argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Economy Update — House of Commons, 2022-05-26
Topic: Macroeconomics
Richard Burgon (Labour, Centre-left): The windfall tax amounts to just £5 billion, but it could have been well over double that and still left North sea oil and gas giants with the same profit levels they have had in recent years, before they benefited from this price spike. Surely the Chancellor should be doing everything he can to help people who are struggling, so why is he still letting oil and gas companies keep billions in undeserved profits?
Economy Update — House of Commons, 2022-05-26
Topic: Macroeconomics
Lilian Rachel Greenwood (Labour, Centre-left): On the Chancellor’s watch, we have had 15 tax rises, and this year the UK is the only G7 country to be raising taxes on working people. He has known for months that our constituents are going hungry, sitting in the cold, worried sick about their bills and facing the biggest fall in their living standards since the 1950s. Why did it take the Prime Minister’s boozy lawbreaking being all over the news for him to finally impose a windfall tax on the bumper profits of energy companies?
Economy Update — House of Commons, 2022-05-26
Topic: Energy
Rachel Louise Hopkins (Labour, Centre-left): Energy-intensive businesses and sectors such as automotive manufacturing are facing huge challenges due to soaring energy prices. Companies such as Vauxhall in Luton South need some specific support to keep plants running efficiently and to keep people in skilled jobs. Can I hear from the Chancellor a commitment to our manufacturing sector and what support he will provide to it, as it is so critical to our UK economy?
Economy Update — House of Commons, 2022-05-26
Topic: Social Welfare
Paul Christopher Blomfield (Labour, Centre-left): The Chancellor talked about supporting the most vulnerable, but there appear to be questions about his targeting when we look at the detail in the announcement. Everybody accepts that the most effective way to get support to those most in need would be to restore the universal credit uplift and extend that to those on legacy benefits. Why is he ideologically opposed to the action that would have made the biggest difference to the hardest hit?
Economy Update — House of Commons, 2022-05-26
Topic: Energy
Ruth Margaret Cadbury (Labour, Centre-left): By doubling onshore wind capacity, £6 billion could be saved on household bills. It would also reduce our dependence on imported energy, contribute to our net zero targets and create thousands of jobs. Is the Chancellor still blocking the development of onshore wind?
Economy Update — House of Commons, 2022-05-26
Topic: Energy
Rachael Helen Maskell (Labour, Centre-left): The Chancellor is slowing one crisis while accelerating another: the climate crisis. Why is he investing in hydrocarbons, which should be staying in the ground, instead of investing in retrofitting properties, which would ultimately save energy costs, as Labour has proposed, and would make a real difference to people’s energy bills?
Economy Update — House of Commons, 2022-05-26
Topic: Social Welfare
Ruth Lorraine Jones (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Chancellor for his statement; the constituents of Newport West will be grateful that he has acted to help them in some small way at long last. However, can he confirm that only those who are already receiving benefits or who started a claim before 25 May will get the first instalment of the £650 he outlined in his statement? Am I right in thinking that this means that a woman leaving an abusive relationship today and needing to claim for the first time will not get this instalment?
Economy Update — House of Commons, 2022-05-26
Topic: Social Welfare
Kim Marie Johnson (Labour, Centre-left): In my Liverpool, Riverside constituency, 10 children in a class of 30 are living in poverty, with two thirds living in working families on poverty wages. The targeted one-off payment does not go far enough. Does the Chancellor not agree that increasing welfare benefits in line with inflation and lifting the two-child cap will tackle this problem long term, whereas what he proposes today is a sticking plaster on a gaping wound?
Economy Update — House of Commons, 2022-05-26
Topic: Social Welfare
Feryal Demirci Clark (Labour, Centre-left): My borough of Enfield has the 11th highest rate of child poverty in the country, and one in five people are on low pay. While the Chancellor has been dragged kicking and screaming to an inevitable outcome, families have been suffering for months. The measures today are welcome, but they need to be delivered efficiently and effectively. Can the Chancellor therefore outline what steps he will take to speed up the painfully slow council tax rebate, which is causing significant distress to my constituents?
