argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Enterprise Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2016-03-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 8—Disposal of Crown’s shares in UK Green Investment Bank Company: purchaser’s obligations— ‘Before any sale of the Crown’s shares in the UK Green Investment Bank Company takes place each prospective purchaser must enter an enforceable undertaking to fully fund the Bank’s current five year business plan." This new clause would ensure that the Green Investment Bank is maintained as a single, functioning institution and can continue to invest in the UK’s low carbon economy at the same level as was planned prior to privatisation. Amendment 17, in clause 37, page 54, line 44, at end insert— "6B Report on remuneration of chair, non-executive directors and executive team (1) For each year following a disposal of shares held by the Crown in a UK Green Investment Bank company the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the remuneration of the company’s chair, non-executive directors and executive team by the company (2) The report shall include a statement of the framework or broad policy for the remuneration of the above individuals (3) The report shall include the value of the following, where applicable, in respect of each individual— (a) salary or fee, (b) pension, (c) other cash or non-cash benefits, including bonus or performance-related payments, and (d) shareholdings in a UK Green Investment Bank company." This amendment would require, following a disposal of shares in a UK Green Investment Bank company, that the Secretary of State to report annually on the remuneration of the Chair, non-executive directors and Executive Team of the company.
Enterprise Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2016-03-08
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Robert Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Centre-right): It seems to me that the Green Investment Bank has been a success since it was set up by the coalition Government. One reason why it should go into the private sector is to liberate more investment and increase the possibilities.
Enterprise Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2016-03-08
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Robert Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Centre-right): I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me for intervening, given that I was not a member of the Committee. It seems to me that the special purpose of the Green Investment Bank will be maintained through the special share and the special share ownership. Any change to the bank’s original purposes will have to come back to Parliament one way or another.
Enterprise Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2016-03-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
Stephen Charles Brine (Conservative, Centre-right): Are not private sector companies and their directors already under disclosure obligations in relation to executive compensation for directors? What would be the rationale for going further and making the requirements of the Green Investment Bank over and above those of any other company in the economy?
Enterprise Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2016-03-08
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Stephen Charles Brine (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Lady’s arguments are, of course, very persuasive while the bank is in public ownership and in receipt of public finance, which justifies the current disclosure regime, but surely, once the bank is in private hands and financed principally—75% or more, I believe—by private money, they will no longer apply.
Enterprise Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2016-03-08
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Richard Quentin Fuller (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Lady has special knowledge in this regard, so may I tease out some information from her? She mentioned the £3.8 billion of public money that had been invested at a time of public expenditure reductions in certain areas. What consideration did her Committee give to what valuation would be appropriate when the Government sold the bank? She rightly said that it had constituted an inspiring start by the coalition Government, and that she wanted it to be an exemplar. Do the Government not have a special responsibility to ensure that they let it go into the private sector at the right time?
Enterprise Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2016-03-08
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Richard Quentin Fuller (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Lady rightly says that there has been a series of investments in the bank, but it would be possible to calculate the net present value of those assets, given certain assumptions. Has her Committee attempted to do that? Such a calculation could provide an evidential base that would enable us to understand whether, if the bank is sold in future, it has been sold on a fair basis.
Enterprise Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2016-03-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
Anna Mary Soubry (Conservative, Centre-right): It has been an interesting debate, but I must confess that I do not agree with many of the arguments advanced by the Opposition, so I hope that hon. Members will not support any of the new clauses If I may deal with things in reverse order, I will first address new clause 8, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), which seeks to ensure that the Green Investment Bank continues its green investments plans post-privatisation. We agree on what we want the bank to continue to do. We are seeking bidders who can fund the GIB’s legally binding commitments and who have the deep pockets to fund its ambitious green business plan. The bank’s management is clear that it needs access to private capital to fund its green business plan. That could be equity capital raised as part of the sale process, debt capital, which the GIB can raise when it is in the private sector, or private capital raised as part of a fund structure Business plans change and evolve as new opportunities arise, and we will not bind new owners into the current plan, so I cannot accept the hon. Lady’s new clause. The new owners of the GIB will have views on the future strategy and business plan. They will assess it as part of their due diligence and make it a part of their offers. Whoever the new owner or owners are, the special share ensures that the business plan, like the GIB, will continue to be green. It must be said in response to many of the points and arguments that it is almost impossible to understand why anybody would want to buy the Green Investment Bank—the clue is in the name—unless they wanted to ensure that it continued to invest in green projects.
