argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Paradise Papers — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Macroeconomics
John Martin McDonnell (Labour, Centre-left): Unless there is a critically overriding reason, I believe the House will consider it unacceptable that the Chancellor is not here to address the biggest tax scandal of this generation The Minister’s response today was the same bluster. He cites a figure for additional tax revenues that cannot be verified from any publically available data. He refers to a tax gap that does not include the likes of Apple, Facebook, Google and others. He boasts of this Government’s efforts to address avoidance, yet last week they voted to protect non-doms in the Finance Bill. Last month, the European Parliament accused this Government of obstructing the fight against tax avoidance evasion and even money laundering. Does he not appreciate the outrage in our community at this tax dodging? Every pound in tax avoided is a pound taken away from our NHS, our children’s education, and care for the elderly and the disabled Given that the chairman of the Conservative party and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is responsible for administering "the estates and rents of the Duchy of Lancaster", has the Chancellor or any Minister discussed these revelations with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the right hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin), and will the right hon. Gentleman be apologising to Her Majesty for the embarrassment this episode has caused her With regards to Lord Ashcroft, a major funder of the Conservative party who reportedly contributed half a million pounds to the Conservatives in the general election campaign, will the Minister tell the House what information he has had about the domicile status of Lord Ashcroft between 2010 and 2015, and whether Lord Ashcroft was paying taxes on his overseas wealth The Chancellor now has an immediate opportunity to tackle tax avoidance. Can he assure the House that in the forthcoming Budget he will adopt Labour’s proposals to remove exemptions from non-doms and secure full transparency of trusts? Will he now also agree to Labour’s proposals to establish an independent public inquiry into tax avoidance? I tell the Government this: if they refuse to act, the next Labour Government will.
Paradise Papers — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Government Operations
Margaret Eve Hodge (Labour, Centre-left): The real problem with all the action that has been taken so far is that it has not got to the heart of the issue, which is that we need to have openness and transparency about who owns what company and where, and who owns what trust. There is a very simple action that the Government could take without any legislation, and that would immediately slice through a lot of the problems that we have seen in the Paradise papers, the Panama papers, the Falciani leaks and the Luxembourg leaks. Why will the Government not insist now that our overseas territories—our tax havens—have public registers of beneficial ownership?
Paradise Papers — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: International Affairs
Angela Eagle (Labour, Centre-left): Is not the Minister worried about the tangled web of Russian money that appears to be involved at very high levels, as shown by these leaks? Will he not agree that there is now a great public interest in having transparency of ownership and getting these registers published as soon as possible? Why do not the Government just make an announcement that the overseas territories are going to do that, and get on with it?
Paradise Papers — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Macroeconomics
Luciana Clare Goldsmith (Berger) (Labour, Centre-left): How many more "Panorama" programmes and leaks should we expect until we see full and proper action on tax avoidance and tax evasion in this country? As a starter for 10, may I suggest to the Minister that the Government reinstate the thousands of tax officer posts they have cut in Liverpool and right across the country?
Paradise Papers — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Foreign Trade
Liam Dominic Byrne (Labour, Centre-left): When I asked officials at the Department for International Trade whether tax transparency was required in our trade treaties, they said that this was a novel idea, and it was certainly not included in the text of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. It is exactly this kind of secrecy that lets the rich hide billions while the people pay. Will the Minister ensure that we demand and insist on tax transparency in every single trade treaty presented to this House in the future?
Paradise Papers — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Macroeconomics
Dennis Edward Skinner (Labour, Centre-left): Does not the publication of these papers show us that this Government are more concerned with hounding disabled people applying for PIP and ESA and taking their disabled motors away from them than with concentrating on the real people dodging paying tax who, as revealed in these papers, are close to the Conservative party? Sort it out!
Paradise Papers — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Macroeconomics
David Lindon Lammy (Labour, Centre-left): Like me, two thirds of British taxpayers are taxed at source through PAYE. They just cannot understand why anyone would want to put money into a small island like Bermuda, the Cayman Islands or Jersey. The Minister says that there are legitimate reasons for doing so. Will he educate me: what are the legitimate reasons?
Paradise Papers — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Macroeconomics
Stella Judith Creasy (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister says that HMRC is now seeking to investigate this matter. Ahead of the Budget, when I suspect the Government may wish to make some public spending commitments, will the Minister commit to a moratorium while this matter is being investigated on any public contracts going to companies that have offshore trusts?
