argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Transport for London Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Mixed Topics
John Martin McDonnell (Labour, Centre-left): I would hope that a publication in which TfL indicated its plans for specific sites would include information about which companies and corporations it is dealing with as partners. On the Earls Court development, there are real concerns that TfL has got into bed with a company that is based in a tax haven, and I believe that some directors of individual companies have been prosecuted. That allegation has been made before on the Floor of the House and I think it is accurate.
Transport for London Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Other
Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Centre-left): Order. Before you make your next intervention, Mr Slaughter, do you think you could make them a bit shorter? They are getting very long. It is obviously short-hand intervention except when it is a Slaughter intervention. Please be brief.
Transport for London Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Housing
Andrew Francis Slaughter (Labour, Centre-left): Shorter, not Slaughter—I appreciate that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I simply want to say, for the avoidance of doubt, that it is true that some of the partner organisations involved in the Earls Court development have been convicted of fraud, but not on the TfL-owned land and not including Capco, which is the major developer. It has many faults, but that is not one of them.
Transport for London Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Mixed Topics
John Martin McDonnell (Labour, Centre-left): In developments of TfL assets, it is important to have full transparency on the relationship with individual companies. I say that in the light of the report published last week, which stated: "Hundreds of millions of pounds’ worth of UK properties held in secretive offshore companies have been used to launder the proceeds of international corruption" That has been identified by Scotland Yard. The report went on: "The scale of the problem has been revealed by Transparency International on Wednesday, with the anti-corruption campaign group warning that the UK has become ‘a safe haven for corrupt capital stolen from around the world’." It is absolutely critical to ensure openness and transparency on the proposals for individual sites to guard against TfL and others entering into relationships with companies and corporations that we do not consider appropriate I now turn to new clause 2, which is another attempt to safeguard the assets with regard to landholdings that may be required for the development of the transport network in London. In its submission to Members of the House, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers has publicly made a point with which I fully concur. Its briefing quite clearly sets out the anxiety about the loss of potential sites, saying that new clause 2 will therefore ensure that when TfL or any subsidiary seeks to lease or develop such sites, there is full consultation with the local communities likely to be affected, the Greater London Authority, London boroughs, the City of London and relevant trade unions. That consultation has to take place before Transport for London or any subsidiary enters into a contract involving the development of land other than for the provision or maintenance of transport services.
Transport for London Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Other
Andrew Francis Slaughter (Labour, Centre-left): I fully support new clause 2 and, indeed, all the amendments tabled in my hon. Friend’s name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). I fear that this is my last intervention. Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope that you will think it no discourtesy to the House if I say that an unbreakable constituency commitment means that I am unable to participate further in the debate or to join my hon. Friends in the Lobby. Nevertheless, I put on the record my great concerns about the Bill. I hope that it will be fully debated tonight, and that it will not pass in its current form, because that would do a serious injustice not only to my constituents, but to all Londoners.
Transport for London Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Other
Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Centre-left): I will explain to the House what has happened before I take the point of order. The procedural motion that we just agreed to was that the motion be proposed, because the mover was on his feet. That means that the motion on new clause 1 has been proposed and the debate continues. It was not a closure motion, but what is called the Golding closure. The Minister needs to decide whether he would like to speak on new clause 1, because we are now debating new clause 1 and the other amendments on the selection list. Are there any takers?
Transport for London Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Mixed Topics
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): I am unclear from the response you are getting from those on the Treasury Bench, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether the Minister intends to speak. Can you make that clear or ensure that it is made clear for the benefit of the House? After all, we are considering the disposal of a vast amount of public assets in this Bill and I would have thought that, at the very least, the Government would have a view on that.
Transport for London Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Other
Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Centre-left): Order. Let us not—[Interruption.] Mr Kawczynski, please! Just one moment. Can we deal with this point of order, make sure that every Member knows what they are doing and try to proceed with the business? I would like to hear what Mr Galloway’s point of order is.
Transport for London Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Other
Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Centre-left): Just one moment, Mr McDonnell. Please allow me to make sure that everybody understands; perhaps then there will be fewer points of order. We are on new clause 1 and the other amendments on the selection list. The next speaker is the sponsor of the Bill.