Enterprise Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2016-03-08
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Anna Mary Soubry (Conservative, Centre-right): Everyone will, of course, have to comply with the due diligence. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments and will dwell on that topic in a moment. I want to make it absolutely clear that it is difficult to believe that anybody would buy the Green Investment Bank unless they absolutely wanted to continue its great work, for which I pay tribute to the bank.
Enterprise Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2016-03-08
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Anna Mary Soubry (Conservative, Centre-right): I disagree with the hon. Lady, because the privatisation and sale of the Green Investment Bank is about ensuring that more money is available from the private sector to carry out that particular sort of investment. Forgive me, but it really is not the role of Government to gamble and make investments with taxpayers’ money. That was right in 2012 when, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), the Green Investment Bank was set up because of an accepted market failure. However, the idea that the Government are throwing it away, as he put it, could not be further from the truth. The Green Investment Bank is a real success story. No one is seeking to pretend that it is anything else. We want its success to continue, but in the private sector.
Enterprise Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2016-03-08
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Anna Mary Soubry (Conservative, Centre-right): The fact that the Green Investment Bank has been so successful absolutely proves that such investments can be profitable and worth while. In other words, the bank has shown through its success that there is market failure no longer.
Enterprise Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2016-03-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
Anna Mary Soubry (Conservative, Centre-right): I am not going to give way because I just want to put on the record my thanks to Lord Smith for his letter, which was sent out by my excellent Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), to all Members of this House. I hope all hon. Members, on both sides, have had the opportunity to read it, because it could not be clearer about why what the Government have proposed will ensure and protect those green purposes, and why legislation in this area is absolutely not necessary. One reason why we do not want the Opposition’s new clause 4 to be successful and to put this provision into legislation is that we feel the Office for National Statistics will take the view that what we seek to do will not be achieved in this way—the bank will not be off the books—and that is why it is so important that this is done in the way we propose.
Enterprise Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2016-03-08
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Robert Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Centre-right): In support of what my right hon. Friend says, let me read from Lord Smith’s letter. He says: "We are 100% committed to delivering the full intent of the amendment passed in the Lords. I hope that by committing to implement this plan, and doing so transparently, we can secure the necessary confidence of shareholders, and members of Parliament that a special share solution can be delivered without the need for it to be mandated in legislation."
Enterprise Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2016-03-08
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Anna Mary Soubry (Conservative, Centre-right): I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for reading from the letter. Obviously, I am not going to read it out. You will be pleased to hear that, Madam Deputy Speaker, as we would be here for half the afternoon if I did so. I have, however, placed a copy of it in the Library, as it best explains why this new clause is no longer required and why it is so incredibly important that we get the right device to ensure we keep the green principles of the bank.
Enterprise Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2016-03-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
Anna Mary Soubry (Conservative, Centre-right): This is a short answer—yes. The hon. Lady will have seen this letter and I hope she will have read it—upside down, inside out, backwards and everything else. It is well over two pages long and it could not be clearer as to the way the special share is going to be set up. I shall rely on the fact that it talks about the special shareholder and how difficult it would be to undo this device. That could be done only with the permission, in effect, of the special shareholder. This House can therefore be sure that this is the right way to achieve what we all want to achieve That is why it is important to pay tribute—some may say that this is a first, and indeed it may not be the last—to the Scottish Government and to the Scottish National party. I have seen the letter John Swinney has written on behalf of the Scottish Government, quite properly as he is the Deputy First Minister and has responsibility in Scotland for finance, the constitution and the economy. He, too, rightly and understandably, has raised his concerns about how we best protect the green credentials of the GIB. As a result, he, too, has contacted Lord Smith, and letters have been sent back and forth. In short, to the credit of the SNP, it takes the view—I will be corrected if I am wrong—that this device, which is up and running, with the work already having been started by the GIB to secure this special shareholding, means that everybody can be confident that this is the way to secure what we all want, but without the need for legislation, which could completely scupper this privatisation and selling off of the GIB.
