argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Young Offender Institutions — House of Commons, 2017-10-31
Topic: Law and Crime
Questions: What recent steps he has taken in response to the finding of the chief inspector of prisons that no young offender institution inspected in the last year was safe to hold juveniles.
Eleanor Patricia Smith (Labour, Centre-left): Given that no prison is safe for children, that over a third of children in prison have diagnoses of mental health conditions and that nearly 70% of children sent to prison reoffend within a year of release, does the Minister believe that it is time to find an alternative to sending children to prison?
Young Offender Institutions — House of Commons, 2017-10-31
Topic: Education
Questions: What recent steps he has taken in response to the finding of the chief inspector of prisons that no young offender institution inspected in the last year was safe to hold juveniles.
Anthony Joseph Lloyd (Labour, Centre-left): I very much welcome the idea of the secure school in the north-west. That is the right direction of travel, but will the Minister give a guarantee to the House and to the public that staffing levels will ensure that such schools both are safe and become places where we can break any reoffending cycle?
Imprisonment for Public Protection — House of Commons, 2017-10-31
Topic: Law and Crime
Ruth Margaret Cadbury (Labour, Centre-left): On 18 October, the Select Committee on Justice heard that 760 released IPP prisoners were recalled in the past year, but 60% of those were quickly re-released. Does the Minister agree with the chair of the Parole Board that the threshold for recall is too low and should be reviewed to stop the revolving door for prisoners who have already long served their minimum tariff?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2017-10-31
Topic: Law and Crime
Questions: As my hon. Friend the Minister is aware, Kirkham Prison is a category D open prison in my constituency that works to enable prisoners to make the transition to life outside. What steps are the Government are taking to support Kirkham and other prisons to rehabilitate offenders and to improve prisons’ ways of operating?
Yasmin Qureshi (Labour, Centre-left): The family courts are full of people representing themselves. The new President of the Supreme Court, Lady Justice Hale, has described the Government’s legal aid reforms as a "false economy". Does not the Minister agree that restoring early legal aid would not only reduce the number of cases coming to court, but save court time? Will he guarantee that the legal aid review will include an analysis of the cost to the rest of the legal aid system that has resulted from the Government’s abolition of early legal aid?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2017-10-31
Topic: Law and Crime
Questions: As my hon. Friend the Minister is aware, Kirkham Prison is a category D open prison in my constituency that works to enable prisoners to make the transition to life outside. What steps are the Government are taking to support Kirkham and other prisons to rehabilitate offenders and to improve prisons’ ways of operating?; Why are the Government planning to give security companies and bailiffs the power of arrest, because that will be the result of privatising the collection of court fees? A petition opposing those plans has been signed by 16,000 people because they do not believe that either 150 jobs, or the safety and finances of vulnerable people, should be put at risk.; What steps are the Department taking to ensure that there is adequate funding for youth justice services in places such as Warwickshire, which has seen significant funding cuts?; Sixty-one per cent. of women who leave prison after a sentence of less than 12 months are reconvicted in the first year. In my recent Westminster Hall debate on women leaving prison, the Minister made various commitments about new interventions and various reviews to support women in prison and those leaving it. When will those reviews be complete? When will there be a better, fuller programme to support women in and leaving prison?; Some 54,000 women lose their jobs each year due to pregnancy and maternity discrimination. The Secretary of State may remember the chaos of the early weeks of caring for a newborn, but the time limit for bringing an employment tribunal claim is just three months, so will he look again at this issue, as recommended by the Women and Equalities Committee, the Justice Committee and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and extend the time limit for claims related to pregnancy and maternity discrimination?; The Government have new proposals to limit legal costs and damages recovered in clinical negligence cases. Patient groups are extremely concerned this will mean serious cases involving older people, child deaths and stillbirths will be impossible to pursue. Will the Minister meet me and those groups to hear their concerns and to sort out the proposals?; Following a meeting with the Courts Minister, I received a letter from him last week that described Sunderland’s court building as below what would be expected, but that is putting it mildly. The court is more than 100 years old. It is damp, has very poor accessibility, and is wholly inadequate for victims and staff alike. Will he visit Sunderland and explain to the people of Sunderland, including my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott), why they do not deserve better from his Department?
Eleanor Claire Reeves (Labour, Centre-left): The recently published Bach commission report highlighted a number of serious issues relating to access to justice, including representation at inquests. In the light of tragic events such as Grenfell Tower and Hillsborough, will the Minister commit to providing legal aid for inquests in all cases when the state is funding one or more of the other parties?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2017-10-31
Topic: International Affairs
Benjamin Peter James Bradshaw (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Have you had any indication from the Government on whether they intend coming to this House to make a statement about the British connection in the Robert Mueller investigation into Russian subversion of the American presidential election, and in particular, the apparent role of an academic, a Professor Mifsud, who met in London more than once, we understand, George Papadopolous, who has already pleaded guilty to misleading the FBI in connection with Russian help in the presidential election?
