argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Northern Ireland Budget Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-13
Topic: International Affairs
Owen Smith (Labour, Centre-left): I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point—indeed, I mentioned the political disagreement. Equally, however, many victims on all sides of the troubles find it difficult to accept that the actions of a few people who injured themselves by their own hand should hold up the process for all victims—including the many hundreds who are innocent—and preclude them from getting the pensions that they need to support themselves, especially as they get older and more infirm. I understand his point, but a moral argument needs to be made. Perhaps it will take a period of direct rule to introduce that argument Thirdly, may I raise something else that I suspect will prompt some interventions: the so-called moral issues in Northern Ireland, particularly equal marriage and abortion rights? Those two areas are incredibly divisive, complex and politically parlous, but I urge the Secretary of State to think hard about them, not least in the light of the referendum that is being held in the Republic. He needs to think about how he might consult in Northern Ireland so that progress is made on those important issues One of the greatest tragedies of the recent period of impasse in Northern Ireland is that Northern Ireland does not have a voice on the thorny issue of Brexit and the border. Northern Ireland is likely to be strongly affected by Brexit economically, socially and politically, and perhaps even in terms of the peace process. It is tragic that Northern Ireland has remained voiceless throughout the process. I fear that the Government have engaged in reckless gunboat diplomacy on Brexit, and although the Northern Ireland Secretary voices platitudes about not wanting a hard border on the island of Ireland—we all support that view—he has unfortunately not proposed any substantive ways of preventing that from happening—[Interruption.] He says that that is nonsense. If he wants to stand up and tell us exactly how he will prevent the introduction of a hard border on the island of Ireland, I will be pleased to take that intervention, because I have heard nothing substantive from the Government.
Northern Ireland Budget Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-13
Topic: International Affairs
Owen Smith (Labour, Centre-left): None of those proposals has been taken remotely seriously by our interlocutors in Brussels. None of them answers the question of how we avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland. None of them is currently thought to be a serious runner—[Interruption.] Well, I wait to see the Brexit negotiations reaching the conclusion that the Secretary of State is right and we do not need to consider some sort of special arrangement for Northern Ireland. At the moment, the country can see that no progress is being made on the matter, that the Government are employing gunboat diplomacy and that, unfortunately, we are not in a position to tell the people of Northern Ireland that they can remain safe and secure in the knowledge that a hard border will not replace the current porous border.
Northern Ireland Budget Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-13
Topic: International Affairs
Owen Smith (Labour, Centre-left): I agree with the EU that it is absolutely essential that we avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland—that is absolutely clear. I agree with the EU that the Government do not seem to have serious or realistic proposals for fixing the problem. I agree with the EU that one potential outcome that would solve the problem would be if Northern Ireland remained in the customs union and had some sort of special arrangement. That is a very interesting idea that we ought to consider.
Northern Ireland Budget Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-13
Topic: Foreign Trade
Owen Smith (Labour, Centre-left): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I stand corrected. In no way, shape or form should we damage trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland through Northern Ireland. Nor should we damage trade across the border. Both would damage the Northern Irish economy. At present, we have no clarity from the Government about how they are going to square that circle. It is for the Government to tell the country and the people of Northern Ireland how they will fix the problem that they have created.
Northern Ireland Budget Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-13
Topic: International Affairs
Conor Patrick McGinn (Labour, Centre-left): Of course there is a very simple way to meet the DUP’s stated objectives—two objectives I share—of not having a hard border on the island of Ireland and not having a new border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain: for the whole United Kingdom to stay in the single market and the customs union.
Northern Ireland Budget Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-13
Topic: International Affairs
Owen Smith (Labour, Centre-left): I have some sympathy with that very interesting idea, but I am not sure that it is entirely within the purview of this debate. Perhaps we will debate that in the Chamber tomorrow If this is not direct rule, it is getting perilously close. We are getting close to the landing strip on the Secretary of State’s famous glide path. If the Secretary of State is to have one more go, as I believe he wants to and must, at getting Northern Ireland’s Assembly back up and running, he has to consider the changes that we have outlined today. He must think about whether he needs an independent chair, lay out a real road map, get the Prime Minister to get her hands dirty in Northern Ireland, and make sure that we have a clear indication of what his priorities will be if he fails. We heard at the beginning of the debate about a bomb being placed in Omagh on Remembrance Sunday. We know that there is a bomb in Derry right now and that there was a kneecapping in Londonderry last night. These are echoes of Northern Ireland’s terrible past, but they must not be harbingers of its future. It is for us in this generation, and for the Secretary of State and his Government, to make sure that they are not.
