argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Transport for London Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Government Operations
Gordon Marsden (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend makes an excellent point at the conclusion of his comments, which goes to the heart of the point he raised earlier on consultation and transparency. Since the Minister has not been prepared to address that here, I sincerely hope he will address it in a subsequent group or on summing up the whole debate I well understand the intentions behind the amendments. The Bill has already been improved through parliamentary scrutiny. It is important that draft legislation, whether private or public, is tested even at this late stage in the parliamentary process. I welcome the opportunity the amendments have presented to probe the Minister and the Bill’s sponsor, the hon. Member for Harrow East, and the clarification, even at this late stage, that I hope they will bring to the concerns My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington referred to the difficulties that members of the London assembly have had in getting information on the assets concerned. Let us be in no doubt whatever: it is the responsibility of the Minister and the sponsor to justify the accountability agreements to the House tonight. I am interested to know whether members of the Greater London authority have asked for the powers that would oblige them to be consulted The issues that lie behind the first set of amendments go to the heart of transparency and accountability—whether of Governments or public corporations. It is important that they be given every probing and every ventilation in the Chamber tonight.
Transport for London Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Government Operations
John Martin McDonnell (Labour, Centre-left): This was the point I raised earlier. The key aspect of the public-private partnership was the inability of the House, London Members and others just to get their hands on the information about the architecture of that PPP before it was imposed. Otherwise, I think it would have been exposed very early on.
Transport for London Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Government Operations
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): New clause 1 does not actually require anything other than publication of information about non-operational assets that may be considered for any future activity or sale. Does the hon. Gentleman not find it extraordinary that the promoter of the Bill, and apparently the Government en masse, are opposed to the publication—no more, no less—of the information?
Transport for London Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Government Operations
John Martin McDonnell (Labour, Centre-left): Let me explain the genesis of the list in new clause 2. It came from the people who made representations to us on this Bill. They simply wanted to be part of the decision-making process in some form. Some might not necessarily want to be participants in deciding, but they do at least want to be consulted—nothing more than that.
Transport for London Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Transportation
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): No, my hon. Friend is just agitated because he is so appalled at the news he is hearing Sub-paragraph (n) refers to "land which is not operational land" Again, that land needs to be kept in the public sector, so that we can then use it for development in the future This Bill has a huge effect on a very large number of people. I have just pointed out three stations in my area which need a great deal of attention. Some attention is being given to Finsbury Park and I am grateful for what has been done so far on that, and I am grateful to the Minister for visiting, but consideration must be given to the future needs of the area and future transport developments. I also mentioned Archway and the possibility of a big road improvement scheme which will introduce a piazza for the people of the area, and made points about Tufnell Park station. Highbury and Islington station has been well developed and, because there was co-operation between public bodies, a post office has been closed and relocated and passed to TfL, so that it could demolish it and create a much larger circulating area for the very large numbers of people who use that station, including on Arsenal match days. That is a good example of public services working together. Had that building been sold years ago, as would be envisaged if it had been a TfL building, that possibility would have gone and the public would have had to buy their own property back at enormous cost. So I ask the Bill’s promoters to think a bit more deeply about their guardianship and stewardship of and responsibility for a massive public asset.
Transport for London Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Transportation
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful to the Minister; that is helpful because there is understandable concern locally about the stations I have mentioned and their safety. If it helps him, I am happy to write an explanatory note about it and send it to him straight away, so that he can understand my concerns and the local concerns, and we can then have a serious meeting and discussion. I thank the Minister very much for that.
Transport for London Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Macroeconomics
Katy Clark (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend says that he does not think this will be a major general election issue, but does he not accept that the selling off of the nation’s assets and this obsession with privatisation and making a quick buck and selling things off cheap should be precisely the sort of issues we debate at the general election?