Finance Bill — House of Commons, 2017-10-31
Topic: Macroeconomics
Peter Christopher Dowd (Labour, Centre-left): Proceedings on this Bill started in March, but we are now drawing to a close. The Bill’s progress was interrupted by the general election. Not much happened to it in the post-election period, but it was brought back in September, and now we are moving, to use the Minister’s phrase, towards the denouement of the debate To solve a problem, it is first important to recognise that there is a problem. I think that that sums up the debate surrounding the Government’s deemed domicile measures—the Government cannot see that there is a problem. Non-dom status is a hangover from the days of the British Empire. Non-dom tax status was introduced in 1799 to allow British colonialists with foreign property to shelter it from wartime taxes. These days, non-doms are individuals who live in the UK but claim to have a permanent home in another country. There is no statutory definition of a non-dom; the status depends on circumstantial evidence Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs says that 121,000 individuals claimed non-domiciled taxpayer status via their self-assessment returns in 2014-15. Non-domiciled UK-resident taxpayers accounted for about 85,000 of those individuals, and the remaining 35,000 or so were non-UK residents. Famous examples of non-doms include the directors of Lloyds, HSBC and RBS, the billionaire Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich, the steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal, the media baron Viscount Rothermere, and numerous footballers. Non-doms are allowed to avoid tax on overseas investment income if that does not exceed £2,000 a year. All non-doms are required to pay income tax on their UK earnings, but they can avoid income tax and capital gains tax on assets held elsewhere as long as the amounts are not remitted to the UK. The Treasury’s proposals to reform non-dom status would mean that an individual who had been resident in the UK for 15 of the last 20 years would be considered UK-domiciled for the purposes of income tax, capital gains tax and inheritance tax.
Finance Bill — House of Commons, 2017-10-31
Topic: Macroeconomics
Peter Christopher Dowd (Labour, Centre-left): If it takes a Labour Government to sort out a problem after more than 200 years, we will sort out the problem On paper, this idea seems to be reasonable and sensible —in fact, even progressive—until, metaphorically speaking, someone starts to scratch away at the very thin veneer. In reality, the Government have purposefully and deliberately exempted offshore trusts, thereby undermining their own reforms, even though offshore trusts have been identified by the OECD, the European Parliament and the International Monetary Fund as among the main vehicles for tax avoidance across the globe.
Finance Bill — House of Commons, 2017-10-31
Topic: Macroeconomics
Peter Christopher Dowd (Labour, Centre-left): The problem is that that has been a persistent argument for years, but there does not actually appear to be any evidence to back up such an assertion I understand that HMRC is responding to EU directives on money laundering and has started the process of registering new trusts and that those already operating must provide additional information by 31 January 2018. However, HMRC has also confirmed that it will not penalise anyone as long as they register before 5 December 2017. The rules state that all trusts with UK tax liabilities must be registered, but the process is conveniently silent about trusts registered in Crown dependencies and overseas territories. The information provided to HMRC will not be made publicly available The Minister and Government Members have made much of the claim that the Conservative party has been clamping down on tax avoidance. In fact, that was considered such a priority in the general election that the Prime Minister—at her most imperious, at that stage—gave the subject a grand total of eight lines in the Conservative party manifesto. However, after seven years in power, the Government’s record is still there to see. The measures in the Bill are another example of how the Government wish to be seen to be doing something, but in fact their proposals are artificial and will amount to little while the exemption for offshore trusts remains intact.
Finance Bill — House of Commons, 2017-10-31
Topic: Macroeconomics
Peter Christopher Dowd (Labour, Centre-left): I am pleased that the Minister raises that point because we will no doubt have another debate about it in the future. I have an interesting assertion that I shall make when we debate the tax gap, but that is for another day. I am happy to debate that subject with the Minister in due course.
Finance Bill — House of Commons, 2017-10-31
Topic: Macroeconomics
Peter Christopher Dowd (Labour, Centre-left): The tax gap fell in every year between 2005 and 2010. The Minister brings my attention to his record, but I am bringing his attention to Labour’s record. As I have said, if we want to have a debate about the tax gap, we can do that. I am more than happy to do so, as are my colleagues, but as I have said many times, this is also about trying to look forward. We can all talk about our record—how good or bad it might have been—but let us move on and try to deal with the issues we are facing, not those we used to face.
