argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Finance (No. 3) Bill — House of Commons, 2018-11-20
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Clive Anthony Lewis (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend makes his excellent point well, and I agree with it entirely Page 11 of that report describes what "at risk of closure" actually means. It means that once the £2 cap is implemented, just under half of those shops would make a net annual profit of £20,000 or less. Are we seriously to believe that a net profit of £20,000 a year is terminal? KPMG did not think so. The report concludes that these shops would not close, but would simply be "less profitable". The threat was not to our constituents’ jobs, but to corporate profits. Can the Minister assure Members that the Treasury will never again seek to justify resisting evidence-based policy on the basis of secret reports and clandestine meetings By choosing to take such an approach, the Treasury ignored the recommendation in the May 2018 gambling review that the £2 limit should be adopted within nine to 12 months. Let us remember that that policy was designed to reduce the harm caused by gambling addiction. The evidence of harm associated with FOBTs is overwhelming, with that harm disproportionately felt by the poorest in our society. Put simply, there are twice as many betting shops in the poorest 55 boroughs of the UK as there are in the most affluent 115 Even in narrow economic terms, viewing the delay as merely a reduction in tax income to the Exchequer makes little sense. As we have heard today, the social cost of addiction, crime and debt that accompanies the ever-increasing losses on FOBTs is estimated by the Centre for Economics and Business Research to cost the UK £1.5 billion a year. It has an impact on many aspects of social welfare, including employment, mental health and financial stability, so the awful human cost, about which we have heard so powerfully, is matched by an economic cost that we all bear as a society and as an economy as well. Perhaps the Minister would address whether the Government have factored into any of their fiscal calculations the prospect of alleviating the cost to public services, given a decline in gambling-related harm and crime Of course, the most important reason for an immediate stake reduction is a moral one—an issue of social justice that must be resolved. Lives are being destroyed, and this policy change is a milestone on our journey to tackle this harm. Labour Members are proud be part of taking that step forward, and we will keep striving to carry on making these changes until eventually we get to the bottom of what the gambling industry actually is: something that preys on people’s vulnerabilities. Labour Members recognise that quite clearly.
Finance (No. 3) Bill — House of Commons, 2018-11-20
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Carolyn Harris (Labour, Centre-left): May I say what a pleasure it is to speak today, Dame Eleanor? I am delighted to say that the Members who tabled and put their names to the amendments and new clause will not press them to a vote because—in case anybody has not heard—the Government finally saw sense and backed down on the implementation date for the reduction of stakes on fixed odds betting terminals. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear!"] Thank you I stand instead to make a point: the power of the Back Benchers cannot be ignored. This House is fortunate to have so many Members, on all Benches, who are prepared to put principle before both profits and politics. I pay tribute to the many colleagues in this place and the other, and I pay special tribute to the hon. Members for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), to the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) and to the wonderful hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), whose principles led to her resignation. I thank them all for their support, dedication and downright determination to force the Government’s hand The result has been a long time coming, but this issue has demonstrated the very best of this House, where politicians of all persuasions came together, united in seeking to make sure that the Government were held to account for their reluctance to put people’s lives ahead of company profits. The Government had so many opportunities to do the right thing, but they seemed determined to pander to the whim of an industry set to make nearly £1 billion of profit in the six-month period between April and October 2019. It is regrettable that it took strong-arm tactics by Members to convince them to make the change and that they did not come to a principled decision on the morality of the problem—the devastation that these machines have caused to individuals, communities and families.
Finance (No. 3) Bill — House of Commons, 2018-11-20
Topic: Other
Carolyn Harris (Labour, Centre-left): I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman May I just say that I cannot thank the Government? As much as I respect and like the Minister, I can say only one thing: learn lessons from this and never underestimate the power of principle.
Finance (No. 3) Bill — House of Commons, 2018-11-20
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Graham Peter Jones (Labour, Centre-left): I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is making a very powerful point, and I did not want to interrupt him mid-flow, but will he add to that list of problems the misuse of gambling accounts? That needs to be looked at, because gambling accounts are misused so that people become addicted. When people fall away and manage their addiction, they are dragged back in through gambling accounts, and that should be something that this House considers.
Finance (No. 3) Bill — House of Commons, 2018-11-20
Topic: Mixed Topics
Graham Peter Jones (Labour, Centre-left): I agree with the hon. Gentleman wholeheartedly. I am sure that he would add that our concern extends to the people of Northern Ireland, who are not covered by the measure and where this affliction persists.
Finance (No. 3) Bill — House of Commons, 2018-11-20
Topic: Mixed Topics
Anneliese Jane Dodds (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. However, I am sorry to point out that he is slightly behind the times when it comes to the operation of tax treaties. Those are now multilateral, following the development of the OECD’s multilateral instrument, which aims to amend tax treaties for all signatories, including the UK, in a thorough manner.
