argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Finance Bill — House of Commons, 2017-10-31
Topic: Civil Rights
Eleanor Claire Reeves (Labour, Centre-left): I will make some progress It seems curious that the Government want to make it a priority to enshrine it in statute that compensation for injury to feelings awards connected to the termination of employment should be taxed as earnings. This is yet another example of how the Government, rather than going after the big corporations that are avoiding tax, would penalise those who have been unlawfully discriminated against at work When we last debated the Bill in Committee on 11 October, it was suggested by Government Members that injury to feelings was some sort of new concept that Labour was trying to introduce to create a tax loophole. Yet injury to feelings is a well-established head of damage, enshrined in the Equality Act 2010 and in the various pieces of anti-discrimination legislation that preceded it, including the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. Guidance on the level of awards was given in the case of Vento some years ago, and it has just been upgraded. The highest award is £42,000 for the most serious acts of discrimination, which usually involves a course of conduct over many years, and the lowest award is £800—usually for a one-off comment. That is established legal principle Under these proposals, however, such awards would be taxed as a matter of routine when the £30,000 threshold is exceeded. Not only does that seem inherently unfair to victims of discrimination, but in practical terms it will lead to all sorts of litigation and drafting issues about whether an award is in connection with the termination or a previous act of discrimination unconnected to the termination. For example, a woman is subjected to sexual harassment at work over a sustained period. She subsequently tells her employer she is pregnant and is dismissed as a result. She pursues a claim for sexual harassment, unfair dismissal and maternity discrimination. She is awarded £30,000 for loss of earnings, which takes her up to the tax-free threshold. She is awarded another £10,000 for injury to feelings. Who determines what part of the award is for the harassment, which is unconnected to the termination of her employment and therefore not taxable, and what part is in relation to the pregnancy-related dismissal and therefore taxable Moreover, because personal injury claims will be exempt from tax but injury to feelings will not be, we are likely to see more employment tribunal claims pleading personal injury—for example, psychiatric damage—which will inevitably lead to complex medical evidence and longer hearings. With strains already on the employment tribunal system and on HMRC, that is surely not the route we should be going down. Or is this just the start of a slippery slope, with the Government ultimately wanting to tax all injury to feelings awards and all personal injury awards For those reasons, I urge the Government to accept our amendments and to go after the real tax avoiders, not hard-working individuals who have been treated unlawfully at work.
Finance Bill — House of Commons, 2017-10-31
Topic: Mixed Topics
Jonathan Neil Reynolds (Labour, Centre-left): I beg to move amendment 7, page 78, line 19, after "day", insert "no earlier than 1 January 2022" This amendment provides that the provisions for digital reporting in Clause 60 may not be brought into force before 2022.
Finance Bill — House of Commons, 2017-10-31
Topic: Mixed Topics
James McMahon (Labour, Centre-left): Has the Minister spoken to his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions, who are embarking on a £13 billion IT contract for universal credit, on the lessons to be learned and the impact on people who are trying to use a system that is evidently not fit for purpose?
Finance Bill — House of Commons, 2017-10-31
Topic: Other
James McMahon (Labour, Centre-left): I am pleased to hear that the Government are looking at this important issue, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) on her significant work. When will the Government publish their findings?
Proposed Free School — House of Commons, 2017-10-31
Topic: Housing
Margaret Olivia Hillier (Labour, Centre-left): The petition is about a free school site in Hackney that is designated for 630 pupils. We have strong concerns locally that it is not suitable for those pupils. It would not create a suitable modern school facility. It has a complete lack of play space for children and will cause undue stress on the local area, particularly with traffic because of the breadth of the catchment area. The petition states: The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State to refuse the appeal against Hackney Council’s decision to refuse planning permission Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of Hackney, Declares that the former police station in Lower Clapton Road is not a suitable building for a new school of 630 pupils due to its size, as there are access issues which are fundamental to the success of the school; further that these issues make it an inadequate learning environment; further that there is almost a complete lack of play space for young children; further that there is a complete lack of play space for young children; further to there being an unacceptable burden on the local area due to likely car use for pupil drop off/pick up and further to over intensive use of local facilities due to inadequacies of school site. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State to refuse the appeal against Hackney Council’s decision to refuse planning permission. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P002070]
Royal Mail Privatisation — House of Commons, 2017-12-12
Topic: Mixed Topics
Hugh Lawrence Gaffney (Labour, Centre-left): Today is postal workers day, and I am sure the House would like to thank all postal workers in Royal Mail and Parcelforce for the good work they do all year round, six days a week, in all kinds of weather across the UK Royal Mail was not for sale. Under this Government and privatisation, its employees face worse pay and conditions and attacks on pensions, along with the threat of more job losses. Will the Minister renationalise Royal Mail?
