argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Major Infrastructure Projects — House of Commons, 2017-11-28
Topic: Macroeconomics
Anthony Joseph Lloyd (Labour, Centre-left): The Chancellor will know that even after the Budget the south-east and London will still receive a disproportionate share of infrastructure spending. Will he undertake to give an annual report to Parliament detailing both the spending and the likely economic impact of that spending across different regions?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2017-11-28
Topic: Macroeconomics
Danielle Rowley (Labour, Centre-left): Members will have heard last week about the Government’s failure on productivity and growth and about the OBR’s downward revision of its forecast for the economy over the current Parliament. Can the Chancellor tell us how much worse off someone on the national living wage will be in 2020, compared with the forecast in March, as a result of the Government’s failure on wages?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2017-11-28
Topic: Macroeconomics
Questions: Small businesses in my constituency suffer from late payments from their larger clients. Some firms have been forced to accept discounts of up to 10% just to get paid within 90 days. The Government have introduced welcome measures to make large firms behave more transparently on payments, but does the Chancellor stand ready to take further action to stop big firms using small businesses as a source of cheap loans?
John Martin McDonnell (Labour, Centre-left): Why have the Government not brought forward an amendment of the law resolution in today’s Budget resolutions? This is almost unprecedented and a tactic used only when the issue to be dealt with is urgent. It will restrict the ability of hon. Members on both sides of the House to move amendments and to address the range of economic and social needs of our community.
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2017-11-28
Topic: Social Welfare
Questions: Small businesses in my constituency suffer from late payments from their larger clients. Some firms have been forced to accept discounts of up to 10% just to get paid within 90 days. The Government have introduced welcome measures to make large firms behave more transparently on payments, but does the Chancellor stand ready to take further action to stop big firms using small businesses as a source of cheap loans?
John Martin McDonnell (Labour, Centre-left): I will tell the Chancellor why he did not bring forward an amendment of the law resolution: it is because he wishes to avoid debate on some of the key issues facing our communities. Let me raise one of those questions, which was totally neglected last week in the Budget. The Chancellor received representations from Action for Children, the Local Government Association and Barnardo’s on the crisis in children’s services. Sir Tony Hawkhead, chief executive of Action for Children, has said that "children’s services are on an unstable and dangerous footing. We’re calling on the Government to prioritise the services children need before this crisis turns into a catastrophe". What was in the Chancellor’s mind when he prioritised giving nearly £5 billion to the banks rather than plugging the gap in children’s services for those most in need in our society?
Leaving the EU: Sectoral Impact Assessments — House of Commons, 2017-11-28
Topic: International Affairs
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union if he will make a statement on the release of the impact assessments arising from sectoral analysis carried out by Her Majesty’s Ministers to the Select Committee on Exiting the European Union.
Leaving the EU: Sectoral Impact Assessments — House of Commons, 2017-11-28
Topic: Government Operations
Hilary James Benn (Labour, Centre-left): I welcome the willingness of the Secretary of State to appear before the Select Committee—a decision that we made this morning. May I ask the Minister to convey to him our wish that he should do so very speedily indeed Given that it is quite clear that the Select Committee has received edited documents—in other words, they do not contain everything that is in the possession of the Government—may I say to the Minister that that is not in keeping with the motion passed by the House of Commons? I also say to him that I made it very clear to the Secretary of State what procedure the Select Committee would use to consider the reports and, if I may put it like this, I do object to any suggestion that the Select Committee, or I as Chair, cannot be trusted to do our job.
Leaving the EU: Sectoral Impact Assessments — House of Commons, 2017-11-28
Topic: Government Operations
Seema Malhotra-Saluja (Labour, Centre-left): In June, the Secretary of State said on "The Andrew Marr Show" that "We’ve got 50, nearly 60 sector analyses already done." In September, that was reiterated in response to my freedom of information request. In October, the Secretary of State confirmed that to our Committee and said that the reports were in "excruciating detail" and that the Prime Minister had seen the summaries. In November, we heard that they never existed. On what basis can completed reports be uncompleted, and on what basis is it right that the Government do anything other than give the reports in full to the Select Committee, in line with the resolution of this House?
Leaving the EU: Sectoral Impact Assessments — House of Commons, 2017-11-28
Topic: International Affairs
Patrick Bosco McFadden (Labour, Centre-left): This situation is entirely of the Government’s making. The motion passed by this House did not give the Government discretion to take this information and decide for themselves what to give to the Select Committee and what not to give to the Select Committee. The Government have not complied with the motion, which they did not resist. There is another underlying point here—apart from questions of parliamentary privilege and contempt—and it is this: do we believe that the public have a right to know the consequences of the options facing the country on Brexit? I believe that they do. Does the Minister agree?
