argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-07-06
Topic: Government Operations
Jacob William Rees-Mogg (Conservative, Centre-right): I am terribly sorry to say that we do not have an exact precedent. We have exactly the wrong precedent, and the right hon. Gentleman is making my argument: we should be very nervous of doing this because it would lead inexorably to a division between the state—we divide the Crown, and we divide the state. There we are: I am finding a good deal of agreement between my position and that of SNP Members, but neither of us is in perfect harmony with those on the Treasury Bench, who seem to want to put this forward with the view that it does not risk a fundamental division in the Crown. That is what worries me; it is why I think it is a mistake, and why I have tabled a number of amendments that I hope will meet with universal approbation. Indeed, I am very surprised that many SNP Members, after all their protestations of loyalty to the Crown following the suggestion that the sovereign grant might lose a bit of money, did not add their names to my amendments. I was hoping for that, but I hoped in vain I would like to explain my amendments in reverse order, because amendment 127 is perhaps the key one. It states "The scheme must not include any permanent alienation of the rights of the Crown."
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-07-06
Topic: Government Operations
Jacob William Rees-Mogg (Conservative, Centre-right): No, I do not agree. I enjoyed participating in the Sovereign Grant Act debates, when I thought Her Majesty ought to get rather more than the measly 15% that was being proposed. It is based on the income of the Crown Estates and it is conceivable that if the Crown Estates were managed in a less than efficient way, the total amount raised would be reduced and therefore the grant from the Consolidated Fund would be reduced in a pro rata manner. This amendment is putting in a protection.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-07-06
Topic: Government Operations
Jacob William Rees-Mogg (Conservative, Centre-right): The Crown Estate was a brilliant way of settling the issue. It is of course just one way, and we have tried other methods, but the civil list, for instance, ended up failing as a method of paying for the Crown because of inflation. It had historically been set for the lifetime of a sovereign and was done once in a reign, but inflation bit into that and the amount granted to the Queen in 1952 became so small 20 years into her reign that it needed to be increased. The great advantage of the Sovereign Grant Act is that it took the detailed petty politics out of ensuring we have a monarchy that is funded to do what we want our monarchy to do.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-07-06
Topic: Energy
Jacob William Rees-Mogg (Conservative, Centre-right): Hon. Members may have got the impression that I am a monarchist; I think there are few things more important in this nation than the monarchical system that we have. None the less I am consistent in my capitalist views; I do not want even my sovereign to benefit from subsidies that are paid by the Government and fall on the backs of hard-pressed people in North East Somerset who cannot afford their energy bills. I am not that much of a monarchist.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-07-06
Topic: Macroeconomics
Jacob William Rees-Mogg (Conservative, Centre-right): I wish Doris Day many happy returns, albeit somewhat belatedly, but the hon. Gentleman is not right that all these Scottish taxpayers have paid more tax for 31 years, because some—very distinguished—SNP Members of Parliament are not 31 years old, so certainly have not been paying tax for that long.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-07-06
Topic: Government Operations
Edward Julian Egerton Leigh (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend is giving a very fine Tory speech, not one from the Whiggish camp as we have been hearing from others, but I wonder whether in the deepest recesses of his soul he is a Jacobite, and thinks that if there had been a different settlement we may not have had this problem. The serious point, however, is that we must allow the Public Accounts Committees of both Parliaments to look at the royal finances properly, which they cannot do at the moment.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-07-06
Topic: Government Operations
Jacob William Rees-Mogg (Conservative, Centre-right): I think that that is a terrible Jacobean, rather than Jacobite suggestion. Although this is not immediately relevant to the debate, I do not think the Public Accounts Committee should be looking at the royal finances. Her Majesty should be allowed some privacy on that, but that is a side issue.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-07-06
Topic: Labor
Daniel Leonard James Poulter (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman is right that in some cases collective pay bargaining can bring benefits. We recognise that in the NHS, for example, Scotland has devolved powers to set pay arrangements, as does Wales, but the national pay review bodies recognise that discrepancies and differences in the pay scales and pay agenda in England and Scotland or in England and Wales can drive workforce patterns of behaviour and affect retention and recruitment. That might well be the point that he is trying to make.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-07-06
Topic: Government Operations
Dominic Charles Roberts Grieve (Conservative, Centre-right): I had not intended to speak in the debate, but the rather pejorative comments of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) in which he described my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) as representing Downton Abbey prompted me to do so. My hon. Friend might at times appear to have a rather archaic way of approaching some of these issues, but in practice his analysis of the devolution of the Crown Estate that is proposed in the Bill is correct The Crown Estate is indivisible, because it is the Crown Estate of the United Kingdom. There is absolutely no reason why the revenue from it should not be allocated in different ways, including to the Scottish Government—I have no difficulty whatever with that proposal—but an issue arises in relation to the duty of this House to fulfil what is both a statutory and, in a sense, a fiduciary duty to ensure that the estate is properly managed and to hold