Transport for London Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Transportation
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): The stewardship of public assets is very important. As someone who believes in public enterprise and public endeavour, I have to concede that the London Passenger Transport Board was established under a Tory Government in 1933. Lord Ashfield was its first chairman and he did a fine job in promoting its development. So even then, in the depths of the recession in the 1930s, there was a consensus that the public ownership of assets mattered, and he stood up against a lot of private interests to achieve that. Let us preserve what we have got, and recognise that the future inevitably is very unpredictable I came into parliamentary politics at a time when London’s population was falling and bus and tube use was falling. I remember the then director of London Underground telling me how there were going to be fewer trains and fewer passengers and how LU was thinking about which assets it could get rid of because it did not need them. I cautioned against that, saying that it was a counsel of despair. I said that we needed more people on trains and buses and that fewer people in cars would lead to less congestion. That big public debate happened in London, and we moved into an era not of road building but of rail development and other improvements. London became the first capital city in which public transport usage started to go up; others have now followed I ask the Bill’s promoters to think more carefully about what they are doing and to think more carefully about the precious asset that they have and about how they can develop and protect it. I thank the Minister again for his preparedness to engage on the issues that I have raised tonight. I am really grateful to him for that, and I hope that we can make some progress. That is the kind of engagement that we would like to see on the Bill, instead of this peremptory refusal even to discuss the serious concerns that have been raised by a number of Members this evening.
Transport for London Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Government Operations
John Martin McDonnell (Labour, Centre-left): Clause 4(6) introduces the need for the Secretary of State’s approval, which we all support—as does the hon. Gentleman, because it is in the Bill. The schedule, however, sets out a long list of functions and assets that virtually undermines that subsection. That is our anxiety about the schedule.
Transport for London Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Transportation
John Martin McDonnell (Labour, Centre-left): May I say at this stage that I would like to press amendments 1 and 33 to a Division? Amendment 1 straightforwardly takes out paragraph (2) from the preamble of the Bill. Paragraph (2) refers to the powers set out in clause 4. I will then turn to amendments 4, 5, 6, 7 and so on Amendment 1 is consequential to amendment 15. What they do is delete the powers of Transport for London, set out in the Bill, to borrow by giving securities in the way prescribed in clause 4. The amendments strike at one of the main objectives of the Bill. Even if we took out clause 4, and even clause 5, we would still retain clause 7, which I support. Clause 7 concerns the mitigation of risk through hedging powers to be provided to Transport for London I want to delete clause 4, to which amendments 1 and 15 relate, because I do not consider that it should be part of a private Bill. The purpose of the clause and the scale of the potential financial responsibility levied on London council tax payers and taxpayers militate against this being a private Bill; it should be a public Bill. Clause 4 should not stand in the Bill.
Transport for London Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Government Operations
John Martin McDonnell (Labour, Centre-left): I fully agree, and I shall develop that argument. What my hon. Friend is suggesting in his proposal is that it would be better if this clause were brought forward by the Government rather than in a private Bill. That is because of the scale of the risk involved in the exercise of these powers I would welcome it if these powers were brought forward in a public Bill. Why do I believe that? Madam Deputy Speaker, let me take you to pages 929, 930 and 931 of "Erskine May", with which I am sure you are fully conversant. On those pages, we see identified the subjects that should be considered as unsuitable for private legislation, but which should be dealt with by a public Bill. It says that a private Bill has sometimes been rejected, although properly introduced—as this one has been—because the House has decided, given the merits of the Bill in question, that the subject matter was unsuitable for private legislation There are examples in "Erskine May", on pages 929, 930 and 931, of attempts to use private Bills to raise money for public purposes; it argues that they should fall under a public Bill. I will not go through them at length, but I will draw the House’s attention to the decisions made by previous Speakers. Those decisions have been based on "Erskine May", which says: "A bill the sole object of which was the creation of a charge on public funds has not been allowed to proceed as a private bill." There has also been the example of previous legislation. The Aberfan Disaster Fund Bill was rejected as a private Bill, but sections of it were brought forward as a public Bill. "Erskine May" says: "A bill concerning a government guarantee, even though it amended a private Act, has been a public bill." That is exactly what the clause does I am not saying that the whole Bill is unsuitable for private legislation, but clause 4 certainly is, and it should be deleted. The whole purpose of the clause, as far as I can see, is to allow Transport for London to raise funds by mortgaging assets. However, at the end of the day, the final guarantor of those charges will be the taxpayer, or the Treasury. Therefore, the provision should be brought forward as part of a public Bill rather than a private Bill I do not want to go over the arguments that we have already had with regard to the magnitude of the financial risk, the values of the sites involved, the billions of pounds at risk or the long-term consequences for the travelling public if a number of these speculative developments by the Mayor of London or Transport for London go pear-shaped. As far as I see it, that risk is intolerable.
