argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2022-03-08
Topic: Law and Crime
Questions: Putin’s Russia has been making aggressive statements towards Sweden and Finland. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the UK should be very supportive of their application to NATO, and we should look to expedite that, should they decide to apply?;   Russia’s invasion of Ukraine all too vividly demonstrates the dangers of autocratic regimes. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the UK actively supports the right of people to determine their own future wherever they are in the world, not least in Taiwan?; It was reported today that the UK Government regard Ukrainian refugees entering Ireland—women and bairns fleeing Putin’s bombs—as a security threat. When will the Government cut the hyperbole and the bureaucracy and give those poor souls sanctuary in this country?;   Putin has shown that he is prepared to attack nuclear power plants and has threatened to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the importance of maintaining the UK’s strategic deterrent as a NATO asset is all the more vital in these dangerous times?; The Financial Times reported today that UK taxpayers may be forced to foot a £43-million bill for loans taken out by Russia’s biggest coal company and underwritten by the Government’s export agency. I ask the Foreign Secretary whether she knows who the Secretary of State for International Trade was at the time that the deal was agreed with one of Russia’s richest oligarchs and whether the Minister in question personally authorised the agreement?;   Earlier, Ministers mentioned humanitarian corridors. What is being done to ensure that they are safe, secure and appropriate? What are the UK Government doing to uphold international humanitarian laws?; Does my right hon. Friend agree that to deter foreign states from sponsoring or launching cyber-attacks on the United Kingdom, now is the time, especially considering the recent Russian aggression, to show the world that Britain is willing and able to retaliate?
Anthony Joseph Lloyd (Labour, Centre-left): We know that the National Crime Agency is underpowered, but we also know we have a common interest with our European allies in the search for credible information about those oligarchs who should be sanctioned, so what steps are being taken to internationalise this search process to make sure we sanction those who should be sanctioned?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2022-03-08
Topic: International Affairs
Questions: Putin’s Russia has been making aggressive statements towards Sweden and Finland. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the UK should be very supportive of their application to NATO, and we should look to expedite that, should they decide to apply?;   Russia’s invasion of Ukraine all too vividly demonstrates the dangers of autocratic regimes. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the UK actively supports the right of people to determine their own future wherever they are in the world, not least in Taiwan?; It was reported today that the UK Government regard Ukrainian refugees entering Ireland—women and bairns fleeing Putin’s bombs—as a security threat. When will the Government cut the hyperbole and the bureaucracy and give those poor souls sanctuary in this country?;   Putin has shown that he is prepared to attack nuclear power plants and has threatened to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the importance of maintaining the UK’s strategic deterrent as a NATO asset is all the more vital in these dangerous times?; The Financial Times reported today that UK taxpayers may be forced to foot a £43-million bill for loans taken out by Russia’s biggest coal company and underwritten by the Government’s export agency. I ask the Foreign Secretary whether she knows who the Secretary of State for International Trade was at the time that the deal was agreed with one of Russia’s richest oligarchs and whether the Minister in question personally authorised the agreement?;   Earlier, Ministers mentioned humanitarian corridors. What is being done to ensure that they are safe, secure and appropriate? What are the UK Government doing to uphold international humanitarian laws?; Does my right hon. Friend agree that to deter foreign states from sponsoring or launching cyber-attacks on the United Kingdom, now is the time, especially considering the recent Russian aggression, to show the world that Britain is willing and able to retaliate?
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): It is very important that scrutiny Committees have access to relevant papers and records to do the job that the House has delegated to them. The International Development Committee is best placed to assess what information is needed for its inquiries, and I trust that Members on the Government Front Bench have heard the hon. Member’s concerns and will respond to the Committee’s request in a timely manner and provide the papers.
Ukraine: Urgent Refugee Applications — House of Commons, 2022-03-08
Topic: International Affairs
Barry John Sheerman (Labour, Centre-left): I have been in the Chamber since the start of business, and it is not often that I feel ashamed. I have listened to a range of Ministers make half-baked excuses for no action. The President of Ukraine will be speaking to us later, and this is when our hearts, minds and prayers are with the people of Ukraine. For God’s sake, will the ministerial team and the Government please get their act together and open the doors to these poor people?