to account the Ministers and, ultimately, the Commissioners who are responsible for that. The point has been made that the provisions in the Bill do not allow for the estate’s alienation, but that does not mean that it could not be so mishandled in the course of its management that its value did not diminish substantially. I assume that, as a result of the Bill and of Sewel motions, this House would no longer be in a position to scrutinise how that management was taking place if that were to happen The Crown is a reserved matter, and the running of the Crown Estate is intimately concerned with the affairs of the Crown, so this proposal is a constitutional novelty that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset was quite right to highlight. I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us more about the issues relating to alienation, about the management of the Crown Estate and about the extent to which this House—which is ultimately supposed to maintain the dignity of the Crown—will have a role hereafter in respect of those parts of the Crown Estate that are being managed elsewhere.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-07-06
Topic: International Affairs
Dominic Charles Roberts Grieve (Conservative, Centre-right): I certainly do not think that the Crown Estate is the glue that holds the United Kingdom together. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on that. There are all sorts of other things that provide that glue I said that I was perhaps looking at this too much from a lawyer’s point of view, but I like to look at structures that have some coherence. This particular structure is showing signs of not being coherent. One of the problems with these debates in which we try to reach a sensible and lasting constitutional settlement is that although I would love to accept the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), I am conscious of the fact that he does not really want a solution to the problem. Just as the Irish question is said to have changed every time Mr Gladstone asked it, so the hon. Gentleman changes the question each time an answer comes up. He has a desire for certain structures, and although I will do my best at all times to deliver what the Scottish people want, I do not always find it easy to accept the songs that he sings, which are generally designed to lure the Union of the United Kingdom on to the rocks.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-07-06
Topic: International Affairs
Edward Julian Egerton Leigh (Conservative, Centre-right): My right hon. and learned Friend said that the Crown Estate was not the glue that held the United Kingdom together. Nothing much is going to change in regard to the Union following these changes to the Crown Estate. The Government are to be commended for the fact that we are having four days to debate these matters, enabling us to go into great detail. However, I support something that he said earlier, and I hope that others were listening. When we are discussing a subject as fundamental as English votes for English laws, which has a direct relationship with the preservation of the Union, particularly in regard to the Barnett formula, one day’s debate is simply not enough.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-07-06
Topic: International Affairs
Dominic Charles Roberts Grieve (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, but I do not want to be out of order, so I shall not stray too far along that road My hope is that we can find a sensible long-term settlement that will meet the desires of the people of the United Kingdom, but my main worry is that that will prove elusive if we pursue a series of measures that do not seem to have been fully reasoned through. I hope that the example in this vignette is one on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be able to provide all the reassurance I need. Nevertheless, I would not be doing my duty as a Member of Parliament if I did not flag it up.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-07-06
Topic: Government Operations
David Gordon Mundell (Conservative, Centre-right): I am sure that sounded good when the hon. Gentleman wrote it down. It should not come as a surprise to Members that the Government have not accepted amendments at this stage of the Bill’s progress. Unlike in Holyrood, which has only one substantive amending stage, this House has two opportunities for Members to table amendments before a Bill passes on to the other place: Committee and Report. We brought to the House a Bill that had already benefited from considerable scrutiny, including by the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee, and which contained significant changes from the draft clauses.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-07-06
Topic: Macroeconomics
David Gordon Mundell (Conservative, Centre-right): If I could just finish my point I was interested to hear the rationale for the points made by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens). In a previous day’s debate, an amendment was moved on why national insurance contributions should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, yet not one Member spoke to that amendment or explained to the House why Scotland would benefit from the devolution of national insurance contributions The Committee stage has provided an opportunity for amendments to be put forward. I accept that some amendments are genuine and could, if adopted, make the Bill better. Some amendments have not been genuine amendments. We spent a long time debating full fiscal autonomy when it was quite clear that the SNP Scottish Government did not want to see the amendments relating to that passed. We have had a series of amendments laid before Parliament over the four days. I am giving an absolute commitment that we will reflect on them and come back on Report with amendments to the Bill. I recognise that there have been many constructive contributions to today’s debate, not all by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) it has to be said.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-07-06
Topic: Energy
