argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Northern Ireland Budget Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-13
Topic: Mixed Topics
Owen Smith (Labour, Centre-left): I am encouraged to hear the hon. Gentleman remind the House of his support for devolution. I remind the House that the DUP has always strongly supported devolution, even in periods when some in Unionism were less keen on the prospect of devolution. History is important in all this The question for us, therefore, is how we see devolution restored, and there is a question here for the Secretary of State. It is not a matter of blame but a statement of fact that we are almost 11 months on from the collapse of the Northern Ireland institutions: 11 months of dialogue, largely behind closed doors, between the two largest parties, Sinn Féin and the DUP, which has come to nought; 11 months, effectively, of banging our heads against a brick wall and failing to make substantive progress. The Secretary of State will tell us we have made progress, but people in Northern Ireland want to know where it is, because it has not been spelled out to them—or to me—at any point over the past 11 months. It is clear that what we have been doing repeatedly over those 11 months has not being working, and there is no reason for us to assume that it will be 12th time lucky The question for the Secretary of State, therefore, is what is he going to do differently—not what is he going to do the same as he has been doing for the past 11 months —to take this process forward? My colleagues and I would like to urge him to do some specific things and to consider some extra ways in which he can take the process forward. We do so built on the experience we have with our proud record of helping to facilitate breakthroughs in devolution, including the establishment, of course, of the Good Friday agreement and all the institutions that stem from it I urge the Secretary of State, first, to set out a road map for how he is going to get the institutions back up and running and how he is going to provide us with some clarity on the steps he plans to take over the next few months. Keeping us in the dark and, out of thin air, having a series of meetings behind closed doors between the two parties is not working and is not delivering a breakthrough Secondly, and most importantly perhaps, will the Secretary of State consider the prospect of an independent chair to come in to help to give new energy and impetus to the talks? Labour Members know that that was incredibly important as a vehicle for taking things forward. Indeed, I think that it is true to say that without Senator George Mitchell, in particular, we might not have seen the Good Friday/Belfast agreement—that is how important independent eyes have been in this process. If he is not prepared to learn from the experience of George Mitchell and others, such as my right hon. Friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen, why not? Why are we not considering that step, because it has worked in the past and should be considered in the future?
Northern Ireland Budget Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-13
Topic: Mixed Topics
Owen Smith (Labour, Centre-left): I am not sure that that is entirely fair. As I said, in the absence of a nationalist voice in this House, we need to make sure that we seek fairly to represent both sides of the debate. The nationalists have argued that an aspect of the current impasse is the failure to make progress on the issue of the Irish language, and in particular on a stand-alone Irish language Act.
Northern Ireland Budget Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-13
Topic: Civil Rights
Owen Smith (Labour, Centre-left): If the right hon. Gentleman wants to tell me that we will make progress on that and that the prospect of a stand-alone Irish language Act is on the cards, that would obviously be a breakthrough, but I am not sure that he is going to do so.
Northern Ireland Budget Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-13
Topic: Mixed Topics
Catharine Letitia Hoey (Labour, Centre-left): I thank my party friend and colleague. He said something about Labour being there, and I wondered whether that meant that he was about to announce that, finally, the Labour party will allow people in Northern Ireland not just to join—it has done that only recently—but to put up candidates?
Shortage of Doctors: Medical Provision — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Immigration
Benjamin Peter James Bradshaw (Labour, Centre-left): All four witnesses who gave evidence to the Health Committee inquiry into the current workforce crisis last week described the current situation as "unprecedented". Janet Davies, the head of the Royal College of Nursing, said that if Brexit happened, it would be devastating. Does the Secretary of State accept that if there is no deal next month on the rights of EU nationals, the current stream of EU workers leaving our NHS and social care system will become a flood?
Tax Avoidance and Evasion — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Mixed Topics
Angela Eagle (Labour, Centre-left): Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways of trying to deal with this increasingly serious issue is to have openness and transparency in all funds held offshore, so that those who are doing this have to face the legitimate scrutiny of taxpayers in this country?
