argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Technical Skills — House of Commons, 2015-09-15
Topic: Labor
William Roffen Esterson (Labour, Centre-left): We have a shortage of technical skills, not least in engineering and construction. According to employers, the Government’s focus on the number of apprenticeships amounts to little more than a re-badging of existing in-work training courses. When will the Government take the necessary action to deliver the high skills that are needed to boost productivity, growth and living standards in this country?
Technical Skills — House of Commons, 2015-09-15
Topic: Education
Questions: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating my constituent, Senior Aircraftman Shayne Hadland on winning a silver medal for aircraft maintenance at the WorldSkills competition in São Paulo and on being named best of nation for the United Kingdom? Does that not illustrate the importance of good technical skills and how the RAF is providing them?
Ian Austin (Labour, Centre-left): Does the Secretary of State agree that the best way to improve the level of technical skills in the west midlands would be to get behind the proposals from the region’s local authorities and local enterprise partnerships for a combined authority and elected mayor with devolved skills budgets to improve skills, bring former industrial sites back into use, provide more housing and better transport links, and get the economy of the west midlands really moving?
Apprenticeships: Travel Costs — House of Commons, 2015-09-15
Topic: Education
Barry John Sheerman (Labour, Centre-left): Does the Minister realise that many young people in the rural part of my constituency have difficulty getting to the fine Kirklees further education college in Huddersfield? I beg him to take notice of Professor Alison Wolf’s clarion call that if we put all our money into apprenticeships and neglect our FE colleges, we will be on the road to ruin and will never sort out the productivity challenges of our country.
Government Strategic Support — House of Commons, 2015-09-15
Topic: Energy
Stephen Nathan Kinnock (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Minister for her response. Given the crucial role of the steel industry to the British manufacturing sector and our very sense of pride and prestige as an industrialised nation, will you today agree to accelerate the full implementation of the energy-intensive industries package? Crippling energy bills are crippling the steel industry, and it is time for the Government to act.
Government Strategic Support — House of Commons, 2015-09-15
Topic: Macroeconomics
Questions: My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) is right: there is a crisis in UK steel making and 2,000 jobs in my constituency are at risk. I have secured a Backbench Business debate on Thursday, and I would be grateful if Ministers could come to pledge their support for UK steel making. We have to see action on energy prices and business rates. If we do not, UK steel will have no future. It is up to Ministers now to take action.
Stephen John Doughty (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister and I have discussed the clear and present dangers to the UK steel industry in a constructive fashion several times since she took her post. Given a summer of deeply worrying developments in the steel industry, not least with the news today from Redcar, can she assure us—notwithstanding what she has said today—that she has the full backing of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to take whatever action is necessary urgently to stand up for the steel industry in the UK?
Regional Growth — House of Commons, 2015-09-15
Topic: Transportation
Mary Helen Creagh (Labour, Centre-left): Regional growth in Yorkshire and the north-east is dependent on good transport links, so the cancellation of electrification between Leeds and Manchester and Leeds and Newcastle was a bitter blow to our economy. May I urge the Minister to urge the Chancellor to review the decision in the autumn statement and to look at the skills capacity in the transport sector, which is pushing up costs and prices in the electrification area?
Regional Growth — House of Commons, 2015-09-15
Topic: Transportation
Matthew Toby Perkins (Labour, Centre-left): In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), the Minister did not talk about the midland main line, but gave a list of other things he was doing. The cancellation of the midland main line electrification is a significant blow to south Yorkshire, north Derbyshire and the east midlands. What representations has the Department made on the impact on businesses and regional growth of not electrifying the midland main line? Will he respond to the question and tell us what is actually happening?
EU Membership: Business and Universities — House of Commons, 2015-09-15
Topic: International Affairs
Gerald Jones (Labour, Centre-left): Universities UK recently highlighted the risk to potential funding and collaboration if Britain withdraws from the UK. That applies to my own constituency as well. Does the Minister agree with that, and does he support Universities UK and its campaign?