Northern Ireland Budget Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-13
Topic: Government Operations
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Gentleman has made interesting comments about direct rule and some of its dangers. Does he see a role for the Select Committee in considering how devolution could be restored, or how initiatives might be developed, perhaps along the lines that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) mentioned, as well as others, to try to support the restoration of the Assembly and the Executive? Has the Committee given any thought to that, or to scrutinising how the budget process works if the Executive are not restored?
Northern Ireland Budget Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-13
Topic: Government Operations
Conor Patrick McGinn (Labour, Centre-left): There has been little or no discord tonight about the desire of all of us to see devolution restored. What is the Government’s plan for allowing that to happen? The Bill will pass tonight, but what will the Minister do tomorrow with the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister, the Irish Government and the political parties in Northern Ireland? Whatever has been done in the past 11 months has not worked, so something needs to change if the Assembly and the Executive are to be restored.
Northern Ireland Budget Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-13
Topic: International Affairs
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Centre-left): The debate has been good; there is general good will across the House towards Northern Ireland. The House will rightly support the budget proposals, but there is an impasse at the moment. No matter whose fault that is, a number of us want the Government to take concrete steps to support the restoration of the Executive and the Assembly. This is about not just rhetoric or wishful thinking, but concrete steps that will give us a chance of believing that the matter can be resolved.
Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill (Money) — House of Commons, 2017-11-13
Topic: Social Welfare
Gillian Furniss (Labour, Centre-left): The Bill offers two weeks’ paid leave to any employed parent who loses a child under the age of 18. Employed parents with at least 26 weeks’ continuous service will also be eligible to receive statutory parental bereavement pay. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) made clear on Second Reading, Labour supports the Bill entirely The Bill requires this money resolution to proceed because employers will be able to reclaim some or all of their costs from the Government. As the explanatory notes set out, the "estimated cost to the Exchequer of 2 weeks’ paid leave at the statutory flat rate (currently £140.98 a week) or 90% of average weekly earnings where that is lower, is £1.77m per year." There will also be a one-off cost to amend Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ systems, which is estimated at £1.25 million It is good that the Government have brought forward this money resolution to allow the Bill, which commands support on both sides of the House, to move into Committee. I hope that this is how they intend to proceed on all private Members’ Bills that receive a Second Reading in this Session. I congratulate the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) on championing the issue in the Bill and other hon. Members on both sides of the House on their work to ensure that grieving parents get the support they deserve.
Police Funding: Bedfordshire — House of Commons, 2017-11-13
Topic: Law and Crime
Mohammad Yasin (Labour, Centre-left): Jon Boutcher, the Bedfordshire chief constable, is here tonight. About two months ago he said that, because of funding cuts, he did not have enough officers to respond to 999 calls. The situation is very worrying. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is time the Government listened to the chief constable?
Police Funding: Bedfordshire — House of Commons, 2017-11-13
Topic: Law and Crime
Mohammad Yasin (Labour, Centre-left): Last year, four shootings took place in one night in my constituency, and the police helicopter took more than an hour to respond. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that gun crime is on the rise because of a shortage of police officers?
Police Funding: Bedfordshire — House of Commons, 2017-11-13
Topic: Law and Crime
Mohammad Yasin (Labour, Centre-left): Two months ago, the chief constable said that he did not have enough resources to attend 999 calls and that, as a result, the people of Bedfordshire were not safe. Is it not now time for the Government to act urgently on the chief constable’s call for more funding so that the people of Bedfordshire are safe?
Mental Health Workforce — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Macroeconomics
Sharon Hodgson (Labour, Centre-left): Further to the Secretary of State’s response to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), I feel that the Secretary of State is not being clear with the House. Will the extra money that Simon Stevens asked for be in the Budget or not?
Tax Avoidance and Evasion — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Macroeconomics
Margaret Eve Hodge (Labour, Centre-left): I beg to move, That this House has considered the systemic issues enabling tax avoidance and evasion uncovered by the Paradise Papers The actions and the culture of powerful large corporations and of the wealthiest in our society, as revealed in the Paradise papers, constitute a national and international disgrace. What we have learned is that tax avoidance is not just a trivial irritant practised by a small number of greedy individuals and global corporations; it is the widely accepted behaviour of too many of those who are rich and influential. It is clearly taking place on an industrial scale and it has become a scourge on our society. The Paradise papers reveal the enormity and scale of the problem and that is what makes this emergency debate on the issue so important Our debate is also urgent and timely because the Chancellor, who sadly is not in his place to hear the debate, is putting the finishing touches to his Budget. I hope that he will read very carefully the views expressed today by Members and reflect them in the proposals he brings to us next week.