Andrea Jacqueline Leadsom (Conservative, Centre-right): I am delighted to respond this evening. We have heard a wide range of views—albeit some ranging away from the proposed amendments—and I thank hon. Members for all their contributions The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) spoke to clause 49, on which the Smith commission agreement was explicit that the power to allow public sector operators to bid for rail franchises funded and specified by Scottish Ministers would be devolved. Amendments 157 and 158 are unnecessary. Amendment 157 is not necessary as not-for-profit entities, public or private, are not precluded from being franchisees already. Amendment 158 would create unnecessary uncertainty by allowing discretion on whether a public sector bidder could join a live procurement process and therefore does not enhance the drafting in any way. New clause 65 would give the Scottish Parliament full competence over railways. That clearly goes beyond the Smith commission agreement, and would create the potential for unwanted disruption of networks and relationships between franchise authorities, passenger services and cross-border operations. I therefore urge right hon. and hon. Members to withdraw amendments 157 and 158 and new clause 65 Turning to energy company obligations and fuel poverty, amendments 149 to 153 would depart from the Smith commission agreement. The agreement recognised that decisions that could impact on all Great Britain consumers have an impact on the Great Britain energy market as a whole and on UK international obligations that should be made at a Great Britain-wide level and remain reserved. Costs incurred by energy companies owing to supplier obligations affect all Great Britain’s consumers. Different costs incurred by a supplier in one area of Great Britain may cause competitive disadvantages and higher costs for customers in other areas. We think it would be in the interests of both UK and Scottish Ministers that costs on consumers in one part of Great Britain should not be disproportionate to their benefits. We believe that proportionate costs across regions removes the possibility of those competitive distortions and cross-subsidy by consumers across Great Britain. We will look at ways of making the cost of obligations clear and equitable between Scotland and the rest of Great Britain, and will work with the Scottish Government to identify the best way of achieving that The hon. Member for Caerphilly raised the question of who will decide what causes detriment to the UK. I can assure him that we will work with the Scottish Government to set up a process and methodology for evaluating the impact of schemes implemented in Scotland on their own, and in conjunction with schemes implemented in England and Wales, on the Great Britain energy market and on any relevant UK commitments and obligations. I can tell him that UK and Scottish Government officials have already begun working together to scope out how such a process could work.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-07-06
Topic: Energy
Andrea Jacqueline Leadsom (Conservative, Centre-right): I think the hon. Gentleman means an interconnector. I am absolutely a huge fan of interconnectors. That is not a part of the Bill, but I can assure him that I am happy to discuss that at any time and to facilitate conversations with the Scottish Parliament. I am, however, quite sure he will not need me to do that and is able to discuss that with them directly Our proposals on energy company obligations and fuel poverty are fair to all consumers and align with the Smith commission agreement. I urge hon. Members not to press amendments 149 to 153 Let me turn to renewables incentives. Amendment 154 would remove subsections (2) and (3) of new section 90C of the Scotland Act 1998, in clause 53, such that changes of a minor, technical or administrative nature would no longer be excluded from the requirement to consult Scottish Ministers, nor those made by the Secretary of State that are not subject to parliamentary procedure. The hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Callum McCaig) has raised his concerns about this area of consultation. Removing subsection (3) would remove the exclusion to consult the Scottish Ministers on any levy in connection with a renewable electricity incentive scheme. Amendment 154 would require consultation not just on the design of renewable incentive schemes, but on their operation. This would not be in keeping with the Smith commission agreement and would lead to over-complex and time-consuming consultations that would affect the smooth operation of the schemes.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-07-06
Topic: Government Operations
Andrea Jacqueline Leadsom (Conservative, Centre-right): Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are talking about consultation with the Scottish Parliament on the design of renewable incentive schemes. The point I am making is that where there are minor, technical changes, the need to consult would be too time-consuming and burdensome on both sets of Ministers. That is why we urge him not to press amendment 154 Amendment 155 concerns the Competition and Markets Authority. A market investigation is a significant undertaking by the CMA, and the impact of business uncertainty and potential remedies may spread across the whole UK. Let us not forget that the CMA is funded by the UK Government, so it is only fair that, just like UK Ministers, Scottish Ministers should be required to involve the Secretary of State in any decision to require the CMA to undertake an investigation. I therefore urge hon. Members not to press amendment 155 Turning to the amendments from the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), I fully recognise the position that he is trying to convey. He and I have had many conversations on wellbeing, and he will know that I am a big fan of devolution—I am a fan of devolution to local government and a fan of this devolution Bill. The Bill proposes fundamental changes that will give unique new powers to the Scottish Parliament that it has not had before. It will mean that, overall, this devolution settlement is one of the strongest anywhere in the world. The Bill will give significant new powers to Scotland, and it is important that all Members get the opportunity to do justice to those Equally, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that we do not want to be telling the Scottish Parliament whether it should be setting up its own commission on wellbeing or, indeed, what sort of commission it should establish. It will be for Scottish Ministers, with the support of their Scottish MPs, to decide when and if they want to establish their own commission for wellbeing and, of course, what sort of powers they want to devolve to their local government, local enterprise partnerships and so on.
