argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Economy and Jobs — House of Commons, 2017-06-29
Topic: Foreign Trade
Iain Aitken Stewart (Conservative, Centre-right): I invite the hon. Gentleman to look at the innovation in my constituency, including the development of smart city technology, in which we are world leaders. I invite him to stop off in Milton Keynes when he next travels north so that we can show him what we are doing Developing the intelligent mobility network touches on other areas of Government policy, so I urge Ministers to take a holistic view. It links with cyber-security, data protection and an effective trade policy. Our need to develop and export intelligent mobility technology is just one example of why we require a global independent trade policy, and that is the third part of the Queen’s Speech that I applaud Brexit is only one aspect of the work of the Department for International Trade, and I praise what my right hon. Friend Secretary of State for International Trade is doing to ensure that we seek out and develop our trade markets right around the world. Our country has underperformed in this sphere for decades. The world does not owe us a living. If we do not get out there and sell our goods and services, we will lose out—we will not generate the wealth the country needs. That will not just come to us; we have to be out there. The measures in the Queen’s Speech to improve our trade performance are incredibly welcome For my final point, I return to the fact that the world does not owe us a living. We must create wealth to generate the resources to fund the public services that we all want. I thank the Opposition for their general election manifesto because it reminded me why I am a Conservative. They believe in taxing entrepreneurship, innovation and success; we believe in letting people create the wealth that the country needs. It is not austerity; it is living within our means. It sounds so seductive to make generous spending pledges right around the country and to suggest that only a tiny number at the top will pay, but that does not work. Lady Thatcher has been mentioned once or twice in this debate, and she never said truer words than, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money to spend." Our goal must be to maximise entrepreneurship and wealth creation. We tax it at lower levels and at fair levels. I do not want to see tax avoidance—I want big corporations such as Google, Apple and Starbucks to pay their fair share—but do not choke the entrepreneurial spirit. The Opposition’s policy would result in higher taxes for everyone as the wealth creators go elsewhere. It would create a vicious downwards spiral. The only alternative would be to tax ordinary people more and to borrow more. Do not forget that we spend £46 billion a year on debt interest payments—more than on housing, transport and public safety. What right do we have to live beyond our means and pass on that burden to the next generation? When the Leader of the Opposition and Jon Snow were at Glastonbury, did they tell the young people there that the result of Labour’s policy would be that they would pay?
Economy and Jobs — House of Commons, 2017-06-29
Topic: Macroeconomics
Robert James MacGillivray Neill (Conservative, Centre-right): It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms). We do not always agree on politics, but we do agree on football, with the club given away, to some extent, by the name of his constituency. As a fellow London MP, I recognise some of the issues he always raises in a measured fashion. It is also a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), who made a most powerful and compelling speech. I am tempted to say that I will adopt all of it and then sit down, but I will say just one or two more things I woke up on my birthday on 24 June last year to the most miserable birthday I have ever had, because my judgment was that my country had taken an erroneous step. It was, however, a democratic step and as a democrat I respected it—although I campaigned, as my hon. Friend and many others here did, for a different result. I support the Queen’s Speech because it seeks to give effect to that decision in a practical and measured fashion. That is our obligation now as Members of this House. That was well-encapsulated by the Chancellor’s speech which opened this debate. I share his analysis—both in his remarks here and in his Mansion House speech a short time ago—of the approach we should adopt I am tempted by the wording of amendment (g), as was my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), but like her I do not think it works in practical terms, and we must deliver within the framework of the Queen’s Speech. However, it is important that the Government recognise the need to be practical, business-like and above all pragmatic in the way we deliver our exit from the European Union. That is why the Chancellor is right to stress that Brexit must be based first and foremost on protecting Britain’s economic interests and jobs In my constituency, 36% of the voters are employed in the financial services sector and related industries, and the same is true for many London Members of Parliament. The financial services sector is sometimes maligned, but it is actually a source of great wealth for this country. It is a jewel in our national crown, and in my judgment it should be protected as our highest priority. Whatever sensible arrangements are needed to protect it, they must come first. We must take a practical approach, rather than, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling said, a theological approach.
Economy and Jobs — House of Commons, 2017-06-29
Topic: Government Operations
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): Order. In congratulating the hon. Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan) on her maiden speech, I want to say two things in the name of transparency. First, I inform the House that the hon. Lady is the godmother of two of my children. Secondly, although it has been declared in all the appropriate places, I nevertheless take this opportunity to declare to the House that her husband Michael—my very good friend of 32 years—generously contributed to each of my last three election campaign funds in the Buckingham constituency.