Transport for London Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Housing
John Martin McDonnell (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, he argues that it is too expensive to produce a list under new clause 1, but on the other he says that a list exists. The new clause will ensure that Transport for London publishes a list not only of its assets, but of its plans for those assets. That is the whole issue in this debate—the lack of openness and transparency from Transport for London about the development of its intentions for individual sites, as we have seen with the disastrous consequences for Earls Court, where 700 homes were lost to the local community. Do the hon. Gentleman, on behalf of Transport for London, and the Mayor of London oppose new clause 1 to maintain that level of secrecy in their relationship with private developers?
Transport for London Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Other
John Martin McDonnell (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman said that the amendments were tabled late—I think that is the allegation—and that the sponsors of the Bill could not respond. The amendments were placed before the Clerks in time—[Interruption.]
Transport for London Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Other
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): Order. One second. Do not worry; relax. Let me have a little look at this. I assure the House that the amendments were not tabled late by the hon. Gentleman. There was a mistake in the Table Office, but that has absolutely nothing to do with what is being said. We do not need any more points of order on that as we have clarified the matter well. I am sure, Mr Blackman, that we will proceed in a courteous way.
Transport for London Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Housing
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Gentleman mentioned housing in London and the disposal of assets to meet housing needs. Is he aware that under permitted development rights, the conversion of office or industrial property does not require local planning consent so there is no social housing content to it? Does he accept that the Bill would be strengthened no end if there was a requirement that the disposal of property for housing purposes must reflect local housing needs in the area where that property is disposed of?
Transport for London Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Other
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): Order. Let me help with the debate, which we want to get under way. Mr Corbyn, I want you to save your speech for when you seek to catch my eye, rather than use it now on an intervention.
Transport for London Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Other
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): Order. If the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) wishes to intervene, quite rightly it is up to the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) whether he gives way. He has made it clear that he does not want to give way again.
Transport for London Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Other
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): I have no idea. It is not for the Chair to judge, thank goodness, and I do not need a crystal ball to work it out. The good thing is that the hon. Gentleman has at least made it clear that he does not want to take any more interventions and he wants to get his speech under way.
Transport for London Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Other
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): I appreciate that, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful to you. The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) is the sponsor of the Bill and responsible for conducting it through the House. Is it normal for the sponsor of a Bill to give way so that legitimate questions and concerns can be raised and answered?
Transport for London Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Housing
Gordon Marsden (Labour, Centre-left): I hear what my hon. Friend says. We want sensible planning and infrastructure to be at the heart of any development, which is why the Opposition have so strongly supported the establishment of an infrastructure commission. It is also why I am so surprised that those on the Government Front Bench do not feel they need to comment on this matter at this stage I return to the specifics of new clause 1. It is important that the concerns raised in the House today are addressed, especially in the light of the ongoing controversy over the Earls Court development, which has inevitably sharpened views and concerns about the general direction of travel in the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said, he is trying to reflect the views raised by people and petitioners. He has also raised the issue of homes and housing. Those, too, are important issues for us to consider on both sides of the House. There are also the issues of transparency and consultation, which, my hon. Friend has made clear, lie behind many of his concerns in new clause 1 We are not opposed in principle to granting TfL greater powers, but, as always, there must be a balanced approach to any restrictions imposed on the relevant public authority. It is important that powers are not granted to TfL in theory if they then prove to be unworkable in practice. As legislators, we always have to be concerned about the law of unintended consequences and that is why I will now raise some points about this group in particular We have not spoken a great deal about new clause 2 so far, but as I understand it, it would debar Transport for London from leasing land that has been in operational use or even been considered for operational use, however briefly. As I understand it, there would be no barrier to TfL selling such land—indeed, it currently has the power to do so. Is there a danger, by forbidding the leasing of land but not the sale, of unintentionally creating an incentive to sell, with some assets lost to the public interest for ever? I feel sure that that is not the wish or the intention of the movers of the new clause.
Transport for London Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Mixed Topics
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): Order. I think the hon. Gentleman is straying. I allowed him some leeway in this group of amendments, but it certainly does not cover the election of the Mayor of London, which is something we will pass over when this goes through. We need to stick to the new clauses and amendments.