Tax Avoidance and Evasion — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Mixed Topics
Catherine McKinnell (Labour, Centre-left): I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does she share my concern about the complacency being shown today? Cutting down on global tax abuse clearly requires international co-operation. As we exit the EU, does she share my concern that this ambition not be damaged by our exit but be strengthened by our actions domestically and internationally?
Tax Avoidance and Evasion — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Margaret Eve Hodge (Labour, Centre-left): I want to make some progress, because a lot of people want to speak in what is a two-hour debate Last week, our papers were filled with scams and scandals concerning celebrities, from the self-appointed philanthropist Bono to the popular actors in "Mrs Brown’s Boys": stories that tainted the reputation of our much-loved royal family; revelations about establishment figures in politics, such as Lord Ashcroft and Lord Sassoon; and further evidence that corporations such as Apple deliberately establish artificial financial structures that have no other purpose than to avoid tax. I want to focus, however, on the systemic issues that these stories illustrate. It is the systemic issues that we need to consider if we are to make progress I will start with two comments arising from what we have learnt from the Paradise papers—observations that help us to understand what is wrong with our system. Appleby, the firm of lawyers at the heart of the Paradise papers, is one of the few offshore law practices that belong to the "offshore magic circle" of service providers. Indeed, Appleby was named offshore firm of the year by "The Legal 500" in 2015. Yet the Paradise papers reveal that the firm was criticised no less than 12 times over a 10-year period in reports issued by regulators in UK tax havens: the British Virgin Islands, the Isle of Man, the Cayman Islands and Bermuda Appleby was criticised for its failure to comply with regulations designed to stop the funding of terrorism and prevent money laundering. The reports talked of "persistent failures and deficiencies", "severe shortcomings" and "a highly significant weakness in the adequacy of the organisation’s systems and controls and a deficiency in meeting its regulatory requirements." Further documents reveal that Appleby simply ignored these critical reports and failed to change its procedures, despite strong words from the regulatory bodies. Even the authorities on the British Virgin Islands found, after an inspection of Appleby, that the firm had "contravened financial services legislation…the anti-money-laundering code of practice 2008 and the anti-money-laundering regulations 2008" and had "severe shortcomings with a majority of the legislation, with prudential standards and good practice requirements not being met." Our regulatory frameworks are so weak that law firms can ignore or break the law with complete impunity. It is hopeless having self-regulation, national and international codes of practice and regulatory bodies with legal powers, if in practice they fail to secure compliance and good behaviour. The lawyers clearly just did not give a damn, and nobody held them to account.
Tax Avoidance and Evasion — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Other
Margaret Eve Hodge (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister did raise that point last week, and the House should know that it is not in the gift of either The Guardian or "Panorama" to release those papers. They are not able to do that.
Tax Avoidance and Evasion — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Other
Peter Christopher Dowd (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Gentleman can extrapolate all he wants. I could extrapolate all sorts of figures, but I am not going to get into that. We will no doubt come back to the matter in due course at the Budget.
Tax Avoidance and Evasion — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Housing
Stella Judith Creasy (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Gentleman is talking about property prices. He just mentioned the Government’s decision to close the loophole whereby foreign owners of residential properties were avoiding capital gains tax. Does he regret not joining with the Opposition to close the loophole regarding commercial properties? That is having exactly the same impact on the property market.
Tax Avoidance and Evasion — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Mixed Topics
Stella Judith Creasy (Labour, Centre-left): I will not give way at this point, because I have only two minutes left Nine offshore infrastructure companies own between 50% and 100% of the equity in 335 PFI companies, which account for 45% of all projects. Twelve companies have equity in 74% of all current projects. At this point, we do not know what tax is being held overseas as a result—tax that was part of the PFI value-for-money assessment. These papers reveal how that happens. Secondly, on avoidance of capital gains tax, these papers reveal that Blackstone avoided stamp duty and capital gains tax on UK commercial property to a value of around £66 billion These are all choices. At the end of the day, we know that the lawyers involved are like water moving towards the sea—they will follow the easiest route. The problem here is politicians, not lawyers.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Other
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): Let us not worry too much about time because we are eating away at it at the moment. It is a matter to be decided in the debate, not for me to decide. When we get there, we will know better. Let us not take up more time now.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Immigration
Frank Field (Labour, Centre-left): I said that I would give way as soon as I had finished explaining the new clause and the three new clauses attached to it. Finally, we need a safe haven. Speaking of which, I give way to my hon. Friend.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Other
Stephen John Doughty (Labour, Centre-left): I am confused by my right hon. Friend’s suggestion that all Labour voters supported his position, because the majority of them did not. The majority of Labour Members do not support his position either. That is an important point, so will he correct the record?