Transport for London Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Government Operations
John Martin McDonnell (Labour, Centre-left): Thank you for the compliment, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is not often that Deputy Speakers say that to me Let me respond briefly to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North by referring him to page 930 of "Erskine May", which cites the assessment of the Speaker in 1895 of the London Valuation and Assessment Bill. The Speaker then ruled that "since the Bill raised questions of public policy of great importance and affected interests of vast magnitude, it ought to have been introduced as a public bill, and could not proceed as a private bill" I do not know what greater magnitude of risk there is to London, London taxpayers, the Greater London assembly and others than the risk that we are contemplating in this Bill. I do not want to go over the facts and figures we set out before, but I must say to the sponsor of the Bill, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), that the Mayor could potentially enter into an enormous escapade if this legislation is passed. For that reason, I do not believe that it warrants support as part of a private Bill Let me return to the link between amendment 1 and amendment 15. Amendment 15 simply seeks to delete clause 4, as I believe that it is dangerous. I was trying to get clarification about the objectives of the clause from the statements—
EU Referendum — House of Commons, 2015-06-17
Topic: International Affairs
Ann Clwyd (Labour, Centre-left): I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that it is important to have an objective assessment of the implications for the people of Wales of pulling out of the EU. Will he therefore commission an objective report on the issues and publish the results?
EU Referendum — House of Commons, 2015-06-17
Topic: International Affairs
Stephen John Doughty (Labour, Centre-left): I welcome the Secretary of State and his team back to the House, and I offer the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith), who has been detained on urgent personal business Given that more than 150,000 jobs in Wales depend on our membership of the EU, can the Secretary of State say whether any members of his ministerial team belong to or support the Conservatives for Britain group? What does he have to say to sceptical Government Members about the benefits of EU membership for Wales?
Economy — House of Commons, 2015-06-17
Topic: Transportation
Jessica Elizabeth Morden (Labour, Centre-left): Cutting the Severn bridge toll should be an integral part of any plan for the Welsh economy, because we have the highest tolls in the UK, and they hit bridge users in south Wales particularly hard. Yes, VAT will come off the toll in 2018, but that is not nearly enough. Can the Minister confirm that he will be lobbying the Secretary of State for Transport extremely hard so that we get a much fairer deal for Severn bridge users?
Economy — House of Commons, 2015-06-17
Topic: Macroeconomics
Nia Rhiannon Griffith (Labour, Centre-left): I very much welcome any rise in employment in Wales, but more than half of all households with children in Wales, many of which include people working in low-income jobs, rely on tax credits to make ends meet. What reassurance can the Minister give to those Welsh families that his Government’s long-term economic plan does not include cutting their child tax credits?
Economy — House of Commons, 2015-06-17
Topic: Macroeconomics
Nia Rhiannon Griffith (Labour, Centre-left): Indeed, I did welcome that. Yet again, there were no real answers from the hon. Gentleman; perhaps he is practising to be Prime Minister. Families across Wales who are going out to work and doing their best for their children will be very worried by that answer. If he cannot give full reassurance that his Government will protect tax credits, will he at least speak up and try to stop his fellow Ministers giving a kick in the teeth to working families while passing laws to protect millionaires from tax rises?
Welsh Government Funding — House of Commons, 2015-06-17
Topic: Macroeconomics
Susan Elan Jones (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State may be aware that my constituency had the terrible news yesterday that Dobson & Crowther in Llangollen had gone into administration. Will he assure me that he will work with the Welsh Government on that? Does he agree that the £50 million of in-year cuts to the Welsh Government’s budget that the Chancellor has brought in are a very bad thing and that we cannot have the same thing again, because we need to be working together for the people of Wales?
Welsh Government Funding — House of Commons, 2015-06-17
Topic: Macroeconomics
Gerald Jones (Labour, Centre-left): Does the Government’s failure to eliminate the deficit in the last Parliament not mean that Wales faces further significant cuts, which will be deeper than those we have had so far? Why should the people of Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney pay for the Chancellor’s broken promises?
Borderlands Line Rail Franchise — House of Commons, 2015-06-17
Topic: Government Operations
Questions: How the views of English rail passengers will be taken into account after the transfer of responsibility for the Borderlands Line rail franchise to the Welsh Government.
Justin Piers Richard Madders (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Minister for that answer. He has highlighted the difficulties in implementing some of the practicalities of devolution. Will he meet me and interested bodies from both sides of the border to discuss the practicalities, and how my constituents can be best represented during this process?
