argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Thomas Cook — House of Lords, 2019-09-25
Topic: Macroeconomics
Desmond Browne (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, in response to the part of my noble friend Lord Rosser’s question about the cost to the UK taxpayer of this business going into administration, the Minister answered with reference only to the repatriation costs. I might say, and I will support this in a moment, that she grossly underestimates them by just doubling the Monarch costs What is the cost to the UK taxpayer of all the implications of the administration of this business, including the cost to public funds? ATOL is a public fund put together by the accumulation of levies on holidaymakers and travellers, as are the CAA’s funds that are being used here. Only yesterday there was an estimate in the Financial Times of the cost to the ATOL fund alone of £600 million. It is there in detail, explaining that because of the EU directive the fund will have to pay back to the people who have booked holidays in advance the cost of those holidays that they are not now going to get, and it will take it months to do it How much tax does Thomas Cook owe the Government in air passenger duty, VAT and other taxation that it has collected? How much will all these thousands of people who are going to be made redundant cost the Government in benefits, retraining and support? What are the implications for the pension funds? Surely the Ministers who made this decision not to give £250 million to Thomas Cook in the short term had an estimate of these figures before them. What was that estimate? How much was this going to cost the Government if they went down the road that they went down, with the inevitable result that this business went into administration?
Attorney-General’s Legal Advice — House of Lords, 2019-09-25
Topic: Government Operations
Shami Chakrabarti (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating that Statement and for giving his noble and learned friend a well-deserved rest after his supreme efforts down the road. Will he join me in distancing this House, at least, from some of the intemperate, ill-advised remarks made by his colleagues in the other place—for example, that Parliament has no moral right to sit; that our judiciary should now become subject to political appointment; and that the highest court in these islands has somehow perpetrated a constitutional coup?
Attorney-General’s Legal Advice — House of Lords, 2019-09-25
Topic: Government Operations
Desmond Browne (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, with respect, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, did not answer the question that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, asked. The fact is that nobody believes that the Government sought the Prorogation of Parliament to prepare a Queen’s Speech—not even the government Ministers or other people who are peddling this. The evidence that was not the reason was found in the papers presented to the Scottish court, which revealed the real thinking of the Government. The question the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, asked was: why, in the context of the litigation, was no ministerial statement, far less a prime ministerial statement, put before the court to explain in their own words—not through their lawyers— why the Government sought a Prorogation? Why did the Government not have the courage to put that into a statement? Was it fear that government Ministers would perjure themselves if they did this and swore an oath in that statement?
Brexit Readiness and Operation Yellowhammer — House of Lords, 2019-09-25
Topic: International Affairs
David Edward Lea (Labour, Centre-left): The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, seems to give the impression that the referendum result was unambiguous—we all know that we are in this difficulty because it was not. As the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury said, there are many different sorts of compromise. Would the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, withdraw his reiteration that the referendum result was somehow unambiguous, and as such, for example, incompatible with staying in the internal market and customs union? There are many ways in which things could be agreed, and the referendum result is not one he can rely on as unambiguous.
Brexit Readiness and Operation Yellowhammer — House of Lords, 2019-09-25
Topic: Foreign Trade
Christine Mary Crawley (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and apologise for missing the first couple of minutes of it. In the penultimate paragraph of the Statement, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster states: "There is the opportunity to secure new trade deals and to become a strong voice for freer trade at the WTO" These are all the opportunities of no deal. How does that fit with a letter that many of us have received today from the British Egg Industry Council? It states that under WTO rules animal welfare cannot be used as a barrier to trade and that imported eggs produced to a much lower standard than British eggs present a significant risk to public health. It goes on to talk about salmonella and a nasty thing called fipronil, a toxic insecticide banned in the EU that can be destined for human consumption. Surely this should not be called Operation Yellowhammer but Operation Seagull, because our healthy food is going to be stolen from us and we will—how can I put it?—be pooed on from a great height.
