argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-30
Topic: International Affairs
Edward Julian Egerton Leigh (Conservative, Centre-right): I think we have to act responsibly and to remember that, unfortunately, only three Unionist MPs are left in Scotland. The SNP has won a notable victory in Scotland and needs to be listened to—we do not always have to agree, but we have to listen. Ultimately, I am as passionate a Unionist as anybody on these Benches, but I believe that there is a better route to maintaining the Union. If we dribble out these powers, we are making a grave mistake Let me deal with the point that if we have a single currency system we must have a common welfare system. That is a perfectly respectable point and I completely understand it. It was made by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) in the debates two weeks ago and has been made extremely well by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood). I understand where they are coming from, and we are all very much aware of the Greek situation, but I would argue that the comparison is misplaced: the difference between Germany and Greece is infinitely greater than that between England and Scotland. In the United States, full fiscal autonomy for the states works because there is a common English language and full mobility of labour. When there are disparities in wealth, labour moves around the United States in a very vigorous way that is difficult to achieve in the European Union The comparison of Scotland and England with the Netherlands and Germany is much more apposite. We have a common language, a common border and very similar systems, albeit separate legal systems—although they are based on many of the same traditions. Members can understand the point that I am making. Of course, if the Scottish Parliament was to act completely irresponsibly and take control of its social security and just spend, spend, spend, the thing would break apart; I agree that the currency union would become unsustainable. But surely as parliamentarians, with confidence in our own Parliament and elected representatives, we should have the same confidence in our fellow countrymen and ladies who will be running the Scottish Parliament. I personally believe that if we gave them full responsibility, they would have to act responsibly if they wished to be re-elected.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-30
Topic: Government Operations
Edward Julian Egerton Leigh (Conservative, Centre-right): I am listening with great care to the hon. Lady, as I hope are my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State, because I maintain that she is making the same point that I was making, although from a different direction. If we dribble out powers, the SNP will constantly blame us for everything that goes wrong—"Cuts? They’re responsible for the cuts." Give them the responsibility and they will have to take responsibility.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-30
Topic: Social Welfare
John Alan Redwood (Conservative, Centre-right): I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s description of what we want from our welfare system, but by how much does he want pensions and universal credit to go up to meet his aspirations compared with what is on offer?
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-30
Topic: Social Welfare
John Alan Redwood (Conservative, Centre-right): This is a debate, and I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to get into such a debate. I have no wish to take money away from people who need it; fortunately, we do not have to debate that today. What is the answer: how much more is needed to meet his aspirations for greater generosity than the Government have volunteered?
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-30
Topic: Social Welfare
David Gordon Mundell (Conservative, Centre-right): On this occasion, I am afraid I will disappoint the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) because I am going to speak for more than 90 seconds. I have enjoyed hearing the full contribution rather than just interventions from the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), although the length was probably not that different. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) gave a spirited contribution, although I did not recognise myself in her description. As for the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), we are in agreement on so many things; it is only bits in his contribution that spoil it. I do trust the Scottish Parliament and I want it to make significant decisions on welfare unimpeded by the views of the UK Government. I shall say more about clause 25(3) later, but there is no restriction on the policy decisions of the Scottish Government and Parliament in relation to those provisions. The issue is about timing Let me make some wider comments about what was said by the hon. Gentleman. As I have said throughout, I am reflecting on points that have been made during all our discussions. I have given that undertaking not just to Parliament but to the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee, and, indeed, to the Scottish Government. If Members want selective quotations from Mr Swinney’s letter, I will give them one that I think sums up the situation "When we met on 25 June we agreed on a programme of work to be undertaken before Report stage with a view to producing a Bill that reflected the Smith commission, the concerns of stakeholders and the views of the Scottish Parliament." That is absolutely my position, and I am committed to working with the Deputy First Minister in that regard.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-30
Topic: Social Welfare
David Gordon Mundell (Conservative, Centre-right): I think that the hon. Gentleman has got the order of the statements in the letter wrong. Mr Swinney says that if the process did not take place, the undertaking would obviously not be valid. That is of course correct, but my approach to the Bill is to proceed with it on the basis that it fully reflects the Smith commission proposals, and that it takes account of the issues and concerns that have been raised SNP Members have tabled a number of amendments with which I do not agree, but which I think might be described as Smith-plus. We are listening to the points being made about the amendments, but we are also listening to what everyone is saying about the Bill in its current form and how it reflects Smith. I have appeared before the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee, and we have had a lengthy discussion about the clauses that we have debated today. I expect to have further discussions with the Committee, and there will, of course, be further parliamentary debate Much of what is being said is predicated on the view that the Scottish Government and the United Kingdom Government are always at odds. That is simply not the case, and it should not be given common currency. On 90% of issues, the two Governments work together very closely for the benefit of the