EU Membership: Business and Universities — House of Commons, 2015-09-15
Topic: Technology
Liam Dominic Byrne (Labour, Centre-left): May I stiffen the Minister’s answers? The truth is that British universities win more research grants from the European Research Council than any other country in Europe. Well over £1 billion flowed in last year from Europe into the British science base, which is more than any other country received. The European Union and our membership of it is mission critical to our success and the future of our high-tech, high-productivity industries. Over the months to come, will the Minister join me in helping to ensure that British universities are at the forefront of leading the campaign for this country to stay in the European Union
Northern Ireland — House of Commons, 2015-09-15
Topic: International Affairs
David Anderson (Labour, Centre-left): If I have learned anything from Northern Ireland in 30 years it is, first, do not leave a vacuum, and secondly, choose your words very carefully. The Secretary of State has come to the House today and has quite clearly not chosen her words very carefully in relation to tackling the history of some of my leaders. In the interests of moving things forward, what will her leader do now? I am not asking what my leaders did in the past, but what her leader will do now. Will he engage in a better way than he has during recent impasses in Northern Ireland, when his not being there has been very unhelpful?
Northern Ireland — House of Commons, 2015-09-15
Topic: International Affairs
Pat Glass (Labour, Centre-left): The situation is extremely worrying and getting more dangerous all the time. The ordinary people of Ireland, including families—like mine—who live close to the border, are frankly worried sick over this. Is it not time for the Prime Minister and No. 10 to bother to get themselves involved?
Northern Ireland — House of Commons, 2015-09-15
Topic: International Affairs
Stephen James McCabe (Labour, Centre-left): Some people who are listening to this statement might think that the Secretary of State is struggling with her political priorities. She has referred to her various contacts with Senator Hart. Has she asked the parties in Northern Ireland whether they would welcome the assistance of a Senator Mitchell figure to act as an honest broker, in an effort to save the peace and institutions at this worrying time?
National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-09-15
Topic: Labor
Deborah Angela Elspeth Marie Abrahams (Labour, Centre-left): Can the Minister clarify what assessment she has made of the number of self-employed people who may apply for an exemption from paying class 2 contributions, especially as at least half of the increase in employment is self-employed people and, on average, self-employment incomes have fallen to less than £10,000?
National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-09-15
Topic: Labor
Deborah Angela Elspeth Marie Abrahams (Labour, Centre-left): May I press the Minister on the point I made in my earlier intervention, which she did not actually answer? What assessment has she made of the number of self-employed people who earn so little that they could apply for an exemption from class 2 national insurance contributions?
National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-09-15
Topic: Macroeconomics
Andrew John Gwynne (Labour, Centre-left): Surely the Minister has not forgotten that in the lifetime of the previous Parliament—from 2010 to 2015—no fewer than 24 tax increases were put on working people by her Government. The latest Budget also includes the tax increase on insurance premiums.
National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-09-15
Topic: Macroeconomics
Barbara Mary Keeley (Labour, Centre-left): As the Minister described, the Bill provides for the Government’s commitment, as set out in their manifesto, to a tax lock: a commitment not to increase the rates of VAT, income tax or national insurance in the next Parliament. The Bill provides for the national insurance element of that pledge. Such a measure has to remain separate from the Finance Bill currently going through Parliament, because statutory provisions regarding national insurance contributions cannot be included in the annual Finance Bill As we have heard, the Bill prevents any increase in the current rates of class 1 national insurance contributions paid by employees and employers for the duration of the 2015-20 Parliament. It also provides that the upper earnings limit cannot exceed the higher rate threshold, which is to say that the upper earnings limit cannot exceed the sum of the personal allowance and the basic rate limit Responding to the tax lock announcement during the election campaign, many people wondered why such a commitment etched into the statute book would even be necessary. If Ministers—indeed, the Prime Minister—commit to not raising income tax, national insurance contributions or VAT in the run-up to an election, surely such a commitment should be taken at face value. Apparently not in the case of Conservatives, who perhaps felt that the low levels of trust in their pledges were such that they would have to go much further. No wonder, when we consider that the Prime Minister made a similar commitment in 2010 not to raise VAT, only then to raise it to 20% after entering Downing Street.
National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-09-15
Topic: Macroeconomics
Barbara Mary Keeley (Labour, Centre-left): I will come on to my party’s manifesto commitments in a very short while. I do not think it is helpful, and I am not going to respond, to any interventions or points made by Government Members that refer to things the current Leader of the Opposition said before he was Leader of the Opposition. [Interruption.] That is a different situation. What I have just said is that when the Prime Minister was elected in 2010, he raised VAT when he had said that he would not do so Beyond the broken pledge on VAT, which is a serious matter—[Interruption.] Government Members can sit giggling, but these are very serious matters that hit the country hard. It is worth remembering that the Prime Minister appeared to rule out cuts to tax credits when appearing in front of a special "Question Time" audience during the recent election campaign. Yet, we are due to vote later today on that measure, and the Government’s cuts to tax credits will leave some 8 million families on average over £1,000 a year worse off. That is a shocking broken pledge.
