argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2021-04-13
Topic: Macroeconomics
James Stewart Murray (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend makes a very important point and exposes again the hypocrisy in the Government’s approach. The fact is that, rather than helping families get through the tough times ahead, this Government are delivering a tax break for tech giants. We know that Amazon workers have provided vital deliveries to millions of people across the country during lockdown. They need their rights at work to be protected and strengthened, and we all want that company to pay its fair share of tax. I see no one calling for a tax break for Amazon, yet that is exactly what this Government are providing. The Government would do well to learn from the new Biden Administration’s approach. The US Secretary of State has said that, rather than compete on lowering tax rates for corporations, the United States will focus on its "ability to produce talented workers, cutting-edge research and state-of-the-art infrastructure" The new President has also been leading a drive to put in place a global minimum corporate tax rate. A spokesperson for the Treasury here has indicated that the UK might back those plans. Taken along with the Chancellor’s decision to raise corporation tax to 25%, this seems to be an admission by the Government that the last decade of Conservative corporate tax policy making has been totally wrong-headed. If that is the case, we welcome the Government’s admission, and it is vital that the UK plays a leading role in developing and implementing the proposals that President Biden is backing. We have not yet heard from Ministers on this matter in Parliament, however, so I urge the Exchequer Secretary to use her closing speech today as an opportunity to confirm to the House that she and the Chancellor back plans for a global minimum corporate tax rate and that they will do all they can to make this a reality While the initiative on international tax is being led by those overseas, closer to home the offer from this Chancellor of such a large tax break to companies will, of course, make people wonder what processes will be in place to prevent Ministers from intervening improperly on behalf of commercial interests in how decisions are made. The Chancellor is still refusing to properly account for his role in the Greensill scandal. To ensure public confidence in who will benefit from this £25 billion tax break, we strongly urge the Exchequer Secretary to today set out what new safeguards will be put in place to make sure that public money is not misused.
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2021-04-13
Topic: Macroeconomics
James Stewart Murray (Labour, Centre-left): I have only a few moments. The hon. Gentleman may speak later We will vote for our amendment and against the Bill, to make it clear to people in our country that we understand that people need to be spared the Bill’s tax rises; that Amazon does not need any favours; that NHS workers deserve our support, that we need good new jobs in every region in the nation; that the economy will grow only through responsible investment; and that we need to fix social care, the climate emergency and the housing crisis. Above all, people in our country need a Government who are on their side, and it is absolutely clear from the choices that the Bill and their Budget make, and the problems that they choose to ignore, that this Government fail that test.
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2021-04-13
Topic: Macroeconomics
Wesley Paul William Streeting (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Gentleman makes a comparison between the Treasury’s response to the covid crisis and the Treasury’s response to the last financial crisis. I wonder, therefore, whether we ought to be blaming the enormous deficit and debt now on Conservative profligacy or whether we will finally accept that, in 2007-08, as now, the Treasury did exactly the right thing to prevent the economic situation being even worse than it would otherwise have been.
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2021-04-13
Topic: Macroeconomics
Rosalie Winterton (Labour, Centre-left): Order. May I just interrupt the hon. Gentleman again and say that we really need to address the Finance Bill? I think the feeling is that perhaps he might be bringing his remarks to a close fairly shortly.
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2021-04-13
Topic: Environment
Geraint Richard Davies (Labour, Centre-left): Yes, that is my feeling as well, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was simply making the case that owing to a more cautious approach in terms of coronavirus, we have got to a situation where productivity is better supported I will bring my remarks to a close as you suggest, only finally to say that we need to do more on the issue of climate change and the environment, because 64,000 people a year are dying from air pollution, while nothing has been done about diesel or accelerating towards electrification. We need to look at a different approach whereby we can generate growth and opportunity for the future.