Finance Bill — House of Commons, 2017-10-31
Topic: Macroeconomics
Peter Christopher Dowd (Labour, Centre-left): As much as I would like to debate the tax gap with the hon. Lady, I think that shows an ignorance of the issues involved in the nature of the tax gap. As far as I am concerned, I am quite happy—more than happy—to debate this issue in due course, but I am simply making the point that we must move on.
Finance Bill — House of Commons, 2017-10-31
Topic: Macroeconomics
Peter Christopher Dowd (Labour, Centre-left): I want to make a little progress, but I will come back to the hon. and learned Lady in a few moments. In the past month alone, the Government have faced a barrage of criticism from the European Union for their poor record on tackling tax avoidance. The European Parliament’s report on money laundering, tax avoidance and tax evasion has accused the Government of directly obstructing the fight against tax avoidance, while the European Commission has opened an investigation into the Government’s changes to controlled foreign company rules, which made it easier for multinational companies to shift their taxable income offshore and reduced last year’s tax take by £805 million. That goes to the heart of the point I am making about the tax gap and some of its intricacies.
Finance Bill — House of Commons, 2017-10-31
Topic: Government Operations
Peter Christopher Dowd (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the hon. and learned Lady for that intervention. Government Members have taken up about seven minutes of the time I have been on my feet—[Interruption.] Six and a half minutes, the Minister says I am quite happy to debate these issues, but that is the point of a review. Why not have a review? It is a perfectly reasonable and legitimate proposal, given the nature of what we are considering. If there is nothing to hide, and if the Government are quite happy to be open and transparent and to tell everybody how wonderfully they are doing, let us have a review. No doubt the hon. and learned Lady will support the new clause in due course.
Finance Bill — House of Commons, 2017-10-31
Topic: Macroeconomics
Peter Christopher Dowd (Labour, Centre-left): If we had a review and identified areas of non-compliance, I suspect we would bring in far more money than that review would cost. That is why we have reviews. Again, I am sure that the hon. and learned Lady will support the new clause The Government’s opposition to any action to crack down on offshore trusts is not new. In 2013, while G8 leaders attempted to push forward new measures to deal with tax evasion, the previous Prime Minister was busy undermining them by writing personal letters to the President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, begging him to stop the inclusion of offshore trusts. By contrast, the last Labour Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, to his credit, spent his last year in office attempting to get world leaders to agree to strict measures on offshore tax havens. That is all the more reason for a review, so let us have that review. I am speaking directly to our proposal. As I have said, if there is nothing to be fearful of, let us have the review Our opposition to the exemption of offshore trusts from these measures is well noted. We have been calling for the exemption’s removal since March. I called for its removal in the debate on the Ways and Means resolutions for this Bill, on Second Reading and in the Public Bill Committee, as the Minister knows, and I now call for its removal once again. I am happy to give the Minister an opportunity to reconsider, because the British public are no fools. They are more educated than ever about what an offshore trust is and what it is used for.
Finance Bill — House of Commons, 2017-10-31
Topic: Macroeconomics
Peter Christopher Dowd (Labour, Centre-left): I recognise any progress that anybody makes. If the Government have brought about progress, that is fine—I think it is wonderful—but I think there should be more progress. Under the stewardship of the Minister, I am convinced that we will have even more progress on this matter While the Minister might be able to use arcane rules of the House to prevent the Opposition from removing the offshore trusts exemption and introducing a public register, he cannot hide from the fact that his Government have a pretty poor record in this area. The heart of our disagreement with the Government is simple: it is about whether all UK citizens are to be treated equally in the eyes of the law and for the purposes of taxation. Throughout the passage of the Bill, it has been clear that the Government are actively content to ensure that we have a tax system that favours a wealthy few at the expense of the many The Government could act to close this tax avoidance measure. They could act to send a message to those who want to dodge taxes that the UK will not tolerate it. They could send a message to those who do not avoid their taxes that the Government are on their side. They could even send a message of support to hard-pressed public services by taking up the suggestion of the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and hypothecating any taxes raised by clamping down on the dodgers.
Finance Bill — House of Commons, 2017-10-31
Topic: Macroeconomics
Peter Christopher Dowd (Labour, Centre-left): That is a starter and I am sure that much more could be brought in. Again, I am sure that in an effort to get that figure up, the hon. Lady will support the new clause. I am really pleased that she agrees with us on that matter The only message this Government want to send is one of supine support for tax dodgers. The dodgers may want to hear that message, but public sector workers who have not had a pay rise for years do not want to hear it, the people waiting months for an operation do not want to hear it, and the police and firefighters do not want to hear it. I assure Government Members that at the next general election, the public certainly will hear that message loud and clear, because Labour will be there to remind them of a Government in chaos and disarray that is beginning to have a putrefying decay about it.
