argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill — House of Commons, 2022-03-07
Topic: Law and Crime
Alison Emily Thewliss (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I absolutely agree. I was going to speak about Scottish limited partnerships later but will jump forward to that bit of my speech now, because it ties in nicely with the point the right hon. Member makes The House will have heard me speak on numerous occasions about SLPs, which have the distinction of being able to hold assets—property, yachts or whatever else—as a company. They have been used in the past as a means of funnelling money out of Ukraine as well other countries. OpenDemocracy reported last year that it had found €35.9 million in an SLP account which had been stolen from people in Ukraine through a fraud; Remini Consulting was the company involved in that. As the right hon. Member pointed out, the key to tracing those involved in such frauds is the persons of significant control SLPs have been obliged to have a person of significant control for several years now; that is a reform the SNP pushed for and the Government said they were going to introduce. Sure enough, the numbers of SLPs on the Companies House register decreased, and the number of people who were not registering as persons of significant control also decreased, but according to the most recent figures 203 companies are still SLPs with no person of significant control registered. That is just not right, and that is not being pursued either. Of all the thousands of SLPs that have existed and that still exist, only one has been issued with a fine for not having a person of significant control, and that fine was £210. That is absolutely pathetic, and it highlights that this Government are not even bothering to enforce the rules they have The Government are proposing in this economic crime Bill to fine companies that do not comply, but they are not fining companies that do not comply right now. That is not just about not enforcing the rules; it is money that is walking out of the Treasury—money they could have had to spend on services and do other things. They are not enforcing the rules, and they are not fining the companies that are not playing by the rules—they are not striking them off the register; they are not doing anything to make sure the rules are complied with This Bill does not go far enough to address that. The fines suggested are £2,500 a day, which is nothing to many of the companies who are shifting billions of pounds through shell companies. That is just the cost of doing business; it is nothing to the oligarchs with deep pockets stuffed full of Putin’s money, and the Government should be doing a hell of a lot more about that. At this moment, welcome as this Bill is, they are not doing anything to address that imbalance.
Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill — House of Commons, 2022-03-07
Topic: International Affairs
Alison Emily Thewliss (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I want to speak about the amendments and new clauses in my name and those of my colleagues. I refer to amendment 41, new clauses 4 and 21 to 23, and amendments 18 to 23 and 40. I have indicated my support for a number of other new clauses and amendments. I dare say that given the cross-party nature of the amendments that were tabled over the weekend, if we had had more time we would have had more names attached to all of them. The Minister would do well to listen to the cross-party calls from Members of both Houses. I have little in common with the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), and I disagree with him vehemently on many issues, but I have signed some of his amendments I share the horror felt by my colleagues and my constituents at the news that is coming through from Ukraine. We condemn the flagrant and repeated breaches of the Geneva conventions by Putin and his troops. I thank the people of Glasgow Central who have been raising funds and gathering goods across the constituency, but particularly those at the Hindu mandir, dropping off those goods to help the people fleeing Ukraine. Their sense of humanity has been undoubted, and I hope that it will be met by Ministers—not least the Home Secretary, who disappeared before we could raise further issues with her—because the people of Ukraine deserve our support This Bill is patently not enough. The volume of worthy and sensible amendments, and indeed the Government’s own amendments, testify to that. Action is long overdue. Stephen Gethins, Professor of International Relations at St Andrews and our former colleague in the House, has said: "For years we have turned a blind eye to Putin's dirty money, propaganda and influence in our democracy. Those who called out the corruption were badged as anti-Russian when it was the Russians who were Putin’s first victims. It is a shame that many are only paying attention to his crimes after such grave events. I hope that real action will be taken. After years of inaction we owe the people of Ukraine and Putin’s other victims at least that." I agree very much with Stephen Gethins The situation we find ourselves in today, legislating in great haste, did not need to happen. This is not new. Putin and his cronies have been shifting their ill-gotten gains through the UK for many years now, unimpeded—and indeed facilitated—by UK Governments of various stripes, while journalists, civil society campaigners and, to their credit, many Members across this House, such as the right hon. Members for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), have repeated their calls for action throughout many Bills.
Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill — House of Commons, 2022-03-07
Topic: Law and Crime
Alison Emily Thewliss (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was talking about people buying their seats at party fundraisers and at the heart of British democracy. That is something that this House should reflect on. This place needs to take a long hard look at itself and at what it has facilitated, allowed and ignored over the course of many years We in the SNP welcome this Bill—how could we not?—but we would argue that it is long overdue and does not go nearly far enough. The UK Government’s inaction and prevarication have given the oligarchs a head start to shift their assets, to lawyer up, to step down from companies and boards and to saunter unimpeded to their getaway yachts and go to places that will still have them. Co-ordinated and quick global action, including in the overseas territories, could have made this more difficult, as would action on crypto-assets. The recent Treasury Committee report highlighted the growing role of crypto-assets in economic crime We support Labour’s calls to cut the registration of overseas entities to four weeks. We all agree that 18 months was ludicrous, but six months still gives people far too long to shift their ill-gotten gains. I would be grateful if Ministers confirmed what they are doing to monitor asset flight, and if they could provide an estimate of how much money has already left. Our amendments 18 to 23 would lower the threshold for beneficial ownership from 25% to 10%. Evidence already points to the threshold being gamed and to people appointing family members and those they can easily control, and the Government need to be aware of that and do more to prevent it.
Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill — House of Commons, 2022-03-07
Topic: Law and Crime
Alison Emily Thewliss (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, and I hope the Minister was listening carefully. We need to use all the levers at our disposal to trace where these assets are going, who is moving them and who is helping them to do that.
Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill — House of Commons, 2022-03-07
Topic: International Affairs
David Melvyn Linden (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I rise to speak to amendment 63, which stands in my name and those of my colleagues. I am grateful to you, Dame Eleanor, for selecting it as a manuscript amendment, particularly at such short notice. I am not normally a fan of ramming a Bill through in such short order, but I understand the need for speed in this case As others said on Second Reading, the Bill is to be broadly welcomed, but it does not go far and fast enough. A much bigger and more wide-ranging debate stems from the Elections Bill, which is currently in the other place, and the eligibility of overseas voters and donors to influence our politics, but I do not think we want to go too far down that rabbit warren this evening. However, clause 38 makes provision for financial penalties to be applied in respect of overseas entities, and I support that My amendment seeks to close off a loophole: we could apply significant financial penalties to an individual, yet said individual, even if they lived overseas, would still be able to vote and, more concerningly, donate significant sums to UK political parties and influence our elections. I am the first to accept that our focus right now should be on applying the maximum economic sanctions on Russia to alleviate and end the military bombardment that it is subjecting the poor people of Ukraine to. It strikes me as a little bizarre that we can have a debate—and indeed legislate tonight—on the issue of dirty Russian money in these islands, but miss a trick by not also cleaning up our politics of said dirty Russian money. Countless warnings have been sounded on this issue, most notably in the Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report, which flagged up the vulnerability of our politics to Putin’s influence in cyber and in funnelling money into some political parties and referendum campaigns.
Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill — House of Commons, 2022-03-07
Topic: International Affairs
David Melvyn Linden (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that. Even the Minister who is piloting the Elections Bill through in the Commons admitted that she had not read the Russia report, so it is no surprise that the Government are so ignorant towards it. It is an indisputable, though regrettable, fact that the Conservative party has previously accepted donations from people who have ties to the Kremlin. Such gifts to the party are legally, if not ethically, legitimate, in so far as they are within current electoral law when properly declared. However, lines have been drawn between senior Conservatives and some pretty unsavoury characters.