Gigabit Broadband — House of Commons, 2022-03-24
Topic: Technology
Rupa Asha Huq (Labour, Centre-left): Digital exclusion is not just a rural phenomenon. In parts of Ealing Broadway, despite the road being dug up and cable laid, businesses report cripplingly slow times to send an email or download attachments—basic stuff that is like running water or electricity in this day and age—and don’t get me started on people working from home north of the A40. Can the Secretary of State please give us a date for when all my constituents will be levelled up internet-wise? If not, will she come with me and speak to those businesses and homes, so we can hurry it along?
Channel 5 — House of Commons, 2022-03-24
Topic: Technology
Christopher Philip James Elmore (Labour, Centre-left): I warmly congratulate Channel 5 on turning 25, along with Channel 4 on turning 40 and, of course, one of our greatest institutions, the BBC, which is celebrating its centenary in 2022. This is becoming, without doubt, a milestone year for public sector broadcasting in the United Kingdom. While the Government have been playing games with the future of the BBC and Channel 4—and we welcome the extra funding for the World Service—their journalists have risked their lives to report the facts on the front line in Ukraine. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that any future ownership decisions that she makes on Channel 4 will ensure that its in-depth, independent journalism will be protected beyond 2022?
Music Tours: Special Event Hauliers — House of Commons, 2022-03-24
Topic: Transportation
Questions: What discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Transport on helping to ensure adequate availability of specialist event hauliers to support domestic music tours in summer 2022.
Kerry Gillian McCarthy (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Minister for that response; I am glad that the Government are finally talking about this issue, which has been flagged up as a problem for a very long time, but "later this year" will not be good enough for bands wanting to tour the UK this summer. Harvey Goldsmith has said that there are not enough trucks and not enough drivers, and that we need a solution now. What is the Minister’s answer?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2022-03-24
Topic: Technology
Questions: The 2025 UK city of culture shortlist has just been announced, so this is a perfect moment to review and improve the bidding for the next cycle, which is currently time-consuming, burdensome and very resource-intensive. On behalf of Southend West and the new city of Southend, which will bid to be the 2029 UK city of culture, will the Department consider having a dedicated city of culture team to guide and support applicants through the process?;   The gambling industry currently makes a voluntary contribution to the cost of the education, health support and research required to address gambling-related harm. The then Secretary of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), said in 2019 that“the Government reserve the right to pursue a mandatory route…if a voluntary route does not prove effective.”—[Official Report, 2 July 2019; Vol. 662, c. 1072.]In other words, the 2019 voluntary agreement is conditional on its being effective. With the gambling review imminent, how do we know whether the current voluntary contribution is effective?; The enhanced communications offences are welcomed on both sides of the House, but does the Minister recognise that one problem the police encounter is that they cannot always identify the perpetrators? How will that be addressed?;   The Secretary of State’s colleague the Chancellor is intending to increase VAT on live music tickets by 7.5 percentage points, which is 50% extra. What steps is she taking to promote live music and save it from this Government’s crippling tax rises?; I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It is one year since the Prime Minister told the Liaison Committee that he wanted to fix the barriers stopping music tours of Europe. What are the Government going to do to make that promise come true? [R]
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): I do not want to carry on the debate. The hon. Gentleman asks how Ministers can clarify their policy on establishing a Joint Committee on digital regulation. It is open to the Minister to make a written or oral statement to the House on the matter. Alternatively, the hon. Gentleman can table further questions to the Department. He may wish to contact the Table Office for advice. Also, as Chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee he has a lot more powers than other people in this House, and a decision on establishing a Joint Committee of both Houses would be a matter for both Houses. So he may pursue this in other ways, but I certainly do not want to extend the debate any further.