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2021-04-13
Topic: Macroeconomics
Richard Burgon (Labour, Centre-left): The coronavirus crisis has not just been a public health emergency; it has been a social emergency as well—a social emergency worsened by the Government’s catastrophic handling of the crisis, which, as the Office for Budget Responsibility says, led to one of the worst economic downturns of any major economy Of course, for some, the pandemic has not been half bad—in fact, it has been a very good crisis for some. Serco and the like have been able to use the crisis to get their hands on contracts that should have been in the public sector, and boosted their profits. We have seen how contracts worth billions have been handed over to those with political connections to top Tories, and the Greensill case involving the former Prime Minister is no one-off—
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2021-04-13
Topic: Macroeconomics
Richard Burgon (Labour, Centre-left): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The example I have just given is one of how our system works, and I would argue that that is entirely relevant to the Finance Bill, because while the super-rich have been able to profit from the crisis, the Government have washed their hands of others who needed support. Just this week, millions relying on legacy benefits such as employment and support allowance for disabled and sick people got a pathetic 37p increase in their benefits. What a snub, especially after already being refused the £20 additional payment that went to those on universal credit. With that 37p increase, the Government are deliberately punishing disabled people. It is yet another example of how they seek to make the vast majority pay for one of the world’s deepest economic collapses I will vote against the Bill because it fails to give NHS staff the proper pay rise they need, because it cuts the pay of millions of public sector workers and hands billions in giveaways to mega-corporations such as Amazon, many of which have done very well out of the crisis, because it leaves many of the lowest earners facing tax rises and because later this year it will cut social security payments for people who really should get much more help. I will vote against the Bill because it serves the few and not the many. This crisis has not only shone a spotlight on the deep inequalities in our society but widened them. We should be coming out of it with a more equal society, but, to help us do that, where is the tax on the companies that have made super-profits during the crisis? Where is the one-off tax on the super-wealthy as other countries are doing? I will vote against the Bill and table an amendment calling on the Government to take measures for a super-tax on the super-rich. We need to start to build a society that serves the many, not the few. That is what the Bill should be about, but it is no surprise that, with this Government, it is anything but.
Lost Learning: Covid-19 — House of Commons, 2021-04-26
Topic: Education
Katherine Anne Green (Labour, Centre-left): The national tutoring programme is reaching only one in six pupils on free school meals, and changes to the school census date mean that schools are also losing out on thousands of pounds of pupil premium funding for those students. Will the Secretary of State now come clean and publish his Department’s full financial analysis of the funding lost to schools from this pupil premium stealth cut?
Lost Learning: Covid-19 — House of Commons, 2021-04-26
Topic: Education
Katherine Anne Green (Labour, Centre-left): So are headteachers moaning when they say that the pupil premium stealth cut means that they will not be able to pay for speech and language therapy, or a teaching assistant, or additional small group sessions? One head told me that they lose out more on pupil premium cuts than they receive in catch-up funding. This is not a Government that are serious about catch-up. Will the Secretary of State guarantee that no school will be worse off as a result of his changes to the pupil premium?
Adult Education Devolution: Choice of Colleges — House of Commons, 2021-04-26
Topic: Education
Rosemary Elizabeth Cooper (Labour, Centre-left): Both Greater Manchester Combined Authority and the Liverpool city region have been refusing funding for their residents looking to study outside their boundaries. That is severely limiting the choices available to students and has left West Lancashire College in my constituency, near both the Liverpool and Greater Manchester boundaries, with a greatly reduced potential student pool. Liverpool has agreed to stop this but Greater Manchester has not. What advice can the Minister give to local authorities acting in this protectionist way with taxpayers’ funds, to the detriment of places such as West Lancashire College?
Adult Education Devolution: Choice of Colleges — House of Commons, 2021-04-26
Topic: Education
Matthew Toby Perkins (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister refers to a simpler adult education funding approach, but the decision to increase the adult education clawback threshold from 68% last year to 90% this year, and to impose it at the last minute, will place many colleges in a brutal financial situation. Leicester College, for example, is forecasting that it could be as much as £4 million worse off than expected. The Government can either commit to a skills-based revolution, as they claim they want to do, or endanger the sector by repeatedly cutting its funding; they cannot do both. Why is there such a dangerous discrepancy between what the Government say they want on further education and what they do?
Speech and Language Therapy — House of Commons, 2021-04-26
Topic: Education
Stephen James McCabe (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Minister for her answer, but she will be aware that reports say that 70% of families do not have access to pre-pandemic levels of speech and language therapies. When does she hope to see this restarted in all schools? What specific steps is she taking to address the educational impact of delays for children who need this particular support?
Northern College, Barnsley: Residential Provision — House of Commons, 2021-04-26
Topic: Education
Daniel Owen Jarvis (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful the Minister for that response. She will know that Northern College is one of Barnsley’s proudest institutions—it provides an outstanding level of education and reaches disadvantaged learners—but financially it is on the brink. In respect of the Government’s review, will the Minister commit to working closely with local stakeholders, so that together we can do everything we can to ensure that Northern College retains its independence and its residential provision?
End-of-Year Assessments 2021 — House of Commons, 2021-04-26
Topic: Education
Wesley Paul William Streeting (Labour, Centre-left): Like so many other aspects of the Government’s coronavirus response, the Department for Education’s handling of exams has been a total disaster. Schools are currently grappling with a whole series of challenges that could have been easily avoided if only the Department had planned ahead. Can we finally have the triumph of hope over experience, and the Government learn their lessons from last year’s disaster and the unfolding disaster this year and publish plans for next year so that those exams are not a disaster, too?