Leaving the EU: Sectoral Impact Assessments — House of Commons, 2017-11-28
Topic: Government Operations
Stephen Nathan Kinnock (Labour, Centre-left): In his letter of 2 November, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), the Chair of the Select Committee, wrote: "once the material has been provided to the committee, I would be very happy to discuss with you any particular concerns you may have about publication of parts of the material so that the committee can take these into account in making its decision on release." On 27 November, the Secretary of State wrote: "we have received no assurances from the committee regarding how any information passed will be used." Does the Minister agree that that letter is a blatant misrepresentation of what was agreed and that the Secretary of State should withdraw that remark and apologise for it to my right hon. Friend?
Leaving the EU: Sectoral Impact Assessments — House of Commons, 2017-11-28
Topic: International Affairs
Benjamin Peter James Bradshaw (Labour, Centre-left): The main issues dividing the House at this stage in the Brexit negotiations are our continued membership of the customs union and of the single market. Ministers say constantly that they do not want to reveal anything that could weaken their negotiating hand, but the Government have made their position clear and the European Union has accepted that the Government want a hard Brexit, so why would it damage the Government’s negotiating position to put that information out? Can the Minister confirm that the information in the edited documents will help Members to reach a view on whether we should stay in the customs union and the single market?
Leaving the EU: Sectoral Impact Assessments — House of Commons, 2017-11-28
Topic: International Affairs
Stephen John Doughty (Labour, Centre-left): The crucial issue is the Government’s failure to be open and transparent with the public and Parliament about the consequences of their approach to Brexit. They are not just doing that with regard to these papers, because they also refuse to give clear examples of the spending reprioritisation that is taking place in Departments as a result of the assessments in the papers and the Government’s policies on Brexit. Will the Government publish a breakdown of the funding that they are giving each Department to cope with their approach to Brexit?
Leaving the EU: Sectoral Impact Assessments — House of Commons, 2017-11-28
Topic: Government Operations
Angela Eagle (Labour, Centre-left): This is not my definition of taking back control. This huge mess that the Government have got themselves into shows the limits of their clever-clever tactic of not engaging with Opposition motions by sitting on their hands. Despite what the Minister says, the fact is that a Humble Address, which it is compulsory for the Government to act on, has been carried. It calls not for the documents to be edited and not for them to be changed—that job now goes to the Select Committee. The Government have to get on and publish these documents, and they have to publish them now.
Leaving the EU: Sectoral Impact Assessments — House of Commons, 2017-11-28
Topic: Government Operations
David Lindon Lammy (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister will understand that it is important that the Executive get on with policy, but there is a fundamental role in our constitution for Parliament to hold the Executive to account and to scrutinise this hugely important decision. The Secretary of State said that the information existed "in excruciating detail" and that the Prime Minister had seen the summaries. For that reason, it is hard to understand why we cannot see the entirety of the information —if so, with redaction. Can the Minister explain why that is not the case?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2017-11-28
Topic: Government Operations
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to the debates we have just had, it is clear there is a lot of concern from Members on both sides of the House that the Government have not satisfied the motion passed less than a month ago. You have been very clear in your advice that the motion passed was binding. After the debate on 1 November, you said that "I would expect the Vice-Chamberlain of the Household to present the Humble Address in the usual way."—[Official Report, 1 November 2017; Vol. 630, c. 931.] The expectation of this House was that the papers would be handed over in full, unedited. Anything less than this would be, I believe, a contempt of Parliament. Can I seek your guidance on whether you believe the Government have adequately satisfied the motion and the expectations of the House? If not, would failure to comply be considered a contempt of the House? If so, what would be the best way for Members to proceed?
Maternity Safety Strategy — House of Commons, 2017-11-28
Topic: Law and Crime
Lilian Rachel Greenwood (Labour, Centre-left): My constituents Jack and Sarah Hawkins have spoken bravely about the tragic death of their daughter Harriet due to failures of care. Members may have heard them this morning. I spoke to Jack earlier and am pleased to tell the Secretary of State that they feel listened to and heard. They and I very much welcome his statement and his support for extending the power of coroners. However, Jack and Sarah need to be able to stop fighting and to begin healing, so I ask the Secretary of State to urge his colleagues at the Ministry of Justice to support the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) to bring about that change as soon as possible.