Economy and Jobs — House of Commons, 2017-06-29
Topic: Transportation
Margaret Ann Throup (Conservative, Centre-right): I commend the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for a powerful and emotional speech, especially about the early days of her life. Congratulations to her Before I begin the main part of my speech, it would be remiss of me not to mention the general election briefly. I am truly honoured to have been returned to the House, and I am pleased to report that I now boast the largest share of the vote that any Member of Parliament for Erewash has held since the seat was created in 1983. That is a tremendous vote of confidence not just in me, but in the Government and the policies with which we are moving forward. I thank my constituents for their continued support, and I pledge to work for everybody I want to focus my contribution to this debate about the economy on High Speed 2. At the beginning of the Queen’s Speech debate, the Prime Minister talked about recognising and grasping the opportunities that lie ahead for the United Kingdom. HS2 is one of those opportunities that we really need to grasp. The Bill that has been laid before Parliament focuses on phase 2a, but phase 2b will go right through Long Eaton in my constituency and skirt around Sandiacre. I know that some people still think that they can stop HS2, but I believe it is too late. It is now important that we all work together to get the best deal for the constituencies affected. It is my responsibility as the local Member of Parliament to work with the Government, HS2 Ltd and my constituents—they are the most important people in this—to ensure that we grasp every opportunity, including on inward investment, regeneration and jobs I want to make two requests today. The first is that we get a speedy answer on which route HS2 will take through Long Eaton. The second is for better compensation than has been offered. Homes in which people have lived for 40-something years, in many cases, are to be destroyed. In one row of cottages, the people at No. 5 have lived there for 43 years and the people at Nos. 1, 7 and 9 have lived there for more than 40 years. If the whole country is going to benefit from HS2, my local residents should not have to make the sacrifices that they are being asked to make. We need to work together to ensure that the benefits that the whole country will get do not mean that my constituents are affected so dramatically. We need to have those benefits, but not at the expense of my constituents.
Economy and Jobs — House of Commons, 2017-06-29
Topic: Macroeconomics
James Roger Cartlidge (Conservative, Centre-right): I will speak briefly and apply some austerity to my speech. We keep hearing the word "austerity" and the idea that somehow austerity is a choice—[Hon. Members: "It is!"] Austerity is not a choice; it is a mathematical reality defined by the level of our debts and, more importantly, the level of our liabilities. If anybody doubts that, they should look at the table from the OBR that shows predicted public spending 50 years hence. It forecasts an increase on current prices of £156 billion, which is the size of the entire NHS budget plus £10 billion. If anyone thinks that that money is going to fall from the sky, they are deluded We are making a choice on austerity. Our choice is to save our children and grandchildren from an age of terrible austerity, which is what will happen if we do not take the right and difficult decisions. I will vote for the Queen’s Speech to support the only party that has in its DNA and in its heart—yes, its heart—a passionate belief in generational fairness and sustainable economics for the future.
Economy and Jobs — House of Commons, 2017-06-29
Topic: International Affairs
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): We come next to amendment (g) Amendment proposed: at the end of the Question to add: "but respectfully regret that the Gracious Speech does not rule out withdrawal from the EU without a deal, guarantee a Parliamentary vote on any final outcome to negotiations, set out transitional arrangements to maintain jobs, trade and certainty for business, set out proposals to remain within the Customs Union and Single Market, set out clear measures to respect the competencies of the devolved administrations, and include clear protections for EU nationals living in the UK now, including retaining their right to remain in the UK, and reciprocal rights for UK citizens."—(Mr Umunna.) Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 33), That the amendment be made.
Barnett Formula: Public Sector Pay Cap — House of Commons, 2017-07-19
Topic: Government Operations
Questions: What assessment he has made of the effect of the removal of the public sector pay cap in Scotland on the Barnett formula if that cap is retained in England.
David Gordon Mundell (Conservative, Centre-right): From that question, Mr Speaker, you would not think that since 2007 the SNP Government in Scotland have been responsible for public sector pay and that a public sector pay cap has applied for most of that time. As far as I am aware, the SNP Government have not lifted the public sector pay freeze in Scotland; they have announced a consultation.
Barnett Formula: Public Sector Pay Cap — House of Commons, 2017-07-19
Topic: Government Operations
Questions: What assessment he has made of the effect of the removal of the public sector pay cap in Scotland on the Barnett formula if that cap is retained in England.
David Gordon Mundell (Conservative, Centre-right): May I first welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new place? When the new SNP leader at Westminster said that he was reluctant, I did not realise that he was going to be reluctant to do Scottish questions, or that he was going to downgrade them I am clear that hard decisions have to be taken on public sector pay. If the Scottish Government, in their responsibilities, are saying that they are going to increase public sector pay, they have to identify where the funds are coming from.
Barnett Formula: Public Sector Pay Cap — House of Commons, 2017-07-19
Topic: Labor
Questions: What assessment he has made of the effect of the removal of the public sector pay cap in Scotland on the Barnett formula if that cap is retained in England.
