argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Stephen Charles Kerr (Conservative, Centre-right): Well, I have mentioned what I did in my earlier years. In all those years, I was never accused of being a Marxist. I am concerned when communities become devoid of a basic service, such as a bank branch of any description. Frankly, I consider it to be unacceptable. These banks have had so much money from the British people and have been bailed out by them. I have already mentioned the recklessness of the banks, particularly of the Royal Bank of Scotland, for which I do not apologise I should say that I did actually work for the Royal Bank of Scotland when I left school. Perhaps I should have mentioned that earlier. [Hon. Members: "Yes, you should."] I was 16 at the time. I was a junior bank officer for RBS at the East High Street branch in Forfar. The Royal Bank of Scotland is a great institution. I just pause to pay tribute to its staff because they do a great job, and they have done a great job over these past 10 years in particular in very great difficulties. I pay them my compliments for that. Nevertheless, it does not excuse the Royal Bank of Scotland. In addressing the bank levy, it is important to remember that the greed and the calumny that they were guilty of means that they owe the British people something more. I fully acknowledge that that something more has been extracted and is being extracted, but I also think that there is a case for them having the social responsibility to maintain a presence in the communities of my constituency, such as in Bannockburn, Dunblane, Bridge of Allan and the rural parts of the constituency. I am afraid that a mobile bank does not quite meet the need The other consequence is that many more empty units are appearing on our high streets. That is on top of the units that have been left empty by the Scottish Government and their inaction on business rates. I was about to say, Sir Roger, that I wish that I could show you the picture of King Street in Stirling, but, in retrospect, I am glad that I cannot, because there are so many empty units and so many "to let" and "for sale" boards. That is a situation that leaves someone such as me, who loves Stirling and the great history of my constituency and everything that it stands for, more than a little concerned. There is a feeling that we need to see a change in this respect. Certainly, when the banks, which are 72% owned by the taxpayer, decide to vacate these prime sites, it leaves a big hole at the heart of these shopping centres and communities.
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: Domestic Commerce
James Roger Cartlidge (Conservative, Centre-right): It is a pleasure, as always, to follow the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman). Interestingly, she mentioned inclusive growth, to which I will return shortly. It is also a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr), whose speech was a real tour de force. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North criticised him for not talking about the future and dwelling on the past. Actually, he was talking about the present—the challenges facing his constituency today, in the here and now. The bank levy is incredibly important because it is all about the future prosperity of those constituents, so I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s comments Interestingly, the Opposition’s new clause 3 gives us a good way of looking at the bank levy as it stands. Subsection (2) of new clause 3, which would affect schedule 9—the schedule that contains the details about the bank levy—states: "No later than 31 October 2020, the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall lay before the House of Commons an account of the effects of the proposed changes in Part 1 of Schedule 9—(a) on the public revenue, (b) in reflecting risks to the financial system and the wider UK economy arising from the banking sector, and (c) in encouraging banks to move away from riskier funding models." I accept that those three points are incredibly germane. In fact, let us not wait until 31 October 2020. Let us stand here now and think about how a review would fit under Labour’s very own new clause Look at subsection (2)(a) of new clause 3, which is about the impact "on the public revenue". What do we see? Well, the banking sector paid 58% more tax in 2016-17 than in 2009-10. That is under a Conservative Government. The average amount paid by the banks every year since 2010 has been 13% higher than under Labour. In 2016, the Government introduced an additional tax on banks—the 8% corporation tax surcharge, which we have been discussing—which will raise nearly £9 billion by 2022.
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: Domestic Commerce
James Roger Cartlidge (Conservative, Centre-right): I consider the hon. Gentleman to be a friend because we work together in Suffolk as MPs; we are always happy to do that. I will be coming to the issue of the crash and the way in which the banks went back to the 1930s, as he puts it, because I experienced that myself.
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: Mixed Topics
James Roger Cartlidge (Conservative, Centre-right): I would say three things. First, the hon. Gentleman talked earlier about the shadow Chancellor, but I have to go back and quote the City Minister at the time—Ed Balls—who said in 2006: "nothing should be done to put at risk a light-touch, risk-based regulatory regime".