Finance (No. 3) Bill — House of Commons, 2018-11-20
Topic: Housing
Anneliese Jane Dodds (Labour, Centre-left): I will give way when I have finished my sentence. I am so pleased that the right hon. Gentleman is so excited about participating in this debate. As I have said, I have talked to many politicians in EU27 countries who interpreted those comments—discussing a shift towards a Singapore-style model—as a threat. Of course, often when Government Members talk about a Singapore-style model, they omit to mention the huge amount of social housing, for example, in that nation, and other aspects of its business model. I suspect they have a rather different approach in mind when they talk about it.
Finance (No. 3) Bill — House of Commons, 2018-11-20
Topic: Mixed Topics
Anneliese Jane Dodds (Labour, Centre-left): I would be more than happy to look up that reference and send it to the right hon. Gentleman immediately. I regret that he cannot remember his own Chancellor’s words and that he is unaware that there have ever been comments from his Government suggesting that the UK may at some point shift towards a Singapore-style model. I regret that he is unaware of the comments that have so soured our relationship with the EU27, because I know that they have caused enormous problems for us. They have presented a picture of our country as seeking to undermine and undercut tax arrangements in the rest of the EU27. For that reason, it is enormously important that those comments should be counted If the right hon. Gentleman believes that his Government will no longer use that threat, I will be very pleased to hear it, and I would suggest that he perhaps has conversations with those members of his Government who have advocated that point of view.
Finance (No. 3) Bill — House of Commons, 2018-11-20
Topic: Housing
James McMahon (Labour, Centre-left): Does the hon. Gentleman accept, though, that the trade-off with the digital sales tax and the relief being offered to some premises in town centres just is not enough? Take, for instance, the former Textiles Direct unit in my local shopping centre, which has been empty for some time, but has a rateable value of £500 per square metre. Compare that to the Amazon warehouse near Manchester airport that pays just £44 per square metre. How can it be right that the gap is so large?
Finance (No. 3) Bill — House of Commons, 2018-11-20
Topic: Other
Anneliese Jane Dodds (Labour, Centre-left): I fear, very sadly, that the hon. Member did not hear what I said on that point earlier. It is because those measures are far too weak and do not go far enough that we are voting against them. I set that out very clearly in my previous remarks.
UK-EU Defence Relationship — House of Commons, 2018-11-26
Topic: Mixed Topics
Questions: What recent discussions he has had with the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on the UK’s future defence relationship with the EU.; What recent discussions he has had with the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on the UK’s future defence relationship with the EU.
Michael Joseph Patrick Kane (Labour, Centre-left): For the record, Manchester’s armed forces champion is Councillor Tommy Judge, who was blown up twice by the IRA: once in the M62 bus bombing and once on the Falls Road. We know who are champions are. UK suppliers depend on just-in-time supply chains and therefore need frictionless trade. Does the Secretary of State agree that only a full customs union with the EU will ensure that?
Departmental Funding — House of Commons, 2018-11-26
Topic: Mixed Topics
Louise Margaret Haigh (Labour, Centre-left): The latest statistics show that Capita has managed to recruit only 10% of the officers and 7% of all other ranks that the Ministry requires for 2018-19. Is the Secretary of State satisfied with the adequacy of funding for recruiting the officers that the Ministry needs and with the performance of this failing provider?
Defence Industry: Scotland — House of Commons, 2018-11-26
Topic: Mixed Topics
Hugh Lawrence Gaffney (Labour, Centre-left): Scotland is one part of the UK that could benefit from the contract for the fleet solid support ships being awarded to a UK bidder. Research by the GMB union has found that, if the fleet solid support contract were placed with UK shipyards, it could create and secure up to 6,500 vital jobs—as has just been mentioned, the aircraft carriers at Rosyth are nearing completion. Is the Minister comfortable with the fact that his Department is following a plan that could undermine the creation of so many much-needed jobs like those at Rosyth?
European Defence Co-operation — House of Commons, 2018-11-26
Topic: Mixed Topics
Nia Rhiannon Griffith (Labour, Centre-left): The Prime Minister has managed to unite the whole House in opposition to her half-baked Brexit deal, which, after two years of negotiations, is remarkably short on detail on our future relationship with the EU. One of the many questions that remains unanswered is the nature of our participation in the European defence fund, with just a cursory reference to it in the political declaration. This matters to the UK defence companies and research partners who want to have full access to the grants that the fund provides, so can the Secretary of State confirm that that will be the case?