Budget Resolutions — House of Commons, 2017-11-28
Topic: Macroeconomics
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Centre-left): I agree with the Secretary of State about regional disparities and the way in which the industrial strategy tries to tackle them. The east midlands needs investment in capital to raise productivity, so I ask him to look into that. Will he also speak to the Transport Secretary and others about the Government’s failure to electrify the midland main line? As he knows, many of us have campaigned for that over a number of years, but the Government have now rowed back on it.
Budget Resolutions — House of Commons, 2017-11-28
Topic: Technology
Anthony Joseph Lloyd (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State will probably not agree with this, but I believe that we still have a financial gap in this country, particularly when it comes to science and technology, because venture capitalists simply do not know how to make assessments on such things. Those people are also disproportionately located in this city region rather than other parts of the country. Will the right hon. Gentleman look seriously at the capacity of those industries to see whether we could make some structural changes that would benefit the whole nation?
Budget Resolutions — House of Commons, 2017-11-28
Topic: Macroeconomics
Rebecca Long-Bailey (Labour, Centre-left): I am surprised by the Secretary of State’s comments, which are usually quite measured, and he seems to be struggling with reality today. However, let us talk about the Budget. A substantial section of the Chancellor’s speech on Wednesday focused on the productivity crisis, and rightly so. Labour analysis has shown that we have to go back to 1820, when George IV ascended the throne just after the Napoleonic wars, before we can find a time when productivity increased by less than this over a 10-year period. The result has been catastrophic. People are earning less now than they were 10 years ago and, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies states, average earnings look set to be nearly £1,400 lower by 2021 than was forecast last year. The Chancellor and the Secretary of State have tried to paint that as a phenomenon that is quite separate from the Government—like a sort of freak accident that is nothing to do with them—but that could not be further from the truth. To help the Secretary of State with his recollection of history and reality itself, I will take him on a little trip down memory lane By late 2008, it was clear that monetary policy alone was not working in the traditional way—people were not spending and the economy was not recovering. To quote economist Paul Krugman, "the truth is that mainstream, textbook economics not only justified the initial round of post-crisis stimulus, but said that this stimulus should continue until economies had recovered." But what did the Conservatives do? The polar opposite: slashing Government spending and investment, and essentially pulling the rug out from under the UK economy Not only that, but the financial crash had shown clearly that our economy was becoming dangerously over-reliant, both regionally and sectorally, on financial services in the south-east of Britain.
Budget Resolutions — House of Commons, 2017-11-28
Topic: Macroeconomics
Rebecca Long-Bailey (Labour, Centre-left): Frankly, I expect better from the hon. Lady; she usually makes very measured contributions. If she lets me continue, I will explain a little about what happened. Perhaps she will make different comments if she asks another question later It made perfect sense to use that economic turning point as an opportunity to invest in the development of our industrial base and to address the deep structural problems that had been emerging in our economy since the early 1980s. However, what happened was the scaling back of investment and funding in the tools that business needs to grow and succeed, such as skills, infrastructure, research and development, and access to long-term patient capital.
Budget Resolutions — House of Commons, 2017-11-28
Topic: Macroeconomics
Rebecca Long-Bailey (Labour, Centre-left): Again, we have a Conservative Member who struggles with reality. I urge him to speak to workers in his constituency and ask them about the quality of said employment. I speak to workers in my constituency, and they are struggling in an era of casualised, low-paid, insecure work Our productivity was certainly impeded, but the picture worsens still when we focus on the recent productivity and investment figures of many British regions and nations. Stark research recently published by the Centre for Cities shows that London and the south-east are up to 44% more productive than many other British regions, and the Institute for Public Policy Research’s commission on economic justice has found that Britain is the most regionally imbalanced country in the whole of Europe What have we seen after seven years of this Government’s single-minded obsession with cutting the national debt? Higher debt and unprecedented downward revisions of GDP growth. As every economist knows, the only way substantially to manage the national debt is by growing the economy, but this Government have simply tried to deflect attention away from their miserable performance on GDP.
Budget Resolutions — House of Commons, 2017-11-28
Topic: Macroeconomics
Rebecca Long-Bailey (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Gentleman should refer to comments made by the shadow Chancellor. It is not as straightforward as putting a figure on interest repayments. Each investment is dealt with on the basis of the level of return to the Government, so each infrastructure project, for example, needs to be assessed on its own merits. The hon. Gentleman should know that. He is a clever young man, and I would have expected him to know a little more about this subject.