Brexit Readiness and Operation Yellowhammer — House of Lords, 2019-09-25
Topic: Social Welfare
Jeffrey Rooker (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, can I ask the Minister about an aspect of Yellowhammer that he did not refer to and which follows from what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said about the reasonable worst-case planning assumptions? In the last few days, the Government have published their response to the humble Address, submitted under Standing Order 24 on 9 September. That of course contains the document, Operation Yellowhammer: HMG Reasonable Worst Case Planning Assumptions. In paragraph 20, the very last paragraph of that statement, they make promises about social care. Issues are raised, including provider failure, transport and staff disruption, and all the other stuff. The very last sentence says that they, "will look at the status of preparations in four local authorities, which are identified as priority concerns, by mid-August" I am not stupid. I read that as saying that four local authorities are on the verge of collapse in the provision of social care if there is no deal, whether because of staff, transport or anything else. That is clearly stated in the document but there is no reference in the Statement today to social care—none whatever. The promise was to be met by mid-August. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has already said that the Secretary of State who signed all this stuff gave evidence on 9 September, which will be published. It is a simple question: will the Minister name the four local authorities that are a priority concern to the Government? It does not matter whether it was in early August—it is dated 2 August—or whether it is next week: which four authorities are on the verge of collapse in social care?
Spending Round 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-09-25
Topic: Macroeconomics
Roger John Liddle (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, it is very enjoyable to hear the noble Lord, Lord Young, having the freedom of the Back Benches, and I hope we are going to hear far more from him in that capacity. We should, of course, be debating the great crisis we are facing in our nation’s affairs, but he was very pungent in his remarks on BBC News yesterday about what the Government should be doing, with which I agree This has actually been a very enjoyable debate. I would also like to say how much I enjoyed listening to my old friend, the noble Lord, Lord Horam—I learned a lot from him in his very long political career, particularly in the earlier stages—and he had a lot of interesting things to say The document we are discussing is very flimsy, and not backed up by any economic analysis from the OBR. The question is: does it represent a turning point in our attitudes to public spending and tax? Are we finally getting away from the policy of the last decade, which has basically been to hold public spending down below the rate of economic growth so we can achieve a gradual reduction in the ratio of debt to GDP when we think we can get away with that, but cutting taxes instead when we face political trouble? So the question is, are we moving away from that framework? Are we now accepting that both infrastructure investment and some types of social investment by the public sector make economic sense because they add to economic growth potential? One should not just be looking at the pure number of the deficit but should be asking oneself how much within the public spending envelope will add to growth potential and is therefore a sound investment Are we facing up—I think none of the political parties is--to the great demographic challenge we will face in the next 10 years?. According to the IFS and the Resolution Foundation, if we are to maintain present standards of pensions, health services and social care, tax as a proportion of GDP will have to rise by 5% because of the challenge of demography. I think that this is where the Government ought to open a public debate As we were discussing at the Labour conference in Brighton, the tax burden on the top 1% or 5% can certainly go up a bit; the broadest backs should bear the heaviest burdens. However, the fact is that we will not enjoy a decent quality of welfare state and public services in this country unless we can make the case to the public overall for a general increase in taxation. This is going to be difficult in an environment of Brexit—
Spending Round 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-09-25
Topic: Macroeconomics
Roger John Liddle (Labour, Centre-left): I would include compulsory social insurance or hypothecated taxes as part of the general remark that I made. However, we are going to have to find new ways of funding our welfare state because of the demographic challenge. This is going to be difficult if Brexit goes ahead because, even if we avoid no deal, which we have legislated against, the kind of medium-term deal that Boris Johnson has in mind—the Canada-plus, free trade agreement—is not the smooth Brexit that the economic forecasts of the OBR have relied upon. It is a much tougher, harder Brexit than the customs union and regulatory alignment that Mrs May was aiming for. It will have more serious economic consequences for the country, and I worry about that a great deal Of course, you could not possibly justify, as a result of Brexit, a temporary increase in the government deficit, but you can only do that for a time. We saw in the 1970s that there had to be an adjustment for the higher price of oil, and we saw after the 2008 financial crisis that there had to be an adjustment for the fact that the deficit had risen as a result of the cost of saving the financial system If that will be the case, who will bear the pain? The people who cannot afford to bear the pain, and the people whom this document completely neglects, are poor working families. There is nothing in this document to relieve the burden that they have faced in the last 10 years. This is a gross generational unfairness: I get a nice real-terms increase in my pension every year, but what do the young mother and her children get? They get their benefits frozen as a direct result of the Government’s policy Most of these people are not people who do not work. They are not, to use that horrible language, scroungers; they are people who work the living daylights out of themselves, sometimes with two or three jobs, in order to meet the family budget. This squeeze on working families is having a dreadful impact. The Resolution Foundation, one of the best independent think tanks of the past few years, suggests that we will have something like 1.5 million children in poverty— 37% of all children—if we continue on our present policy path on tax credits, universal credit and the rate of benefits. That is unacceptable. Even in the period that we are talking about, there is a 4.1% increase in departmental expenditure in the coming year but further cuts in benefits are going on. It cannot continue. I notice in Cumbria the dreadful impact that is having on the ground. We have a great increase in demand for our children’s services, from parents who cannot cope with bringing up their children themselves, and the costs of our children’s services are rising dramatically. This will become as big a challenge as social care unless we address it The big question is: is this a turning point? I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, from his new position will be able to say positively that the policies of the past nine years have been abandoned.