David Gordon Mundell (Conservative, Centre-right): I think I did answer the hon. Gentleman’s question. The Government have struck the right balance on pay and ensuring continued employment. We see that in Scotland, where we have the lowest unemployment figures on record. It is better that more people are in work in the public sector than that we had changed the public sector pay cap in previous years.
Barnett Formula: Public Sector Pay Cap — House of Commons, 2017-07-19
Topic: Macroeconomics
Questions: What assessment he has made of the effect of the removal of the public sector pay cap in Scotland on the Barnett formula if that cap is retained in England.
David Gordon Mundell (Conservative, Centre-right): I welcome the hon. Lady to her place and congratulate her on her success in the election. I also send my best wishes to her predecessor, Dave Anderson, who was one of the Members who voluntarily left this Parliament at the last election. Of course, I pass on my best wishes to the Scottish women’s football team as I should have done in answer to the question of the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard). I agree with the Chancellor that we have struck the right balance in public sector pay on the basis that we have ensured that 200,000 public sector jobs were able to be maintained during this period of difficult fiscal conditions.
Barnett Formula: Public Sector Pay Cap — House of Commons, 2017-07-19
Topic: Macroeconomics
Questions: What assessment he has made of the effect of the removal of the public sector pay cap in Scotland on the Barnett formula if that cap is retained in England.
David Gordon Mundell (Conservative, Centre-right): Although I might be tempted to agree with the hon. Lady’s comments on the SNP Scottish Government, the position with Labour is absolutely clear in that no funds have been identified to increase public sector pay. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has made it very clear that, if we want to make a real difference on public sector pay, we have to do something that hits everybody—put a penny or two on the rates of income tax or VAT or something such as that. We cannot make a big difference just taxing the rich. The Labour party in Scotland and here in Westminster has the soundbites, but it does not have the policies to deliver what it is promising.
Jobcentre Closures — House of Commons, 2017-07-19
Topic: Labor
Damian Patrick George Hinds (Conservative, Centre-right): I reassure the hon. Gentleman that, of course, in looking forward in time to our future needs, we plan for the expected demand on jobcentres and allow for some contingency as well. I also reassure him that the rate of sanctions has been coming down. As we are in Scottish questions, it is particularly relevant to note that the rate of sanctions in Scotland is lower than it is in the rest of the UK.
Jobcentre Closures — House of Commons, 2017-07-19
Topic: Government Operations
Damian Patrick George Hinds (Conservative, Centre-right): We do think that we have a fair and reasonable approach to relocation. Of course we are asking some staff to move offices, and we try to do everything we can to facilitate that. Part of that is providing the excess fares policy that the hon. Gentleman mentions, which is greater in its extent than in many other organisations and we do think it is a reasonable approach.
Jobcentre Closures — House of Commons, 2017-07-19
Topic: Labor
Damian Patrick George Hinds (Conservative, Centre-right): The first thing to say is that missing or being late for an appointment does not necessarily result in a sanction. We expect people to make reasonable efforts to make it to appointments and, as I have said, the rate of sanctions has been coming down, but we expect people to have time—the entire working week—available to seek work. That involves going to job interviews and visiting the jobcentre. For an able-bodied person without children, for example, that would be up to 35 hours a week. Obviously, if a person has caring responsibilities, we expect them to have correspondingly less time available.
Jobcentre Closures — House of Commons, 2017-07-19
Topic: Labor
Damian Patrick George Hinds (Conservative, Centre-right): I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. In fact in every nation and region of the UK, including Scotland, we are looking to increase the number of frontline staff and work coaches helping people into work.
Jobcentre Closures — House of Commons, 2017-07-19
Topic: Labor
Damian Patrick George Hinds (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important question. Of course we consider opportunities to co-locate our services with other public sector and third sector services, as he mentions. We continue to consider those opportunities. In the specific case of those jobcentres where we are moving operations more than 3 miles or 20 minutes away, we are considering new outreach facilities. I also want to mention that, of course, in the city of Glasgow the unemployment claimant count has come down by 43% since 2010.
Public Sector Pay Cap — House of Commons, 2017-07-19
Topic: Labor
David Gordon Mundell (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman will have seen what the Chancellor said on Sunday: he said that there are areas in the public service where recruitment and retention are becoming an issue and areas of the country where public sector wages and private sector wages are getting out of kilter in the other direction. It is important that we have a discussion on those issues.
Leaving the EU: Fishing Policy — House of Commons, 2017-07-19
Topic: Agriculture
Questions: What discussions he has had with representatives of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation on the Government’s policy on fishing after the UK leaves the EU.