Paradise Papers — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Law and Crime
Stephen James McCabe (Labour, Centre-left): Does the Minister accept that the scale of aggressive avoidance exposed by these revelations shows that the general anti-abuse rule introduced in 2013 is not working and that what we need is general anti-avoidance legislation so that there is no room for doubt and no room for manoeuvre?
Paradise Papers — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Macroeconomics
Catherine Elizabeth West (Labour, Centre-left): There are some things we do know, however: some large accounting firms are being investigated for poor practice that assists and colludes in tax avoidance and evasion. Will the Minister clarify what will be done to clamp down on those who collude with those who do not want to do the right thing?
Paradise Papers — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Macroeconomics
Thelma Doris Walker (Labour, Centre-left): My constituents in the Colne and Holme valleys pay their tax in the usual way. Can the Minister explain to them why their public services are being cut while the rich are using tax havens to avoid paying their fair share?
Paradise Papers — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: International Affairs
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Labour, Centre-left): Last week I met some of the representatives of our overseas territories. A number of them said that their governance was not working for them, and that they had little say in defence and foreign affairs. Is there not a win-win here? Could we not give our overseas territories representation in this place, and then enforce tax and public transparency in those territories? Taxation with representation, all equal under the law: surely that is a clarion call for all of us here today.
Paradise Papers — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Macroeconomics
Grahame Mark Morris (Labour, Centre-left): We probably need a time-out for a fact check on the £6 billion tax gap figure that the Minister is consistently quoting. May I refer him to the private Member’s Bill promoted by the former right hon. Member Michael Meacher, which set out detailed plans for a general principle on tax avoidance? We can get around a rule, but we cannot get around a principle; that seems to me to be a solid and sensible way forward.
Paradise Papers — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Macroeconomics
Clive Stanley Efford (Labour, Centre-left): Thank you, Mr Speaker The Minister has set out the reasons why the eye-wateringly rich would benefit from a tax haven, but how would my average taxpayer in Eltham benefit from a tax haven and why should they tolerate this in overseas British territories?
Paradise Papers — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Government Operations
Justin Piers Richard Madders (Labour, Centre-left): Some 130,000 UK companies have not completed their persons with significant control registers, and not one of them has been fined. If we cannot get our own house in order, how can we credibly ask others to act on transparency?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Education
Angela Rayner (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In oral questions earlier today, the Secretary of State for Education told the House about her first-class degree in economics. She went on to state that Labour’s spending plans would lead to school budgets being "absolutely frozen" in cash terms. I might not have an economics degree, but I am sure that those at the Institute for Fiscal Studies have a few between them, and they have said that our spending plans would "reverse real-terms cuts to spending per pupil since 2015 over the course of the next parliament" with an increase of about £4.8 billion. I am sure that the Secretary of State did not intend to mislead the House, Mr Speaker, but can you advise me on how I can seek a retraction or correction of that remark for the record?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: International Affairs
Matthew Thomas Pennycook (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Following last week’s passing of a motion of unopposed return relating to the sectoral impact assessments carried out by the Department for Exiting the European Union, the Secretary of State has this afternoon written to the Chair of the Brexit Select Committee to say that "it is not the case that 58 sectoral impact assessments exist." This is despite the fact that the Government have published a list of those 58 sectors. He adds in his letter that "it will take my Department…time to collate and bring together this information in a way that is accessible and informative for the Committee." Mr Speaker, you made it clear last week that precedent suggested that the motion was binding and effective, but I am concerned that the Government are not treating that motion or the House with the required respect or seriousness. Is it still your opinion that this is a matter that should be deliberated on over a period of days? If, as appears to be the case, the Government are going to take weeks to provide the information, what more can the House do to expedite the matter? Finally, is it your opinion that there is a case for the Secretary of State coming to the House tomorrow to explain the Department’s handling of this matter?
Grenfell Recovery Taskforce — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Law and Crime
Grahame Mark Morris (Labour, Centre-left): I sincerely thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and the shadow Minister for his response. I also thank the taskforce for its recommendations, which the Secretary of State now wishes to press ahead with and implement as speedily as possible. Will he clarify one particular point? It has been reported that Michael Lockwood is due to leave his position as site recovery manager to join the Independent Office for Police Conduct. Will the Secretary of State indicate the timescale for appointing his successor?
European Economic Area: UK Membership — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Foreign Trade
James Dolan Cunningham (Labour, Centre-left): The west midlands relies a lot on exports to the EU. We have Jaguar Land Rover and a lot of other companies. If we do not get it right on this issue, it will affect them pretty badly.