Transport for London Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Housing
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): Of running anything actually, but particularly a railroad, as my friend reminds me Something else that "may be charged by a TfL subsidiary without the consent of the Secretary of State" is, as sub-paragraph (m) states, "property related to the use of land for commercial letting" That makes me very worried, because if it is a building that has been let our leased out by TfL, possibly at a very high rent, and it decides to sell it off and cash in on it, then the public income and the capital value are lost, and at the end of the lease the capital opportunity of doing something else with that building is also lost My local authority, the London borough of Islington, tries not to sell property. It would much rather maximise the income from it, but maintain the capital, so that it is its for the future and for future use. [Interruption.] Does my Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) wish to intervene?
Transport for London Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Other
Paul Phillip Flynn (Labour, Centre-left): I am listening with interest to my hon. Friend’s brief remarks, and as someone who has been a resident of London for the past 28 years, I am greatly concerned by the serious matters he is raising. Would it not be premature to advance this Bill in any way now, and would it not be a suitable matter to be debated and voted on in the general election as a major issue?
Transport for London Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Other
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): I am not quite sure how far it will become a major issue in the general election, but I will certainly do my best to make it a major issue in Islington North, and I will draw the attention of the people of the area to what is going on with this Bill.
Transport for London Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Other
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): Order. Time is running out, but we are speaking to specific amendments and I do not want us to get into a general debate about the general election. We will be doing that soon enough—if we have not already been doing it for 12 months.
Transport for London Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Mixed Topics
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Gentleman will have heard my earlier comments on the parallels with the protection of rail land for future use. For example, the March to Wisbech line has been preserved even though it has not been used for many years. It is now going to be reopened because someone had the foresight to preserve it. I have the same concerns about TfL assets being put up for disposal. Does he not accept that having the Secretary of State in place to provide a kind of long-stop protection, as we are proposing, would be a good thing?
Transport for London Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Mixed Topics
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): On the detail of it, can my hon. Friend think of any other examples where a private Bill has been used as a vehicle for disposing public assets? Normally, private Bills are about a privately owned development such as a dock or a harbour, but this is very different. Existing public assets are being put at risk, or mortgaged, which is hardly in the public interest.
Engagements — House of Commons, 2015-06-17
Topic: Housing
Heidi Alexander (Labour, Centre-left): Under this Government’s leadership, the construction of social rented homes has fallen to a 20-year low, but since 2010 the amount of housing benefit paid to private landlords has risen by £1.5 billion. Does the Chancellor understand the connection, or would he like to come to my next advice surgery so that my constituents can explain it to him?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2015-06-17
Topic: Mixed Topics
Questions: Pensions are a really important issue to my constituents, and the Government have delivered on their side of the bargain by giving savers the freedom to access their pensions. Will the Chancellor do all he can to ensure that the industry lives up to its side of the bargain and delivers on those freedoms?
Hilary James Benn (Labour, Centre-left): May I begin by congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment as First Secretary of State It was reported this week that Talha Asmal, a 17-year-old from Dewsbury, blew himself up in an ISIL attack that killed 11 people. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would agree that we need to do everything we can to prevent our young people from travelling to Iraq and Syria, so will he tell the House whether the Government now have an agreement in place with all the airlines to raise alerts when unaccompanied minors travel to known Syrian routes, and whether our police are being notified by the Turkish authorities when British citizens arrive at transit points to Syria?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2015-06-17
Topic: Mixed Topics
Questions: Pensions are a really important issue to my constituents, and the Government have delivered on their side of the bargain by giving savers the freedom to access their pensions. Will the Chancellor do all he can to ensure that the industry lives up to its side of the bargain and delivers on those freedoms?
Hilary James Benn (Labour, Centre-left): I assure the right hon. Gentleman that he will, of course, have the full support of Members on the Opposition Benches on measures that are taken to try to deal with this problem. But can he assure us that community-led Prevent programmes are now actually being implemented in places such as Dewsbury and elsewhere, including by providing appropriate training to teachers and other workers in the public sector, as the new public sector duty to which he has just referred comes into force in two weeks’ time?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2015-06-17
Topic: Immigration
Questions: Pensions are a really important issue to my constituents, and the Government have delivered on their side of the bargain by giving savers the freedom to access their pensions. Will the Chancellor do all he can to ensure that the industry lives up to its side of the bargain and delivers on those freedoms?