Update to Parliament — House of Lords, 2019-09-25
Topic: Government Operations
George Foulkes (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, has the Leader of the House come to the conclusion that the nature and tenor of this Statement confirm that the prorogation was indeed a political act, and that that is why there was no sworn statement to the court? I have great respect, personally, for the Leader of the House. Indeed, I would go so far as to say I have an affection for the Leader of the House. She has been particularly kind to me recently. She attended as one of the three privy counsellors, and she misled Her Majesty the Queen. She has said quite clearly, and I accept it, that she did it in all good faith: she was herself misled before she went to see the Queen at that Privy Council meeting. I am not going to say that she should consider her position at this point, but is she not going to find it increasingly difficult to come to this House, where as Leader she represents the whole House, and repeat the kind of Statement we have just heard from this discredited Prime Minister?
Update to Parliament — House of Lords, 2019-09-25
Topic: Government Operations
Elizabeth Conway Symons (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, what I am about to say in no way reflects on the noble Baroness’s good faith. I do not think that anybody in this House has any doubt that she is doing her best. Personally, like my noble friend Lord Winston, I genuinely feel extremely sorry that she has had to deliver such an extraordinary rant to your Lordships. I say very gently to her I am sorry, too, that she was not here for the three earlier debates this afternoon. I know that it is difficult to prepare for questions—I have been Deputy Leader of the House and know exactly what it is like when you are in a difficult situation—but she really might have listened in person to some of what was said, and then she might have been able to understand the feeling of this House about what has happened The Supreme Court’s judgment was not nuanced. As we all know, it was completely unanimous. I do not know whether the noble Baroness listened to the judgment by the President of the Supreme Court. It was extraordinarily lucid and absolutely clear. You did not have to be a politician to understand it, because it was very clear what was being said by all 11 judges. They are not all politically fixed; they have many different backgrounds. It was unequivocal, and nothing in the Statement acknowledges that I have two questions for the noble Baroness; I am sorry because I expect they are rather difficult to answer. She is a member of the Cabinet and says she was told by the Attorney-General that the proroguement was lawful. Did she see the Attorney-General’s advice? That is the crucial question that the noble Baroness has to answer. Did she ask to see the advice, and did she see it? Or, like Amber Rudd, did she ask to see it, was told that she would see it and believes that it was intercepted by Downing Street Secondly, was the issue of the proroguement discussed in Cabinet? Was it discussed round the Cabinet table, not in little side conversations, or did the Prime Minister seek to do the same thing that he has done with Parliament—bypassing Parliament and the Cabinet too? Those are two very straightforward questions which really deserve yes or no answers.
Brexit: Preparations — House of Lords, 2019-10-08
Topic: International Affairs
Peter Hain (Labour, Centre-left): I echo the implication of the question from the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. Will the Minister confirm that no deal in respect of the Irish border will require direct rule, so that the necessary civil contingency arrangements can be put in place? There is no question that that is so, and I would be grateful if he confirmed it. Can the Minister also explain why he said one thing to your Lordships—it was also said by the Minister in the other place—on the question of a deal, while a No. 10 source is quoted in the Guardian online, just an hour ago, as my noble friend Lady Hayter indicated, following conversations with Chancellor Merkel and other leaders, including in Dublin, that a deal looks, "essentially impossible, not just now but ever"?