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: Domestic Commerce
James Roger Cartlidge (Conservative, Centre-right): I am happy to have that debate. I will tell the hon. Gentleman what I said. I started a mortgage broking company in 2004—we have expanded since then, and I should declare that I still have interests in that business. I wrote an article for The Guardian in 2004 about the next general election. [Interruption.] Just a closet Marxist. At the time, the big issue being talked about was public services, but I said—this was in 2004—that the big risk we were not talking about was consumer debt. I knew that because, having just started a business in that area, I was stunned by what was happening in mortgage finance, which, of course, was the type of borrowing that laid the seeds for our destruction in 2008.
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: Domestic Commerce
James Roger Cartlidge (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, and I will come back to that once I have set out the context of my remarks. The key point is this: there are some concerns, but in a growing economy, consumer debt will tend to rise, so we have to separate out that which is perfectly acceptable and that which may give cause for concern. I will come back to that point, but it is very fair In respect of proposed subsection (2)(b) of the Labour new clause, which talks about "reflecting risks to the financial system", we conclude by reminding ourselves that it was the very explosion of the financial system that created the need for this bank levy. As I say, we have to debate the past—why we are here in the first place and where this all came from—and the fact that we are on a journey. The reason this tax is being tapered off is that the banking sector is once again becoming profitable, and we are allowing it to flourish again as a free enterprise-based banking system, but, of course, in the context of very strict regulation and a prudential regime Let me go back to the point about personal experience. It amazes me when members of the Labour party stand up and, like Pontius Pilate, wash their hands of the huge impact of that crash. At the time, many of us approached the regulator—the Financial Services Authority—which Gordon Brown launched early in the first Parliament after Labour won in 1997. He claimed that that would avoid future financial crises. We must remember that and have accountability.
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: Housing
James Roger Cartlidge (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The types of borrowing that I have talked about were the reality, but what have we done since? It is no longer possible to get self-certified mortgages. It is very difficult—almost impossible—to get interest-only mortgages as a residential purchaser.
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: Domestic Commerce
James Roger Cartlidge (Conservative, Centre-right): I did say that I would come to the current position on credit. I want to finish on the analysis of the three tenets in new clause 22 under which Labour says that we should consider how the bank levy has worked. According to subsection (2)(c), we should look at it in terms of "encouraging banks to move away from riskier funding models." It is quite amusing to see a Labour new clause that contains the phrase "encouraging banks to move away" My colleagues will appreciate that the whole point of reforming the bank levy is not to encourage banks to move away, but to encourage them to stay here and create wealth and jobs. Let us not forget that in all the figures we have heard about, we have not heard the key one. Banks contribute £116 billion of value added to our economy, not including any of the tax take.
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Melvyn John Stride (Conservative, Centre-right): We have had a very wide-ranging debate. On occasion, we even touched on the matter at hand—the bank levy The hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) was very generous in giving way, but less generous and less forthcoming in his answers. He was asked whether he recognised that we would be raising more tax from the banks. He said he would come back to that, but I do not think he did. He was asked why Labour had voted against the bank levy in the first place. On two or three occasions he said he would come back to that, but I am not sure he did. When he was asked whether he supported the overthrow of capitalism, he declined to answer. When he was asked by how much Labour would increase corporation tax, he told his interlocutor to go away and look it up. He was asked whether he was a Marxist. He was swamped by red herrings at one point, which caused my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) to say that he was the victim of too many interventions "on the trot"—boom boom My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) stressed the importance of a fair playing field, which is exactly what the Bill is introducing for the banks. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) talked about the importance of less risky behaviour by banks. I certainly subscribe to that, which is why the Bank of England’s Financial Policy Committee has been conducting the stress tests to which I referred earlier. They have all been very successful, including one that is based on a no-deal Brexit scenario My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk also took us through the amount of tax that has been raised from the banks under the Conservatives. He slightly ruined it all by saying that he had once written an article for The Guardian, and that he was, indeed, a closet Marxist at least The hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) talked about the importance of productivity while my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts) highlighted the importance of a balanced approach to tax so that the banks could lend and stay healthy. The final two contributions were on childcare support, on which this Government have a proud record: by 2019-20 we will spending a record £6 billion per year supporting childcare. On that note, I commend clause 33 and schedule 9 to the Committee Question put and agreed to. Clause 33 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 9 Bank Levy Question put, That the schedule be the Ninth schedule to the Bill.