Royal Mail Privatisation — House of Commons, 2017-12-12
Topic: Mixed Topics
Mohammed Afzal Khan (Labour, Centre-left): Royal Mail is paying out over £200 million in dividends every year to private shareholders. Last year, the chief executive saw her pay increase by 23%. How can the Government stand by a model of ownership that sees postal workers’ pay being frozen and their pensions left unaffordable?
Royal Mail Privatisation — House of Commons, 2017-12-12
Topic: Mixed Topics
Mohammad Yasin (Labour, Centre-left): In the privatised Royal Mail, 500 jobs have been lost while, at the same time, it has dished out close to £700 million in dividends to private shareholders. Is this a record of privatisation the Minister is proud of?
Electric and Autonomous Vehicles — House of Commons, 2017-12-12
Topic: Mixed Topics
Barry John Sheerman (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State knows that no assessment of the impact of Brexit on the sector has been carried out by anyone, apart from the RAND Corporation, which told us this morning that this and every other sector will be deeply harmed by Brexit. What does he say in response to that important and thorough investigation?
Small Business Sector — House of Commons, 2017-12-12
Topic: Domestic Commerce
William Roffen Esterson (Labour, Centre-left): Despite having the fifth biggest economy in the world—soon to be the sixth—the UK is ranked only 48th in the global enterprise league; 48th out of five really takes some doing. But this is not just about the lack of support for start-ups. Among small and medium-sized enterprises business confidence is falling and costs are rising, and, as the Bank of England’s figures show, access to finance is still at its lowest level since 2010. Do the Government have any excuse for their woeful failure to support our smallest businesses?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2017-12-12
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Questions: Recent Government figures show that UK funding from Horizon 2020 dropped significantly last year. Will the Secretary of State tell us what he is going to do to address that alarming fall in funding, and will he commit to participating in Horizon 2020 beyond March 2019 should the UK leave the EU then?; Given the importance of the automotive industry to the UK, and particularly to the west midlands, does the Secretary of State agree that it is essential to invest in test environments for self-driving cars to ensure that the UK can compete with other countries that want to become the world’s test bed for new vehicle technologies?; Onshore wind has been Scotland’s success story, with the Scottish Government still on track to meet 100% of electricity generation coming from renewables. The UK Government are the possible blocker. As we approach the point of zero-subsidy onshore developments, will the Government find a way to allow Scottish onshore developments to bid in the next CfD auction?; Does the Minister agree that retaining full sovereign control of our regulation is essential to getting the most out of our economy, 88% of which does not relate to the EU?; Northern Ireland has people with very good basic digital skills, but a quarter of business owners in England lack confidence in their basic digital skills. What is the Department doing to provide help for smaller businesses to fill this skills gap on the UK mainland?; A recent report from Intel identified £2 trillion of global opportunities in artificial intelligence and driverless cars. Will the Minister outline what steps the Government are taking to invest in the skills that Britain will need to capitalise on that huge opportunity?; Rumours abound that the Westminster Government are seeking to change the policy on nuclear decommissioning. Will the Minister indicate whether he has any plans to introduce a policy of continuous decommissioning for the UK’s ageing nuclear estate, and whether such a policy would apply to Trawsfynydd?; What recent discussions has my right hon. Friend had with the Secretary of State for Transport about increased investment in road and rail projects to improve productivity, particularly in the north of England?
