argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Money Laundering and Tax Evasion (Azerbaijan) — House of Commons, 2017-10-19
Topic: Mixed Topics
Margaret Eve Hodge (Labour, Centre-left): I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for selecting this debate, and I thank the Minister for her attendance. I also thank the people who have helped me to prepare for this debate, particularly at The Guardian, Bellingcat, Transparency International and Global Witness We in Britain pride ourselves on our integrity, respectability and trustworthiness. We tell ourselves that this is a country that believes in high ethical standards of behaviour in the way we conduct ourselves as individuals, run our businesses and function as professionals. We preach to developing countries about how to stamp out corruption. We sell Britain to foreign investors by telling them that they can trust us, our laws, and our corporate rules and institutions Yet last month yet another bundle of leaked documents from yet another brave whistleblower, this time about Azerbaijan, revealed—yet again—that our self-belief is flawed. Many of the revelations and the allegations of corruption associated with the Azerbaijani ruling elite, as well as much of the evidence of money laundering, organised crime, tax evasion and bribery, come back to and are made possible by how the UK and our overseas territories choose to operate our corporate structures. Our persistent lack of transparency and our appallingly lax regulatory framework have made us the country of choice for every kleptocrat, crook and despot in the world. We have become the safe haven for dirty money. We are allowing money laundering and tax avoidance to take place on an industrial scale.
Money Laundering and Tax Evasion (Azerbaijan) — House of Commons, 2017-10-19
Topic: Mixed Topics
Rupa Asha Huq (Labour, Centre-left): Two years ago, the then Prime Minister declared that London was not "a place to stash dodgy cash" A year ago, in front of 40 Governments from around the world, the UK committed to a public register of foreign companies owning UK property to prevent those who are corrupt from being able "to move, launder and hide illicit funds through London’s property market" Yet we have seen zero progress on all that. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a disgrace, and that with all that has happened since, the need for a public register is stronger than ever?
Money Laundering and Tax Evasion (Azerbaijan) — House of Commons, 2017-10-19
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Nicholas Desmond John Smith (Labour, Centre-left): I congratulate my right hon. Friend, who has shown her usual great resilience in identifying financial skulduggery whenever she can; we worked together on looking at financial chicanery as fellow members of the Public Accounts Committee. Does she agree that much more detailed research is needed on this topic so that every angle and element of this huge finagle is properly understood?
Money Laundering and Tax Evasion (Azerbaijan) — House of Commons, 2017-10-19
Topic: Mixed Topics
Rupa Asha Huq (Labour, Centre-left): Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that since the flourish of the anti-corruption summit—and David Cameron has completely left the crime scene—this seems to have been put in the too-difficult-to-think-about box? If the Government really want a global Britain, they should table the necessary legislation as soon as possible and not use the excuse of Brexit to kick this into the long grass.
WTO Tariff Rate Quotas — House of Commons, 2017-10-12
Topic: Mixed Topics
Questions: What recent discussions he has had with the World Trade Organisation and his US counterpart on the division of WTO tariff rate quotas between the UK and the EU after the UK leaves the EU.
Kerry Gillian McCarthy (Labour, Centre-left): I understand that Britain and the EU have now formally informed WTO members of how they would like quotas to be split after Brexit, but the Trump Administration and seven WTO members have already rejected the proposals. What will the Secretary of State do to ensure that a deal on quotas is achieved?
Discrimination Claims: Tribunal Fees — House of Commons, 2017-10-12
Topic: Civil Rights
Questions: What steps she is taking to ensure that women who were unable to pursue pregnancy and maternity discrimination claims due to the cost of employment tribunal fees are able to bring forward their cases.; What steps she is taking to ensure that women who were unable to pursue pregnancy and maternity discrimination claims due to the cost of employment tribunal fees are able to bring forward their cases.
Daniel Stephen Zeichner (Labour, Centre-left): The Government’s research into maternity-related discrimination shows that one in nine mothers reports that they were either dismissed, made redundant or treated so badly that they had to leave their job. Following the Supreme Court case brought by Unison, the union I used to work for, what specific action are the Government taking to identify those who could have brought claims but did not because the Government acted unlawfully?
Gender Pay Gap — House of Commons, 2017-10-12
Topic: Mixed Topics
David George Hanson (Labour, Centre-left): The gender pay gap remains as high as 34% in the east midlands. In my region in Wales, it is now 18%. That is largely due to the efforts of the Welsh Assembly Government in trying to support organisations in Wales, funded by the European social fund. What assessment has the Minister made of the use of that fund to help to close the gender pay gap? Will she examine this, to replicate it post-Brexit?
