argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Macroeconomics
Questions: On Saturday in my constituency I met Tom, a student at the University of Gloucestershire, who shares my concerns that online digital marketplaces, social media companies and search engines should pay their fair share of tax. What steps are being taken to ensure that they do precisely that?; I have been listening carefully to these questions, and it strikes me that from members of all the Opposition parties we hear pleas that business wants uncertainty to end, but at the same time they have been deliberately seeking to provoke chaos by not supporting the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement. Does the Chancellor agree that they are playing political games with the lives and jobs of the British people?; Further to the answer that the Chancellor just gave my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), may I point out that the Father of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), pointed out last week that if we were to be in a customs union, we would need to have the same regulatory standards as the Europeans? That is true, because they fear unfair competition through a regulatory race to the bottom. If the Prime Minister does not succeed today, will the Chancellor revisit that option?; Lower taxes and a simplified tax system are crucial to long-term economic growth and competition. Will the Chancellor consider introducing new tax reforms in the future, including a combination of income tax and national insurance, to improve the efficiency of our tax system?
Melvyn John Stride (Conservative, Centre-right): I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend about the importance of low taxes. Under this Government, corporation tax has been reduced from 28% to 19% and will be further reduced to 17%; and through the increase in the personal allowance that was announced in the Budget, we have taken about 4 million of the lowest-paid out of tax altogether. As for my right hon. Friend’s specific point about aligning national insurance and income tax, that is a very complex thing to do. There would be a considerable number of losers, as well as some gainers. However, the Office of Tax Simplification has looked into it in the past, and we will keep it under review.
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Macroeconomics
Questions: On Saturday in my constituency I met Tom, a student at the University of Gloucestershire, who shares my concerns that online digital marketplaces, social media companies and search engines should pay their fair share of tax. What steps are being taken to ensure that they do precisely that?; I have been listening carefully to these questions, and it strikes me that from members of all the Opposition parties we hear pleas that business wants uncertainty to end, but at the same time they have been deliberately seeking to provoke chaos by not supporting the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement. Does the Chancellor agree that they are playing political games with the lives and jobs of the British people?; Further to the answer that the Chancellor just gave my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), may I point out that the Father of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), pointed out last week that if we were to be in a customs union, we would need to have the same regulatory standards as the Europeans? That is true, because they fear unfair competition through a regulatory race to the bottom. If the Prime Minister does not succeed today, will the Chancellor revisit that option?; Lower taxes and a simplified tax system are crucial to long-term economic growth and competition. Will the Chancellor consider introducing new tax reforms in the future, including a combination of income tax and national insurance, to improve the efficiency of our tax system?; Given this country’s £5.9 billion net trading surplus with the EU in insurance, will the Chancellor take the opportunity of the demise of the withdrawal agreement to make financial services a part of the Prime Minister’s next attempt at a Brexit deal?
Elizabeth Mary Truss (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I have regular meetings with the Scottish Finance Secretary, and of course the Scottish Government have the opportunity in their budget tomorrow to match the business rate cuts we have made in England.
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Macroeconomics
Questions: On Saturday in my constituency I met Tom, a student at the University of Gloucestershire, who shares my concerns that online digital marketplaces, social media companies and search engines should pay their fair share of tax. What steps are being taken to ensure that they do precisely that?; I have been listening carefully to these questions, and it strikes me that from members of all the Opposition parties we hear pleas that business wants uncertainty to end, but at the same time they have been deliberately seeking to provoke chaos by not supporting the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement. Does the Chancellor agree that they are playing political games with the lives and jobs of the British people?; Further to the answer that the Chancellor just gave my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), may I point out that the Father of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), pointed out last week that if we were to be in a customs union, we would need to have the same regulatory standards as the Europeans? That is true, because they fear unfair competition through a regulatory race to the bottom. If the Prime Minister does not succeed today, will the Chancellor revisit that option?; Lower taxes and a simplified tax system are crucial to long-term economic growth and competition. Will the Chancellor consider introducing new tax reforms in the future, including a combination of income tax and national insurance, to improve the efficiency of our tax system?; Given this country’s £5.9 billion net trading surplus with the EU in insurance, will the Chancellor take the opportunity of the demise of the withdrawal agreement to make financial services a part of the Prime Minister’s next attempt at a Brexit deal?; I met the travel association ABTA this morning and it had two requests for the Chancellor: first, that he rules out no deal, because implementing no deal preparations potentially puts its smaller members out of business; and secondly, to hear from the Chancellor and Government when the immigration paper will be available, because without it ABTA members can make no business plans.