James McMahon (Labour, Centre-left): Access to finance is critical for small businesses, but the protection in place when things go wrong is non-existent. Do the Government agree, and will they look at extending the role and remit of the Financial Conduct Authority in that regard?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2017-12-12
Topic: Mixed Topics
Questions: Recent Government figures show that UK funding from Horizon 2020 dropped significantly last year. Will the Secretary of State tell us what he is going to do to address that alarming fall in funding, and will he commit to participating in Horizon 2020 beyond March 2019 should the UK leave the EU then?; Given the importance of the automotive industry to the UK, and particularly to the west midlands, does the Secretary of State agree that it is essential to invest in test environments for self-driving cars to ensure that the UK can compete with other countries that want to become the world’s test bed for new vehicle technologies?; Onshore wind has been Scotland’s success story, with the Scottish Government still on track to meet 100% of electricity generation coming from renewables. The UK Government are the possible blocker. As we approach the point of zero-subsidy onshore developments, will the Government find a way to allow Scottish onshore developments to bid in the next CfD auction?; Does the Minister agree that retaining full sovereign control of our regulation is essential to getting the most out of our economy, 88% of which does not relate to the EU?; Northern Ireland has people with very good basic digital skills, but a quarter of business owners in England lack confidence in their basic digital skills. What is the Department doing to provide help for smaller businesses to fill this skills gap on the UK mainland?; A recent report from Intel identified £2 trillion of global opportunities in artificial intelligence and driverless cars. Will the Minister outline what steps the Government are taking to invest in the skills that Britain will need to capitalise on that huge opportunity?; Rumours abound that the Westminster Government are seeking to change the policy on nuclear decommissioning. Will the Minister indicate whether he has any plans to introduce a policy of continuous decommissioning for the UK’s ageing nuclear estate, and whether such a policy would apply to Trawsfynydd?; What recent discussions has my right hon. Friend had with the Secretary of State for Transport about increased investment in road and rail projects to improve productivity, particularly in the north of England?
Rachael Helen Maskell (Labour, Centre-left): On 8 March, the Chancellor announced a full review of business rates. On 14 March, the Minister responsible for small business said: "The review will report in due course and in the not-too-distant future."—[Official Report, 14 March 2017; Vol. 623, c. 178.] Yet the industrial strategy barely mentions business rates, which are having a massive impact on businesses in York. When will this review start?
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-12
Topic: Mixed Topics
Christopher Michael Leslie (Labour, Centre-left): The Bill’s provisions are so wide-ranging that the protections that our constituents have enjoyed to this day as a result of European regulations and rights could be at risk—not from Parliament, but from a ministerial sweep of the pen, through the making of an order: a negative statutory instrument.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-12
Topic: Other
Helen Catherine Goodman (Labour, Centre-left): We will look at the composition when we look at the Standing Orders. It is not covered in the contents of the amendments today, but people will have an opportunity to debate that issue on another occasion.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-12
Topic: Other
Christopher Michael Leslie (Labour, Centre-left): That is true, but it deserves to be debated today as well. If we are creating a committee, it is perfectly legitimate to argue that we need to know whether it will have teeth and exercise bite, or whether it will be reluctant to do so. The question that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) asked about its composition is perfectly reasonable.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-12
Topic: Other
Christopher John Bryant (Labour, Centre-left): For that matter, the Procedure Committee has regularly suggested changes to Standing Orders that the Government have refused to move forward. I have seen the right hon. Member for Broxbourne more furious than anyone else in the Chamber because the Government have refused to act on that, so it is inadequate to suggest that Standing Orders might make arrangements in this regard.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-12
Topic: Mixed Topics
Stephen John Doughty (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend mentions the single market; I wonder whether he noted the research published today by the Rand Corporation in the United States that made it clear that any kind of fantasy deal with the United States while President Trump is in charge would do nothing for us compared with remaining in the single market and the customs union.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-12
Topic: Other
Christopher John Bryant (Labour, Centre-left): I just worry about this whole business of relying on the Government saying that they will always go by a recommendation that comes from a Committee. Several times I have heard Ministers stand in the Chamber and say that if the Opposition demand a vote on the annulment of a Standing Order, there will always be one. However, over the past few years, there have on repeated occasions been no debates or votes, even when demanded by the Opposition and a large number of Government Members. It is almost sweet of the right hon. Gentleman to place such confidence in Ministers, but they are sometimes not to be trusted. We just put temptation in their way.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-12
Topic: Mixed Topics