Gender Pay Gap — House of Commons, 2017-10-12
Topic: Civil Rights
Dawn Petula Butler (Labour, Centre-left): Two days ago, the First Secretary of State made a statement to the House on the race disparity audit. He also told the House, as a white man with privilege, that he knew more about race than me—a black women with lived experiences—and Opposition Members, who are a broad church. As there are seven Ministers here today, will the Minister for Women and Equalities highlight seven of her Government’s policies, new or old, over the past seven years—seven is the magic number—that have helped to narrow the inequalities in our country?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2017-10-12
Topic: Immigration
Mohammad Yasin (Labour, Centre-left): The High Court judgment on Monday found that the Government’s 2016 redefinition of torture for immigration purposes was unlawful. Will the Government now widen the definition of torture so that vulnerable women who have been victims of abuse and trafficking who are currently held in Yarl’s Wood can be immediately released?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2017-10-12
Topic: Civil Rights
Questions: While I welcome the Prime Minister’s initiative to tackle ethnic inequality in targeted areas, including Kirklees, can the Minister explain what that will actually do to improve the lives of my constituents?; May I therefore press the Minister on the period question, because I find her attitude a little harsh and I wonder whether she will review it in the light of what has been said today? I think the matter needs a second look. I think her approach is a little harsh in terms of, first, schools having to stump up money for sanitary pads and, secondly, blaming parents. Periods are just one of those things; we cannot blame parents for periods.
Gerard Killen (Labour, Centre-left): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Following yesterday’s High Court decision to allow a full judicial review of the Government’s policy, does the Minister agree that it is time for the UK to join countries such as Ireland and Australia in issuing gender-neutral passports?
Prisons Policy/HMP Long Lartin — House of Commons, 2017-10-12
Topic: Mixed Topics
Paul John Sweeney (Labour, Centre-left): This month the inspectorate reported that there was a major under-prescription of methadone at Low Moss prison near my constituency and also of the anti-overdose drug naloxone. Will the Minister consider the impact that the under-prescribing of these critical drugs may have on the safety of the prison population?
Retail Energy — House of Commons, 2017-10-12
Topic: Mixed Topics
Edward Samuel Miliband (Labour, Centre-left): Given that this policy was once described from the Dispatch Box as "a con", "a joke", "disastrous" and "living in a Marxist universe", it would be churlish not to welcome the Secretary of State’s conversion to it today. Well done. He is very welcome to the party. However, I still think his voyage into the Marxist universe is a bit slow, if I can put it that way, because this is a draft Bill. It is four months since the general election. He said that there would be help this winter. He could have chosen to fast-track this measure with the Opposition Front Bench and get the help in now. Why so slow? Why not do it now?
Retail Energy — House of Commons, 2017-10-12
Topic: Mixed Topics
John Timothy Grogan (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State has placed some emphasis on the roll-out of smart meters by 2020. How does he react to the figures published in The Daily Telegraph over the summer revealing that in the case of some companies, fewer than one in five consumers were accepting the offer of a smart meter?
Clean Growth Strategy — House of Commons, 2017-10-12
Topic: Mixed Topics
Alexander Cunningham (Labour, Centre-left): I was not there myself, but the Minister told the Tory party conference that she viewed carbon capture and storage as a vital technology for the future, and I welcome its revival on the Government’s policy platform. They are certainly seeing sense. CCS is also vital for Teesside and for the jobs that the Minister talked about. Will she back the Teesside Collective project with real resources and, as she develops new initiatives, engage with the all-party parliamentary group on carbon capture and storage, which I chair?
Clean Growth Strategy — House of Commons, 2017-10-12
Topic: Mixed Topics
John Timothy Grogan (Labour, Centre-left): I welcome today’s announcement about carbon capture and storage. Should I tell the regional dinner of the Yorkshire and Humber CBI, meeting in Leeds tonight, that there is fresh hope for the most ambitious carbon capture and storage project ever in this country—the White Rose pipeline project, which is backed by many in God’s own county?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2017-10-12
Topic: Other
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): As the hon. Gentleman is aware, that is not really a matter for the Chair. It is the responsibility of each Member to make things accurate when they make mistakes. Members do inadvertently make mistakes, but that has been corrected and it is certainly now on the record.
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2017-10-12
Topic: Other
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): I was not in the Chair at the time and I have no idea what happened, but I am sure Mr Speaker would not get things wrong. If there was a mistake, it would have been a genuine mistake, as all these things are in the Chamber.
Leaving the EU: Data Protection — House of Commons, 2017-10-12
Topic: Civil Rights
Stephen Creswell Timms (Labour, Centre-left): I very much agree with the points that the Minister is making and the ambition he is setting out. Will he commit to securing an adequacy agreement from the EU, so that the free flow of personal data, which he rightly says is important, can continue?
