argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Leaving the EU: Economic Analysis — House of Commons, 2018-01-30
Topic: International Affairs
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union to make a statement on the Government’s analysis of the long-term economic impact of Brexit on the economy.
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): Not good enough Here we go again: Brexit impact assessments, take two. For the past year, we have called on the Government to publish Brexit impact assessments. It is a simple argument: on decisions of this significance, Parliament is entitled to know the likely impact of the Government’s approach to Brexit and thus to hold the Government to account. The Government have repeatedly refused our requests Last year the Secretary of State initially insisted that these reports existed in "excruciating detail", but were so sensitive that nobody else could see them. After this House passed a binding Humble Address, the Secretary of State changed tack, telling the Brexit Select Committee just last month that no "economic forecast of outcome" had ever existed. Yet last night we learn that an analysis has been produced after all This is now piling absurdity upon absurdity, and there are some pretty obvious questions. When was this new analysis commissioned? In particular, was it before or after the Secretary of State gave evidence to the Brexit Select Committee last month on this issue? Is this the only report that has been prepared on the Brexit scenarios? If not, what other analysis has been done? Does this new analysis model the Government’s Brexit approach? If not, why not? If so, will it lead to changes in Government policy? Finally, and most importantly, will the Secretary of State publish this now—not in nine months, but now, so that we can hold the Government properly to account We have been here before. It took a great deal of time last year and the use of a Humble Address to force the Government to release documents relating to Brexit. The Secretary of State has the chance today to avoid a repeat of that exercise if he commits to publishing this new analysis in full; will he do so?
Leaving the EU: Economic Analysis — House of Commons, 2018-01-30
Topic: Foreign Trade
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union to make a statement on the Government’s analysis of the long-term economic impact of Brexit on the economy.
Yvette Cooper (Labour, Centre-left): It is reported that the analysis shows that the north, the midlands and Northern Ireland will be hardest hit in all the scenarios. Will the Minister confirm that that is because all the scenarios assume that Britain is outside the customs union? Will he confirm, too, that the Government appear to have undertaken no analysis of the different customs union options and of the impact on our economy? Given how significant the situation is for northern manufacturing and for Northern Ireland and given that the CBI has said this is irresponsible and is letting down northern manufacturing, will he commit to conducting and publishing analysis before the customs Bill completes its passage through Parliament?
Leaving the EU: Economic Analysis — House of Commons, 2018-01-30
Topic: Government Operations
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union to make a statement on the Government’s analysis of the long-term economic impact of Brexit on the economy.
Christopher Michael Leslie (Labour, Centre-left): For the Minister basically to excuse his not publishing the information because he has not yet had the chance to edit, twist or distort it or to redact the information within it is a total and utter disgrace. The public have a right to know about their livelihoods and their futures, and it is deeply irresponsible and dishonest for the Government not to publish the information. It is a cover-up, pure and simple, and it stinks.
Leaving the EU: Economic Analysis — House of Commons, 2018-01-30
Topic: Macroeconomics
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union to make a statement on the Government’s analysis of the long-term economic impact of Brexit on the economy.
Catharine Letitia Hoey (Labour, Centre-left): I wonder whether the Minister thinks that perhaps the person in the Whitehall establishment who leaked this document would be better off moving, and working in Brussels. Was the methodology used in this report, or whatever it is, the same methodology that said the country’s financial future would tank if we did not join the euro?
Leaving the EU: Economic Analysis — House of Commons, 2018-01-30
Topic: Foreign Trade
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union to make a statement on the Government’s analysis of the long-term economic impact of Brexit on the economy.
Seema Malhotra-Saluja (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister says that this cross-departmental analysis has not been co-ordinated by his Department, but on that there appears to be some confusion. When the Brexit Secretary gave evidence to the Brexit Committee last week, I asked him whether his Department is co-ordinating the cross-departmental work on the sectoral impacts of no deal, and he said, "Yes." If there is indeed no deal, we would likely fall out on World Trade Organisation rules. Will the Minister confirm that in one of the scenarios outlined in the report—the WTO option that is advocated by many Conservative Members—the impact of non-tariff barriers is the equivalent of a 10% tariff slapped across the economy?
Leaving the EU: Economic Analysis — House of Commons, 2018-01-30
Topic: International Affairs
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union to make a statement on the Government’s analysis of the long-term economic impact of Brexit on the economy.