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: Housing
Melvyn John Stride (Conservative, Centre-right): The Budget set out an ambitious plan to tackle the housing challenge—a plan that will raise housing supply by the end of this Parliament to its highest level since the 1970s. However, the Government also recognise that we need to act now to help young people who are trying to get on to the housing ladder. This Bill therefore introduces a permanent relief in stamp duty land tax for first-time buyers, which I will turn to shortly. Alongside that, I will also cover clauses 8 and 40, which respectively introduce an income tax exemption for accommodation payments made to members of the armed forces and make minor changes to the higher rates of stamp duty land tax Home ownership among young people has been falling. Today, the average house in London costs almost 12 times average earnings, nearly 10 times average earnings in the south-east and more than eight times average earnings in the east.
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: Housing
Melvyn John Stride (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We announced plans in the Budget along the exact lines that he has suggested in order to free up the supply side and to increase supply to 300,000 units by the mid-2020s. In the last 12 months, we have achieved 217,000 new builds, so we are on our way, although it will take time. He is quite right that the supply side matters.
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: Housing
Melvyn John Stride (Conservative, Centre-right): There is not an area or region of the country that will not see benefits for first-time buyers. [Hon. Members: "Yes, there is."] No, I am afraid that that is simply not the case. This measure will benefit first-time buyers in every single region of the country. It is the case that property is a lot more expensive in some parts of the country than in others. Arguably, that is where the particular need is. As I have said, the average house price in London is 12 times average earnings, and it is 10 times average earnings in the south-east.
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: Housing
Melvyn John Stride (Conservative, Centre-right): In addition to what I just said about every region seeing benefits, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the average benefit for the average first-time buyer will be around £1,700, which is a significant amount. For people purchasing a property at the £300,000 to £500,000 level, the benefit is no less than £5,000, which is a considerable sum.
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: Housing
Melvyn John Stride (Conservative, Centre-right): As the hon. Gentleman may know, the figure of 0.3% takes a static view of this policy and its effect on house prices. It does not take into account the supply side changes that I have mentioned. As we increase supply, prices will inevitably begin to fall. There is no single solution to this challenge and no magic bullet.
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: Housing
Melvyn John Stride (Conservative, Centre-right): I will make a little progress, if I may The Budget announced an ambitious package of new policies to tackle the housing challenge, including planning reform; spending; and a new agency, Homes England, to intervene more actively in the land market. Together with the reforms in the housing White Paper, the housing package announced in the Budget means that we are on track to raise annual housing supply by the end of this Parliament to its highest level since 1970 and to 300,000 a year on average by the mid-2020s. That means that housing supply is on track to be higher over the 2020s than in any previous decade. However, it will take time to build these new homes, and the Government want to act now to help those young people who are aspiring to take their first step on to the housing ladder. That is why the Bill permanently abolishes stamp duty for first-time buyers purchasing a property for £300,000 or less. First-time buyers purchasing a house that is between £300,000 and £500,000 will save £5,000. To ensure that this relief is targeted at those who need it most, purchases above £500,000 will not benefit from the relief.
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: Housing
Melvyn John Stride (Conservative, Centre-right): The figures the hon. Gentleman chose to use were, I think, a range between £250,000 and £300,000, and he says there are 15 properties in that category. Of course, stamp duty kicks in at £125,000, so it is the range from £125,000 to £300,000 that we would actually be considering in that example First-time buyers are typically more cash-constrained than other buyers, and stamp duty requires cash up front, on top of a deposit and conveyancing fees, for purchases over £125,000. The Government think it is right to reduce the up-front costs that first-time buyers need to pay, giving them an advantage over the rest of the market.
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: Housing
Melvyn John Stride (Conservative, Centre-right): As I say, the average across the piece will be £1,700 per average first-time buyer. I also stated quite clearly that, in every region of the country, there will be those who benefit from this measure.
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: Housing
Melvyn John Stride (Conservative, Centre-right): What I am able to tell the right hon. Gentleman is that, as I have said, the average benefit will be £1,700 for the average first-time buyer. Every region in the United Kingdom will see benefit from this measure, and those regions—particularly in the south and south-east—where the ratio of salaries required to mortgage levels is particularly high will especially benefit However, the other thing we need to do as a Government, as I have already stated, is to make sure we get the supply of housing right. That is why we will be moving from the current level of 200,000 new builds a year up to 300,000 in the middle of the 2020s.
