argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Paradise Papers — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: International Affairs
Melvyn John Stride (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Lady is simply wrong. The discussions on the blacklist at the European Union are ongoing and the United Kingdom Government have done nothing to attempt to block them. We are firmly and deeply engaged in them and expect them to conclude by the end of this year.
Paradise Papers — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: International Affairs
Matthew Robert Warman (Conservative, Centre-right): In a world of increasingly global businesses, it is the reality—whether the Labour party likes it or not—that we have to tackle this issue on a global scale. Is that not why it was right that David Cameron used the G7 as a crucial method to tackle it and why it is right that we continue to take an international approach?
Paradise Papers — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Macroeconomics
James Roger Cartlidge (Conservative, Centre-right): With the tax gap at a record low and corporation tax in this country among the lowest in the industrial world, does it not confirm that we have achieved the key balance of a tax system that is both competitive and fair?
Paradise Papers — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Macroeconomics
Melvyn John Stride (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend is correct. We have brought the corporation tax rate down from 28% to 19%, and it will go down further to 17%. The consequence is that we are raising twice as much corporation tax as we did in 2010.
Paradise Papers — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Macroeconomics
Melvyn John Stride (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is just another example of the 35 additional measures the Government are taking between now and the end of this Parliament to ensure we clamp down on tax avoidance, evasion and non-compliance.
Paradise Papers — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Macroeconomics
Melvyn John Stride (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Member talks about our having to live within our means, and it is, of course, right that we do that. He talks about the amount of money we need to bring in. What has been most unhelpful is that the previous Labour Government were so ineffective at bringing in tax, the tax gap became so high they cost our country over £40 billion. If they had had the same average level of tax gap in their last seven years in office as we have had in our seven years, we would be about £45 billion better off.
Paradise Papers — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Transportation
Kelly Jane Tolhurst (Conservative, Centre-right): Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Opposition are being disingenuous? They had 13 years and did nothing. They voted against measures to close loops, confirming that only this Government will act to tackle avoidance.
Paradise Papers — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Macroeconomics
Melvyn John Stride (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Member will know that the wealthy of this country pay their fair share. The 1% most wealthy income tax payers pay 28% of all income tax. What was the figure under the previous Labour Government? It was below 24%, so I will take no lectures from him.
Paradise Papers — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Macroeconomics
Kevin John Foster (Conservative, Centre-right): When I sat on the Public Accounts Committee, we used to hear about mechanisms such as the "double Irish" and the "Dutch sandwich", neither of which are UK jurisdictions. Does the Minister agree that measures such as the diverted profit tax will help to put to an end to some of the tricks that can be used to move profits from this jurisdiction into lower tax jurisdictions?
Paradise Papers — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Macroeconomics
Melvyn John Stride (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The diverted profits tax works every day of the week. It works where HMRC has to step in and sort out the companies that fall foul of it, but it works even better than that: it prevents and deters many, many companies from behaving in an inappropriate fashion.
Paradise Papers — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Macroeconomics
Rebecca Faye Clark (Pow) (Conservative, Centre-right): I want to highlight the new criminal offence we have created for firms that do not stop their staff facilitating tax evasion. For the first time, under the Criminal Finances Act 2017, companies will be held criminally liable if they fail to stop their employees facilitating tax evasion. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this truly demonstrates that the Government take tax avoidance extremely seriously, and, indeed, have done more than our colleagues on the Opposition Benches have ever done?
Paradise Papers — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Macroeconomics
Melvyn John Stride (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is but one further example of making companies criminally responsible where their employees try to facilitate tax avoidance. That is the right way to go and is just another measure the Government have brought in.
Paradise Papers — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Macroeconomics
Melvyn John Stride (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman talks about the amount revealed by these disclosures, and I assume he is centring his remarks on the half-hour television programme last night. The reality is that we do not yet know exactly the extent of what will be revealed, which is why HMRC has asked those with the data to make it available—so that we can use it to get on with the job of cracking down on those who might not have behaved as they should.