Violence Against Women and Girls — House of Commons, 2022-03-24
Topic: Law and Crime
Virendra Kumar Sharma (Labour, Centre-left): One of my constituents has provided multiple pieces of video evidence and repeatedly reported indecent exposure by a neighbour, aimed at his young daughters. The police repeatedly changed the staff who were handling the case, and then the CPS declined to prosecute for lack of evidence and because the flasher had moved. Will the Attorney General empower the CPS to prosecute more such crimes so that women and girls can have faith in the justice system to help them?
Russia — House of Commons, 2022-03-24
Topic: International Affairs
Questions: What steps she is taking to ensure (a) UK and (b) international law is enforced against (i) the Russian Government and (ii) associated individuals.; What steps she is taking to ensure (a) UK and (b) international law is enforced against (i) the Russian Government and (ii) associated individuals.; What steps she is taking to ensure (a) UK and (b) international law is enforced against (i) the Russian Government and (ii) associated individuals.
Rachael Helen Maskell (Labour, Centre-left): A month ago today, this aggressive war of Putin’s was unleashed on Ukraine. We continue to stand with the people of Ukraine as they fight for peace. However, I question why the UK’s sanctions, which continue to be slow, have also failed to be robust. Mr Usmanov is clearly laughing at this Government; he has moved hundreds of millions of pounds into irrevocable trusts. Why did the Attorney General not insist that the sanctions regime be made watertight?
Russia — House of Commons, 2022-03-24
Topic: International Affairs
Questions: What steps she is taking to ensure (a) UK and (b) international law is enforced against (i) the Russian Government and (ii) associated individuals.; What steps she is taking to ensure (a) UK and (b) international law is enforced against (i) the Russian Government and (ii) associated individuals.; What steps she is taking to ensure (a) UK and (b) international law is enforced against (i) the Russian Government and (ii) associated individuals.
Clive Stanley Efford (Labour, Centre-left): The Government are very quick on announcements, but very slow on action. The Attorney General will be aware of the SLAPP—strategic litigation against public participation—litigation being used by Russian oligarchs to wear down investigative journalists and campaigners. The purpose is not to take them to court, but to bury them under a whole load of requests to produce documents and answer questions; it is to wear down their resources. We need urgent action. Can she say what she is doing to shut down, urgently, the use of SLAPP litigation?
Russia — House of Commons, 2022-03-24
Topic: Law and Crime
Questions: What steps she is taking to ensure (a) UK and (b) international law is enforced against (i) the Russian Government and (ii) associated individuals.; What steps she is taking to ensure (a) UK and (b) international law is enforced against (i) the Russian Government and (ii) associated individuals.; What steps she is taking to ensure (a) UK and (b) international law is enforced against (i) the Russian Government and (ii) associated individuals.
Andrew Francis Slaughter (Labour, Centre-left): The Levelling Up Secretary has been boasting for weeks that the Government will seize oligarchs’ mansions, but they have no idea how to do so legally, and by the time they work it out the culprits will be clean away. The Justice Secretary is a sudden convert to anti-SLAPP legislation, biting the hands that used to feed the Tory party, but shows no urgency to legislate. The Attorney General is investigating her own Serious Fraud Office for failures to prosecute, yet the SFO is so starved of money that its yearly budget would not buy one of Abramovich’s yachts. It is pathetic. Do the Government lack the means to bring international criminals to justice, or do they just lack the will?
Economic Crime — House of Commons, 2022-03-24
Topic: Law and Crime
Anthony Joseph Lloyd (Labour, Centre-left): Economic crime and fraud are not simply at the very top level; they are volume crime. They are the most likely crimes to affect ordinary people, and neither the police nor the authorities are equipped to deal with them. Is it not about time that we got serious on economic crime and made sure that we invested in the investigating process that can make a real difference, as that is not happening?
