argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 — House of Commons, 2016-03-23
Topic: International Affairs
David Michael Gauke (Conservative, Centre-right): It is the case that the provision dates back to the Maastricht treaty—no doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) can provide further details on its history—which was incorporated into the European Union (Amendment) Act 1993. That requires us to submit a report. The important point for the House is that this does not give the European Commission the ability to impose sanctions on the UK. I am in complete agreement with my right hon. Friend that the UK should not have excessive deficits, but that is a matter ultimately decided by this House, this Parliament and the elected Government of the United Kingdom.
Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 — House of Commons, 2016-03-23
Topic: Macroeconomics
William Nigel Paul Cash (Conservative, Centre-right): I know my hon. Friend listened to what I said in my point of order, so I would like to address the point to him personally. Section 5 states: "Her Majesty’s Government shall report to Parliament for its approval"— on the basis that it is accurate— "an assessment of the medium-term economic and budgetary position" It is absolutely clear, unless he can tell me that this document was prepared since the controversy of the past few days, that this cannot be accurate and nor can it be a proper assessment. To report to Parliament something that is not accurate is quite an important and rather difficult problem for the Minister, is it not? What measures will he take to correct the position, so that Parliament can approve it on the basis of an accurate assessment?
Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 — House of Commons, 2016-03-23
Topic: Macroeconomics
David Michael Gauke (Conservative, Centre-right): I will return to that point later, but let me address it in short now. The information provided to the Commission under this process is and has always been based on information already published. It is not a new exercise. We do not ask the OBR to go through the process once again. It is required to produce its documentation and make its assessments at the times of Budgets and autumn statements, and we do not think that our requirement under European legislation is such that we should require the OBR to go through that process again The essential position of the public finances remains the same. Notwithstanding the announcement on personal independence payments, it remains the case that from next year debt will be falling every year, that the deficit will be falling each and every year of this Parliament and that we will be in surplus in 2019-20. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) would not be keen for us, as a consequence of this requirement—I suspect he is no enthusiast for our going through this process in the first place, but the fact is we have to go through it—
Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 — House of Commons, 2016-03-23
Topic: Macroeconomics
William Nigel Paul Cash (Conservative, Centre-right): I just want to put this to bed. I have made the point that the documentation cannot be accurate—unless my hon. Friend is going to tell me the Government have changed the figures since publication—but there is a second point. It appears from the figures, which can be a bit confusing for some people, that there is a black hole. Some people allege it is as much as £4 billion and others say it is only £1.3 billion—it relates specifically to PIP—but he will appreciate that it is not possible for the documentation to be accurate. This has nothing to do with the OBR as such—it is not the OBR report being submitted—but concerns the Government’s own assessment. Will he be kind enough to get that right? It is important that we are accurate.
Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 — House of Commons, 2016-03-23
Topic: Macroeconomics
David Michael Gauke (Conservative, Centre-right): Our principled approach over several years has been that the documentation provided to the Commission is based on the most recent publications. I do not think it would be sensible or proportionate to rerun elements of a Budget process purely for an EU audience. That would not be the right thing to do.
Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 — House of Commons, 2016-03-23
Topic: Macroeconomics
David Michael Gauke (Conservative, Centre-right): Again, I make the same principled point. We provide information already published in these reports—we do not seek to amendment it—although the hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point: should this be updated monthly in the light of public finance numbers? I would make a second point about the public finances, however. Having been in the Treasury for a little while now, I know that public finance numbers can be quite volatile, so one should take good news and bad on a monthly basis with a pinch of salt. It is only when one steps back that one has a good view of the overall position, and that is what the OBR does twice yearly On the process, I remind the House that although the UK participates in the stability and growth pact, by virtue of our protocol to the treaty opting out of the euro we are required only to endeavour to avoid excessive deficits. The UK cannot be subject to any action or sanctions as a result of our participation in the pact. Following the House’s approval of the economic and budgetary assessment that forms the basis of the convergence programme, the Government will submit that programme to the European Commission. The Commission is expected to make its recommendations to all EU member states in mid-May. These recommendations will then be agreed by Heads of State or Government at European Council.
Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 — House of Commons, 2016-03-23
Topic: International Affairs
David Nuttall (Conservative, Centre-right): This process takes place, as we both know, every year, and we have this debate every year. What, however, is its purpose? What possible benefit is there in going through the motion or charade of submitting this document to Brussels every year? What are the benefits for this country and for my constituents?
Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 — House of Commons, 2016-03-23
Topic: Macroeconomics
David Michael Gauke (Conservative, Centre-right): Apart from the fact that the law requires us to do this, I would tell my hon. Friend that the UK has a proud record of structural reform. We are performing better than many other EU member states. To the extent that other such states are able to examine the measures that we have been taking to improve the performance of the UK economy and to the extent that they see it as an example well worth following, this will help to strengthen other EU member states’ economies, which might have a benefit to the constituents of my hon. Friend. The fact that we are leading the way as the fastest-growing major western economy means that we have a proud record. We should not be hiding our light under a bushel Budget 2016 set out the Government’s assessment of the UK’s medium-term economic and budgetary position. In uncertain times and against a deteriorating global economic outlook, the Budget delivers security for working people. It takes the next bold steps in the Government’s long-term economic plan. The UK is forecast to grow faster than any other G7 economy this year, with employment at record highs. Against that, productivity growth is weaker than forecast, while globally the economic picture is less positive than it was six months ago The OBR tells us that, in every year of the forecast, our economy grows and so, too, does our productivity, but it has revised down growth in the world economy and in world trade. The OBR also notes concerns across the west about low productivity growth, and has revised down potential UK productivity growth. In the face of the new assessment of productivity and the slowing global economy, the OBR now forecasts that UK GDP will grow by 2% this year, 2.2% again in 2017 and then 2.1% in each of the three years after that I shall not go through all the figures that have been debated at some length relating to the deficit and the debt, and I shall not go through all the Government’s measures. What is clear is that we are restoring our public finances, heading towards a surplus at the end of this Parliament and reducing the deficit year on year. I hope that the House will, in line with section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, approve the economic and budgetary assessment that forms the basis of the convergence programme. I look forward to hearing this evening’s debate.
Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 — House of Commons, 2016-03-23
Topic: Macroeconomics
William Nigel Paul Cash (Conservative, Centre-right): In the light of the strictures that the hon. Gentleman has imposed on his former Prime Minister, may I just mention that the national debt, which is currently regarded as being about £1.5 trillion, rises to between £3 trillion and £4 trillion if, for instance, Network Rail and the pension liabilities are taken into account? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that is the real position?
Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 — House of Commons, 2016-03-23
Topic: Macroeconomics
William Nigel Paul Cash (Conservative, Centre-right): I have already made my point about the inaccuracy embedded in the report and need not repeat any of that; I am sure that the Minister heard what I said. In a way, it is an impossible situation for him, but that does not remedy the inaccuracy, and I need to hear what the Government propose to do. It may be inconvenient or fortuitous, but the reality is that it is there. The approval by Parliament of these documents for the purposes of onward submission to the European Commission simply cannot be conducted on the basis of the documents under consideration. I will now park the issue, but I am inclined to vote against the Government this evening on account of the inaccuracy, because it just does not make sense. I will be glad if the Minister tries to put things right in some manner, even if only orally, but he may be unable to do so. It is perhaps just as well if I leave things as I have just stated What I really want to refer to is the question of national debt, which I mentioned in an intervention. The problem is that the stability and growth pact, the convergence criteria and the 3% are important because they are the basis upon which countries decide whether to run their economies in line with European law or to be cavalier, and there are massive problems in the European Union relating to all that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) mentioned that we are just about on the cusp of 3% at the moment, but that is simply not the case in other countries, which raises an important question. For example, the Italians are in dire trouble and are in an enormous battle to try to get some wiggle room into the stability and growth pact, which has led to extremely bad relations with Germany In 2003-04, however, nobody blinked an eye when it suited Germany to play around with the pact and not comply with its provisions. Italy is in difficulties and Greece remains in monumental difficulties, infringing the rule of law in Europe as expressed in the stability and growth pact and the convergence criteria, but Germany insists that everybody else obeys the rules until it does not suit it to do so. I find that difficult to accept. In fact, I do not accept it; I reject it. Either there is a rule of law or there is not. The bottom line is that there is a great deal of talk in the European Union about the rule of law, but unfortunately Germany does pretty much what it wants
Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 — House of Commons, 2016-03-23
Topic: Macroeconomics
John Alan Redwood (Conservative, Centre-right): I remind my hon. Friend that, even today, when Germany would say that she is very virtuous in having no budget deficit, she still has a much bigger proportion of debt to GDP than the 60% criterion and no obvious means of getting back down there.
Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 — House of Commons, 2016-03-23
Topic: Foreign Trade
William Nigel Paul Cash (Conservative, Centre-right): I wish to put on the record again the position with regard to the single market, and I would really like the Minister, for whom I have a lot respect, to answer my question, which I have put over and over again. It is based on figures from the Office for National Statistics and the House of Commons Library There is no disputing the fact that we run a trade deficit on current account transactions—imports and exports and good and services—of £58 billion a year, which is a lot of money. That £58 billion deficit is with the other 27 states of the European Union. We run a loss of £58 billion a year, and I do not regard that as small change. However, Germany runs a surplus of £67 billion with the same 27 member states. If someone can tell me that that is a single market that we need, I would like to hear them repeat it from the Dispatch Box, because it cannot be in our interests Furthermore, if we take that same criterion of current account transactions, we run a surplus of well over £36 billion with respect to the rest of the world, and that is selling the same goods and services. Clearly, therefore, there is nothing wrong with our goods and services, but such trade does not work for us in the way that it could and should when we are dealing with the European Union and the single market.
Construction Companies (Fatal Accidents) — House of Commons, 2016-03-23
Topic: Labor
Justin Paul Tomlinson (Conservative, Centre-right): It is a pleasure to respond to this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr Hepburn) on securing it and welcome the opportunity to respond to his concerns. I know he is very active in this area, having received several parliamentary questions on it in recent weeks, and that his interest is long standing The hon. Gentleman made a powerful speech. He rightly wishes to hold to account duty holders who fail to manage serious risks to their workers in the construction industry—failures that can give rise to indescribable suffering for loved ones. That is a desire we all share on both sides of the House. My thoughts go out to all the families of those tragically killed when working in the construction industry, particularly those recently affected by the catastrophic building collapse at the Didcot power station The House will be interested to hear that recovery operations on the debris pile of the collapsed structure at Didcot resumed at the weekend, with the aim of recovering the missing men as quickly as possible while ensuring that no harm comes to the recovery workers. HSE’s main role at Didcot is to investigate jointly with Thames Valley police the circumstances of the incident to find out what went so tragically wrong with the demolition process I tribute to the hon. Members for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), who have been very active throughout recent weeks making representations on behalf of their constituents. I formally put on record my thanks to all the professionals who have been working tirelessly to try to resolve this as quickly as possible, particularly for the families still waiting for conclusions about their loved ones. The investigation of workplace fatalities is HSE’s top operational priority. Fatal incidents are investigated by HSE to determine the underlying causes; to learn lessons and prevent recurrence; to establish whether there have been breaches of health and safety law; and, if so, to hold those responsible to account though the criminal courts. HSE’s enforcement policy statement makes it clear that where a failure to comply with the law has caused death, the expectation is that a prosecution will result It is clearly in everyone’s interests—especially those of the bereaved—that fatal incident investigations and decisions about any prosecution proceed as quickly as possible; the hon. Member for Jarrow made that point very powerfully in his speech. However, some investigations can be complex, involving painstaking forensic analysis, interviewing large numbers of witnesses and examining the roles and interactions between a number of parties, including workers, contractors, suppliers, architects, designers and clients, some of whom may be based overseas.
NHS (Charitable Trusts Etc) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-01-22
Topic: Government Operations
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 1, page 1, line 17, at end insert— "(2A) The Secretary of State may by order or regulations made by statutory instrument make such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate to re-establish the Secretary of State’s powers to appoint trustees in respect of— (a) one, (b) more than one, (c) a type, class or category of, or (d) every (2B) A statutory instrument containing an order or regulations under subsection (2A) which amends or repeals primary legislation (whether alone or with other provision) may not be made unless— (a) a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament, and (b) a draft of the order or regulations was published three months before laying before Parliament." Amendment 3, page 1, line 21, at end insert— "(bA) provision for one trustee to be appointed by the NHS institution, service or function for whose benefit the charitable trust exists," Amendment 2, page 2, line 1, leave out "and" and insert— "(cA) provision by which the Secretary of State may appoint one or more trustees where— (i) the Secretary of State has satisfied himself that exceptional circumstances exist, or "(ii) all the trustee positions in relation to a particular charitable trust have been vacant for a period exceeding three months, and" Amendment 5, page 2, line 4, leave out "Subject to subsection (5)" Amendment 6, page 2, line 7, leave out subsections (5) and (6) Amendment 7, clause 2, page 3, line 14, at end insert— "(8A) A statutory instrument under subsection (8) may not be laid before either House of Parliament without an accompanying statement by the Comptroller and Auditor General that he is satisfied with the treatment of public assets and funds envisaged in the regulations contained within such an instrument." Amendment 8, page 3, line 13, leave out subsection (8) and insert— "( ) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament." Amendment 9, schedule 1, page 9, line 9, at end add— "(14) The Secretary of State may grant permission for— (a) one; (b) any number of, or (c) a category or type of charitable trust, established for the purposes of supporting an institution, service or function of the NHS, permission to use the NHS logo or NHS branding in their fund- raising and other communications (15) The Secretary of State may, having given 6 months’ notice, rescind a permission granted under paragraph 14 (the notice period may be reduced in exceptional circumstances)."