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Other
Frank Field (Labour, Centre-left): I happily add to the record. It makes some people’s circumstances more difficult, but I said that generally speaking, the larger the Labour majority in the general election and the bigger the turnout in the last general election, the one before that and the one before that, the more likely constituents were to vote leave.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Civil Rights
Frank Field (Labour, Centre-left): I have to confess to receiving the pamphlet and throwing it in the bin immediately. I never believed that the sort of campaign we fought, with false truths on both sides, enhanced our standing as a political class. Neither did it address the very serious issues of what people thought about their own identity, their community’s identity, their country’s identity and their country’s position in the world, on which we all know that people take different views. The idea that a Government pamphlet was going to help us—dear God!
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Other
Louise Joyce Ellman (Labour, Centre-left): I note that my right hon. Friend qualified his earlier statement, but does he accept that at the last general election, more than 85% of Liverpool, Riverside constituents voted for the Labour candidate, and that 73% of them voted to remain? Does he accept that the people of Liverpool, Riverside have great wisdom, and that that ought to be followed?
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Other
Frank Field (Labour, Centre-left): If I did, it would mean that the voters of Birkenhead did not have wisdom, which is the very opposite of my hon. Friend’s point. I am not going to put my head in that noose.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Other
Frank Field (Labour, Centre-left): Clearly, my suggestion is proving shocking to my right hon. and hon. Friends, but it will be a test of whether we are intent on the best possible terms, whether we have a clear position and whether we are putting our country first.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Other
Alison McGovern (Labour, Centre-left): I thank my right hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way. Does he agree that the reason why we ought to have such cross-party co-operation is that this issue is not funny or a joke; it is about the future of our country? That is why we should listen to everyone in this place, and not just act in the narrow interests of the Tory party.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Immigration
Frank Field (Labour, Centre-left): No, I will not give way. I want other people to be able to contribute to the debate The second reason why I feel disappointment at the Government’s stance is that they are misreading the other side with whom we are negotiating. A British assumption is always to allow give and take, but we now have the Barnier rule of all take and no give. I will in a moment comment on how we should respond to that. Anybody who is serious, as all of us in the Committee have been, about wishing to award equal status and citizenship to EU citizens in this country know that those negotiations could have been over in half an hour. It was never ever the intention but for the other side to tick that off and say it was very good. Millions of people could have been put at their ease about their lives—both Britons living in the European Union and European citizens, as they will become, living in Britain—and we should consider that very carefully in our negotiations from now on The third disappointment is that the Government have produced such a Bill. When we were campaigning to leave, I thought we would have a Bill with two, three or four clauses to get us out. I know that the Government have been beguiled by its first title—the great repeal Bill—with some group of clever people thinking it can be great only if it is large, rather than aiming to be effective. I do not believe that a Bill of this size, timetabled as it will be to deliver it for the Government, actually stands much chance of getting through the House of Lords. Hence, my emphasis on the rescue launch waiting in the form of my four new clauses, including this new clause, which I have had such pleasure in moving.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Housing
Frank Field (Labour, Centre-left): I have been corrected and I withdraw my comment, but the idea that the biggest decisions of our lives, such as that to buy a house, are the ones that we take the most time over is not borne out by any research whatsoever. I do seriously apologise to my right hon. Friend.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Other
Frank Field (Labour, Centre-left): I would love the Government to move an amendment specifying 23 hours and 59 minutes on the day we leave, but it should be on our time, not on others’ time or terms. Will they move that amendment to my new clause at a later stage?