Ukraine: Urgent Refugee Applications — House of Commons, 2022-03-08
Topic: International Affairs
Stephen John Doughty (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Minister for his personal help, but my constituents share the absolute frustration at the speed at which the Government are moving on this issue. Can he get a grip on the situation in Warsaw? I heard today of people who are seeking to join their family in the UK but who are being told that there are no appointments available until at least 15 March, even though they have been in Poland for some time having escaped Kyiv. Will he publish how many staff have actually been posted to Warsaw, Bucharest, Budapest, Bratislava and Chisinau? Have we actually sent staff? Are all of them operating at seven-day capacity? How long do people have to wait for appointments in those locations?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2022-03-08
Topic: International Affairs
Anneliese Jane Dodds (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In the past 24 hours, the Foreign Secretary has twice accused me of seeking to slow down the UK Government’s ability to sanction individuals during the passage of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018—once, before the Foreign Affairs Committee, and, again, this morning during departmental questions. She made similar accusations against my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) before he corrected her and she was compelled to apologise for having got the facts wrong, gallantly blaming her staff for the quality of her notes The accusations that the Foreign Secretary made against me do not stand up to scrutiny—I am using parliamentary language here, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am particularly aggrieved by the Foreign Secretary’s suggestion that I, in her words, "wanted changes to make it tougher for us to sanction oligarchs" At no point during the passage of that Act did I seek to slow down the Government’s ability to sanction individuals who posed a threat to the UK—quite the opposite. I was one of those who pushed for the inclusion of Magnitsky sanctions in the Act—sanctions against Russian oligarchs, which were then blocked by the Conservative Government who shut down the relevant Committee debate after half an hour to prevent the issue being put to a vote I welcome Conservative Ministers’ belated conversion to the importance of such measures, but not the Foreign Secretary’s attempt to rewrite history. The comments of mine to which she referred were explicitly about Ministers using so-called Henry VIII powers to amend primary legislation without parliamentary oversight, not what she has intimated Given these points, Mr Deputy Speaker, would it be in order for the Foreign Secretary to come to the House at the earliest opportunity and correct the record?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2022-03-08
Topic: International Affairs
Christopher John Bryant (Labour, Centre-left): Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was at the Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday when the Foreign Secretary made those allegations. She alleged that I had said things in the Third Reading debate on 1 May 2018. I did not take part in the debate on Third Reading in 2018, although in fact I did speak on that day, and if I say so myself it was a particularly fine speech—[Interruption.] Nobody else is going to say it, so I might as well The serious point here is twofold. First, the Foreign Secretary came to the Select Committee determined to say those things and had clearly not checked the basic facts before she came to the meeting, which would suggest a degree of deliberate recklessness about what she was going to say. Secondly, she then prayed in aid a document that she said she had in front of her, which was some notes from officials that had apparently been incorrectly written out. You will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the convention in this House is that if a Minister prays a document in aid, they must provide it to the House. Can you ensure that the Foreign Secretary provides those notes? I am concerned that somewhere in the Foreign Office there is a file on me that is full of lies and inaccuracies.
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2022-03-08
Topic: International Affairs
Christian John Patrick Matheson (Labour, Centre-left): Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) talked in her point of order about the Foreign Secretary’s suggesting that she could not read her notes because her officials had not written them very clearly. In topical questions, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) about who signed off a trade deal, the Foreign Secretary told the House that she did not know and that those deals were always signed off by officials Can you tell me, Mr Deputy Speaker, following the right hon. Lady’s comments today, whether the Government have made any attempt to bring forward a statement to explain a change in the policy of ministerial responsibility? If they have not, have they made any suggestion that officials will now come to this House and answer questions and that Ministers are not responsible for them? It sounds to me as though the Foreign Secretary is getting a bit of a track record here of blaming things on everybody but herself.