50 to 66-year-olds: Qualifications — House of Commons, 2021-04-26
Topic: Labor
John Francis Spellar (Labour, Centre-left): This question is very timely because, in the here and now, today’s report from the Resolution Foundation highlights the difficulties being faced by the over-50s in getting back into work. One of the many obstacles they face is insistence by employers, or their graduate-stuffed HR departments, on A-levels or university degrees, even when those qualifications are not relevant to the job. The Minister will recognise the unfair nature of this for a generation for which, as is shown by the figures, taking such qualifications was much less common. Can we get employers—public and private—to focus on the person, not the piece of paper, and end this wasteful discrimination against older workers?
Turing Scheme: Disadvantaged Students — House of Commons, 2021-04-26
Topic: Education
Matthew Raymond Western (Labour, Centre-left): This is a Government of illusion. The Prime Minister said that there was no risk to Erasmus, then it was gone, replaced with the Turing scheme, which Ministers said would improve opportunities. But a quick look at the scheme shows that for cost of living, Turing offers just £490 of support—£140 less than Erasmus—while for travel costs, only a fraction of students are now eligible whereas under Erasmus+ all students were eligible for up to £1,300. In tuition fees, there is no support, whereas it was guaranteed under Erasmus for free. Could the Secretary of State just be straight with students and confirm that Turing equals Erasmus minus?
International Students: Hotel Quarantine — House of Commons, 2021-04-26
Topic: Education
Daniel Stephen Zeichner (Labour, Centre-left): International students are hugely important to our universities. With India added to the red list, there is real concern that the cost of hotel quarantine will be a deal breaker for some. Can the Minister tell us whether universities will be allowed to manage the quarantine system for themselves, which they are well qualified to do, and how soon could that be resolved? If not, who or what is the obstacle?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2021-04-26
Topic: Education
Geraint Richard Davies (Labour, Centre-left): In Wales, the Labour Government are investing heavily in catch-up summer schools, geared in particular to children from poorer backgrounds. We know that 50% of children from poorer backgrounds start school with speech and language difficulties. What is the Education Secretary doing to ensure that these pupils do not suffer disproportionately from cuts in England to the pupil premium, when it is they who are most in need of catch-up after the lockdown?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2021-04-26
Topic: Social Welfare
Tulip Rizwana Siddiq (Labour, Centre-left): More and more children are relying on free school meals because of the pandemic. The Government’s holiday activities and food programme tells local councils to provide just 16 days’ worth of food support over a six-week summer holiday period, so could I ask the Minister: what does she expect children to eat the rest of the time?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2021-04-26
Topic: Education
Karin Marguerite Smyth (Labour, Centre-left): I have written to the Minister about an error in the way the national school census recorded nursery provision. Along with the cancellation of the summer census, that meant that Four Acres academy in my constituency lost some £80,000. The Government change of date on the pupil premium has left Bristol schools with a shortfall of about £1.6 million. Catch-up funding is about £1.64 million. By my maths, that is a case—almost exactly—of the Lord giveth, and the Lord has taken away. Will the Minister meet me to assure me that poorer children in Bristol are not being penalised, and will he publish the data and let us see exactly what has come to our schools and what has been taken away? I will work with the Minister to ensure that that is clear.
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2021-04-26
Topic: Education
Karen Patricia Buck (Labour, Centre-left): Further education colleges are central to the roll-out of the Government’s skills agenda, yet in London the teaching grant for further education colleges has been cut by 13.7%, which is equivalent to a loss of £64 million. Will the Minister explain why the levelling-up agenda has meant levelling-down for further education in London?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2021-04-26
Topic: Education
Bellavia Janet Ribeiro-Addy (Labour, Centre-left): This country deserves a well-funded, well-valued teaching profession, but the litany of problems affecting teachers has not gone away, and issues such as increased workload, stress, and a lack of professional autonomy have been documented widely, including by the Department. With a looming recruitment and retention crisis, does the Minister have any long-term plans to allow greater autonomy and trust? Would a potential recruitment and retention strategy promise to do away with the excessive scrutiny of teaching professionals?