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Other
Christopher Paul Farrelly (Labour, Centre-left): I wanted to make this intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), but he would not take it I commend the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), and I seek his opinion on new clause 49. The new clause is linked to other new clauses, but if it is agreed there is no guarantee that the other new clauses will be agreed. Passing new clause 49 would therefore do a grave disservice to this country. Will he make clear the Opposition Front Bench’s position on new clause 49?
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Other
Kevin Denis Brennan (Labour, Centre-left): Despite what the right hon. and learned Gentleman just said, is not it fortunate that the Government have time to rethink this? It has already been made clear that the Government and the Opposition will oppose the new clause of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field). The Government amendment on the matter will not be considered until the eighth day in Committee. Therefore, is not there ample time for the Government—without losing face—to listen to the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s good sense and withdraw their amendment before that time?
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Other
George Edward Howarth (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Dame Rosie. Delightful though it is to sit listening to the hon. Gentleman expatiate on all manner of things, I am struggling to discover what this can possibly have to do with new clause 49—or, for that matter, any of the amendments and new clauses linked to it.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Other
Rosalie Winterton (Labour, Centre-left): Order. I been generous in allowing the hon. Gentleman to range over a number of subjects, but I gently remind him that there are a lot of speakers in this debate, so I am sure his list about the European Court of Justice is now a little shorter than it was before.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Mixed Topics
Stephen John Doughty (Labour, Centre-left): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the crucial issue is not the one he deals with in amendment 79, but whether the Government respond to the cross-party amendments about the Scotland and Wales Acts and other important matters, in line with what the Scottish and Welsh Governments have said? Responding to those amendments in a positive way would show true respect for the constitutional settlement, which the Government have yet to show.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Mixed Topics
George Edward Howarth (Labour, Centre-left): I will answer precisely that point before I conclude, but if the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me I will do so in my own particular way. The second test to apply is fairly straightforward: are we heading into economic disaster? At this stage, we are unable to say. We do not know what the trade terms will be and we do not know how they will affect businesses and workforces. All of that is to be negotiated. If, at the end of the process, all those questions have been answered to my satisfaction and that of my constituents, I could vote, provided I am given the opportunity, to leave the European Union. At this stage, however, there is such a lack of clarity about where we stand and where we will get to that I am not prepared to give that commitment. I cannot say to my constituents that everything they voted for will not happen, on top of which it will be economically disastrous for us I say to the Government: get on with the negotiations, but we want the opportunity to say this is not right for our constituents. I will vote for the amendments tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield and my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford to make sure that we have exactly that opportunity.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Other
Peter John Kyle (Labour, Centre-left): Sir Winston Churchill said that the role of an MP was to put country first, constituency second and party third. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, if the Government come back with a bad deal, allowing it to go forward would put none of those three first?
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Other
Frank Field (Labour, Centre-left): As I think the right hon. Gentleman should, given what he was imputing. The new clause was politically inspired, of course, because I wanted to see a date in the Bill. If he is suggesting that someone else was directing the kind of new clause I should table, he might want to have a word with the Opposition Whips to find out how easy a job that is. [Laughter.]
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Other
Christopher Michael Leslie (Labour, Centre-left): As my hon. Friend says, I am starting to wonder whether the Government will reverse ferret a little bit on the fixed date. We will wait and see—I think the vote will come up on day eight. It is obvious that it has not been as thought through as it should have been.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Mixed Topics
Christopher Michael Leslie (Labour, Centre-left): I fear that that scenario is beginning to loom on the horizon. We know the Prime Minister does not want that because she says she wants the transitional arrangement, but more flesh has to be put on the bones in terms of how the UK envisages the transition and at the European Council in December. If a transition deal is not signalled, with more flesh put on the bone in December, a lot of firms will say, not unreasonably, "We have to plan for a scenario in which we are not legally able to sell our services to the 500 million customers across the other 27 countries." We hear that American corporations that currently have their base in London are looking at all sorts of convoluted branch-back arrangements, so that they can subsidiarise back into the UK. This is getting terribly complicated and very expensive. Ultimately, all these issues will hit consumers and workers in the UK. It will have a very practical effect on the lives of many of our constituents.