Paradise Papers — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Macroeconomics
Melvyn John Stride (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend is right to point out the difference. The tax gap today is 6%, which is about the lowest in the world and the lowest in the history of our country. As I said earlier, if we had had the same average tax gap as Labour during its term in office, we would be more than £40 billion out of pocket—less money, as the shadow Chancellor put it, for the nurses, the doctors, the paramedics, the police, the Army and the others in our public services.
Paradise Papers — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Macroeconomics
Melvyn John Stride (Conservative, Centre-right): The Finance Bill, which has just gone through the House, contains important provisions to clamp down on those who enable tax avoidance—the category of individual and company to which the hon. Lady refers—and those are some pretty stiff penalties.
Paradise Papers — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Government Operations
Robert Edward Jenrick (Conservative, Centre-right): Will my right hon. Friend confirm my understanding that the profits of the Duchy of Lancaster are used exclusively for official purposes, that its investment board is at arm’s length from the Government and that if anyone wants to question who was overseeing the investment board at the time of any suspicious transactions, they should go and see the Labour Ministers at the time?
Paradise Papers — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Government Operations
Melvyn John Stride (Conservative, Centre-right): The accounts of the Duchy of Lancaster are readily available, transparent and audited in the normal fashion, and there has been no suggestion to date, as far as I am aware and certainly not in the television programme last night, of any mischief related to any aspect of its dealings.
Paradise Papers — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Macroeconomics
Melvyn John Stride (Conservative, Centre-right): I can confirm that in 2015 an additional £800 million was made available to HMRC for the purposes of bearing down on tax avoidance and evasion, and that that is expected by 2021-22 to bring in more than £7 billion in additional revenue.
Paradise Papers — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Macroeconomics
Nigel Paul Huddleston (Conservative, Centre-right): My constituents are rightly angry about tax evasion and avoidance, but they are also angry about the avoidance of action, as exemplified under the last Labour Government, who talked tough but did very little. Will the Minister remind me how many times this Government have acted and how many more times they are likely to act?
Paradise Papers — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Macroeconomics
Melvyn John Stride (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend is right. We know how much we have brought in through clamping down on avoidance and evasion: £160 billion since 2010. We also know that we have about the lowest tax gap in the world and that it is far lower than it was under the last Labour Government. Those figures speak for themselves.
Paradise Papers — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Macroeconomics
Melvyn John Stride (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Lady may know from my earlier comments that the wealthiest 1% in the country pay 28% of all income tax. She should also be aware that in 2010, during her party’s time in office, the proportion was only about 23%. Ours is the party that is standing up for the poorest and the least well off in our society, and as part of that process we have taken almost 4 million of the lowest-paid out of tax altogether.
Paradise Papers — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Macroeconomics
Melvyn John Stride (Conservative, Centre-right): I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman that everyone has a moral obligation to pay their fair and legally due share of tax, and when it is found as a consequence of these disclosures that some have failed to do so, HMRC will be on their case.
Paradise Papers — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: International Affairs
Melvyn John Stride (Conservative, Centre-right): The Government are leading the way in exactly that endeavour. As I said earlier, a very important point to note is that we have a multilateral approach to this issue, and we are working hard at delivering on it.
Paradise Papers — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Macroeconomics
Melvyn John Stride (Conservative, Centre-right): I have explained about the transparency that we need. We need to ensure that HMRC obtains the information that it requires to satisfy itself that the dealings in those territories are being carried out appropriately, and that is exactly the position that we are working towards at present.
Paradise Papers — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: International Affairs
Melvyn John Stride (Conservative, Centre-right): I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not start to opine on the constitutional settlement we have with our overseas territories and Crown dependencies, but I will make one important point that relates to the issue he has raised: we must not forget that they do not have representation in our Parliament, and we therefore have particular responsibilities in listening to them and co-operating with them, rather than, as he perhaps suggests, coercing them.
Paradise Papers — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Macroeconomics
Melvyn John Stride (Conservative, Centre-right): The most important message for the hon. Lady’s constituents is the merits of getting on top of tax avoidance, evasion and non-compliance, which is exactly what this Government have done, and which is in turn raising the vital taxes for our public services so we can have the kind of public services that are a hallmark of a civilised society.