Borderlands Line Rail Franchise — House of Commons, 2015-06-17
Topic: Transportation
Questions: How the views of English rail passengers will be taken into account after the transfer of responsibility for the Borderlands Line rail franchise to the Welsh Government.
Joanna Meriel Stevens (Labour, Centre-left): Many Welsh passengers use railway lines, such as the Great Western line, that are under the control of the UK Government. They are concerned about suggestions that the Government are going to break up and privatise parts of Network Rail. Will the Minister rule that out?
Borderlands Line Rail Franchise — House of Commons, 2015-06-17
Topic: Transportation
Questions: How the views of English rail passengers will be taken into account after the transfer of responsibility for the Borderlands Line rail franchise to the Welsh Government.
Albert Owen (Labour, Centre-left): The new franchise offers a golden opportunity for extra routes connecting north Wales with England and the Republic of Ireland. Does the Minister agree that it is important that we look at the new European structural funds, so that we can have trans-European networks going from Dublin to London, via north Wales?
Engineering Careers — House of Commons, 2015-06-17
Topic: Macroeconomics
Geraint Richard Davies (Labour, Centre-left): Wales’s output per head amounts to 70% of the United Kingdom average, which explains why we have the lowest wages in Britain yet some of the largest cuts. What is the Minister doing to ensure that we have our fair share of investment in engineering, in order to boost productivity, boost wages, and boost family incomes for once?
Cross-border Road Links — House of Commons, 2015-06-17
Topic: Government Operations
Ian Colin Lucas (Labour, Centre-left): But the Government told me in February that the work would be completed by April, by the time of the general election. That has not happened, and the Wales Office did nothing before then to get this work done. Will the Minister assure me that it will completed by 28 June?
Great Western Cities Devolution — House of Commons, 2015-06-17
Topic: Government Operations
Kerry Gillian McCarthy (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Secretary of State for his response, but obviously my concern is Bristol rather than Cardiff. How does he see a cross-border initiative such as this fitting in with the agenda for city regions, combined authorities and everything else that is going on?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2015-06-17
Topic: Law and Crime
Questions: Pensions are a really important issue to my constituents, and the Government have delivered on their side of the bargain by giving savers the freedom to access their pensions. Will the Chancellor do all he can to ensure that the industry lives up to its side of the bargain and delivers on those freedoms?
Hilary James Benn (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful for that reply. I think the House would appreciate an update on the progress of those discussions with the airlines, and I noted that the right hon. Gentleman was not able to respond to the question I asked about the Turkish authorities. This is a very serious matter and we need to know where things have got to We know that, for some time, a growing number of young people have been groomed to travel to Syria and Iraq. Last November, the Intelligence and Security Committee criticised the Government for not giving the Prevent programme sufficient priority and concluded that "counter-radicalisation programmes are not working." Why does he think that is?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2015-06-17
Topic: International Affairs
Questions: Pensions are a really important issue to my constituents, and the Government have delivered on their side of the bargain by giving savers the freedom to access their pensions. Will the Chancellor do all he can to ensure that the industry lives up to its side of the bargain and delivers on those freedoms?
Hilary James Benn (Labour, Centre-left): It is now clear that right across the middle east and north Africa, the common enemy is ISIL. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that our strategic objective must be to continue to bring together all of the countries affected, in the region and internationally, to put aside other differences and co-operate to confront ISIL?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2015-06-17
Topic: International Affairs
Questions: Pensions are a really important issue to my constituents, and the Government have delivered on their side of the bargain by giving savers the freedom to access their pensions. Will the Chancellor do all he can to ensure that the industry lives up to its side of the bargain and delivers on those freedoms?
Hilary James Benn (Labour, Centre-left): Finally, as more and more people gather in Libya to try to cross the Mediterranean, HMS Bulwark is doing an extraordinary job in rescuing frightened people. But we learned yesterday that its deployment is under active review. Having made a grave error last October in withdrawing support from the Mare Nostrum search and rescue operations, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Government will continue to save the lives of those in peril on that sea?
Skills and Growth — House of Commons, 2015-06-17
Topic: Education
Joan Marie Ryan (Labour, Centre-left): In 2013-14, apprenticeship starts in Enfield North fell from 710 to 590. While I agree that the focus on apprenticeships is welcome and necessary, I do not think it should be at the expense of adult skills training. The College of Haringey, Enfield and North East London in my constituency faces an unprecedented 21.2% cut in funding, losing some 40 posts. Is this a coherent strategy, given that a large proportion of students—