Chuka Harrison Umunna (Labour, Centre-left): The Government are not protecting the interests of the British people but withholding information from them. The Minister keeps invoking the referendum, but of course that did not give us any indication of the form of Brexit that the public wish us to follow. Will he confirm that what the analysis shows is that the least worst option—staying in the single market and customs union—has been voluntarily taken off the table by the Prime Minister with no mandate whatsoever?
Leaving the EU: Economic Analysis — House of Commons, 2018-01-30
Topic: International Affairs
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union to make a statement on the Government’s analysis of the long-term economic impact of Brexit on the economy.
Heidi Alexander (Labour, Centre-left): Given that the leaked Government analysis confirms that, realistically, there are three ways that the UK might leave the EU, each with a very different impact on jobs, trade and livelihoods, why have MPs not been given a direct vote at the start of the process to determine what sort of Brexit the UK is pursuing? Is it not about time that we in this House are allowed to take back common sense and seek the sensible option of staying in the single market by staying in the European economic area and remaining part of a European customs union?
Leaving the EU: Economic Analysis — House of Commons, 2018-01-30
Topic: Macroeconomics
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union to make a statement on the Government’s analysis of the long-term economic impact of Brexit on the economy.
Patrick Bosco McFadden (Labour, Centre-left): Ministers keep using the excuse that it is in the national interest to withhold information about the economic impact of Brexit—that is on the days when they admit such information exists. I will tell them what is really not patriotic: pursuing a policy that will make our country poorer than it would otherwise be, in order to satisfy right-wing, nationalist ideology. So will the Minister desist from saying that it is in the national interest to withhold this information, given that the only interest it serves is that of Tory Ministers embarrassed by its contents?
Leaving the EU: Economic Analysis — House of Commons, 2018-01-30
Topic: Macroeconomics
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union to make a statement on the Government’s analysis of the long-term economic impact of Brexit on the economy.
Luciana Clare Goldsmith (Berger) (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister would not accept the premise of the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), but this morning we heard from the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), who cast significant doubt on the Government’s own ability to forecast the impact of Brexit on jobs and growth. What assurances will the Minister give workers in my constituency, for example, those in the Jaguar Land Rover or Vauxhall supply chains, that Brexit will not fatally wound the manufacturing sector on Merseyside?
Leaving the EU: Economic Analysis — House of Commons, 2018-01-30
Topic: Macroeconomics
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union to make a statement on the Government’s analysis of the long-term economic impact of Brexit on the economy.
Wesley Paul William Streeting (Labour, Centre-left): Last week, I asked the Treasury’s permanent secretary whether he could confirm that just a single one of the Government’s scenarios for a deal post brexit would lead to a better economic deal and outcome than what we have as members of the single market and customs union. He did not seem able to answer. Is not the truth that no such model exists? Has it not been confirmed today that, as a result of the Government’s dogmatic determination to pull us out of the single market and the customs union, it will not be my city, London, that is most affected, or indeed the industries in the City of London that are worst affected, but the key sectors of the economy right across the UK, with the impact felt worst in the west midlands, the north-east and Northern Ireland? How on earth could that possibly be in the national interest?
Leaving the EU: Economic Analysis — House of Commons, 2018-01-30
Topic: Foreign Trade
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union to make a statement on the Government’s analysis of the long-term economic impact of Brexit on the economy.
Emma Elizabeth Reynolds (Labour, Centre-left): We have learned today that the Government’s own analysis suggests that the economy will grow by less than 5% in the case of a UK-EU trade deal. That is people’s jobs and livelihoods. Will the Minister confirm that the Government’s negotiating position has been decided not on the basis of the economic evidence but on ideology alone?
Leaving the EU: Economic Analysis — House of Commons, 2018-01-30
Topic: Macroeconomics
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union to make a statement on the Government’s analysis of the long-term economic impact of Brexit on the economy.
Alison McGovern (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister is clearly making himself out to be a bit of a philosopher today, so I say to him that surely it is the mark of a democracy that those of us who take different sides do not question each other’s patriotism. If he does not trust the forecasts, will he take the sensible decision—like the one taken by the previous Chancellor, George Osborne—to get them out of the Treasury and say to the Office for Budget Responsibility, "You get the forecast done by the time of the spring statement"? Then we can all see what the truth is.
Leaving the EU: Economic Analysis — House of Commons, 2018-01-30
Topic: International Affairs
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union to make a statement on the Government’s analysis of the long-term economic impact of Brexit on the economy.