Leaving the EU: Data Protection — House of Commons, 2017-10-12
Topic: Civil Rights
Darren Paul Jones (Labour, Centre-left): On the point about what the general data protection regulation provides as an opportunity, does the Minister recognise that it will actually be implemented through a statutory instrument under the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill? Does he agree that we should therefore have a debate in the House on that SI when we get the opportunity?
Leaving the EU: Data Protection — House of Commons, 2017-10-12
Topic: Civil Rights
Stephen Creswell Timms (Labour, Centre-left): I am glad that the Minister is committed to seeking this adequacy agreement. Does he recognise that one step that will make that a bit harder—perhaps significantly harder—is the fact that under the terms of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, article 8 of the European charter of fundamental rights will no longer be part of UK law? That creates uncertainty about how our data protection law will work. Appeal decisions frequently refer to the actual article, which is part of UK law at the moment. Will he therefore support amendment 151 to the Bill, which would oblige the Government to put back into law the clear assertion that everyone has a right that their personal data is protected?
Leaving the EU: Data Protection — House of Commons, 2017-10-12
Topic: Civil Rights
Kevin Denis Brennan (Labour, Centre-left): Well, at least the Minister did not claim that Jane Austen was our greatest living author—I will give him credit for that I give the Minister and the Government credit for taking up our policy of having a transitional period with regard to Brexit to give themselves a little more time. The price of getting data protection wrong would obviously be enormous, because so many companies rely on transmitting data across the single market For many years, we have talked of the four freedoms—the free movement of goods, services, capital and people—but there is a fifth freedom, because, in reality, we have created one of the world’s leading regimes for data transfer, which has allowed our tech companies to grow, flourish and prosper. It would be a disaster if any division, dithering or incompetence around the Brexit negotiations now imperilled that achievement The Government have set themselves a very tight schedule for passing the Bill into law before the end of April 2018. As I have indicated, the Opposition will support the main principles of the Bill, but there is a great deal of work still to be done, with several areas needing to be scrutinised, and the Government need to be prepared to amend the Bill to rectify some of the inadequacies I have indicated during my remarks All of us in this place owe it to the public, and especially to children, to get this legislation right. We cannot afford to fail just because of the dysfunctionality at the heart of the Government, and I hope the Minister will not be complacent on that score.
Leaving the EU: Data Protection — House of Commons, 2017-10-12
Topic: Other
Kevin Denis Brennan (Labour, Centre-left): I am listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman’s speech. If he is saying that we should not participate in the adequacy arrangements, is he disagreeing with the Minister’s comments that we should have an arrangement akin to the adequacy requirements?
Leaving the EU: Data Protection — House of Commons, 2017-10-12
Topic: Civil Rights
Stephen Creswell Timms (Labour, Centre-left): No, certainly not. I am delighted that my Labour colleagues in the European Parliament have retained their place in the Socialist group and therefore their influence. The problem for Britain has been that, by leaving the EPP, Conservative MEPs have had much less influence. I am not saying that they have not had any influence—that is not at all the point I am making—but they have had a great deal less. Therefore, the British Government have been much less able to get their way in Brussels than previous Conservative and Labour Governments, and that is what inexorably led to the referendum result The key foundation stone for data protection regulation in Britain has been article 8 of the European charter of fundamental rights, which states: "Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her." The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill—the Minister and I had an exchange about this earlier in the debate—removes the charter of fundamental rights from UK law, so article 8 will no longer apply. The Select Committee on Exiting the European Union took evidence on that point from lawyers yesterday. Sir Stephen Laws, former first parliamentary counsel, argued that the removal of article 8 was a good thing because nobody can quite know exactly what it really means, so that we end up with judges deciding in appeal cases, which makes the law uncertain. He made a very reasonable case. Far better, he said, for Parliament to decide the detailed law and regulations, so that everyone knows where they stand However, Dr Charlotte O’Brien of York Law School pointed out that in practice, judges deciding points of data protection law in Britain often refer explicitly to article 8. A reading of their judgments suggests that article 8 frequently sways the decisions that they reach, so it is likely that its removal will mean that their future judgments will be different from those that they have made up until now. We can have an interesting debate about which arrangement is better, and, as I have said, I think that Sir Stephen Laws made a perfectly good case. Our problem, however, is that we have to achieve a declaration from the European Commission that UK data protection law is adequate. That is crucial for the future of our economy.