European Economic Area: UK Membership — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Foreign Trade
Stephen Nathan Kinnock (Labour, Centre-left): I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. On the automotive sector, we know that a WTO-based Brexit would add 10% to the cost of every car we export to the EU. What is more, given the complex, integrated supply chains the automotive industry relies on, there would be tariff and non-tariff barriers on every component that crosses the border. The result would indeed be catastrophic.
European Economic Area: UK Membership — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Foreign Trade
Stephen Creswell Timms (Labour, Centre-left): Has my hon. Friend seen the recent forecast that a WTO-based Brexit would cost the UK economy 75,000 jobs in the financial services sector alone? Is he not absolutely right to talk about the grave dangers that that would pose to the British economy?
European Economic Area: UK Membership — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Foreign Trade
Stephen Nathan Kinnock (Labour, Centre-left): I agree that the financial services sector is critical to this debate, because passporting is required. There would be no passporting arrangements in a WTO deal, so the impact would be catastrophic. We must remember that the financial services sector is not just about the City of London; it supports 1 million jobs across the entire United Kingdom—in Edinburgh, Leeds and so on.
European Economic Area: UK Membership — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: International Affairs
Stephen Nathan Kinnock (Labour, Centre-left): Indeed, during our trip to Dover, we were informed about the impact in terms of rotting food and vegetables on the border. There are practical, tangible impacts that we must bear in mind when it comes to a no-deal Brexit The head of the EFTA court, Carl Baudenbacher, has been a vocal advocate of the UK’s joining EFTA permanently or at least as a short-term docking measure —an idea that the president of the European Court of Justice, Koen Lenaerts, similarly advocated over the summer. EEA-EFTA membership is emphatically not the same as membership of the single market or the customs union. The EEA is an internal market that is conjoined with most of the EU’s single market, but it is nevertheless a stand-alone structure with its own legal, regulatory, governance and institutional frameworks.
European Economic Area: UK Membership — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: International Affairs
Stephen Nathan Kinnock (Labour, Centre-left): The EFTA court exists as a sovereign body. It of course takes some of its guidance from the European Court of Justice. Nevertheless, were the UK to have judges on the EFTA court body, it would clearly have extra clout and the ability to exercise its sovereign right to interpret the guidelines that come from the ECJ in such a way that suits the membership of EEA and EFTA.
European Economic Area: UK Membership — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Foreign Trade
Stephen Nathan Kinnock (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Gentleman hits the nail on the head. I would add that EU member states are required to refer rulings to the ECJ, whereas EEA-EFTA states are not required to refer rulings to the EFTA court. This is a vital distinction, because it has significant implications for the functioning of the two markets. The EU single market is predicated on the treaty of the European Union, with its commitment to ever closer union. The EEA, however, is governed by the EEA agreement, article 1 of which states that the aim of the EEA is to: "promote a continuous and balanced strengthening of trade and economic relations between the Contracting Parties" The fundamental differences between the founding mission of the EU and the founding mission of the EEA mean that for the EU the four freedoms are indivisible, whereas for the EEA they are negotiable. This, in turn, means that the EEA membership would allow a post-Brexit Britain to square the circle between market access and sovereignty when it comes to that most thorny of issues, the free movement of labour.
European Economic Area: UK Membership — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: International Affairs
Stephen Nathan Kinnock (Labour, Centre-left): It is patently ridiculous to make that sort of comparison. This is not about comparisons, but legal precedent. I would also argue that the United Kingdom has significantly more political and diplomatic clout than such a state, so the logic of the right hon. Gentleman’s argument does not follow.
European Economic Area: UK Membership — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: International Affairs
Stephen Nathan Kinnock (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head, and I have nothing to add; he is absolutely right Liechtenstein is not the only legal precedent. Article 112 safeguard measures were also invoked in 1992 by no fewer than four of the then seven EFTA members—Austria, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein—which all cited the need to protect real estate, capital and labour markets. To recap: the four freedoms operate in an instrumental, as opposed to a fundamental, manner within the EEA, meaning that EEA membership offers a unique opportunity to combine market access, frictionless trade and reformed free movement of labour.