National Insurance Contributions Increase — House of Commons, 2022-03-08
Topic: Macroeconomics
Rachel Jane Reeves (Labour, Centre-left): I beg to move, That this House calls on the Government to cancel its planned 1.25 percentage point rise in National Insurance Contributions that will cost families an average of £500 per year from April 2022 Six months ago today in this Chamber, I set out Labour’s opposition to the Conservatives’ national insurance tax hike. It was clear to us then that this was going to be a heavy burden on working people and businesses who could ill afford it. Since that time, the situation has worsened, but the Conservative party has not altered its wrong course. Filling up the car with petrol is more expensive, energy bills are soaring, and the cost of the weekly food shop is rising. It all adds up. Inflation is now 5.5%, the highest level since 1992, and is forecast to reach a massive 8% next month, outpacing people’s pay rises—if they get one at all. Growth is expected to slow further. The stark reality is that over the past 12 years, the Tories have become the party of high taxes because they are now the party of low growth This morning’s report by the Resolution Foundation finds that the average household will experience a £1,000 hit from tax rises and energy price increases this year under the Conservative Government. The Treasury Committee rightly highlighted the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast, which stated that "the policy mix chosen by the Chancellor" at the last Budget "will act as a boost to inflation" Just focus on that for a moment: the Chancellor’s own policy choices are boosting inflation. The Government should have acted when the cost of living crisis started growing last September and well before it spiralled out of control in December, with costs soaring and inflation heating up The Russian invasion of Ukraine is devastating lives and livelihoods, and we must do all we can to stop Putin’s aggression. What is happening in Ukraine will have a cost of living effect here at home, too. When the facts change, so should the Government’s policies; people cannot afford Ministers carrying on regardless of worsening circumstances. The Chancellor must show some understanding of the real-world consequences of his policies for working people and businesses The spring Budget will take place two weeks tomorrow, on 23 March. If the Government cannot commit to halting the national insurance rise today, they must do so then, two weeks before it comes in on 6 April and hits working people and employers hard. Today is an opportunity for the Conservatives to show that they get it, and do not want to make the cost of living crisis even worse than it already is.
National Insurance Contributions Increase — House of Commons, 2022-03-08
Topic: Macroeconomics
Rachel Jane Reeves (Labour, Centre-left): I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman. A buy now, pay later scheme for energy prices, based on the premise that prices are going to fall, does not bear any relation to the facts. That is why I say, when the facts change, so should the Government’s policies. They should not just carry on steering the boat in the wrong direction, towards the storm It is fair to say that the Prime Minister’s word has recently been deeply discredited, but let me remind the Chamber what he previously said about tax: "Read my lips: we will not be raising taxes on income, or VAT, or national insurance." This is not just another of the long list of broken vows from a leader who has a fleeting relationship with truth and accuracy. This manifesto breach now belongs to the entire Conservative Government and especially the Chancellor, who seems not to want to take responsibility for his own tax rises. Let us not forget that last March, a year into the pandemic, the Chancellor said, "We’re not going to raise the rates of income tax, national insurance, or VAT." This is not just the wrong thing to do; it is a broken promise. It is a clear and flagrant breach of the Conservative party’s own manifesto. They promised the public that they would not do this, and now they are going back on their word The Chancellor is not here to defend his new tax on jobs—I do not know why—but it is becoming increasingly clear that rather than help people now when they really need it, the Chancellor is telling his colleagues and briefing newspapers that he will make people wait until an election, when he wants to make a new set of promises to win people’s votes. People need help now and the Government should act now, not play games with people’s living standards. Voters are smarter and savvier than the Chancellor assumes. They have already seen through his buy now, pay later loan scheme, meant to help with energy bills. It is not too late for the Government to look again at Labour’s proposal for a one-off windfall tax on oil and gas producers in order to cut household energy bills by up to £600 this year. The case for our proposal gets stronger by the day, and the Chancellor should adopt it, but instead of easing the cost of living crisis, the Conservatives are the cost of living crisis.
National Insurance Contributions Increase — House of Commons, 2022-03-08
Topic: Energy
Rachel Jane Reeves (Labour, Centre-left): Politics is about choices; the hon. Lady makes an important point. This Government are making the choice to increase taxes on ordinary working people and those who employ them, while on the Opposition Benches, we say that those who have benefited from the high energy prices should pay a bit more in tax to relieve the pressure on ordinary working people. We have a Conservative Minister who goes on the TV and radio and says that energy companies and the North sea oil and gas companies are struggling right now. Tell that to my constituents, the hon. Lady’s constituents and all our constituents who are struggling to pay the bills, while the profits keep coming in for the big oil and gas producers.