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: Housing
Melvyn John Stride (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank my hon. Friend for those comments, which illustrate the point that there are benefits accruing across all regions of the United Kingdom The changes made by this Bill include the largest ever increase in the point at which first-time buyers become liable for stamp duty. This relief will help over 1 million first-time buyers who are taking their first steps on the housing ladder during the next five years. It provides immediate support while our wider housing market reforms take effect The changes made by clause 41 ensure that over 95% of first-time buyers who pay stamp duty will benefit by up to £5,000, including 80% of first-time buyers in London. That means that over 80% of first-time buyers will pay no stamp duty at all, and it saves the buyer of an average first property nearly £1,700, as I have said In summary, this change to SDLT will help millions of first-time buyers getting on to the housing ladder. Together with the broader housing package we have announced, we are delivering on our pledge to make the dream of home ownership a reality for as many people as possible.
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: Mixed Topics
Rachel Helen Maclean (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman says that he will support the policy if it is accompanied by measures to increase supply. That is exactly what the Chancellor has introduced in the Budget, so will the hon. Gentleman support the measure, or is he against cutting stamp duty for first-time buyers?
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: Mixed Topics
Lucy Claire Leigh (Frazer) (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman has mentioned that Andy Burnham is the Mayor of the area he represents. Does he remember that, in 2010, when Andy Burnham was standing for the leadership, he said: "These issues are important, particularly stamp duty as it stands in the way of young people getting on in life"?
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: Housing
Anne Margaret Main (Conservative, Centre-right): I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady, because obviously I have a constituency in one of the higher value areas. I am confused. The shadow Minister just said that the stamp duty cut was not appropriate because the right measures were not in place for affordable housing, whereas she seems to be saying that a stamp duty cut is not what she would like to see. Which is it? Does she think that the stamp duty cut should not happen at all? I would like a simple yes or no answer.
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: Housing
Melvyn John Stride (Conservative, Centre-right): We have been debating important measures. Clause 8 introduces an income tax allowance for members of the armed forces to help them to meet the cost of accommodation in the private market in the UK. Clause 40 makes sensible legislative adjustments to the additional rate of stamp duty land tax to ensure that people in some specific—often disadvantaged—circumstances are not unduly penalised. Clause 41 announces the Government’s abolition of stamp duty land tax for first-time buyers purchasing properties under £300,000. This key part of the Government’s drive to ease the burden on young first-time buyers will go a significant way towards levelling the playing field in those people’s favour. It is notable, and equally lamentable, that this particular policy, which predominantly assists the young, appears to be something that the Labour party rejects and indeed derides. I commend the clauses and schedule to the Committee Question put and agreed to. Clause 40 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 11 agreed to. Clauses 41 and 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill. New Clause 4 Review of relief for first-time buyers "(1) The Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs shall undertake a review of the impact of the relief for first-time buyers introduced in Schedule 6ZA to FA 2003 (2) The review shall consider, in particular, the effects of the relief on— (a) the public revenue, (b) house prices, and (c) the supply of housing. (3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay a copy of a report of the review under this section before the House of Commons no later than one calendar week prior to the date which he has set for his Autumn 2018 Budget Statement."—(Jonathan Reynolds.) This new clause requires a review to be published prior to the Autumn 2018 Budget on the impact of the relief for first-time buyers, including its effects on house prices and on the supply of housing. Brought up, and read the First time. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Business without Debate — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: Civil Rights
Eleanor Fulton Laing (Conservative, Centre-right): With the leave of the House, we will take motions 2 and 3 together Ordered, Human Rights (Joint Committee) That Mark Pritchard be discharged from the Joint Committee on Human Rights and Alex Burghart be added Regulatory Reform That Mark Menzies be discharged from the Regulatory Reform Committee and Mr Simon Clarke be added.—(Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Selection Committee.)
RBS Rural Branch Closures — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: Other
Stephen Paul Barclay (Conservative, Centre-right): I commend the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) for securing the debate. The strength of feeling generated on both sides of the House by this announcement from RBS is evident from the high attendance at a relatively late hour.
RBS Rural Branch Closures — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: Other
Stephen Paul Barclay (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman is right; this is an issue on which many Members of the House from all parties have strong feelings. Indeed, I have been lobbied extensively by many of my colleagues who are in the Chamber this night, including in particular my hon. Friends the Members for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) and for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham), who have been vociferous in speaking up for their constituents on this issue.