Economic Crime — House of Commons, 2022-03-24
Topic: Law and Crime
Emily Thornberry (Labour, Centre-left): At the heart of any legislation on economic crime is the basic principle that anybody who wants to make money in the UK needs to obey the UK’s laws. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that P&O had "broken the law", that we will be "taking action" against it, and that we will take it to court "under section 194 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992".—[Official Report, 23 March 2022; Vol. 711, c. 325.] Can the Solicitor General tell us, as part of the team of Government lawyers, whether he agrees with the Prime Minister’s statement? Does the statement reflect the team’s own legal advice to the Prime Minister, and, assuming that it does, what are the next steps in the legal proceedings that the Government intend to take against P&O for breach of the 1992 Act?
Online Fraud — House of Commons, 2022-03-24
Topic: Law and Crime
Questions: What steps she is taking to (a) ensure prosecution of people who commit online fraud and (b) recover stolen funds for victims of online fraud.
Barry John Sheerman (Labour, Centre-left): Has the Minister seen the Age UK report and the way that organised crime, which includes highly sophisticated big players, is targeting elderly people? A total of 800,000 elderly people were defrauded last year. Somebody is defrauded every few seconds in this country. These players are homing in on our most vulnerable people, and what we are doing as a Government—no, what he and his colleagues are doing as a Government—seems to be amateur when compared with these professionals.
Fraud and Economic Crime — House of Commons, 2022-03-24
Topic: Government Operations
Questions: What steps she is taking to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the (a) Serious Fraud Office and (b) Crown Prosecution Service in tackling fraud and economic crime.
Kate Ofunne Osamor (Labour, Centre-left): Between 2013 and 2019, the Serious Fraud Office secured convictions against five corporations out of 43 investigations. We can literally count the number of successful prosecutions on one hand. Does the Attorney General regard that as an acceptable recent track record for the Serious Fraud Office? If not, how does she plan to change it?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2022-03-24
Topic: Social Welfare
Jonathan Michael Graham Ashworth (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure that you will have seen overnight the analysis that, thanks to the Chancellor’s cuts to universal credit, his real-terms cuts to disability benefits, and his real-terms cuts to the state pension and other measures, an extra 1.3 million people, including pensioners and 500,000 children, will be pushed into absolute poverty. Can you advise me, Mr Speaker, whether the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has given you any indication that she will come to this House and provide an analysis of constituency data for Members, of the increased number of pensioners and children who will go into poverty, or should we assume that rising child and pensioner poverty for this Government is considered a price worth paying?
National Insurance Contributions (Increase of Thresholds) Bill — House of Commons, 2022-03-24
Topic: Social Welfare
Margaret Olivia Hillier (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister said that the poorest and most vulnerable lose out, but under the Government’s proposals it is precisely the people on benefits who are not being uprated to keep in line with inflation who are going to lose out the most. What has he got to say to that?
National Insurance Contributions (Increase of Thresholds) Bill — House of Commons, 2022-03-24
Topic: Social Welfare
Stephen Creswell Timms (Labour, Centre-left): It has been reported overnight that people on universal credit will see only about half of the gain from the measure that the Minister is bringing forward compared with those who are not on universal credit because the portion of people’s income that will not now be subject to 12% national insurance will instead be subject to the universal credit taper at 55%. Is that assessment correct?
National Insurance Contributions (Increase of Thresholds) Bill — House of Commons, 2022-03-24
Topic: Macroeconomics
Clive James Charles Betts (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister has talked about one side of the budget. The other side of the budget is spending. Local authorities provide incredibly important services that are of particular benefit to the poorest in society. Local authorities have suffered more than any other part of the public sector from the austerity period. The Government claimed that local authorities would get an increase in their spending power this year, but will he now confirm that, with the predicted level of inflation, they face a significant real-terms cut to their spending that will affect all the services that they provide?