David Gordon Mundell (Conservative, Centre-right): It is perhaps remiss of me not to welcome new Members from Scotland and elsewhere to this House, in particular when I am answering a question from one of the potential Scottish Fathers of the House. Since the vote to leave the EU last year, I have spoken regularly with the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, which I most recently met in Peterhead on 16 June. In our discussions I emphasised that we will take Scotland out of the failed common fisheries policy and extend control of our waters up to 200 nautical miles or the median line with nearby coastal states.
Leaving the EU: Fishing Policy — House of Commons, 2017-07-19
Topic: Agriculture
Questions: What discussions he has had with representatives of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation on the Government’s policy on fishing after the UK leaves the EU.
David Gordon Mundell (Conservative, Centre-right): I, too, absolutely welcome today’s announcement on cod. I confirm that we will look to the industry to help shape its future. One thing is clear: this Government will take Scotland and the UK out of the hated common fisheries policy, but the SNP Scottish Government would take us right back in.
Leaving the EU: Fishing Policy — House of Commons, 2017-07-19
Topic: Agriculture
Questions: What discussions he has had with representatives of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation on the Government’s policy on fishing after the UK leaves the EU.
David Gordon Mundell (Conservative, Centre-right): I very much welcome my hon. Friend to this House as the MP for one of the most important fishing constituencies in the United Kingdom, for which he will be a strong advocate. As he knows, when I visited Peterhead I had the opportunity to meet processors, and I take on board fully their importance in shaping the future of the industry after the CFP.
Leaving the EU: Fishing Policy — House of Commons, 2017-07-19
Topic: International Affairs
Questions: What discussions he has had with representatives of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation on the Government’s policy on fishing after the UK leaves the EU.
David Gordon Mundell (Conservative, Centre-right): There will in any event be no need for the provision to which the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) refers—this United Kingdom Government will deliver a good deal on Brexit for Scotland and the whole of the United Kingdom.
Jobcentres: Glasgow — House of Commons, 2017-07-19
Topic: Labor
Damian Patrick George Hinds (Conservative, Centre-right): We will continue to work with local authorities and third sector organisations, but I must remind the hon. Gentleman that before these changes the city of Glasgow had the greatest coverage of jobcentres per head of population of any large city in the UK. After these changes, it will still have the greatest coverage of jobcentres of any large city in the UK.
Agreement with the DUP: Funding for Scotland — House of Commons, 2017-07-19
Topic: Government Operations
Questions: Whether the additional funding provided to Northern Ireland announced in the Government's agreement with the Democratic Unionist Party will have consequences on funding for Scotland.; Whether the additional funding provided to Northern Ireland announced in the Government's agreement with the Democratic Unionist Party will have consequences on funding for Scotland.; Whether the additional funding provided to Northern Ireland announced in the Government’s agreement with the Democratic Unionist Party will have consequences on funding for Scotland.
David Gordon Mundell (Conservative, Centre-right): I am surprised at the hon. Lady’s tone because the Government have committed to delivering city deals across Scotland. There will imminently be some exciting news about Edinburgh. I would have thought she would welcome that, rather than simply politicking.
Agreement with the DUP: Funding for Scotland — House of Commons, 2017-07-19
Topic: Macroeconomics
Questions: Whether the additional funding provided to Northern Ireland announced in the Government's agreement with the Democratic Unionist Party will have consequences on funding for Scotland.; Whether the additional funding provided to Northern Ireland announced in the Government's agreement with the Democratic Unionist Party will have consequences on funding for Scotland.; Whether the additional funding provided to Northern Ireland announced in the Government’s agreement with the Democratic Unionist Party will have consequences on funding for Scotland.
David Gordon Mundell (Conservative, Centre-right): I take my responsibility to fight for Scotland’s fiscal priorities very seriously. That is why, two years ago when the hon. Gentleman was walking through the Lobby to deliver full fiscal freedom and a £9 billion black hole to Scotland, I voted to keep the Barnett formula.
Agreement with the DUP: Funding for Scotland — House of Commons, 2017-07-19
Topic: Transportation
Questions: Whether the additional funding provided to Northern Ireland announced in the Government's agreement with the Democratic Unionist Party will have consequences on funding for Scotland.; Whether the additional funding provided to Northern Ireland announced in the Government's agreement with the Democratic Unionist Party will have consequences on funding for Scotland.; Whether the additional funding provided to Northern Ireland announced in the Government’s agreement with the Democratic Unionist Party will have consequences on funding for Scotland.
Ross Thomson (Conservative, Centre-right): Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the benefits to the north-east of Scotland brought about by the UK Government’s Aberdeen city region deal? Does he share my concern at the dither and delay of the SNP Government in improving the rail journey times between Aberdeen and the central belt, which may take until the 2020s? We need urgency from the Scottish Government.