Andrew Francis Slaughter (Labour, Centre-left): My constituents, many of whom are former Conservative voters, cannot understand why any Government would adopt policies that they knew would make them or the country worse off. The Minister’s tactic today is to rubbish his own commissioned analyses because they show that leaving the EU will be an economic disaster, to a greater or lesser extent. If he believes in Brexit at any cost, will he at least have the honesty to say so?
Leaving the EU: Economic Analysis — House of Commons, 2018-01-30
Topic: Macroeconomics
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union to make a statement on the Government’s analysis of the long-term economic impact of Brexit on the economy.
Barry John Sheerman (Labour, Centre-left): How dare the Minister suggest to my constituents that ignorance is bliss! My constituents were misled by the lies on the side of the Brexit bus. My constituents are now being deprived of the information that suggests that, up and down the north of England and in Yorkshire in particular, jobs and employment will plunge if we go out on the worst terms. Will he apologise to my constituents for misleading them?
Leaving the EU: Economic Analysis — House of Commons, 2018-01-30
Topic: International Affairs
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union to make a statement on the Government’s analysis of the long-term economic impact of Brexit on the economy.
Albert Owen (Labour, Centre-left): Like that of the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), who is no longer in his place, my constituency is the gateway to Britain from the Republic of Ireland and on the frontline of Brexit. Businesses that I have spoken to in the past few weeks and months want, because of the uncertainty, an analysis of what Brexit will mean for them specifically. Will the Minister tell the House when he was intending to share this information with local authorities, the devolved Administration and, indeed, their MP who needs to keep them informed?
Leaving the EU: Economic Analysis — House of Commons, 2018-01-30
Topic: Foreign Trade
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union to make a statement on the Government’s analysis of the long-term economic impact of Brexit on the economy.
Matthew Toby Perkins (Labour, Centre-left): First, let me draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests concerning Weightron Bilanciai I have here a letter sent by the European Commission, which was received by British manufacturing firms, telling them that after Brexit all products certified for use by UK certifiers will no longer be eligible for sale in the EU. Those companies are now rushing to get their entire product range recertified, often at three times the cost, from European certifying authorities. What advice do the Government give to UK manufacturing firms that have products certified in the UK about what they should do in the run-up to Brexit and the need for recertification?
Leaving the EU: Economic Analysis — House of Commons, 2018-01-30
Topic: Macroeconomics
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union to make a statement on the Government’s analysis of the long-term economic impact of Brexit on the economy.
Matthew Raymond Western (Labour, Centre-left): I refer the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. In the past week, Mark Carney and Jaguar Land Rover have blamed Brexit on the fall in growth and business respectively. For Jaguar Land Rover, this is resulting in prolonged shutdowns and declining production. This is happening now. Will the Minister accept the reality of what is happening and publish the Government’s analysis?
Leaving the EU: Economic Analysis — House of Commons, 2018-01-30
Topic: International Affairs
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union to make a statement on the Government’s analysis of the long-term economic impact of Brexit on the economy.
Diana Ruth Johnson (Labour, Centre-left): If work has been done on the regional impact of different Brexit scenarios, is not it in the national interest for regional devolved bodies and local councils to have this information, so that they can make appropriate plans for the future?
Leaving the EU: Economic Analysis — House of Commons, 2018-01-30
Topic: Foreign Trade
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union to make a statement on the Government’s analysis of the long-term economic impact of Brexit on the economy.
Alexander Cunningham (Labour, Centre-left): The information in today’s Government report directly reflects what industries and businesses on Teesside have been saying for months—that they will suffer if the Government totally abandon the single market and the customs union. Ministers may choose to ignore the reports, but will they please listen to what the industrialists and the businesspeople are saying? The Government need to be open and honest about the impacts and provide clarity on how these businesses can trade successfully after Brexit.
Leaving the EU: Economic Analysis — House of Commons, 2018-01-30
Topic: International Affairs
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union to make a statement on the Government’s analysis of the long-term economic impact of Brexit on the economy.
Anna Rhiannon McMorrin (Labour, Centre-left): This is about the UK Government doing their job, and they have spectacularly failed to do that. This leaked paper talks about the impact of Brexit on different areas of the UK, despite the Government telling devolved Governments and Administrations that they have no such information. The Minister failed to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), so when will this information be shared with the devolved Administrations, so that they can make decisions on behalf of the people they represent and govern?
Leaving the EU: Economic Analysis — House of Commons, 2018-01-30
Topic: International Affairs
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union to make a statement on the Government’s analysis of the long-term economic impact of Brexit on the economy.