National Insurance Contributions (Increase of Thresholds) Bill — House of Commons, 2022-03-24
Topic: Macroeconomics
James Ian Mearns (Labour, Centre-left): I am wondering how the Minister would suggest that a local authority such as mine in Gateshead innovates on that conundrum. When I ceased to be the deputy leader of the council in 2010, its net revenue budget was just over £300 million. This year, that budget is just over £200 million. It will take some innovating to balance that conundrum.
National Insurance Contributions (Increase of Thresholds) Bill — House of Commons, 2022-03-24
Topic: Labor
Stephen Creswell Timms (Labour, Centre-left): Mike Brewer, who used to be with the Institute for Fiscal Studies, has said this morning about the value of the £330 figure to the average employee: "If you are getting UC, then you lose 55% of that to a reduced UC award." I think that is a major issue for the House in evaluating the measure that the Chief Secretary is bringing forward. Could he please urgently clarify for us whether that is indeed the case?
National Insurance Contributions (Increase of Thresholds) Bill — House of Commons, 2022-03-24
Topic: Social Welfare
Stephen Creswell Timms (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and I apologise for intervening once again. He has made it clear that he is not able to answer the question about the effect of this measure on people claiming universal credit. Can he commit the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to giving us an answer on that point before the end of the debate? It is an important issue for the House to take into account when determining its decision on this measure.
National Insurance Contributions (Increase of Thresholds) Bill — House of Commons, 2022-03-24
Topic: Social Welfare
Mathew Richard Allen Rodda (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for giving way and for his reassurance to people contributing towards the state pension. The Chancellor did not actually mention the word "pensioners" yesterday. Does he recognise the enormous pressure on many pensioners who are struggling to get by on very modest incomes at a time of significant inflation? Is it not time that the Government looked again at their support for pensioners, in particular on heating bills?
National Insurance Contributions (Increase of Thresholds) Bill — House of Commons, 2022-03-24
Topic: Macroeconomics
James Stewart Murray (Labour, Centre-left): As we debate the Bill, I cannot help but notice it is becoming a bad habit of this Chancellor to rush national insurance legislation through Parliament in a day. A little over six months ago, I stood here setting out the view of the Opposition on the Government’s Health and Social Care Levy Bill, which was similarly rushed through all its stages in just one day. As we know well, that Bill introduced a new levy that would be preceded by an equivalent increase in national insurance contributions for employees and employers of 1.25%. Since that national insurance increase was agreed, it has become ever clearer that it will be the worst possible tax rise at the worst possible time The Opposition will support today’s Bill, as any help for people facing the Chancellor’s national insurance tax hike in April is something we welcome. There are benefits to raising the threshold at which people begin to pay national insurance, but we should be conscious that the Bill has more to do with the Chancellor’s increasingly desperate desire to paint himself as a tax cutter than it does with a well-thought-through package of measures to help people with the struggles they face. Even after the Bill passes, the tax burden in our country will still be at its highest in 70 years, and we are still the only G7 country to be raising taxes on working people this year. The Chancellor is making sleights of hand his speciality. As the Office for Budget Responsibility has pointed out, for every £6 he has taken in tax since he took on that role, yesterday he gave back just £1 The Chancellor has realised that his national insurance hike in April is wrong. Labour could have told him that six months ago. In fact, that is exactly what I told the Minister in September last year when we debated the Health and Social Care Levy Bill. We set out clearly our decision to vote against that Bill on Second Reading. We set out how it broke the Government’s promise not to increase national insurance, and instead raised taxes on employment that would disproportionately hit working families, young people, those on lower and middle incomes, and businesses trying to create more jobs in the wider economy, while leaving income from other sources untouched. We were not alone in criticising that tax rise. The British Chamber of Commerce warned: "A rise in National Insurance Contributions would represent a hammer blow to jobs growth at this crucial point in the UK’s economic recovery." At the same time the TUC general secretary, Frances O’Grady, criticised the Prime Minister for "raiding the pockets of low-paid workers, while leaving the wealthy barely touched."