National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-09-15
Topic: Macroeconomics
Barbara Mary Keeley (Labour, Centre-left): Government Members should stop going back in time. I have just referred to the fact that the Prime Minister promised before the 2010 election not to raise VAT. [Interruption.] Look at your record. You’re in government. You’re defending your Bills.
National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-09-15
Topic: Macroeconomics
Barbara Mary Keeley (Labour, Centre-left): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that is really helpful. It is sometimes easy to forget I have made the point and I am prepared to come back to it again and again. In five years, there have been two serious broken pledges that have cost the British public dearly Let us get back to the Bill. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I did not make the diversion. Let me be clear, Labour in opposition wholeheartedly supports the principle of not raising taxes for working people. The Minister has just questioned me on this. During the election campaign, it was the Labour party that first pledged not to increase national insurance contributions. In fact, we did it before the election campaign, because the pledge was made on 25 March. As such, we will not be opposing the Bill today. Regardless of that, however, there is no doubt that this tax lock has become the height of gimmickry. It was said to be such during the election campaign and it remains so today Let me give you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and hon. Members present, some quotes relating to the tax lock. On 29 April, the Financial Times, lamenting what it saw as the level of gimmickry coming all too often from the Conservative campaign, put in its leader: "What is more of a shock is the stream of gimmicks and poor policies coming from the Conservatives…arguably the silliest idea yet came this week when David Cameron proposed an act of parliament that would make it illegal for a future Tory government to raise various taxes to close the deficit: VAT, income tax, and national insurance…the UK fiscal deficit is still high. Removing the option of tapping revenue streams that in aggregate raise more than £350bn for the exchequer would make the challenge needlessly harder."
National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-09-15
Topic: Macroeconomics
Barbara Mary Keeley (Labour, Centre-left): In a minute, I will record how other commentators also think it is a gimmick. I have said we are not going to oppose the Bill because we do not want working people to pay more, but we have just seen in this Parliament a tax-raising Budget. I will talk more about that in a moment One of the main concerns about this policy gimmick is the serious constraints it will place on the Treasury and the Government’s ability to raise taxes or maintain the flexibility to raise revenue in response to economic events. As Alex Henderson, tax partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers, said: "Arguably the lock means the Government has less flexibility on where tax revenues could come from, with the burden more thinly spread." He also pointed out that it would not constrain Ministers’ ability to raise revenue from the same taxes in other ways—for example, by delaying the uprating of thresholds and removing reliefs. So it is not true that people are not going to pay more; there are other ways. We know the Chancellor used such measures, otherwise known as fiscal drag, to great effect in the last Parliament, because, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, they have raised taxes of roughly £64 billion a year by doing so. The headlines people read do not indicate tax rises, but the measures used do Simon Walker, director general of the Institute of Directors, said: "While IoD members are opposed to increases in the rates of VAT, Income Tax and National Insurance, we consider it imperative that the Government’s commitments do not prevent bold tax reforms to both simplify taxation and reduce the burden upon businesses and individuals." As Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, pointed out, the tax lock could rule out sensible tax reforms, such as the treatment of national insurance contributions for the self-employed, which has already been referred to.
National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-09-15
Topic: Macroeconomics
Barbara Mary Keeley (Labour, Centre-left): No Paul Johnson believes that the tax lock could rule out sensible tax reforms. That is the answer to the question from the hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer). The commentators and others who work day in, day out on these issues think it ties the Government’s hands too much. Paul Johnson said it was "extreme to tie your hands for such a long period with the main rates of the three largest taxes" It is worth reminding Members of The Guardian’s view of the tax lock—Members may not have read it—as set out in its editorial on 29 April.
National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-09-15
Topic: Macroeconomics
Barbara Mary Keeley (Labour, Centre-left): I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Opposition Members do. It read: "No one can see into the future. So a responsible chancellor ought to be duty-bound to keep options open, to be able to respond to events and adapt to unexpected changes in the economy, not close them off. Instead, the Conservatives are now committed to tying their hands behind their back, placing the taxes that provide roughly two-thirds of all government income – income tax, national insurance and VAT – wholly off-limits, come what may, for five years. This is madness."