Tax Avoidance and Evasion — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Macroeconomics
John Eugene Joseph Dromey (Labour, Centre-left): There is no such thing as a magic money tree: that is what the Prime Minister told a nurse who had not had an increase in eight years. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is, and that they grow on the Cayman Islands, in Bermuda and Jersey; and that were the ill-gotten gains salted away by tax dodging to be picked and put into our public services, police officers and teachers would not be facing the sack and we would not be facing a crisis in the health service?
Tax Avoidance and Evasion — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Macroeconomics
Margaret Eve Hodge (Labour, Centre-left): I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s remarks, which are very pertinent to what we will be discussing in the debate Paying tax is an essential part of the social contract into which we all enter as members of a community. As members of society, we agree to abide by a set of rules and regulations that make all our lives better. One of those rules is that we agree to contribute through taxation into the common pot for the common good.
Tax Avoidance and Evasion — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Macroeconomics
Margaret Eve Hodge (Labour, Centre-left): I am really pleased the hon. Gentleman has given me the opportunity to explain the circumstances to the House. My father and his cousins were refugees from Germany. My father was then a refugee from Egypt, so he was a double refugee. I remember as a child that he often said to me, "You will never feel safe in this country. Always have your suitcase ready." He did keep money abroad. When we discovered that after he died, we closed those funds and put them into a charity The level of taxation and who pays is decided by us here in Parliament through our democratic processes. That is how we create a system that is democratic and trusted by all. When a minority choose to ignore and deliberately bypass our rules and regulations and get away with it, they undermine confidence in the fairness of the system. Some people and some Members claim that tax avoidance is okay because it is lawful. Indeed, one of the Government’s Ministers from the other place, the noble Lord Bates, said on Monday that tax avoidance "continues to be part of the international system and we recognise and value it."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 November 2017; Vol. 785, c. 1611.] He and others are simply wrong, and they misunderstand the issues. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ own definition of tax avoidance is clear: "Tax avoidance involves bending the rules of the tax system to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended. It often involves operating within the letter, but not the spirit of the law." Those are the words of HMRC. Even it says that tax avoidance is wrong.
Tax Avoidance and Evasion — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Macroeconomics
Margaret Eve Hodge (Labour, Centre-left): I agree with the hon. Lady that resourcing HMRC is absolutely central to the fight against tax avoidance and evasion Tax avoidance is completely different from tax planning, whereby, for example, Parliament intended to encourage people to save for their pension by introducing ISAs with tax breaks. Tax avoiders, on the other hand, thwart the intention of Parliament. Their action means our collective will is ignored. We should not tolerate it and we must act urgently to eradicate it.
Tax Avoidance and Evasion — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Macroeconomics
Margaret Eve Hodge (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend makes an absolutely central point to what we will be asking for today Not only does the behaviour of a few damage trust in the system as a whole, but it damages the public services our taxes are used to fund. At a time when the NHS is under such pressure, when public sector workers have had their wages held down for years and our schools are struggling to deliver the best start for all our children, for the super-rich and the powerful to think that they can opt out of their duty to contribute fairly through paying taxes is completely and utterly and totally immoral and wrong, and it is our responsibility to put an end to it.
Tax Avoidance and Evasion — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Macroeconomics
Margaret Eve Hodge (Labour, Centre-left): I hope that the right hon. Lady will listen to the whole of my speech. I think she will acknowledge, as we move forward, that a little progress has been made but not enough. I agree that the previous Labour Government’s record on tackling tax avoidance was not as good as I would have wanted, but the record and actions of this Government are inadequate and somewhat hypocritical. Their rhetoric is mostly fine, but the reality is badly wanting.
Tax Avoidance and Evasion — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Macroeconomics
Stephen James McCabe (Labour, Centre-left): When ordinary people hear the Budget next week and have to think about their taxes against the background of inflation in food prices, will they not wonder why the Members opposite are hellbent on avoiding any inquiry into aggressive tax avoidance?
Tax Avoidance and Evasion — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Macroeconomics
Margaret Eve Hodge (Labour, Centre-left): I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Indeed, I was about to say that those who pay their taxes are completely fed up. By 8 o’clock this morning, nearly 156,000 people had signed a petition going to the Prime Minister. This is an issue that angers people across the country, men and women, supporters of all political parties, people of all ages and people in every income group.