Mary Helen Creagh (Labour, Centre-left): I do not share the right hon. Gentleman’s confidence that all this will be done in time, and I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). We have been waiting two and a half years for a 25-year environment plan, which will be a 22-year plan by the time it is published. We have had promises of legislation on fisheries and the common agricultural policy, and today a draft animal sentience and animal welfare Bill has been published. There is already a legislative logjam in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as a result of the decision to leave the EU, and at the moment there is a reporting gap. Although there may be a new body in the future to do some of the enforcement, I do not believe that it will be up and ready at the point of leaving, when all our reporting obligations, which currently rest with the European Commission, will fall.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-12
Topic: Mixed Topics
Christopher John Bryant (Labour, Centre-left): I have been listening very carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. He is resting on the word "technical", which he has used repeatedly, but that is not what the Bill says. If the Government had come forward with something saying that they will only be able to use secondary legislation in technical changes, we might have been interested in looking at it. But that is not what it says; it is a widely drawn list. The right hon. Gentleman may well have perfect confidence in the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Chipping Wycombe. Sorry, he is the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker)—[Laughter.] Well, the constituency used to be Chipping Wycombe. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) might have confidence in this particular Minister, but it may one day be another Minister. I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the Leader of the Opposition is a Marxist revolutionary in a Venezuelan style. Well, he might yet be a Minister who will be making precisely these decisions, and that is why we should always legislate with caution.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-12
Topic: Other
Helen Catherine Goodman (Labour, Centre-left): I just want to back up the hon. Gentleman’s request for more information from the Government. In our report, the Procedure Committee called on the Government to publish "as soon as possible…an outline schedule for the laying of instruments before the House." The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we still do not know what the Government have in mind.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-12
Topic: Immigration
Stella Judith Creasy (Labour, Centre-left): It may disturb the hon. Gentleman to know that I have signed his new clause, and I agree very much with him and the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) on this issue. This weekend, I was in Calais, where a 10-year-old is sleeping rough because we do not have the systems in place under the legislation to be able to assess his right to be in the UK. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what is so important about the amendments to protect the Dublin process is not just its principles, but its practice and what happens if and when we leave the European Union?
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-12
Topic: Immigration
Yvette Cooper (Labour, Centre-left): I rise to speak briefly to amendments 48, 49 and 52 in my name. They have cross-party support, including from other Select Committee Chairs, because they are about safeguarding the role of Parliament and preventing the concentration of power in the hands of the Executive Before I talk in detail about those amendments, I want to support new clause 53 and the words of my Home Affairs Committee colleague, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). He is right that we need to continue with our historical obligations towards refugees and with the principle of family reunion, ensuring that child refugees are not separated from their family and do not lose their rights to be reunited with family members who can care for them, especially when families have been separated by persecution and conflict. He is also right that this is about preventing the people traffickers, the exploitation and the modern slavery that can cause such harm and blight so many lives Our Committee has often found evidence that leads us to want the Dublin III process to work faster and more effectively, not for the principles behind it to be ripped up and thrown away. I therefore welcome the fact that, as the hon. Gentleman has said, Ministers have shown an interest in supporting the continuation of these historical obligations. I hope that that will be addressed if not in this Bill, then in either an immigration Bill or in the withdrawal agreement Bill in due course The amendments I have tabled to clause 7 address the concern, raised by so many of us, that Parliament is being asked to hand over considerable powers to the Executive without sufficient safeguards. That concentration of powers in the hands of the Executive—a concentration not seen since the days of the infamous Tudor monarch—goes against the very reason why all of us were elected to this place: the legislature has an historic obligation to place checks on the power of the Executive, in order to prevent concentrations and abuses of power, in relation to Brexit or to anything else. It is an obligation that each of us takes on when we swear the oath at the Dispatch Box.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-12
Topic: Mixed Topics
Christopher John Bryant (Labour, Centre-left): The thing is that the hon. Gentleman’s Committee is chaired by a man who is respected by both sides of the House and much loved by many people in all parts of this House, yet his Committee has regularly produced reports that have been completely and utterly ignored by the Government. That is the problem: he is still asking us to trust the Government in the end.