Brexit: Preparations — House of Lords, 2019-10-08
Topic: Macroeconomics
Simon Haskel (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, under the heading "Harnessing Economic Opportunities", the paper speaks of, "a different approach to government procurement" What will this approach be? Is the idea that it will help UK companies? Will it incorporate British Standard 95009, a new standard that sets out the social and economic standards for public procurement? Is the idea of this to help UK companies? If so, how will that operate under WTO rules?
Brexit: Preparations — House of Lords, 2019-10-08
Topic: Transportation
Roger John Liddle (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, this is a factual question, not a pejorative one. What is the Government’s central estimate of the additional average time that it will take a lorry to pass through the channel ports from Dover to Calais, and what is their estimate of the economic cost of the delays that will result?
Brexit: Preparations — House of Lords, 2019-10-08
Topic: International Affairs
Alan Thomas Howarth (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, does the Minister accept that most people in this country will not share the indignation expressed by some noble Lords about the Government preparing for no deal, but will think that it is the obvious responsibility of the Government, while continuing to work towards a deal, to prepare for the contingency of no deal, which remains a very real possibility? Does he also accept that whatever the present intransigence of the Commission, the member states of the European Union will surely recognise that it is in their interests to work very closely and collaboratively with us on issues of security?
Brexit: Preparations — House of Lords, 2019-10-08
Topic: International Affairs
Genista Mary McIntosh (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I hope that the Minister would agree that, whether we leave the European Union with a deal or without one, we will need to have good relationships with our friends and colleagues in Europe in the future. That was implied in the question from my noble friend Lord Howarth. I do not agree with his views on Europe, but I do agree with him on that. Does the Minister think that last night’s briefing from Downing Street to the Spectator, which has not been denied or repudiated since, is likely to encourage co-operative and fruitful relationships with our partners in Europe, particularly in the event of a no deal? I very much hope we can avoid that, but I do not see much prospect of it at the moment.
Brexit: Preparations — House of Lords, 2019-10-08
Topic: Government Operations
John Tomlinson (Labour, Centre-left): Does the Minister accept the judgment in the Scottish courts yesterday, where it appears that the judge argued that because he accepted the assurances given, both in writing and orally, by the Prime Minister or his aides at No. 10, there was no need to seek a declaration ordering the Prime Minister to honour the obligations that he appears to have entered into in Parliament? Does the Minister agree with the judge that it is now incumbent on the Prime Minister, therefore, to honour the requirements of the amendment, passed in this House originally, to give Parliament a meaningful vote, and also for Parliament to have the right to have the Benn Act taken fully into account?
Brexit: Preparations — House of Lords, 2019-10-08
Topic: International Affairs
Frank Ashcroft Judd (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister stated with absolute certainty that the Government are convinced that when a narrow majority of the population voted in the referendum to leave, they did so for a number of reasons listed in the Statement. What is the evidence that the majority of people voted for all these principles spelled out in the Statement? I have seen none. It is purely subjective, purely rhetorical and purely emotional. What is surely clear is that nobody, or very few people, can possibly have begun to understand in the referendum what all the implications and costs would prove to be. How can a Government committed to democracy and bringing the country together countenance going ahead with the course they have chosen without the people being given the opportunity to say whether they accept all these consequences or not?
Syria: Withdrawal of US Troops — House of Lords, 2019-10-08
Topic: International Affairs
Iain McNicol (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, it has long been a concern that, due to Turkey’s veto, Kurdish representatives have been excluded from the Geneva and Astana peace processes, and are now excluded from the Syrian committee on constitutional reform. Will the Minister insist that in all future talks about Syria’s future, Kurdish representatives have a guaranteed seat at the table? Unfortunately, I understand that the US had not even notified the UN in advance of the decision to withdraw. In any contact that the Foreign Secretary has with our US allies, and indeed others, including the Turkish Government, will the Government ask that all parties engage through the proper international institutions?