Melvyn John Stride (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank my hon. Friend for his question, but I have to fundamentally disagree with him. The arrangements entered into around disguised remuneration, for which the loan charge is being applied, were always defective at the time they were being used. They have been taken through the courts many times over many years by HMRC and been found to be defective. They also went through, in a particular case, the Supreme Court—the highest court in the land—and the scheme was found to be defective. So this is not a retrospective measure, but it is a question of tax fairness, and of course those who are involved can come forward and have discussions with HMRC, who, where there are difficulties around payment, will be sympathetic and enter into time-to-pay arrangements to make sure those people are protected as well as paying the right tax.
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Macroeconomics
Questions: On Saturday in my constituency I met Tom, a student at the University of Gloucestershire, who shares my concerns that online digital marketplaces, social media companies and search engines should pay their fair share of tax. What steps are being taken to ensure that they do precisely that?; I have been listening carefully to these questions, and it strikes me that from members of all the Opposition parties we hear pleas that business wants uncertainty to end, but at the same time they have been deliberately seeking to provoke chaos by not supporting the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement. Does the Chancellor agree that they are playing political games with the lives and jobs of the British people?; Further to the answer that the Chancellor just gave my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), may I point out that the Father of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), pointed out last week that if we were to be in a customs union, we would need to have the same regulatory standards as the Europeans? That is true, because they fear unfair competition through a regulatory race to the bottom. If the Prime Minister does not succeed today, will the Chancellor revisit that option?; Lower taxes and a simplified tax system are crucial to long-term economic growth and competition. Will the Chancellor consider introducing new tax reforms in the future, including a combination of income tax and national insurance, to improve the efficiency of our tax system?; Given this country’s £5.9 billion net trading surplus with the EU in insurance, will the Chancellor take the opportunity of the demise of the withdrawal agreement to make financial services a part of the Prime Minister’s next attempt at a Brexit deal?; I met the travel association ABTA this morning and it had two requests for the Chancellor: first, that he rules out no deal, because implementing no deal preparations potentially puts its smaller members out of business; and secondly, to hear from the Chancellor and Government when the immigration paper will be available, because without it ABTA members can make no business plans.; IPPR North’s analysis has shown that in the south £326 per head is spent on infrastructure, while only £156 per person is spent in the north, and small towns like those in my constituency have been hit the hardest, with lack of infrastructure and the withdrawal of public sector services. We now find out this week that there will be a third bailout for Crossrail 2, costing £2.1 billion; the Government are simply going to give it a cheque. When is the north-west going to get a £2.1 billion equivalent?
Neil John O'Brien (Conservative, Centre-right): It is very welcome that today’s figures show that wages are rising, unemployment is falling and we have a record number of people in work, but we still need more good jobs in Leicestershire. So, when the Leicestershire industrial strategy comes forward with exciting plans to boost the life sciences and small satellite manufacturing, will the Treasury look closely at getting behind it?