National Insurance Contributions Increase — House of Commons, 2022-03-08
Topic: Macroeconomics
Rachel Jane Reeves (Labour, Centre-left): If we raised those taxes now on North sea oil and gas companies, we could bring in money that could be used to relieve pressure now. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s constituents in North East Hertfordshire would be pretty pleased to have money off their bills this year, rather than the buy now, pay later scheme that we get from this Chancellor Why is the Chancellor not listening? The Conservatives’ rise in national insurance will hit almost 30 million working people. The TUC rightly argues that it is wrong to hit young and low-paid workers while "leaving the wealthy untouched". The British Chambers of Commerce describes the Government’s policy as "a drag anchor on jobs growth" The CBI put it bluntly and said that it will "hurt a business’s ability to hire staff" On Sunday, the Federation of Small Businesses warned: "Slamming small firms with a jobs tax hike will put the brakes on investment, upskilling and growth within communities most affected by the pandemic." The Chancellor must know what business organisations and trade unions are saying. We can only conclude that he is consciously disregarding their experience and views. We know from research by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research that job-intensive sectors will be disproportionately hit hard. The Conservatives have deliberately designed a tax hike that will hit people working in hotels, restaurants, transport, retail and wholesale especially hard.
National Insurance Contributions Increase — House of Commons, 2022-03-08
Topic: Macroeconomics
Rachel Jane Reeves (Labour, Centre-left): The average household in the hon. Lady’s constituency will be £1,200 worse off because of the tax increases and the price rises happening as a result of her Government’s policies. As she well knows, we would use the windfall tax to relieve pressure on household gas and electricity bills. The hon. Lady might oppose that, but I suggest she puts that on her leaflets and puts that to the voters in her constituency at the next election.
National Insurance Contributions Increase — House of Commons, 2022-03-08
Topic: Macroeconomics
Rachel Jane Reeves (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Gentleman speaks powerfully on behalf of his constituents, who are struggling with the double whammy of prices increasing, particularly gas and electricity bills, at the same time as this Government are piling on pressure after pressure with higher taxes on the same people who are paying those higher bills. He is absolutely right that people can only take so much, and the national insurance contribution tax hike is, as he says, potentially the straw that breaks the camel’s back Politics is about priorities, and it is about choices. So who has the Chancellor chosen to protect—not to tax more? Those who earn huge incomes from a large portfolio of buy-to-let properties or those making large sums from selling stocks and shares will not pay a penny more tax on that income. The super-rich will not be paying more. Roman Abramovich and billionaire oligarchs are not being made to pay more tax. In fact, some of those trying to relinquish their assets now appear to be using offshore vehicles to avoid paying tax. Lubov Chernukhin, wife of Putin’s former finance Minister, and mega-donor to the Tory party, has reportedly lobbied Ministers against higher taxes for the wealthy. As luck would have it, she will not be paying any more tax, unlike people across Britain who work for a living and keep our economy going.
National Insurance Contributions Increase — House of Commons, 2022-03-08
Topic: Macroeconomics
Rachel Jane Reeves (Labour, Centre-left): I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that to the House’s attention. It is exactly why Labour said that the warm home discount should be expanded to ensure that the money goes to the people who need it, not the landlords At the same time as the Government are asking hard-working British people to pay more in tax, they are writing off billions of pounds in fraud. Ordinary people are paying for this Government’s waste. The Chancellor repeatedly ignored warnings about the holes in his covid business support schemes, resulting in £4.3 billion of public money being written off. That does not even include the amounts lost to bounce back loan fraud, including taxpayer cash handed out to drug dealers and organised criminals. That fraud currently stands at £4.7 billion, so that is £9 billion and counting handed to fraudsters. Then there is the colossal Government waste during the pandemic, with £8.7 billion lost on unusable personal protective equipment, all paid for by the taxpayer. Billions has been spent on crony contracts that have not delivered, and every single cheque has been signed by the Chancellor.
National Insurance Contributions Increase — House of Commons, 2022-03-08
Topic: Macroeconomics
Rachel Jane Reeves (Labour, Centre-left): Let me just finish this point. Yesterday, we saw a whole new meaning to burning through money. After wasting billions on unusable PPE, the Government are literally burning it to get rid of it—putting taxpayers’ money through the furnace. The Conservatives’ promise to get value for money for taxpayers has gone up in flames. Taxpayers do not want to keep picking up the price of these dodgy contracts, fraud and waste. I will be very interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s views on that.