people of Scotland. They are working together closely on very serious ongoing issues at this moment, and there are absolutely no problems and no need to resort to external review processes. The Smith process established a shared response for welfare, and I think that it shows that we must adopt a new mindset. That, to me, is what the spirit of the Smith commission is about: working together in a shared space. A commitment to doing that is as important as anything in the Bill The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) is always extremely passionate about these issues. I generally consider her to be a reasonable person until she stands up to speak in the Chamber. The way she has portrayed the relationship between the two Governments is simply not correct. We have established a joint ministerial working group on welfare, and last Thursday I met Alex Neil—no doubt there will be a letter about that meeting—to discuss the transitional arrangements and the next meeting of the joint ministerial group. Our discussions have been very productive and have led to a great deal of good work on the transition of powers and the establishment of processes in Scotland. I see no reason to believe that that cannot continue. That is what people in Scotland want: they want the two Parliaments and Governments to work together. They do not want to see constant bickering and I am making a determined effort to ensure that that does not happen and that we can deliver a process I am conscious of, and respect and take into account, the views of charities and voluntary organisations.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-30
Topic: Social Welfare
David Gordon Mundell (Conservative, Centre-right): I will repeat what I said earlier: I have agreed a programme of work to be undertaken before Report, with a view to producing a Bill that reflects the Smith commission, the concerns of stakeholders and the views of the Scottish Parliament. I will reflect on the amendments and the case that has been made for them I am listening to what has been said about clause 25(3)(b), which is a sensible consultation requirement about timing, not policy. Good governance in Scotland will require that decisions taken by the Scottish Government about new powers can be implemented in a timeous way. That is what it is about—respect in a shared space and working together on welfare.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-30
Topic: Social Welfare
David Gordon Mundell (Conservative, Centre-right): I do not yet know what proposals the Scottish Government will make. I have made it clear that I would like to know what they will be, because we have heard significant criticisms of UK Government policy. That is, of course, legitimate in this Parliament and, indeed, the Scottish Parliament, but we need to know the detail. The joint ministerial group on welfare wants to understand where the Scottish Government want to go with specific programmes, so that we can help and facilitate the transitional arrangements and deliver what they want to do I want the Scottish Government to be held to account. I do not want the continuation of the current situation, whereby people stand up in Parliament and make grand statements for which they are not held accountable and without explaining where the money will come from or how the system will work in practice. A lot of us who live in Scotland know that what the Scottish Government say does not always—shock, horror—happen in reality. I want a system for which the Scottish Government will be held accountable and under which they will have welfare powers and will have to set out for the people of Scotland how much their policies will cost and where the money will come from I said in a previous debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) was the 57th SNP Member, and today he has proved that by tabling new clause 55, which is an even stronger proposal than what the SNP says is its policy. It is a fact that no Scottish MP has tabled an amendment to devolve UK pensions, and that speaks volumes. It tells us that even the supporters of independence accept that there are parts of welfare where it makes sense to share resources and risk with the rest of the UK. It is clear that pensions are safer and more affordable if we work with everyone else in the UK and that it would be wrong to devolve UK pensions MPs have to respect the referendum result, at which people in Scotland voted to remain part of a United Kingdom and hold on to the benefits of being part of it. Looking after the people of Scotland who are retired, unwell or out of work is now a shared space in which the UK Government and the Scottish Government need to work together. This is about getting the right balance and having the best of both worlds. Sometimes it will be right for people in Cumbernauld to know that they have exactly the same protection and support as people in Cardiff or Carlisle. On other occasions, the Scottish Parliament might want to offer different help for people in Scotland, using the taxes that have been raised in Scotland.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-30
Topic: Labor
David Anthony Andrew Amess (Conservative, Centre-right): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 121, page 27, leave out lines 27 to 29 and insert— "(b) assisting persons (including persons claiming reserved benefits) who are unemployed or at risk of long-term unemployment to select, obtain and retain employment" Amendments 120, 121 and 122 make provision for the Scottish Parliament to have power to legislate on arrangements for employment support programmes. Amendment 113, page 27, line 29, leave out "where the assistance is for at least a year". This would allow the provision of employment programmes where assistance is for less than a year. The Scottish Government could develop support programmes for those who repeatedly move in and out of short periods of work, or admit people to the Work Programme early. Amendment 122, page 27, line 34, leave out "another person" and insert "a person other than the person making the arrangements" Amendments 120, 121 and 122 make provision for the Scottish Parliament to have power to legislate on arrangements for employment support programmes. Amendment 9, page 27, line 36, after "person", insert "in conjunction with the local authority" Amendment 114, page 27, line 39, at end insert— "(b) provision of support for disabled persons in the form of non-repayable payments to enable them to access employment, remain in employment, or move into self-employment or start a business." This amendment provides for the devolution of the Access-to-work scheme. Amendment 10, page 27, line 41, at end insert "and (d) temporary jobs paid at least the national minimum wage providing a route back into further work." Clauses 26 to 30 stand part New clause 43—Job search and support— In Part 2 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, omit Section H3 (job search and support)." This new clause would devolve employment support programmes to the Scottish Parliament.