Cardiff City Deal — House of Commons, 2015-07-06
Topic: Agriculture
Alun Craig Williams (Conservative, Centre-right): I certainly do. The other day I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about securing food labelling and honouring and protecting our established brands, such as Welsh lamb, which is as important in south-east Wales as in the rest of Wales. We should look after our brands, our identities and our intellectual property in the food industry as well as in every other industry Let me move on very neatly to sport before I move on to the great potential I see for the city deal.
Cardiff City Deal — House of Commons, 2015-07-06
Topic: Macroeconomics
Alun Craig Williams (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Lady is very unkind to me. I name-checked the Welsh Government more than once and gave them due credit for a lot of investment in the city. If the Welsh Government were as kind as UK Trade & Investment and the UK Government, as in the case of the broadband investment that was made in the city, we would see a lot more Welsh Government logos on that UK Government investment. I have been very kind to the Welsh Government. I do not accept the broader point Secondly, the leader of Blaenau Gwent council rightly identified the main challenge as the need to identify sufficient schemes and projects that will raise the gross value added across the region, not just for Cardiff. That is the key. Such leaders get it, as one would expect from the leader of Blaenau Gwent: the city deal would deliver for the region and develop sufficient quality employment and skills to meet the regional needs. Clearly, the city deal has a time scale, but it needs to feed into projects such as the Circuit of Wales in order for growth to be linked into the region. That is how such projects and the city deal can all work together—a strong vision and one that I support In conclusion, I hope this Adjournment debate has demonstrated both why Cardiff needs a city deal and how this would enable huge regeneration across south Wales. We must to ensure that the engine room of the Welsh economy, Cardiff, has the power and capital funding to become the fastest-growing capital city in Europe.
Cardiff City Deal — House of Commons, 2015-07-06
Topic: Macroeconomics
Edward John Comport Argar (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend is already well known as a passionate and strong advocate for his city and his constituents. Does he agree that a strong and successful Cardiff is good news not just for Wales, but for the whole of the UK, and plays a key role in delivering our long-term economic plan and our one nation strategy? The potential that we are seeing from Cardiff is just the start of what that wonderful city has to offer this country.
Cardiff City Deal — House of Commons, 2015-07-06
Topic: Government Operations
Alun Craig Williams (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend has far more eloquently made the case for the city deal for Cardiff, Wales and the United Kingdom. This is a great offer for south Wales, Cardiff and all four pillars that I mentioned. They can apply for anything. The ball is firmly in the court of the civic leaders of Cardiff and south Wales. They should come to the UK Government with a business plan and make their case In the city deal for Ipswich, the city was given control over jobcentres and many other significant powers. This is the time for civic leaders in south Wales to step up, come up with a plan and transform the south Wales economy. They have a willing audience at this end of the M4 I have outlined some of the hurdles in our way to becoming the fastest-growing capital city in Europe. The main one, on which I shall end, is that the city deal needs a delivery body. We are very good in Wales—better than any other part of the UK—at forming committees. We love committees and we will talk endlessly on committees. Having previously been a committee chairman, I know that to be true—as soon as I arrived in this place I wanted to join several Committees, and now I have. The city deal needs a delivery body—a modern-day Welsh Development Agency or Cardiff Bay Development Corporation version 2—and organisations that have traditionally tended to work against each other need to come together and collaborate. Only then will we see the benefits of the first Welsh city deal, and only then will our region and the Welsh nation tackle huge inequality, the need for regeneration and the huge infrastructure challenges we face.
Steel Industry — House of Commons, 2015-11-18
Topic: Foreign Trade
Stephen Crabb (Conservative, Centre-right): I agree with the sentiment and the direction of the question. That is the backdrop to the global challenge, not just for the British steel industry, but for the steel industry in north America and all across Europe. With a glut of cheap Chinese steel coming on to the market, we are leading efforts at a European level to tackle dumping. We voted for the anti-dumping measures in one specific section of the steel industry and we are continuing with those discussions.