Paradise Papers — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Macroeconomics
Melvyn John Stride (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman referred to a £6 billion tax gap, but the figure is not £6 billion; it is 6% of all tax that should be collected. On his suggestion that there should be a general principle or general rule, there is already a general anti-avoidance rule for exactly the purpose to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded.
Paradise Papers — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Macroeconomics
Melvyn John Stride (Conservative, Centre-right): This Government have brought far more property into the scope of taxation than the hon. Gentleman’s party ever did in 13 years in office, so I will not take any lectures on that point from him. [Interruption.]
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: International Affairs
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for his characteristic courtesy in giving me advance notice of it. The motion passed on Wednesday obliges Ministers to provide the Exiting the European Union Committee with the impact assessments arising from sector analyses. That should be done very promptly indeed. Failing that, I expect Ministers to explain to the House before we rise tomorrow evening why they have not provided them and when they propose to do so I should say, and will out of courtesy to the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and for the information of the House, that the Secretary of State has contacted me to say that the Government will comply with the ruling from the Chair and, by implication, with the outcome of the uncontested vote by providing the material. Moreover, before I had even contemplated whether to ask for it—I had not asked for it there and then—the Secretary of State offered me an indication of likely timescale. That was by way of him informing me, but informing me of an outline plan is one thing—I do not cavil at the Secretary of State for doing that—but informing the House is another, and the obligation is to the House The House’s interest in this will be protected by the Brexit Committee, which is chaired by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who was elected by the whole House. I know that if he considers that his Committee, and by extension the whole House, is not being treated with due respect, he will not be slow to alert the House and to seek redress. We may have to return to this matter very soon. My feeling is that the best course of action is for the Government to set out in terms and in public their intended modus operandi and timescale. As I say, that must happen before we rise tomorrow.
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Government Operations
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): The answer to the right hon. Lady, to whom I am grateful for her further point of order, is that that matter is in the hands of the Secretary of State. He wrote to the Chair of the Brexit Committee and, perfectly courteously and properly, copied me in on that correspondence. Whether the Secretary of State wishes to furnish a copy to the right hon. Lady is a matter for him. Now, he may readily do so, as the Secretary of State is a fearless fellow, ex-SAS and all the rest of it, but he may view the right hon. Lady—I say this in all courtesy and as a mark of respect—with considerable trepidation. I do not know. That is a matter for the Secretary of State to judge. He may wish to release the letter, but I rather imagine, knowing the right hon. Lady, she will discover the contents of that letter by one means or t’other. I think we will leave it there for now If there are no further points of order and if the appetite has been satisfied, at least for today, we come to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and his statement.
Grenfell Recovery Taskforce — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Government Operations
Sajid Javid (Conservative, Centre-right): I agree very much with my hon. Friend—when it comes to London governance, he speaks with great experience. One of the lessons learned from this tragedy will certainly be the need to help all councils—not just those in London—with their resilience and response in any civilian emergency they might face, and that process is certainly going on.
Grenfell Recovery Taskforce — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Government Operations
Rebecca Faye Clark (Pow) (Conservative, Centre-right): First, I applaud the meticulous approach that the Secretary of State has taken and the insightful report he has brought to the Chamber today—a great deal of work has gone into it. One area that is highlighted is the need for better skills in the council. Will he outline what skills ought to be used to deliver and to help in the aftermath of this tragedy and what the Government are doing to help?
Grenfell Recovery Taskforce — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Education
Sajid Javid (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. She is right that one of the key recommendations of the taskforce’s members concerns skills. They talked about skills in some detail: they highlighted not just having appropriate skills training for the officers of the council, but making sure, for example, that councillors, as well as some of their key officers, have had training in emotional support services. That is one of the most important takeaways from this report, and I am pleased that the council has fully accepted this and the other recommendations.