Tax Avoidance and Evasion — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Macroeconomics
Margaret Eve Hodge (Labour, Centre-left): If the hon. Lady looks at the HMRC figure on the tax gap, which is about £34 billion to £36 billion, and then at the figure that tax campaigners talk about, which is a gap of £120 billion, I think she will share my determination to see much more action to deal with this ill in our society.
Tax Avoidance and Evasion — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Macroeconomics
Margaret Eve Hodge (Labour, Centre-left): I completely concur with my hon. Friend’s important remarks It is our job, as the elected representatives of those who are angry, to do what we can to put a stop to tax injustice. Tax avoidance should be not an issue that divides us, but one on which we work together in the interests of all taxpayers and in order to protect our public services. The Paradise papers are the latest in a series of leaks unmasked by the international press. I salute the professional investigatory journalists involved in making sense of the millions of documents passed to them, especially those at The Guardian and on "Panorama", who have been working on the papers for a year, and I salute the public-spirited courage of the whistleblower who first passed the papers to the German newspaper, the Süddeutsche Zeitung. The Paradise papers contain 13.4 million files from just two offshore providers of tax advice and the company registries of 19 tax havens. The scale of the data is what makes the leaks so important We have had the Panama papers, the Luxembourg leaks, the Falciani leaks, the so-called Russian and Azerbaijani laundromat revelations on money laundering, and now we have the Paradise papers. We will continue to see new leaks splashed over our papers and filling our television screens until the Government act firmly to clamp down on the avoidance that is so blatant and yet so wrong.
Tax Avoidance and Evasion — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Macroeconomics
Margaret Eve Hodge (Labour, Centre-left): I am trying not to make this overly partisan, but I feel more ashamed, as a Member of Parliament, at the hon. Lady’s party’s reluctance to adopt the clear and simple measures that could really tackle tax avoidance.
Tax Avoidance and Evasion — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Macroeconomics
Margaret Eve Hodge (Labour, Centre-left): I agree that the line is extremely blurred. Schemes put forward as legitimate tax avoidance are frequently found to be unlawful when HMRC finally catches up with them. It is difficult to make distinctions Worse than that, Appleby helped to co-ordinate a well-funded and comprehensive lobby by the International Financial Centres Forum before a G8 summit that David Cameron chaired in 2013. The then Prime Minister had intended to insist that the UK’s tax havens publish public registers of beneficial ownership in their jurisdiction. Had David Cameron had his way, we might not be here today, but the IFCF lobbied fiercely to maintain secrecy. It lobbied the right hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Gauke), the then Exchequer Secretary, it lobbied the permanent secretary at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, it lobbied the senior official who was then director of the UK’s G8 presidency unit, and it succeeded in weakening David Cameron’s commitment to transparency.
Tax Avoidance and Evasion — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Foreign Trade
Michael John Gapes (Labour, Centre-left): I thank my right hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way. Is not the fact that the vast majority of these tax havens are British overseas territories the key question, and is it not time that this Government—or any other Government in the country—took seriously the fact that those places are not doing what is in the interests of British people all over the world?
Tax Avoidance and Evasion — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Macroeconomics
Margaret Eve Hodge (Labour, Centre-left): I simply observe that the UK also has responsibility for the overseas territories and Crown dependencies, and I wish that its own tax code did not contain so many harmful elements that encourage tax avoidance Appleby’s lobbying illustrates another continuing problem. The Treasury, and other Ministers and Departments, listen only to a very small and exclusive group of tax professionals when making decisions on tax policy. It is one thing for the Government to consult stakeholders on issues, but it is quite another for the Government to be captured by the tax industry at the expense of the wider public interest. Tough and active regulation of the industry to ensure compliance with existing rules is therefore vital. Curtailing the influence of tax professionals on tax policy is essential, and making the advisers accountable for the schemes that they invent and market is central to the campaign to destroy tax avoidance The measures in the Finance Act 2017 represent one small step in the right direction of holding advisers to account, but the small print suggests that very few, if any, will be caught by the legislation. The definitions are too narrow, and the penalties too weak. Those measures have been introduced so that the Government can claim that they are acting, but until advisers are really called to account and properly punished for inventing schemes that are purely aimed at avoiding tax, the army of lawyers, accountants and bankers will continue to prosper. If the Government are serious about tackling tax avoidance, they must act strongly to deal with the illegitimate practices of those who make a huge living from peddling tax avoidance advice.
Tax Avoidance and Evasion — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Law and Crime
Ian Colin Lucas (Labour, Centre-left): My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Does she agree that the approach of the prosecuting authorities in this country must also be improved? It is striking how seldom they proceed with the legislation that we introduce.