Joanne Marie Platt (Labour, Centre-left): Further to the question that I have just asked, I have tabled 23 written questions to the Department for Exiting the European Union and the Treasury over the past six weeks, asking for the titles of any assessments that the Government had conducted on the impact of our withdrawal from the European Union. However, none of these questions has been adequately answered. What I have received has been vague; my questions have often been ignored; and Ministers have not provided me with the information I requested. Mr Speaker, without any obvious avenue to take, I seek your guidance on how I can secure an answer from Ministers to the questions I have asked in order for me to ascertain the number of assessments the Government have undertaken and their titles.
Leaving the EU: Economic Analysis — House of Commons, 2018-01-30
Topic: Government Operations
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union to make a statement on the Government’s analysis of the long-term economic impact of Brexit on the economy.
Neil Coyle (Labour, Centre-left): Thank you, Mr Speaker The ministerial code of practice outlines seven principles of public life, one of which is on openness. It states specifically: "Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing." It sounds as though there is certainly a discrepancy between what was said to the Select Committee in December and what we have heard over the past couple of days and some things that the Minister has said today. What course of action is open to a Member who wishes to pursue the matter at stake if the Secretary of State or a Minister has not provided information that should be available to my constituents and businesses who are deeply affected by it?
PIP Back Payments — House of Commons, 2018-01-30
Topic: Social Welfare
Marsha Chantol De Cordova (Labour, Centre-left): I thank Mr Speaker for granting this urgent question Following the written statement of 19 January and last week’s urgent question, yesterday we discovered in an answer to a written question that the Government will be reconsidering approximately 1.6 million PIP claims—effectively, everyone currently in receipt of PIP. However, no timetable was issued or detail provided for this process. We know that 55% of people with mental health conditions transferring from disability living allowance to PIP receive a lower award or no award at all. As the High Court found, the Government’s regulations are highly discriminatory I am pleased that the Secretary of State and the Minister’s Department have finally seen sense. However, there are a number of questions that the Minister must answer. By what date will the Department have changed the PIP assessment guide, so that she can implement the judgment? How quickly thereafter will the Department be able to identify affected claimants? Is her Department prioritising the PIP claims it is re-examining? If so, will she publish the prioritisation criteria? By what date will all 1.6 million PIP claims have been reviewed? Will it be weeks; will it be months; or will it be years? Do the 1.6 million claims to be reviewed include those that scored zero points and were not awarded PIP? Will there be an appeals process for the PIP claimants not contacted by the Department who believe that they should receive back payments? Will the Department compensate claimants who have fallen into debt and accrued interest charges? After the equality assessment was published in February 2017, the estimated number to receive the higher rate of PIP went up to 164,000, and it is now 220,000. Will the Minister publish an updated assessment? What assessment has she made of the administrative costs to her Department of undertaking this complex exercise of a considerable scale This mess is one of the Government’s own making. It is a clear example to this Government of the dangers of seeking to undermine both the independent judiciary and the House of Commons.
PIP Back Payments — House of Commons, 2018-01-30
Topic: Social Welfare
Stephen Creswell Timms (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister has told the House that all 1.6 million existing claimants will have their cases reviewed. I am grateful to her for adding that those who had zero points, and therefore did not get PIP, will also be included in the review. Will she confirm that the 180,000 people who used to be on disability living allowance and are no longer receiving benefit will be included? In total, on top of the 1.6 million, how many cases does she expect to review?
PIP Back Payments — House of Commons, 2018-01-30
Topic: Labor
Patrick Bosco McFadden (Labour, Centre-left): The system is in fundamental need of review. My constituent Martin Wright suffered a terrible life-changing accident at work several years ago. Despite that, he has been reassessed three times in three years and has now had his payments reduced. We will take Martin’s case to appeal, and I have to tell the Minister that every single case from my constituency office that we have taken to appeal in the past year has been overturned. Does that not show that this system is broken, inhumane at times, and in urgent need of fundamental change?
PIP Back Payments — House of Commons, 2018-01-30
Topic: Social Welfare
Sharon Hodgson (Labour, Centre-left): I receive many emails every week, as I am sure we all do, from constituents who are distraught about their PIP application being rejected. The whole process has been cruel beyond belief, and we now know it has all been for naught. Will the Minister reassure my constituents who have faced shocking suffering that they will be considered as part of this review, and what advice should I give them to ensure that that happens?