Hilary James Benn (Labour, Centre-left): Turning now to how we resolve that crisis, which, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, has seen the largest movement of refugees since the end of the second world war, can he tell the House what expectations he has for the new round of talks that UN special envoy Staffan de Mistura is holding in Geneva?
Skills and Growth — House of Commons, 2015-06-17
Topic: Mixed Topics
Steve Rotheram (Labour, Centre-left): The right hon. Lady mentioned the quality of apprenticeships. The average length of stay on an apprenticeship, as described by the Government, is 10 months. Would she allow somebody with 10 months’ training to build an extension to her home?
Skills and Growth — House of Commons, 2015-06-17
Topic: Mixed Topics
Steve Rotheram (Labour, Centre-left): No. The hon. Gentleman conflates two things, which is exactly what I am trying to highlight. Taking somebody in a job who is getting some training and re-badging them as an apprentice is wrong. That is not an apprenticeship. Most think of an apprenticeship as having a duration of two and a half or perhaps three years and involving people learning the skills of a particular occupation and going on to get a full-time job in that skills area. It is not the 16-week shelf-stacking example that one of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues gave. In my constituency, we now have the worst of all worlds, as the plans for the UTC have been scrapped, and there has been a fall of 32% in apprenticeship starts in Liverpool, Walton for 16 to 18-year-olds since the Tories came to power.
Skills and Growth — House of Commons, 2015-06-17
Topic: Mixed Topics
Roberta Carol Blackman-Woods (Labour, Centre-left): It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. This topic is one of the most important facing our country. We must skill the next generation for the jobs of the future. I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), who set out clearly some of those challenges We know that the UK is facing the worst skills crisis for a generation, with skills levels failing to support the diversity of the modern economy and secure job opportunities and investment for the future. A number of recent reports, such as those of Lord Adonis and the OECD, clearly showed that skills shortages were the main barrier to growth among employers in our top 10 major cities. They made it clear that we need to do a much better job of linking the development of relevant skills to growth sectors in our economy. Only then will we deliver the economic growth that is needed for the future Nowhere is that more exemplified than in my own area of the north-east of England. We had a very interesting report from the local enterprise partnership last year, which set out the challenge very clearly, stating that, for the north-east, it "is not just the number of jobs but the quality of these jobs" Improving the quality is fundamental to its plan. It says: "the area needs to increase the volume of skills at a higher level to address a changing demographic, in particular higher skills required by employers of younger people and those moving into and between work" That clearly sets out the situation we face. The report also highlighted the fact that productivity levels are a real problem—we have heard about that today—as are the skills levels. The report mentioned the disparity in skills levels between more advantaged areas and disadvantaged areas, including areas such as the north-east. It states: "The proportion of secondary schools judged as good or outstanding for teaching in the least deprived areas is 85%—almost equal to the national average of 86%. In the most deprived areas however, this drops to 29% compared with the national average of 65%." This shows the "massive…percentage point difference" between the proportions achieving five A to C grades at GCSE in the average areas in comparison with the most deprived areas. The Government have not given that problem enough recognition when it comes to putting additional resources into the areas that need it most Overall, there has been an increase in levels of educational attainment in the north-east and a fall in the proportion of adults with no qualifications. As I said, however, we need to increase the volume of higher-level skills to address the changing demographics in the region, with a particular focus on key sectors, particularly the STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—sector. In many areas of the UK, there are too few people achieving qualifications in STEM subjects, particularly among women.
Skills and Growth — House of Commons, 2015-06-17
Topic: Other
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): Order. To be helpful, Ms Rayner, I just want to let you know that when you say "you," that means me, and I do not want to accept any responsibility for what you are accusing others of. I have taken the blame, so I do not know why Government Front Benchers got quite so upset.
Skills and Growth — House of Commons, 2015-06-17
Topic: Other
Ian Austin (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would never use the sort of appalling, sexist language that the former First Minister of Scotland used to describe the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), but is it in order for her to chunter from the Government Front Bench all the way through an Opposition Member’s speech, and as loudly as possibly—