National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-09-15
Topic: Macroeconomics
Barbara Mary Keeley (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Lady is not listening The Financial Times leader, to which I referred earlier, said: "It is unwise for the Conservatives to bind their hands, legally or otherwise, against using tax rises to close the deficit. Much of public expenditure is unavoidable or politically protected"— that is the important thing; these days certain budgets are politically protected— "so that ever more savings need to be found from the shrinking funds for welfare, social care, justice and defence. It makes sense to leave oneself the option to turn to tax in times of adversity to smooth the path of consolidation." Nothing better reflects the gimmickry of this measure than the fact that the recent summer Budget included some significant revenue-raising measures that amounted to significant tax rises for millions of people. As the Office for Budget Responsibility set out, the tax-raising measures announced in the summer Budget amounted to nearly £16 billion of tax rises by 2020-21—we touched on this point last week—£3 billion of which will come from changes to vehicle taxation, as well as increases in the insurance premium tax, which will raise £8 billion by 2020-21 Last week, we debated the increase in insurance premium tax, and as I pointed out then, some of the UK’s biggest insurers, including Aviva and RSA, have confirmed that they plan to pass on the cost of that tax increase to customers. Experts say that many people will now see their household insurance bills rise by between £50 and £100 a year, if they have more than one car and they insure their buildings and contents. I highlighted the fact, and still think it a serious point, that young drivers would be hardest hit, and many might wrongly take the risk of driving uninsured. In the last week, therefore, we have seen a £50 to £100 tax bombshell for millions of families, and this tax-lock Bill does nothing to guard against that. What is more, the Government are yet to offer any assurances that they will not raise insurance premium tax further in subsequent Budgets. Given that a Conservative peer, Lord Northbrook, has called insurance premium tax an "easy target", I invite the two Treasury Ministers present to say whether they will be increasing insurance premium tax any further. Would either like to say what their intentions are?
National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-09-15
Topic: Macroeconomics
Barbara Mary Keeley (Labour, Centre-left): I think that the whole range of the tax regime and national insurance is under discussion today Given that we hear no assurances that there will not be further increases to insurance premium tax in this Parliament, I want to make it clear again that we support the principle of not raising taxes for working people. That is why we do not oppose the Bill. As I mentioned earlier, before the election campaign started properly, we pledged not to raise national insurance contributions, so this could rightly be described as our idea.
National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-09-15
Topic: Macroeconomics
Barbara Mary Keeley (Labour, Centre-left): As I understand it, there will not be a vote because it will not be opposed, but I cannot speak for other parties in the House The Government’s tax lock, of which the Bill forms a part, is nothing more than a gimmick of epic proportions, as I have outlined and demonstrated with many comments from people outside the House. It speaks volumes about the lack of belief that Conservatives have in their own policy commitments. We vote annually on tax legislation, and the Government regularly introduce Bills on NICs alongside Finance Bills—we have already heard about suggested changes to NICs—and, as such, primary legislation, debate and Division are already required in the House.
National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-09-15
Topic: Macroeconomics
Barbara Mary Keeley (Labour, Centre-left): I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is listening. I know that Conservative Members often sit there with their Whip’s brief and try to find a way of working in some point that the Whips have given them to say. [Interruption.] I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is looking at. The point is, as I said earlier, this is a gimmick because we do not need legislation. A commitment was given on this. All that is required is that the Government and the Prime Minister stick to that commitment. It is a question of delivering on what was pledged. We do not need a Bill for every single element of what a party has pledged in the run-up to an election campaign. I am questioning—and people outside the House are questioning—why we need a Bill for the Government to bind themselves not to increase the rates, which they have already set out. It is very strange indeed.
National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-09-15
Topic: Macroeconomics
Barbara Mary Keeley (Labour, Centre-left): We are not signalling any change of position. It is amusing to hear this from Conservative Members, after a tax-raising Budget that is taking £8 billion from British people through the insurance premium tax, and after they put VAT up to 20%—when they promised not to do it. The absolute gall of Conservative Members in raising these points is amazing.
National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-09-15
Topic: Macroeconomics
Barbara Mary Keeley (Labour, Centre-left): No, I will not The tax lock restricts the Government’s ability to respond to unexpected economic events. That is why this Bill is seen, both outside and inside this place, as a gimmick. If we have learned anything in the last decade, it is that such flexibility is absolutely essential. Indeed, it was this flexibility at the time the Labour Government left office in 2010 that meant we had an economy recovering and growing once again. Above all, this tax lock provides no protection to millions of hard-working families, who, if the statutory instrument on tax credits is voted through by Conservative Members later today—
National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-09-15
Topic: Macroeconomics
Andrew John Gwynne (Labour, Centre-left): Is it not indicative of the level of trust in politics and politicians generally, but specifically in this Government and their record on tax, that they need to come to the House of Commons to legislate not to increase a specific tax, rather than allow people to accept their pledges at elections at face value?