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018: Statutory Obligations on Ministers — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: International Affairs
Robin Caspar Walker (Conservative, Centre-right): I recognise that this question was the subject of much discussion and some speculation yesterday, so I hope to be able to put the minds of the right hon. Lady and other hon. Members at ease Put simply, in keeping with the clear intention of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, the Government will ensure that the question whether to accept an agreement is brought back to this House before 21 January. If Parliament accepts that deal, we will introduce the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill to implement the withdrawal agreement in domestic legislation If Parliament were to reject the deal, the Government would be required to make a statement on our proposed next steps and table a motion in neutral terms on that statement. Following the passing of the amendment to the business of the House motion last week, that motion will be amendable. It is our clear intention that this House will consider the matter before 21 January, and have the opportunity to decide on the deal Let me also say this clearly: in the unlikely and highly undesirable circumstances that, as of 21 January, there is no deal before the House, the Government would bring a statement to the House and arrange for a debate, as specified by the law I am confident that we will have a deal that the House can support. I hope that the statement puts to rest hon. Members’ concerns about the Government’s commitment to meet the spirit, as well as the letter, of the withdrawal Act, and to respect the will of the House.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018: Statutory Obligations on Ministers — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: International Affairs
Robin Caspar Walker (Conservative, Centre-right): I have great respect for the right hon. Lady. I understand that she came to this House expecting to have a row about the Government’s interpretation, and I understand the questions she has just asked. I am responding to this urgent question because my Department is responsible for the legislation that enacts the deal, and I have given her our very clear interpretation of that legislation, which is that we will have a motion before the House by 21 January, in all the different scenarios I talked through in my statement The answer to the right hon. Lady is very clear. We respect the decision made by this House that the Government should come back to the House with a motion in the event that no deal had been agreed or in the event that this House had rejected a deal. That is clear from my statement What we are therefore saying is that there will be a motion by 21 January, and I agree with the right hon. Lady—I would much rather it were, and I fully expect it to be, sooner. I fully expect this House to have the opportunity to debate a withdrawal agreement that it is able to support. So let us work together to achieve that, but let us not allow some of the conspiracy theories and the scare stories that have been told about this to run away when I have just clarified the Government’s position.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018: Statutory Obligations on Ministers — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: International Affairs
Nicky Morgan (Conservative, Centre-right): I have great sympathy for the points made by both the Minister, who is acting with integrity, as he always has done in his parliamentary career, and the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). It is unquestionable that this Parliament must have a say—a meaningful vote—on the deal, or no deal, that comes about. Can the Minister give a categorical assurance that there will be no trickery by the Government to stop Parliament from having a say?
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018: Statutory Obligations on Ministers — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: International Affairs
Robin Caspar Walker (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s words, and I am happy to give that categorical assurance. As my statement reflected, we will be putting a motion before Parliament, even in the circumstances that no deal was before the House, but I strongly believe and expect that there will be a deal before this House, which I will be urging Parliament to support.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018: Statutory Obligations on Ministers — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: International Affairs
Robin Caspar Walker (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman made my point clearly when he said that the Prime Minister’s spokesman has said the same thing as I said this morning from the Dispatch Box—that there will be such a meaningful vote before the House before 21 January. The hon. Gentleman also talked about acting contrary to the national interest, and I think we are clear on what acting contrary to the national interest is. It is Labour’s approach of blindly opposing any sensible steps taken by the Government to secure a deal, while proposing no alternatives.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018: Statutory Obligations on Ministers — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: International Affairs
Dominic Charles Roberts Grieve (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his statement, but may I just pick him up on a couple of points? First, the section 13 procedure presupposes that the Government have an initialled deal with the EU, and of course we have such a deal, which is why we started debate on it last week, for the purpose of deciding whether the House should or should not approve it. In those circumstances, can he provide an assurance to the House that if the initialled deal is continuing in its current form, as initialled, the House can complete its consideration, not on a day just before 21 January but expeditiously, as was clearly provided for in the 2018 Act? Secondly, may I take it from what he has said that the amendment that was tabled to the procedure under section 13 to allow for amendable motions thereafter is now fully accepted by the Government, as it should prevail in future?
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018: Statutory Obligations on Ministers — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: International Affairs
Robin Caspar Walker (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. and learned lady should pay attention to what I have already said in my statement, which is that we will be bringing a motion before the House, either on this deal, as I would much prefer, with the assurances that the Prime Minister will by then have won, so that this House can vote on that, or even in the circumstances that that were not on the table. She raises the idea of a people’s vote once again, and we very clearly had a people’s vote. We had that people’s vote across the whole of the UK in 2016, and it is our duty as Members of this House to deliver on that.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018: Statutory Obligations on Ministers — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: International Affairs
Oliver Letwin (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful to the Minister for his clarifications, but may I press him on one point that I do not think he covered? Is he confirming that if there is, under section 13(8), a statement at some point before 21 January, as there must be under that section if the Prime Minister has by then concluded that she cannot complete a deal, that statement will be accompanied by a motion which, though in neutral terms, will be amendable? Or did his point about the amendment cover only a statement and motion under sections 13(1) and 13(4)?