Grenfell Recovery Taskforce — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Government Operations
Sajid Javid (Conservative, Centre-right): The council accepted the recommendations very quickly; it did not take too much time to consider them. It had a meeting, went through them, and accepted every single one. That is a good start. As for how the implementation will be monitored, first, the taskforce itself will help to oversee it and report back to me again in the new year, but also, through my Department and my officials, I will oversee each one of the recommendations and make sure they are fulfilled.
Grenfell Recovery Taskforce — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Government Operations
Sajid Javid (Conservative, Centre-right): Such a change may well be necessary in the future, but it is certainly not necessary yet. I am very pleased with how the taskforce has operated so far—in looking at issues in detail and coming back with a proper, thought-through, detailed and independently minded report. That is why I want it to stay in place. No taskforce is in place forever and there may be a need for further changes at some point, but we are not ready for that because I want to make sure that the council follows through on all its recommendations, after which we may take another look at this.
Grenfell Recovery Taskforce — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Government Operations
Sajid Javid (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. It is correct that Michael Lockwood will be leaving his position; he is still in the position at the moment. This information has been shared by Mr Lockwood with the community; he has built up a strong relationship with members of the community, which is very important. I do not believe that he has set a final date for leaving, because one of his roles will be to make sure that a replacement is found and put in place before he moves on.
European Economic Area: UK Membership — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Foreign Trade
Edward Julian Egerton Leigh (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman just talked about a "catastrophic cliff edge". Clearly, it is in the interests of our country that we have a free trade deal, but will he put that in context? Exports in 2016 accounted for 28% of our GDP and EU exports for 12.6%. Last month, the World Bank published a study showing that in the event of no deal and WTO rules, British trade with the EU might fall by 2%. That is 2% of 12.6%, or a quarter of 1% of our overall GDP. Therefore, when he talks about a catastrophic cliff edge, let him put it in context.
European Economic Area: UK Membership — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Agriculture
Sarah James (Wollaston) (Conservative, Centre-right): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is not simply about lorries queuing? For example, it is also about shell fisheries. There would be lobsters sitting for days in tanks that would be unsellable at the other end.
European Economic Area: UK Membership — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Law and Crime
Robert James MacGillivray Neill (Conservative, Centre-right): Is not the critical issue that many courts may choose to follow decisions of those with similar jurisdictions? Our courts have historically done that, but with the decisions of common law courts. The EFTA court, however, is institutionally separate from the ECJ and therefore not subject to its direct jurisdiction—is that not the important distinction?
European Economic Area: UK Membership — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: International Affairs
James Roger Cartlidge (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman is making a very strong case—I was basically going to say the same thing—but if we are to draw a comparison with Liechtenstein, surely it is this: if such a tiny country could achieve what it did, we must have a realistic chance of doing the same.
European Economic Area: UK Membership — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: International Affairs
Edward Julian Egerton Leigh (Conservative, Centre-right): My right hon. Friend is giving a most learned disquisition. Will he tell us what the practical effects would be if it were legally possible to become a member of the EEA? For instance, would it be possible to control our own borders? It seems to me that the reason so many people voted to leave was that they wanted to control their own borders.
European Economic Area: UK Membership — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: International Affairs
David Ian Jones (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend is entirely right on that score, too. The hon. Member for Aberavon mentioned EFTA quite frequently in his speech, but the motion does not suggest that the UK should apply to become a member. Indeed, the implication of the motion is that upon the UK ceasing to be a member of the European Union, it could remain a member of the EEA, as Professor Baudenbacher put it, "floating around freely". That does not provide the certainty that the British electorate requires and certainly not the certainty that British business requires. I am unsure whether the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that Britain should now be applying for membership of EFTA, but if he is, as a matter of law Britain would do so from a position of having ceased to be a member of the EEA. Therefore, upon becoming a member of EFTA, it would have to make its own decision as to whether it should rejoin the EEA. Again, that is not reflected in the motion The fact is that what we see today is a last-gasp attempt from those who regret and bitterly resent the departure of Britain from the European Union. It is an attempt to keep us in a halfway house—a kind of European limbo—and as a matter of law and as a matter of politics, this motion should be rejected by the House today.