City Deal Funding (Aberdeen) — House of Commons, 2015-06-30
Topic: Macroeconomics
James Wharton (Conservative, Centre-right): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman’s comments have been heard loud and clear. They will be recorded as part of the debate and no doubt properly taken into account. I appreciate that he intends to be a consistent advocate on this matter, and I suspect that this is an issue that we will discuss again I very much agree with the hon. Members for Aberdeen North and for Aberdeen South on the important role that Aberdeen plays in supporting the UK economy. We are determined to make the most of that, which is why the Chancellor announced in the Budget in March that we would begin negotiations with both Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire on a potential city deal. Those conversations are ongoing and my officials are continuing to have a constructive dialogue on the potential deal with officials from the two local authorities and with the Scottish Government. As I have set out, a key feature of any potential city deal is that it should be bottom up. This is about places putting forward proposals that will drive their economy forward and about recognising that different places need different things.
City Deal Funding (Aberdeen) — House of Commons, 2015-06-30
Topic: Macroeconomics
James Wharton (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Lady’s intervention brings me neatly to my next point, in which I want to spell out clearly that each agreement must be a genuine deal, with offers and asks on both sides, and that the onus remains on Aberdeen and its partners to develop a credible proposal. This is something that we want to see delivered, but there is a process that needs to be gone through in order to deliver it, to ensure that any deal is robust, that it offers value for money for taxpayers and local people and that it delivers what it is supposed to for the people and the economy of Aberdeen. I am happy to confirm that my colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, will be happy to meet the hon. Lady and her colleague to discuss this matter further, and I look forward to my officials working with those on the ground who want to deliver this city deal, so that we can all benefit from its ultimate success Question put and agreed to.
Energy Supply — House of Commons, 2015-02-25
Topic: Energy
Questions: What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister on the supply of energy in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Centre-right): People in north Yorkshire have noted with great interest that the Scottish Government have banned fracking for the moment. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on progress towards a debate on energy supply not only for Scotland, but for the whole of the United Kingdom?
Cross-border Trade — House of Commons, 2015-02-25
Topic: Transportation
Questions: What assessment he has made of the potential effect on cross-border trade between the north of England and the border region of Scotland of the proposals of the Smith commission.
Guy Thomas Opperman (Conservative, Centre-right): Does the Secretary of State agree that all political parties need to come together to ensure that airports such as Newcastle in the north-east have air passenger duty support so that they are not unfairly disadvantaged by the proposals of the Smith commission?
Living Wage — House of Commons, 2015-02-25
Topic: Labor
David Gordon Mundell (Conservative, Centre-right): There are excellent examples of local authorities taking forward initiatives with the living wage, and South Lanarkshire council is one. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman heard the speech that my colleague, Ruth Davidson, made to the Scottish Conservative conference on Friday in which she called for help and support for businesses that promoted the living wage. I hope Scottish Labour and the Scottish Government will support her in that regard.
Living Wage — House of Commons, 2015-02-25
Topic: Labor
David Gordon Mundell (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Lady forgets that there was actually a Labour Government up until five years ago who took no action whatever on zero-hours contracts. This Government have banned exclusivity in zero-hours contracts, which is what leads to exploitation.