Leaving the EU — House of Commons, 2018-11-26
Topic: Mixed Topics
Catharine Letitia Hoey (Labour, Centre-left): The Prime Minister was told very clearly last November that any backstop would not be tenable and would not be acceptable, yet she has carried on with allowing it to be put in. But not only is it in; it is in in a way that we cannot get out of unless the EU allows us to do so. Does the Prime Minister agree that that is not really giving back sovereignty to our country—to the people who voted to leave?
Leaving the EU — House of Commons, 2018-11-26
Topic: Mixed Topics
Luciana Clare Goldsmith (Berger) (Labour, Centre-left): The National Institute of Economic and Social Research published a report today showing that this deal would make the UK £100 billion a year worse off by 2030, which equates to £1,000 per person per year. If the Prime Minister really believes that the majority of the UK wants that outcome, can I politely suggest that she is not knocking on enough doors? Will she commit to giving the nation a final say on the exact terms of her deal?
Leaving the EU — House of Commons, 2018-11-26
Topic: Mixed Topics
Stephen John Doughty (Labour, Centre-left): I am genuinely sorry to say this to the Prime Minister, but there is a stark difference between stoic determination and sheer stubbornness and a failure to listen to this House or to the people. She has come here today with the same old script, telling us that we have to vote for this piece of paper that will make us poorer, weaker, less influential, less well-off and less secure, and she expects to get the consent of this House. She said as a result that she wants to appeal over our heads and go to the people. If she wants to go to the people, why is she afraid to put this question to a people’s vote?
Leaving the EU — House of Commons, 2018-11-26
Topic: Civil Rights
Katherine Anne Green (Labour, Centre-left): I was agnostic about a people’s vote, but now that we can see that the very best deal that the Prime Minister can negotiate will leave us worse off, will give us less say and is, rightly, likely to be rejected by this House as not in the best interests of our constituents, should she not in honour now go back to the people?
Leaving the EU — House of Commons, 2018-11-26
Topic: Mixed Topics
Diana Ruth Johnson (Labour, Centre-left): Why is the £20 billion for the NHS that has already been announced now being spun as an additional £394 million a week Brexit dividend for the NHS, when we all know that the savings from membership of the EU will be outweighed by the additional costs that we will have to pay?
Leaving the EU — House of Commons, 2018-11-26
Topic: Immigration
Rupa Asha Huq (Labour, Centre-left): The Prime Minister is fond of telling us what the British people think. She trumpets the end of freedom of movement as a plus of what is now a face-saving exercise, but for businesses that are losing their EU workforces, for EU nationals—there are 13,000 in my seat—and for young people who want to study and live abroad, that, as well as her crass comments about jumping the queue, are a tragedy. Is it not time that she sought a fresh assessment of the will of the people and gave all electors in this 65 million nation—not just 650 MPs—a say? What if the will of the people in June 2016 is no longer the will of the people?
Leaving the EU — House of Commons, 2018-11-26
Topic: Mixed Topics
Martin David Whitfield (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Prime Minister for her statement. She told the House that the withdrawal agreement "protects the rights of EU citizens living in the UK, and UK citizens living in the EU, so they can carry on living their lives as before." Does that mean that UK citizens in receipt of state pensions in the EU will have those uprated annually, as state pension holders in this country will, and will that continue after the transition period?
RAF Centenary — House of Commons, 2018-11-26
Topic: Mixed Topics
Gareth Craig Snell (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Secretary of State for being even more generous than he was last time. On the subject of STEM, he may not be aware that in Stoke-on-Trent, the home of the Spitfire, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) and I hosted a free science fair over two days for 1,200 local schoolchildren, with the help of Staffordshire University. Does he agree that that sort of partnership working with higher education and further education in our communities, under the RAF100 banner, shows some of the best parts of our RAF and what we can do together?
RAF Centenary — House of Commons, 2018-11-26
Topic: Mixed Topics
Paula Michelle Sherriff (Labour, Centre-left): I hope you will indulge me, Mr Deputy Speaker, with a little more latitude than is normal on the length of this intervention. My paternal grandfather, Arthur Albert Sherriff, died on 1 February 1945—he was in a Lancaster bomber—leaving my dad, who was two years old at the time. My grandma was in the cinema with a friend when she was called out and given the telegram saying that her husband was missing in action. Arthur Sherriff was later awarded a Distinguished Flying Medal, the DFM, posthumously, for his actions in a previous raid, when he had been shot in the shoulder but had continued the mission and brought the plane down safely. Will my hon. Friend join me in remembering the brave men and women—men like my grandfather, whom I sadly never got to know—and all those who made the ultimate sacrifice in fighting for the freedom that we enjoy today?