European Economic Area: UK Membership — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: International Affairs
Stephen Nathan Kinnock (Labour, Centre-left): I think my hon. Friend’s point touches on what sort of reforms to the free movement of labour we think we need. Opinion is divided. In terms of the upstream reform, the argument is in favour of a quota-based system; downstream reform would be based on registration, but perhaps that is for another debate. My point is that EEA membership enables a lot more flexibility over both an emergency brake and the use of industry-by-industry quotas I turn now to the vexed question of ECJ jurisdiction. Here the position is relatively simple, as EEA-EFTA members are not subject to ECJ jurisdiction. The EEA is administered by the EFTA arbitration court and the EEA joint committee, and disputes are managed by the EFTA surveillance authority. These bodies adjudicate only on matters relating to the EEA internal market and any violations of its principles and have far less clout than the ECJ. Moreover, while EU member states’ courts must refer legal issues to the ECJ, EEA states are not obliged to refer them to the EFTA court The EEA model is sometimes criticised because EEA members are cast as rule-takers as opposed to rule-makers, but that criticism does not stand up to scrutiny. EEA members have the right to participate in the drawing up of EU legislation by the EU Commission, and the EEA joint committee determines which EU laws and directives are deemed relevant for the EEA and whether any adaptation is necessary, so EEA membership would in fact provide the UK with a seat at the table when EU regulations and directives are being shaped Clearly EEA membership is one step removed from the heart of decision making in Brussels, but the reality of the referendum result is that our influence in Brussels and across the European capitals has, and will inevitably be, diminished. The only valid question now is how to maximise democratic control and influence while minimising economic damage. I contend that an EEA-EFTA-based transition deal would clearly achieve those ends. The stakes are high.
European Economic Area: UK Membership — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Foreign Trade
Stephen Creswell Timms (Labour, Centre-left): I am listening with great interest to my hon. Friend’s argument. Will he confirm whether I have understood him correctly? Would the way forward he is advocating require the UK to rejoin EFTA? Is that his proposition?
European Economic Area: UK Membership — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: International Affairs
Stephen Nathan Kinnock (Labour, Centre-left): There are a variety of views on this. Carl Baudenbacher, the head of the EFTA arbitration court, has said that he would favour a docking system and an interim arrangement that puts British judges on the EFTA arbitration court in preparation for finalising a deal—in a sense, a bridging into EFTA. I would advocate joining EFTA as part of moving into the EEA.
European Economic Area: UK Membership — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Foreign Trade
Stephen Nathan Kinnock (Labour, Centre-left): I will make some progress Carolyn Fairbairn of the CBI said only yesterday: "We remain extremely worried and the clock carries on ticking down" As a result, she said, more "and more firms are triggering their contingency plans to move jobs or change investment plans." Reality has finally bitten, even in the minds of some of the most deluded Brexiteers, that it was always a fantasy to think it would be possible to complete the divorce and the final trade deals in parallel. A solid cross-party consensus on the need for a transition deal has therefore emerged, as was made clear in the Prime Minister’s Florence speech. All parties in the House also agree that we must leave the EU by walking over a bridge rather than by jumping off a cliff, and the EU has welcomed the fact that the Government have finally started to show some signs that they understand the realpolitik of the negotiations Given that an off-the-shelf transition deal is inevitable, it is clear to me that EEA-EFTA is the only viable option. The EEA and EFTA are well-established and well-understood arrangements that offer the clarity, stability and predictability that the British economy so desperately needs in these turbulent times. Transferring from the EU to the EEA and EFTA would allow us to balance sovereignty and market access. Crucially, such a transition deal would buy us time for negotiate the final comprehensive trade and strategic partnership deal that will shape the terms of the UK’s relationship with the EU for decades to come, while also allowing us to enter into independent trade negotiations with third countries because we would be outside the customs union.
European Economic Area: UK Membership — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Foreign Trade
Gareth Thomas (Labour, Centre-left): Is my hon. Friend’s point not all the more pertinent and timely in the light of the visit of the United States trade representative, Wilbur Ross? He certainly seems to be implying that a US-UK trade deal would take significantly longer than the 19 or 24 months to which the Government are clearly hoping to secure agreement for a transition deal.
European Economic Area: UK Membership — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Foreign Trade
Stephen Nathan Kinnock (Labour, Centre-left): I think that there is unanimity, almost, on the issue of the timing. I would add that the benefit of EFTA is that it is not a customs union but a free trade area, thus enabling us to connect with the vital single EU market but also to strike third-country deals with countries including, potentially, the United States.
European Economic Area: UK Membership — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Foreign Trade
Stephen Nathan Kinnock (Labour, Centre-left): That is an excellent point. I think that the current EFTA members recognise the clout that they would potentially have through the addition of a 60-million-person consumer market to their current market, which is a great deal smaller. As we know, global trade negotiations are all about leverage and clout.