Low-Performing Areas: Education Funding — House of Commons, 2022-05-23
Topic: Education
Carol Frances Monaghan (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I was sorry to hear about the Minister for Higher and Further Education, the right hon. Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), and I wish her a speedy recovery I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will join me in wishing all the young people throughout the United Kingdom who are currently sitting their national exams the best of success The Secretary of State has praised private schools, including Eton, for building free schools in places such as Oldham, which, according to him, need that investment in education. Can he confirm that it is now Government policy to rely on private school investment where Government funds have been lacking?
Public Order Bill — House of Commons, 2022-05-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Stewart Hosie (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): On the offence of locking on, the Bill states: "It is a defence for a person charged…to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for the act mentioned" If their excuse is that they were trying to stop the destruction of a historic building or to protect a site of special scientific interest from destruction, would that be reasonable? Would that be a defence of the purported crime of locking on?
Public Order Bill — House of Commons, 2022-05-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Elizabeth Anne McLaughlin (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): No, I am not giving way. There is widespread acceptance that the answer to both of those questions is no. Again, "a little inconvenience is more acceptable than a police state" It is not just the one police officer who felt that way. Her Majesty’s inspectorate consulted widely on these powers as early as 2020 and they were rejected across the board, not just because they were incompatible with human rights legislation, but because police concluded that they would not be an effective deterrent. So what is the point Existing legislation is already heavily weighted in favour of the authorities, and the 2022 Act has made that even more the case. The former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), said in 2018 that, "it is a long-standing tradition that people are free to gather together and to demonstrate their views. This is something to be rightly proud of." He was right: it was something to be rightly proud of. Where a crime is committed, the police already have the powers to act so that people feel protected. Where there is a clear need to protect critical infrastructure or transport hubs, the UK already has an array of legislation that allows that to happen, as the former Home Secretary said. The Public Order Act 1986 gives the police powers to place restrictions on protests and, in some cases, prohibit those that threaten to cause serious disruption to public order. There is an array of criminal offences that could apply to protesters, including aggravated trespass or obstruction of a highway Despite that, the Government waited until the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill had completed its passage through this House to slip much of what we have before us today into that Bill at the last minute, when it was in the House of Lords—and the Lords roundly rejected it. Instead of accepting the defeat, one week later, the Government regurgitated most of the measures into the Bill before us today. The Home Secretary should accept that these draconian measures have already been rejected by Parliament and respect the democratic process. After all, this Government keep telling Scotland to do likewise, although the issue we intend to revisit—the matter of Scotland’s independence—was last put before the people eight years ago, not just last month.
Public Order Bill — House of Commons, 2022-05-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Stewart Hosie (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Clause 2, "Offence of being equipped for locking on", says: "A person commits an offence if they have an object with them…with the intention that it may be used in the course of or in connection with the commission" of the offence of locking on. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that if somebody has a heavy bicycle chain and padlock to secure their motorbike, which can be used in the commission of locking on, they should be made a criminal?
Public Order Bill — House of Commons, 2022-05-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Elizabeth Anne McLaughlin (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): The hon. Gentleman keeps going on about criminals, saying "We’ve got to get rid of these criminals" and "We’ve got to do something about these criminals." He is characterising an awful lot of people as criminals. If they are already criminals, that means that they have committed a crime and have already been charged and found guilty—or he thinks that they should have been, so why have they not been? Incidentally, the Bill creates an awful lot of civil offences. Those are not criminal either, so why and on what basis is he calling such people criminals?
Public Order Bill — House of Commons, 2022-05-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Stewart Hosie (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): There is an inconsistency here that is just breathtaking. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) has just described how he stood on a picket line during the miners’ strike. Those picket lines were designed to stop scab workers going into somebody else’s colliery in many instances. That is not indirect action; it is direct action. Is the hon. Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) saying that all the people on picket lines should have been arrested? Is that really what he is saying?