NHS (Charitable Trusts Etc) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-01-22
Topic: Government Operations
Jeremy Mark Quin (Conservative, Centre-right): Does my hon. Friend have any idea of the costs associated with the consultation? While the principle of public consultation is not contentious, we need to make certain that consultation is necessary, and all these things come with a cost.
NHS (Charitable Trusts Etc) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-01-22
Topic: Government Operations
Christopher Laurie Malthouse (Conservative, Centre-right): In my mediocre experience in local government I have participated in a huge number of Government consultations. I cannot recall a single one that changed the initial decision of the Government. Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that more often than not Government consultations just go through the motions? The only one I can remember ever having an effect was by the incoming Mayor of London on removing the extension of the congestion charge in the west of London, which was overwhelmingly supported by consultees, and he did in fact enact that in the teeth of opposition from Transport for London. Beyond that, I have never quite seen the point of consultation when Ministers’ minds are made up. Does my hon. Friend agree?
NHS (Charitable Trusts Etc) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-01-22
Topic: Government Operations
Michael James Tomlinson-Mynors (Conservative, Centre-right): I certainly would not agree that my hon. Friend’s experience is mediocre—quite the opposite. I understand the thrust of his point, but I disagree, because at a time when politics can be seen to be remote it is important that the public are engaged in these debates. I also think it would be wrong to say Ministers’ minds are closed. I am sure those on the Front Bench this morning would agree that Ministers’ minds are not, and should not be, closed—certainly not before a public consultation.
NHS (Charitable Trusts Etc) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-01-22
Topic: Government Operations
Michael James Tomlinson-Mynors (Conservative, Centre-right): The point about cost is important. At the end of the day it would have to come from taxpayers, which I accept is a challenge and a potential disadvantage. My argument is that in the principle of a public consultation the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
NHS (Charitable Trusts Etc) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-01-22
Topic: Macroeconomics
Michael James Tomlinson-Mynors (Conservative, Centre-right): Again, I do not have those figures to hand. My hon. Friend is right to raise this because it is an issue of concern; cost must always be borne in mind, but, as I have said, I am speaking to the principle, and unfortunately I do not have the specific figures she asks for.
NHS (Charitable Trusts Etc) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-01-22
Topic: Social Welfare
Kevin John Foster (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; he is being incredibly generous in taking interventions. Every charity has a group of people it benefits. Does my hon. Friend agree that for this consultation to have any meaning, it would have to be with the entire area of benefit, which could in some cases involve literally millions of people? Does he also agree that most of them would probably feel their charitable funds would be better spent getting on with the job, rather than having a very large consultation about who appoints a director of the trustees?
NHS (Charitable Trusts Etc) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-01-22
Topic: Government Operations
Michael James Tomlinson-Mynors (Conservative, Centre-right): I understand that point, which is similar to other points questioning the benefit and the cost, but I respectfully suggest that the benefit outweighs the cost in this case and that the public, seeing that they are consulted, would once again be re-engaged with the political process, which I think my hon. Friend should support.
NHS (Charitable Trusts Etc) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-01-22
Topic: Government Operations
Michael James Tomlinson-Mynors (Conservative, Centre-right): Again, I am grateful for the intervention and understand the point being made, but I disagree with my hon. Friend. Although this is technical in nature, I believe the principle of public consultation would be beneficial to the wider public. It would be curious to be opposed to public consultation, certainly in principle, given that this Bill is a product of just such a consultation Let me give one further example of public consultations attracting wide support. Many in this House, on both sides of the Chamber, have been fighting for fairer funding.