Enterprise Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2016-03-08
Topic: Domestic Commerce
David Mowat (Conservative, Centre-right): I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman says and I have a lot of sympathy with it, but I do not follow one point he made regarding private companies versus public companies. If they really are private companies, how can the Bill apply to them? Am I missing something?
Enterprise Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2016-03-08
Topic: Other
Anna Mary Soubry (Conservative, Centre-right): I was bobbing up and down like a November the fifth apple, Mr Deputy Speaker. In any event, I do not know what all the fuss is about, because I am concluding my comments I believe that all points have been made, and based on everything I have said, I urge hon. Members to support the Government’s new clauses and to reject all the other amendments; they are not necessary.
Enterprise Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2016-03-08
Topic: Other
Anna Mary Soubry (Conservative, Centre-right): The record will confirm that I did not say that a Minister’s word could not be trusted. I was talking about a comment in a newspaper that does not form part of Conservative party policy and was not in the manifesto. That is what matters the most.
International Women’s Day 2016 — House of Commons, 2016-03-08
Topic: Civil Rights
Miriam Jane Alice Davies (Conservative, Centre-right): Thank you I beg to move, That this House expresses its solidarity with International Women’s Day; notes with concern that, despite women making up 51 per cent of society as a whole, more progress needs to be made in electing women to Parliament, as well as in establishing equal pay and parity between men and women in positions of leadership; and calls for greater action against FGM and other practices that are harmful to women It is a great honour to open this debate. I begin by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate and the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), who lobbied the Leader of the House—
International Women’s Day 2016 — House of Commons, 2016-03-08
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Lady. For the benefit of the House, colleagues should be clear that this debate will not continue beyond 7 pm. There is, of course, an Adjournment debate to follow. What the hon. Lady meant was clear to me and it is important that it is clear to the rest of the House. There is, in effect, a provision of three hours for this debate. I hope that is helpful to colleagues. I admit that on this occasion I was tipped off by the Whip on duty who felt the need for clarification, and I think his tip-off was a shrewd one.
International Women’s Day 2016 — House of Commons, 2016-03-08
Topic: Civil Rights
Miriam Jane Alice Davies (Conservative, Centre-right): Exactly that issue was highlighted in our panel debate this afternoon. I absolutely agree that we need to encourage more women into this area. There are 40,000 jobs available in the construction industry, and 45,000 in the agricultural industry. We are perhaps barring women from future opportunities. It absolutely worries me that we have not changed since the 1980s We in this House must be reminded that women’s power is at the ballot box. Women should be registered to vote, and we should make sure that all women feel it is important for them to make their own decisions.
International Women’s Day 2016 — House of Commons, 2016-03-08
Topic: Civil Rights
Miriam Jane Alice Davies (Conservative, Centre-right): I always think that women campaigning do make things generally better for men We must be reminded of the power that women have at the ballot box. It was women voting in higher numbers for the Conservatives in May last year who returned a Conservative majority Government. It will also be women who decide whether we are in or out of the EU and who is the Mayor of London. We need women to come together to vote and to be active in politics, because their effect is always extraordinary, as we have just heard Hon. Members around the House will be thinking of the brilliant work of women campaigners. That includes the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaigners, who have come together and had a real impact. I watch with interest to see what results they will achieve. Those women will not stay quiet, and I salute them in their cause. It is a genuine challenge to this Parliament that we get the best outcome for those and all our women I am pleased the Government are taking the necessary action to bring about further equality. There are now more than 1 million more women in work than in 2010. The Government have also introduced legislation that deals with stalking, and I welcome that. We are not afraid to tackle issues that Parliament has left unaddressed for many years.
International Women’s Day 2016 — House of Commons, 2016-03-08
Topic: Civil Rights
Miriam Jane Alice Davies (Conservative, Centre-right): I absolutely concur. Just on Thursday, we had action on people posing behind aliases—the Crown Prosecution Service is carrying out a consultation on the issue—and using bullying and threatening behaviour on social media. It is absolutely right that the Government continue to lead the way in dealing with bullying, stalking and using personal relationships to affect people’s futures. We will be in a dangerous place if we do not tackle that The Government’s recent announcement on the gender pay gap should continue to shine a light on those companies that do not do enough to ensure parity in their workforces. We need more women on company boards, and work on that continues. There has been a huge leap forward, but we can expect to wait for 70 years for full parity at executive level, and that is not right.