Budget Resolutions — House of Commons, 2017-11-28
Topic: Macroeconomics
Alison McGovern (Labour, Centre-left): I have been in this House slightly longer than my hon. Friend, so I saw the former Chancellor, George Osborne, having to U-turn on his deficit reduction plan. He failed to meet every one of his debt targets. Labour kept debt at 40% of GDP, and now it is 80% of GDP. Does my hon. Friend agree that the carping from Conservative Members is in total ignorance of the facts?
Budget Resolutions — House of Commons, 2017-11-28
Topic: Technology
Rebecca Long-Bailey (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Lady misses the point. The UK has been below the OECD average of 2.4% of GDP for years, and we are way behind global leaders such as South Korea, Japan, Finland and Sweden, which all spend at least 3% of GDP on R and D. If we are to be in any way capable of competing on a world stage, we have to up our game. If the Government really want us to be at the forefront of the fourth industrial revolution, they should be aiming above the average, rather than just trying to catch up Furthermore, not reforming where and how it is spent risks widening regional divides, as almost half of all research funding currently goes to the south-east. To quote a Conservative Member: "If we just put more money into the same funding streams we will have the same outcomes and continue to spend half the science budget in just three cities."
Budget Resolutions — House of Commons, 2017-11-28
Topic: Macroeconomics
Rebecca Long-Bailey (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the hon. Gentleman for his extremely long comment. He made some valid and interesting points, and we can all agree that the Government’s shambolic handling of Brexit undermines our industrial strategy going forward. Labour’s industrial strategy, however, is committed to achieving 3% of GDP spent on research and development by 2030 and reviewing Government channels for disbursing public R and D funding, with a view to encouraging greater regional equality.
Budget Resolutions — House of Commons, 2017-11-28
Topic: Education
Rebecca Long-Bailey (Labour, Centre-left): I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for her contribution, and she is correct in what she says. I do not think we saw anything in the industrial strategy that goes any way towards rebalancing the regional divides in investment spending in R and D. Critically, a Labour Government would also ensure that the UK maintains our leading research role by seeking to stay part of Horizon 2020 and its successor programmes after we leave the EU. As with so many areas outlined in the White Paper, the UK’s research role is compromised by the Government’s reckless and cliff-edge approach to Brexit Let me turn to the second foundation: people. Key policies include establishing a technical education system, investing £406 million in maths, digital and technical education, and creating a national retraining scheme with an investment of £64 million. Again, the intent is good, but let us remember that the Government cut £1.15 billion from the adult skills budget from 2010 to 2015. Similarly, on first analysis the £406 million appears to be the sum of the amounts the Government have already spent on maths, computing and digital skills. The reality is that the Chancellor has overseen the steepest cuts to school funding in a generation, at £2.7 billion since 2015, according to the National Audit Office, and a cap on public sector pay that has seen the average teacher lose £5,000 since 2010. [Interruption.] Unfortunately, the long term results of that are clear, and I do not know why Government Members are protesting. The Government have missed their recruitment targets five years running, and for two years in a row more teachers have left the profession than joined. The policies contained in the White Paper are a start, but they are not even enough to undo the damage since 2010, let alone form part of a decent industrial strategy.
Budget Resolutions — House of Commons, 2017-11-28
Topic: Macroeconomics
Rebecca Long-Bailey (Labour, Centre-left): I am going to make some progress The strategy identifies infrastructure as the third foundation of productivity and outlines £31 billion of investment through the national productivity investment fund, with some ring-fenced for the necessary infrastructure for electric vehicles and boosting digital infrastructure. As I outlined yesterday, TUC analysis shows that that £31 billion increases investment to just 2.9% of GDP, whereas the average spent on investment by leading industrial nations in the OECD is at least 3.5%. In addition, it is unclear whether the extra £7 billion announced in last week’s Budget is new money at all, rather than a re-allocation from other areas of capital spend which was previously budgeted—it would help if those on the Government Front Bench listened to this question, as it is important. Perhaps the Secretary of State can confirm the meaning of footnote 3 in table 2.1 of the Budget Red Book, because it does not appear to be very clear Key policies to improve the business environment are sector deals; a £2.5 billion investment fund incubated in the British Business Bank, as announced in the Budget; and yet another review of encouraging growth in small and medium-sized enterprises. That is, sadly, another case of lacking ambition—
Budget Resolutions — House of Commons, 2017-11-28
Topic: Macroeconomics
Ruth Stephanie Nicole George (Labour, Centre-left): As there is tax relief for R and D, the higher the rate of corporation tax, the greater the incentive for companies to invest in R and D, as the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) would do well to learn.