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018: Statutory Obligations on Ministers — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: International Affairs
Robin Caspar Walker (Conservative, Centre-right): I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman and the work that he does with the Select Committee, but I must say that in this case I do not share his interpretation. Section 13 is very clear: in scenarios in which either a deal had not been reached or a deal had been voted down, a statement would be required. That is my understanding of the commitment that we have made. We would need to come to the House and have that vote, even in circumstances in which a deal had been brought before the House and turned down.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018: Statutory Obligations on Ministers — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: International Affairs
Jo Johnson (Conservative, Centre-right): Just to press further on this point, will my hon. Friend clarify, in the light of the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday, whether the Government still maintain that a political agreement has been reached in line with the statutory statement presented to Parliament on 26 November? As things stand today, do we still have a valid initialled deal?
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018: Statutory Obligations on Ministers — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: International Affairs
Robin Caspar Walker (Conservative, Centre-right): The Prime Minister has been clear that of course we have reached an initial deal with the EU, but she has listened to the concerns of this House and gone back to seek to discuss that deal and to seek assurances on it. I think that means that she will want to put before the House a deal with those assurances and to ensure that the House has its meaningful vote on that arrangement.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018: Statutory Obligations on Ministers — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: International Affairs
Robin Caspar Walker (Conservative, Centre-right): I believe I am standing here on behalf of a Prime Minister who is seeking to do the right thing for the country—to bring us together and to secure an agreement that is in our best interests and that this whole House can support.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018: Statutory Obligations on Ministers — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: International Affairs
Robin Caspar Walker (Conservative, Centre-right): I simply do not agree with the hon. Lady’s narrative. The Prime Minister has been clear that she has listened to the House. She understands the concerns throughout the House and wants to take them back to European counterparts to make sure that we have the best deal before the House. She will then bring that back here and put it before the House for us to decide on.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018: Statutory Obligations on Ministers — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: International Affairs
Sarah James (Wollaston) (Conservative, Centre-right): In 108 days we run out of road, and the only red line that has not been laid down is the one in front of the cliff’s edge, over which we would fall into a chaotic no deal. I urge the Minister and the Government to bring forward the meaningful vote to next week, because by then at least we will know what cosmetic changes have been made in Brussels.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018: Statutory Obligations on Ministers — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: International Affairs
Edward Vaizey (Conservative, Centre-right): I fear I have raised the bar too high, Mr Speaker It seems unlikely that the Prime Minister will get any substantial changes to the withdrawal agreement, so it is beginning to look like she has withdrawn the vote for her benefit, not for Parliament’s benefit. Is it not time to bring back the withdrawal agreement, have the vote and allow Parliament to make a decision? Like the Minister, I do not favour a second referendum. I would like Parliament to reach a conclusion on Brexit.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018: Statutory Obligations on Ministers — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Government Operations
Robin Caspar Walker (Conservative, Centre-right): We are all clear that Parliament will have its crucial say in this process, which is why I made this statement to make it clear that there will be a meaningful vote before Parliament. I agree with my right hon. Friend that the date of 21 January is at the back end of when we want to see that vote. We want to see it come sooner, and I am sure that the Prime Minister will strive to ensure that she can bring it to the House even sooner than that.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018: Statutory Obligations on Ministers — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: International Affairs
Robin Caspar Walker (Conservative, Centre-right): We have before us an option to make sure that we leave with a negotiated deal with an implementation period. The Prime Minister is seeking to improve that deal still further to make sure that the House has the best option to move forward on an orderly basis. That is the route that we should take.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018: Statutory Obligations on Ministers — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: International Affairs
Victoria Grace Ford (Conservative, Centre-right): I genuinely believe that there are Members on the Labour Back Benches who, like me, want to avoid a no-deal Brexit and the risks of a divisive second referendum. I therefore urge the Minister, whom I know to be a thoughtful listener, to spend some of the time that has become available in his diary with some of those Labour Back Benchers, to see whether their concerns can be addressed.