International Women’s Day 2016 — House of Commons, 2016-03-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
Miriam Jane Alice Davies (Conservative, Centre-right): On the Women and Equalities Committee, we are shining a light on that issue. On part-time work—I will touch on this shortly in my speech, which the right hon. Lady may have been reading—it is interesting that, when it comes to men, we talk about agile working, while women appear, sadly, to be the downtrodden part-timers in some places. That needs to be corrected We need to put a better structure in place for our carers. I was a carer to my mother, and I am a mother myself. For many people in my shoes, there continue to be too many obstacles to being at home and a part-time worker. This country needs a true carers revolution that does not penalise women or, indeed, men who choose to stay at home with their children or to look after their loved ones. I spent time with my parents at that age, and I would never, ever change that, but I had the choice.
International Women’s Day 2016 — House of Commons, 2016-03-08
Topic: Civil Rights
Miriam Jane Alice Davies (Conservative, Centre-right): I absolutely agree that flexible working is really important for people to be able to attend doctor’s appointments and to know what is going on at home without being worried about work. Many people who work part-time open their laptops of an evening to make sure that they are up to date, because they have had to go home to care for their children or loved ones Part-time work is valuable. It is important and useful both to workers and to employers, yet part-timers are often seen as a stopgap. They are not taken seriously enough and are viewed as expendable employees. It is time to view part-timers as agile, capable multi-skillers who are flexible and come in and make a real difference. They look after families, homes and communities, and hold down equally important part-time roles. I challenge anyone in business who does not believe such workers to be as valuable and helpful and just as useful as their full-time members of staff. Perhaps it is time for such employers to reassess and listen harder to those vital and often more nimble workers I want to make it clear that it is not my intention to exclude men from this debate. Many male colleagues will want to contribute their own ideas about how men, as fathers, grandfathers and proud dads of daughters, can make a more just and equal society. International Men’s Day on 19 November highlighted some serious concerns about men’s mental health, male suicide and the modern pressures on men. This changing society will have a bigger impact if we do not bring men fully on this equality journey with us I am the 380th women to be elected to Parliament. Women have not played anywhere near an equal role in the history of this House, but we are getting there. I welcome the fact that we are moving towards better representation both in this Chamber and in all the issues on which we focus. However, there is much left to be done. Madeleine Albright, the former US Secretary of State, has said: "There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other" Many hon. Ladies and hon. Gentlemen have come to the Chamber to mark this important day. There is a unified view in this House that our work can bring true equality on International Women’s Day. I am delighted to have wide and broad support from men.
International Women’s Day 2016 — House of Commons, 2016-03-08
Topic: Civil Rights
Atta-Ur-Rehman Chishti (Conservative, Centre-right): I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for securing this debate. As well as women’s representation in this Parliament, we should also consider what happens around the world. For example, Benazir Bhutto was the first female Prime Minister of Pakistan—indeed, she was the first female Prime Minister is the Islamic world—and she lost her life to an act of terror as she returned democracy to her country. We should pay tribute to women around the world. By way of declaration, I served as an adviser to Benazir Bhutto from 1999 to 2007.
International Women’s Day 2016 — House of Commons, 2016-03-08
Topic: Civil Rights
Miriam Jane Alice Davies (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Parliaments across the world will be looking at themselves today and rightly asking whether they are doing enough to make equality a reality. This debate on International Women’s Day is our chance to do just that.
International Women’s Day 2016 — House of Commons, 2016-03-08
Topic: Civil Rights
Maria Frances Lewis Miller (Conservative, Centre-right): I could not agree more, and we need to hear from the leaders of every political party represented in this House a complete commitment to increase the number of women MPs at the next election. That will be a challenge with the boundary changes, but it a challenge that we should take on. It is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to increase significantly the proportion of women on the green Benches representing the people who live in our country The workplace, whether in Parliament, the City, or other institutions, was designed by men for men, and it has not changed fast enough to retain women in day-to-day positions or leadership positions. We must ensure that jobs, whether in Parliament or beyond, are designed for people who are living lives today, not as they were lived 20 years ago. I know that Ministers understand that from the policies that they are implementing, and I urge them to continue that work. The Women and Equalities Committee will always hold their feet to the fire.