Leaving the EU: Data Protection — House of Commons, 2017-10-12
Topic: Civil Rights
Stephen Creswell Timms (Labour, Centre-left): The proposal is that article 8 will not be there any more. The problem is this: where in the European acquis, which is being brought into UK law, is the clear statement that everyone has the right to have their personal data protected? It is not there, and if it is not there, it will be significantly harder for the European Union to recognise that UK data protection law is adequate.
Leaving the EU: Data Protection — House of Commons, 2017-10-12
Topic: Civil Rights
Stephen Creswell Timms (Labour, Centre-left): The problem is that it is not. There is no clear assertion anywhere in UK law—other than, at present, in article 8—that everyone has the right to have their personal data protected. As I have said, and as was said in the Select Committee yesterday, judges, when making judgments on these matters in appeal cases, often refer to the wording of that article to reach their conclusions There is a perfectly good case for arguing that it is better not to have these slightly vague declarations, because the law is clearer if it is all spelt out in legislation that has gone through Parliament, but our problem is that that is not how the matter is looked at in Brussels. Over the next year and a half or so, the Minister has to persuade people in Brussels that our data protection is adequate, and if we no longer have a clear statement in UK law that everyone’s personal data is protected, that task will be a good deal harder.
Leaving the EU: Data Protection — House of Commons, 2017-10-12
Topic: Mixed Topics
Daniel Stephen Zeichner (Labour, Centre-left): My right hon. Friend is making extremely important points. The very fact that we are having the debate shows that there is uncertainty. When those who may be not so friendly to us in other parts of Europe are looking for cause to be difficult, does that not absolutely give them that cause?
Leaving the EU: Data Protection — House of Commons, 2017-10-12
Topic: Mixed Topics
Stephen Creswell Timms (Labour, Centre-left): As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on data analytics, my hon. Friend is in a very good position to understand just how important this is for our economy. He is absolutely right: if we open up that uncertainty in our regulatory arrangements, it will be harder, perhaps impossible, to achieve the adequacy agreement that we need I am grateful to the Minister for committing himself to seeking that adequacy agreement. Like the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara), I was slightly concerned about what he meant when he referred to something "akin to" an adequacy agreement. What we need is an adequacy agreement that is formally defined. We need that declaration from the Commission, so that UK businesses can continue to exchange personal data with businesses in other EU member states.
Leaving the EU: Data Protection — House of Commons, 2017-10-12
Topic: Mixed Topics
Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Labour, Centre-left): My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and some very pertinent points. Many tech firms and other companies in my constituency are concerned: we need to have such agreements in place—in particular, on data protection—and not having them in place will have a hugely detrimental impact. Does my right hon. Friend agree?
Leaving the EU: Data Protection — House of Commons, 2017-10-12
Topic: Mixed Topics
Stephen Creswell Timms (Labour, Centre-left): The firms in my hon. Friend’s constituency are absolutely right. If we do not achieve that adequacy declaration, it will become illegal for personal data to be exchanged between the UK and the countries of the EU, and there will no longer be a lawful basis for large swathes of businesses in the country to continue to operate.
Leaving the EU: Data Protection — House of Commons, 2017-10-12
Topic: Civil Rights
Stephen Creswell Timms (Labour, Centre-left): I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his work on that Committee, and his suggestion could well solve the problem. What I have proposed is amendment 151 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, to require Ministers to put on to the statute book a clear statement that UK citizens have a fundamental right to the protection of their personal data. But he is right that we could equally well insert that wording into the Data Protection Bill, which is before the House of Lords at present. I should also point out that, splendid though it is, I cannot claim credit for the wording of my amendment, as it was drafted by techUK, in recognition of the issue’s importance to the industry I want to make a final point about the Data Protection Bill and postal direct marketing. I welcome the fact that the Government are implementing the GDPR, or general data protection regulation, but the Bill changes the basis for opting out of postal direct mail communications. At present, if somebody does not want to receive advertising addressed to them through the post, they can opt out by signing up to a register. As I understand it, the Bill will change that and companies will not be allowed to send people postal direct mail unless they opt into receiving it. I think that is the current arrangement for direct email, but there has been an opt-out arrangement for postal direct mail until now. There is a lot of concern that that change would be very damaging to the UK direct mail industry, which is a substantial industry, and that it is not required by the wording of the GDPR; indeed, legal advice has been taken on this point and the GDPR does not require that change to be made. If that is right, the Government are gold-plating the regulations that have come to us from the EU. They are absolutely right to be implementing the GDPR and to be doing so scrupulously, but they should not be gold-plating them, as I fear they might be in this case I am grateful to have had the chance to set out to the House a bit more fully the thinking behind my amendment to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, and hope I might have persuaded the Minister that, after all, it might be an amendment that he can support.