Ministerial Code — House of Commons, 2021-04-26
Topic: Government Operations
Rachel Jane Reeves (Labour, Centre-left): Mr Speaker: "There must be no bullying and no harassment; no leaking…No misuse of taxpayer money and no actual or perceived conflicts of interest." Those words are from the Prime Minister’s foreword to the ministerial code. I do not know whether he believed them when he wrote them, but he is certainly trampling all over them today. The Prime Minister is now corrupting the standards of public life expected in high office as he dodges questions and tries to cover up payments for the luxury refurbishment of his flat, feathering his own nest and possibly breaking the law through undeclared loans As for leaks, we are seeing the pipes burst with the sewage of allegations. People say that a fish rots from the head down. There is a reason why there is no independent adviser on ministerial standards and why the Government will not publish the long-overdue list of Ministers’ interests. The reason is that the Prime Minister has not wanted them. This is a Prime Minister who would rather the bodies "pile high" than act on scientific advice, but they are not bodies; they are people, they are loved ones and they are deeply missed I ask the Minister to engage with the issues at hand. When will the Government publish that register of Ministers’ financial interests? Who paid the invoices for the Prime Minister’s flat refurbishment in the first place and when were those funds repaid? When will the review by the Cabinet Secretary of this fiasco be complete? When will the vacancy for the independent adviser on ministerial standards be filled, and will the Government give that adviser the powers to trigger independent investigations, as the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) has just said and as recommended by Lord Evans Finally, will the Minister apologise for the stomach-churning comments that have come out today and announce an urgent public inquiry into the Government’s handling of the pandemic? This is all about conduct, character and decency. Frankly, our country deserves an awful lot better than this.
Ministerial Code — House of Commons, 2021-04-26
Topic: Government Operations
Margaret Eve Hodge (Labour, Centre-left): Last week, the Government claimed that the Prime Minister funded the up-front costs of decorating the Downing Street flat himself. This afternoon, the Prime Minister did not deny that the up-front costs were met by Conservative party donors. This is not the first but the third time in the space of just one week that the Prime Minister has been caught out. How many more times will Ministers accept that their leader—our Prime Minister—has misled the public, the press and Parliament before they declare him unfit for office?
Ministerial Code — House of Commons, 2021-04-26
Topic: Government Operations
Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Labour, Centre-left): Whether it is the Prime Minister’s luxury refurbishment of his flat or other things, day after day more sordid, sleazy details are unearthed about this incompetent Conservative Government, who are becoming an embarrassment for our nation, given the billions wasted on crony covid contracts. Tory donors have been profiteering at the British taxpayer’s expense, in the midst of widespread public misery. So will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster inform the House as to why he is delaying the public inquiry into the handling of the pandemic, which would allow us all to ascertain for ourselves how many Ministers have broken the ministerial code by texting or handing out Government contracts to their Tory chums?
Ministerial Code — House of Commons, 2021-04-26
Topic: Government Operations
Andrew Francis Slaughter (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister has a specific duty to ensure transparency in Government through the Freedom of Information Act. Is he concerned that Transparency International last year identified nine unremedied breaches of the ministerial code? Why is information withheld in Government FOI responses more often than not? And is he still running his FOI clearing house to delay and filter FOI responses?
Ministerial Code — House of Commons, 2021-04-26
Topic: Government Operations
Matthew Toby Perkins (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister for the Cabinet Office says that he welcomes this urgent question today, and for once I believe him, because there is nothing he likes more than seeing the remaining shreds of the Prime Minister’s credibility for probity being blown into the wind. We know that he will look forward to an opportunity to finally get his own head down in that lavishly furnished apartment above No. 10 Downing Street, and that when we come to the next Conservative party leadership contest he will once again be persuaded to put his hat in the ring, but is he really saying that the way this Government have operated is acceptable and that this is really the way we should expect a Government to operate?
Ministerial Code — House of Commons, 2021-04-26
Topic: Government Operations
Angela Eagle (Labour, Centre-left): Dominic Cummings has described the Prime Minister’s plans to get Tory donors to pay for the lavish refurbishment of the Downing Street flat as "unethical, foolish and…illegal". Either the Prime Minister’s former chief adviser is a liar and a fantasist, or the Prime Minister is not being entirely straightforward with the House or the country. Which is it?
Ministerial Code — House of Commons, 2021-04-26
Topic: Government Operations
Kevan David Jones (Labour, Centre-left): In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), the Minister made a virtue of the Prime Minister having paid for the refurbishment of the Downing Street flat. There have been several weeks of speculation about this and it was only last Friday that Downing Street confirmed that he had. Will the Minister clarify whether the Prime Minister paid the original invoices for this work, or did he reimburse the donors who allegedly donated money to this fund or to the Conservative party?
Ministerial Code — House of Commons, 2021-04-26
Topic: Government Operations
Rachel Louise Hopkins (Labour, Centre-left): We have seen a growing divergence between what Ministers say in public and the true intentions that they share in private. The public deserves to know what the Prime Minister said to Manchester United’s Ed Woodward in a meeting before the European super league was announced, as it seems that the Prime Minister gave the impression that he supported the plans. Without full transparency, questions remain about the Prime Minister’s potential breach of the ministerial code and the Nolan principles. Can the Minister commit the Government to publish all details relating to that meeting?