action for Children, Sir Tony Hawkhead, described the "devastating cost" of cuts to children’s services, which he said have been left on a "dangerous and unstable" footing. These prevention and protection services are vital to provide proper care for our nation’s children, and the banking levy could help with that, yet we have seen deep cuts of 55% of funding for local government and a gap of £2 billion in funding by 2020. There is widespread talk and reports of local councils having to seek permission from the Government to raise council tax to cover the costs, in effect, of cuts to the bank levy—this money may have been available for children. So cuts to bankers and council tax up seems to be what we are being told today. As these services have been decimated over the past seven years, we have seen a doubling of serious child protection cases and twice the number of children put into care protection plans. Last year, 70,000 children were placed into care. The support for foster care, adoption and Sure Start children’s centres has all been reduced. Youth centres are closing and parenting classes are being axed. Short breaks for disabled children, provided by local councils to give their parents a little respite from full-time care, are being taken away and are under strain Taken together, those cuts mean that some of the most vulnerable children in our country are paying the price for seven years of failing economic strategy. When are the Government going to change their strategy? It is still shocking to see the Government put the needs of others ahead of those of our youngest citizens, who are picking up the bill for austerity