Public Order Bill — House of Commons, 2022-05-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Stewart Hosie (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): The issue is not just the extension of stop and search but many of the extensions in the Bill. I was struck that, if Lord Hain—then Peter Hain—could be convicted of criminal conspiracy for leading direct action events in the 1970s, which he was as part of the anti-apartheid movement, why do we need this panoply of illiberal measures now? The law was more than capable of dealing with many of the same issues 40 or 50 years ago.
Shared Prosperity Fund — House of Commons, 2022-05-16
Topic: International Affairs
Questions: What recent discussions he has had with elected members in the devolved Administrations on the (a) equity and (b) transparency of the UK shared prosperity fund.
Peter Grant (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): No doubt one thing that will have been raised in those discussions is the fact that this year Scotland’s share will be £151 million less than we would have got in EU structural funds had we not been dragged out of the EU against our will, despite the fact that both the Tory party manifesto in 2019 and a personal pledge from the Secretary of State at the Holyrood Finance and Public Administration Committee earlier this year assured us we would get at least as much as would have come from the European Union. Why have those two promises been broken, and, most importantly, what has happened to Scotland’s missing £151 million?
Economic Growth — House of Commons, 2022-05-16
Topic: Macroeconomics
Patricia Gibson (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Despite the bullish posturing, the Minister knows that households across the UK are suffering terrible hardship because of the cost of living crisis, which has the Tories’ name written all over it. Despite the rhetoric, the reality is that Scotland’s resource budget allocation has been cut by Westminster by 5.2%, and the capital budget allocation has been cut by Westminster by 9.7% in real terms. How can he claim to support economic growth across the UK when the Scottish Government’s ability to support business, investment and people through the cost of living crisis can only be severely constrained by these cuts?
Long-term Funding Settlements — House of Commons, 2022-05-16
Topic: Social Welfare
Patricia Gibson (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Bloomberg’s devastating forensic analysis of the Government’s progress with their so-called levelling-up agenda has found no overall levelling-up progress in Scotland. On the contrary, the UK Government are levelling down Scotland compared with London, which has had significant levelling-up funding and gains since 2019. Disparities across the UK are widening. To what extent does the Minister agree with Bloomberg’s analysis that the Tories are levelling down Scotland and prioritising the south of England?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2022-05-16
Topic: Energy
Questions: North Warwickshire Borough Council does a fantastic job of serving our local community, despite operating on a budget of only £9.5 million, which is certainly the lowest in Warwickshire and must be one of the lowest in the country. Will the Minister agree to come to my constituency to meet the council and to see for himself the excellent work it does, and to see how it could put the levelling-up funding on offer to excellent use?; Just last year, Shropshire’s Conservative-run council missed out on three levelling-up bids, and it missed out on a bus service improvement plan bid, under the Bus Back Better fund, this year. There is no doubt that Shropshire has need of these funds, so I would like to understand: what steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that levelling-up funds are allocated on the basis of need, rather than through some opaque bidding process that seems to be influenced by a council’s ability to direct resources at that bid?; I thank my right hon. Friend for delivering the shared prosperity fund, with historically high funding for mid-Wales and Montgomeryshire in particular, at more than £200 per head. I particularly thank him for the golden thread of rurality that we find in this formula, and I press him to continue delivering for rural communities.; It is clear that the Government’s approach to levelling up is a postcode lottery based on their own political ambitions rather than a genuine desire to help communities. With Portsmouth’s high streets in dire need of investment and our city’s cultural attractions struggling with the cost of living, when will the Minister stop moving the goalposts and finally stop short-changing Portsmouth?; I and my Kensington residents welcome the fact that the social housing Bill was in the Queen’s Speech. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Bill will give social housing tenants the ability to hold their landlords to account? Will he also detail the likely timing of the Bill?
Douglas Chapman (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Last week’s Bloomberg report suggests that levelling up in Scotland is just not happening. Given that Scotland is self-sufficient in gas and has great offshore renewables, should not the stewardship, licensing and revenues be linked to the Scottish Government budget, rather than to Her Majesty’s Treasury? Minister, when will these negotiations start? Can we kick-start some serious levelling up?