RAF Centenary — House of Commons, 2018-11-26
Topic: Other
Rosalie Winterton (Labour, Centre-left): Order. As colleagues will see, a fair few Members want to contribute to the debate. I will not impose a time limit, but if contributors can stick to just under 10 minutes we can get everybody in.
RAF Centenary — House of Commons, 2018-11-26
Topic: Other
Martin David Whitfield (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am slightly disappointed to note that on a social media platform a newspaper in this country is tweeting out that only Conservative Members took part in this debate. How can I put it on the record that Members from all across this House, on both sides, contributed to this debate?
College of West Anglia and Worksop Football Academy — House of Commons, 2018-11-26
Topic: Domestic Commerce
John Mann (Labour, Centre-left): The FA, at an appropriate level, has been happy to meet me, and I believe it remains happy to do so. The Minister and her officials have—I think, on six occasions—deigned to meet me and have had the joy of doing so. Does she not think it is appropriate for the College of West Anglia also to enjoy the opportunity of at least one meeting with me to discuss this situation?
Women’s Sport: Broadcasting — House of Commons, 2018-12-13
Topic: Mixed Topics
John Timothy Grogan (Labour, Centre-left): It is notable that there are no women’s team sports on the list of protected events that must be offered live to free-to-air TV? Should not events such as the women’s World cup, which is on the BBC next year, be protected so that the whole nation can watch women’s World cups in the future?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2018-12-13
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Rosena Chantelle Allin-Khan (Labour, Centre-left): I add my congratulations to the new Minister for Sport and welcome her to her place. I look forward to working with her Moments of sporting history were made during the London Olympics, with billions of pounds invested in what was meant to be an everlasting legacy. Since 2016, 800 grass pitches have been sold off, 100 swimming pools have been drained, a dozen athletics tracks have been closed, and 350 sports halls have been shut. The Olympic legacy is in tatters and it is fuelling our country’s obesity crisis. We need urgent change, so can the new Minister confirm how many new sporting facilities will be opened in 2019?
Leaving the EU: Human Rights — House of Commons, 2018-12-13
Topic: Civil Rights
Joanna Meriel Stevens (Labour, Centre-left): The Human Rights Act 1998 is one of Labour’s proudest achievements in government, and we will fight to protect the rights and protections that it affords. I noticed that the Attorney General did not mention that in his answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock). Will he join us in making a commitment to preserving the Human Rights Act?
Local Government Funding Settlement — House of Commons, 2018-12-13
Topic: Mixed Topics
George Edward Howarth (Labour, Centre-left): I welcome the announcement of an increase in core spending power, but I estimate that it will be worth about £2.5 million in Knowsley. Set against that, however, the Secretary of State will be aware that Knowsley, with some of the highest need in the country, has also shamefully had the biggest cut in support from central Government, at £100 million. Is the Secretary of State not ashamed that need is now almost irrelevant to the allocation of local government funding?
Local Government Funding Settlement — House of Commons, 2018-12-13
Topic: Housing
Karen Patricia Buck (Labour, Centre-left): Will the Secretary of State confirm that local authorities are now housing 82,000 homeless families in temporary accommodation? Can he confirm that that has risen by 5% in the last year and by 71% since 2010, and can he tell us how much it actually costs local authorities?
Local Government Funding Settlement — House of Commons, 2018-12-13
Topic: Mixed Topics
Kerry Gillian McCarthy (Labour, Centre-left): After the Budget statement, 76 council leaders, including the Mayor of Bristol, wrote to the Secretary of State warning that more money was needed to avoid a "catastrophic collapse" in key council services. Does he really think that those 76 council leaders will be reassured by what they have heard today?
Local Government Funding Settlement — House of Commons, 2018-12-13
Topic: Mixed Topics
Elizabeth Anne McInnes (Labour, Centre-left): Rochdale Council has had to make £178 million of cuts since 2010 due to cuts in central Government funding. The latest cuts are to the grants for our community centres. Does the Secretary of State think it is an efficient use of council funds to cut these much-needed community centres?
Local Government Funding Settlement — House of Commons, 2018-12-13
Topic: Mixed Topics
James Dolan Cunningham (Labour, Centre-left): Over the past eight years, Coventry City Council has lost well over £100 million in resources from the Government. It faces pressures on children’s services, youth services and social care—and it is about time we had the Green Paper on social care. It would have been more welcome if we had been able to look at the overall picture and could ask questions now about the police precept, so that we could make a judgment about the 2.8% increase in cash terms. We would then have got a better judgment because, under the guise of local democracy, the Government are shoving their responsibilities for funding local services on to local authorities. Local authorities will then get discredited, and in three or four years’ time the Secretary of State will come along and talk about capping profligate local authorities. He needs to get real for a change.