Living Wage — House of Commons, 2015-02-25
Topic: Labor
David Gordon Mundell (Conservative, Centre-right): Since this Government came to power, 107 jobs a day have been created in Scotland. I am afraid that the hon. Lady has had a memory lapse, because she cannot remember the position on employment when this Government came to power and she cannot accept the good news of the creation of new jobs.
Living Wage — House of Commons, 2015-02-25
Topic: Labor
David Gordon Mundell (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Lady could start by endorsing Ruth Davidson’s proposal to incentivise the paying of the minimum wage, and that is actually a fact, not rhetoric. As I have told the hon. Lady on numerous occasions, if she has evidence of people not being paid the minimum wage, she should bring that forward. Yesterday, the Government did something the Labour Government never did: we named and shamed 70 companies, including some in Scotland, that do not pay the minimum wage. What she should be celebrating is the fact that this Government have delivered 107 jobs a day in Scotland, 1,645 of which are in her constituency, as can be seen from the drop in jobseeker’s allowance claimants.
Work Programme (Job Outcome Payments) — House of Commons, 2015-02-25
Topic: Labor
David Gordon Mundell (Conservative, Centre-right): Work programme participants are some of the hardest to help and can experience multiple barriers to finding work. There are two providers in Scotland: Ingeus has supported 21.2% of all claimants into a job outcome; and Working Links has supported 20.4% of claimants into a job outcome.
Work Programme (Job Outcome Payments) — House of Commons, 2015-02-25
Topic: Government Operations
David Gordon Mundell (Conservative, Centre-right): I certainly agree that the Engine Shed was a great project. I have made it clear to the Deputy First Minister that if proposals are brought forward after the election for the devolution of the Work programme, separate from other items to be devolved, I would have an open mind about that.
Work Programme (Job Outcome Payments) — House of Commons, 2015-02-25
Topic: Macroeconomics
Mary MacLeod (Conservative, Centre-right): Thanks to this Government, those helped into employment though the Work programme do not have to pay income tax on the first £10,000 they earn. Does the Minister agree that that represents progress towards economic growth in Scotland and opportunities for its young people?
Work Programme (Job Outcome Payments) — House of Commons, 2015-02-25
Topic: Labor
David Gordon Mundell (Conservative, Centre-right): I do not think that the 32,620 people who have found work through the Work programme would agree with the hon. Lady’s assessment. It is now time for her party to come forward with its proposals for an alternative to the Work programme, rather than just criticising the Government and calling for more powers. This Government have given a commitment to effect a transition to such a programme, but first we need to know what it will be.
Work Programme (Job Outcome Payments) — House of Commons, 2015-02-25
Topic: Labor
Questions: The Work programme is obviously failing in my constituency and in the city of Dundee as a whole, where only one in seven participants actually get a job. What will the Minister do to address that problem?
David Gordon Mundell (Conservative, Centre-right): I fully acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman has been a fervent campaigner on this issue—and, indeed, on employment—in his constituency, but I am sure that he welcomes the fact that over the past five years, under this Government, the number of jobseeker’s allowance claimants in his constituency has gone down by 842—some 27%.
Work Programme (Job Outcome Payments) — House of Commons, 2015-02-25
Topic: Labor
Questions: The Work programme is obviously failing in my constituency and in the city of Dundee as a whole, where only one in seven participants actually get a job. What will the Minister do to address that problem?; Unemployment in the Motherwell, Wishaw and Bellshill area rose again last month, with more than 500 young people now unemployed. Why has the Tory Work programme failed them?
David Gordon Mundell (Conservative, Centre-right): I absolutely dispute the claim that the Work programme has failed them. The Work programme looks to help the most vulnerable people into work, and people have moved into work over the past five years in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, where the JSA claimant count has come down by 1,403—some 39%. I am sure that even he welcomes that.
Smith Commission — House of Commons, 2015-02-25
Topic: Government Operations
Christopher Robert Chope (Conservative, Centre-right): The nation would be interested to know that draft clause 1 has been widely condemned as legally vacuous. What is the Secretary of State going to do to ensure that the people of Scotland realise that it is legally vacuous and that if they support it, they will be supporting a meaningless constitutional proposal?
A1 Dualling — House of Commons, 2015-02-25
Topic: Transportation
David Gordon Mundell (Conservative, Centre-right): The provision of road transport in Scotland is a devolved matter. Department for Transport Ministers did, however, offer to work with Transport Scotland on a joint feasibility study on dualling the A1. The Scottish Government chose not to take up that offer.