Finance Bill — House of Commons, 2017-10-31
Topic: Government Operations
Geraint Richard Davies (Labour, Centre-left): Does the Minister understand the deep concern about the need for transparency, legitimacy and fair returns in the aftermath of the Panama papers? What specific actions have the Government taken, or are they just saying, "Oh, well. It doesn’t matter. We’ll just get on as normal."?
Finance Bill — House of Commons, 2017-10-31
Topic: Macroeconomics
Geraint Richard Davies (Labour, Centre-left): Is the Minister saying it is fair for someone to tax plan to leave the country, make a load of money and hide it in various places where tax is not charged before coming back to live in the British environment, where they always wanted to live, and avoid all that tax?
Finance Bill — House of Commons, 2017-10-31
Topic: Macroeconomics
Geraint Richard Davies (Labour, Centre-left): In terms of tax planning, a merchant banker or whatever in their twenties could plan to leave Britain for a number of years, make a lot of money and protect that money in a tax haven before coming back and receiving all the benefits—sending their kids to public school and all the rest of it—without paying tax in Britain.
Finance Bill — House of Commons, 2017-10-31
Topic: Macroeconomics
Anneliese Jane Dodds (Labour, Centre-left): I beg to move amendment 1, page 14, line 15, leave out "different" and insert "higher" This amendment removes the power for the Treasury to reduce the £30,000 threshold in connection with the taxation of termination payments by regulations.
Finance Bill — House of Commons, 2017-10-31
Topic: Macroeconomics
Anneliese Jane Dodds (Labour, Centre-left): Labour’s amendments on redundancy payments focus, first, on ensuring that there is proper democratic scrutiny of any attempt to reduce the £30,000 threshold for the taxation of termination payments, rather than the power to do so residing merely in regulations and, secondly, on ensuring that injured feelings are included in, rather than removed from, the definition of injury for the purpose of tax-excluded payments It is frustrating to be back in the Chamber to debate these issues again, with, again, no indication from the Government of any change in their position. The discussions in the Bill’s previous stages, including in Committee, detailed many ways in which provisions against aggressive tax avoidance and evasion could be tightened. Yet, rather than heed those reasonable suggestions for the removal of loopholes, the Government seem keen to target those made redundant as a potential source of revenue The changes in clause 5 are occurring in the context of the Government being determined to rush headlong into reducing corporation tax rates, despite the Institute for Fiscal Studies and others being clear that there is no automatic link between lowering rates and increasing revenue. In fact, I would hazard to suggest that in this case the opposite might be true. The Government’s previous cuts to corporation tax have manifestly not increased business investment The changes in the clause are also occurring when, as we have discussed, many loopholes have been retained for non-doms and, furthermore, while new measures for corporations exempt some of those firms that appear to have the most labyrinthine business arrangements, designed for tax purposes—not least some public infrastructure companies One might, then, wonder exactly why the Government have decided to stick to their guns and focus tax increases on those who are made redundant, which is effectively the idea that the provisions in the clause promote. We have been told by the Minister repeatedly that there are no immediate plans to reduce the threshold beyond which termination payments are taxable. If that is the case, why create the power to reduce it?
Finance Bill — House of Commons, 2017-10-31
Topic: Labor
Anneliese Jane Dodds (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister’s point exemplifies exactly what I anticipated might happen. I was just about to say that the second line of defence from the Government, after proclaiming that they would abstain from using the powers that they are so keen to give themselves, is that, in any case, they would have to bring any change to the House for a vote. Indeed, that is what has occurred just now. We are all aware of the difference between passing a measure through the ordinary legislative procedure, with the amount of scrutiny that that receives, and passing a measure through the type of approach that the Minister has mentioned just now. I regret that this appears to be part of a piece, with a broader trend to exempt new policies from the parliamentary scrutiny that they deserve and that the British public have rightly come to expect from its elected representatives Arrangements for those facing redundancy are not, and should not be, a matter of purely technocratic interest. The Government’s failure to raise the tax-free threshold for statutory redundancy pay has meant that it has already lost much of its original real value. That perhaps explains why, when the Government consulted on this issue, there was no conclusive evidence in the consultation either of widespread abuse in this area or of a clamour for a reduction in the threshold We are also asking the Government to reconsider their plans on injury to feelings payments as part of termination payments.