argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-04-25
Topic: Macroeconomics
David Nuttall (Conservative, Centre-right): Well, we have plenty of time. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Does she not agree that by reducing taxes, particularly corporation tax, in this country, we are more likely to attract inward investment and new companies from around the globe to this country, thereby producing the taxes to pay for our public services?
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-04-25
Topic: Social Welfare
Jane Ellison (Conservative, Centre-right): No VAT is charged for the buying of an adapted vehicle by or on behalf of a disabled wheelchair user. Unfortunately, this scheme, which supports disabled wheelchair users to live independently, has been fraudulently abused by unscrupulous individuals who make purchases under this relief and then sell the vehicles on for additional profit. For example, HMRC discovered that one person purchased 30 BMWs under the scheme in one day, while another individual bought 100 vehicles that I would describe as high-performance sports cars and the like in under two years. This is clear abuse of the scheme, and its integrity is being brought into question by such behaviour Clause 57 will tackle abuse of the relief, while ensuring that it remains available for those with disabilities. The changes made by clause 57 will restrict the number of vehicles that an individual, or someone on behalf of that individual, may purchase under the scheme to one every three years. That will stop fraudsters from purchasing multiple vehicles in one day, or over a prolonged period. The legislation recognises that, in some circumstances, a replacement vehicle may genuinely need to be purchased within the three-year period. In addition, the clause makes it mandatory for vehicle dealers to submit a declaration of eligibility for each car purchased under the scheme to HMRC and applies penalties to those found to abuse the scheme.
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-04-25
Topic: Macroeconomics
Jane Ellison (Conservative, Centre-right): Let me just complete the exposition of why these bodies do not qualify Both those new bodies are funded centrally rather than through local taxation and therefore do not meet the eligibility criteria for section 33 VAT refunds. The Treasury warned the Scottish Government in advance that making these changes would result in the loss of VAT refunds. In deciding to go ahead, the Scottish Government fully considered the costs and benefits of doing so, including the loss of VAT refunds. Therefore, there is no additional benefit to be had from the Government committing resource and time to produce a report on this issue. I therefore urge the Committee to reject new clause 2.
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-04-25
Topic: Macroeconomics
Jane Ellison (Conservative, Centre-right): Again, those are matters that have been covered before. I refer the hon. Lady to comments that I have made previously in response to very similar interventions. These measures have been discussed not just in Finance Bills, but during the passage of the Scotland Bill. Again, the message was the same that this was a decision taken in the full knowledge of the VAT consequences. Once again, I urge the House to reject the new clause that calls for a review.
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-04-25
Topic: Macroeconomics
Jane Ellison (Conservative, Centre-right): Clause 58 legislates for the increase in the standard rate of insurance premium tax from 10% to 12% as the Chancellor announced in the autumn statement 2016. This change will be effective from 1 June this year. Clause 59 will make minor changes to anti-forestalling provisions, so that insurers cannot artificially avoid paying the new rate of insurance premium tax by adjusting contract dates The Government remain committed to our fiscal mandate of eliminating the deficit. Much has already been achieved. The Government are forecast to reduce the deficit by more than two thirds by the end of this year, and in 2018-19, debt will fall for the first time in 16 years. However, we cannot be complacent. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s recent fiscal sustainability report highlights the challenges posed by an ageing population, projecting debt almost trebling to 234% over the next 50 years, if no further action is taken.
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-04-25
Topic: Macroeconomics
Jane Ellison (Conservative, Centre-right): I am coming to that, but the Chancellor was admirably clear when he laid the change out for the House when it was announced The Government have worked to eliminate the deficit and to invest in Britain’s future. We want to ensure that the public finances remain sustainable and to build resilience to future shocks. We have prioritised tax changes to help ordinary working families, and encouraged businesses to invest in the UK. We are supporting jobs and helping people’s money to go further through increases to the personal allowance and the national living wage. We have committed to investing £23 billion for infrastructure in the national productivity investment fund and an extra £2 billion for social care, which will ease pressures on the national health service By increasing insurance premium tax, we will ensure that we can maintain the balance between that investment and controlling the deficit. The additional revenue gives the Government the flexibility to invest. IPT is a tax on insurers. They are not in any way obliged to pass on the tax through higher premiums. However, if insurers do choose to pass on the increase, it will be spread thinly across a wide range of people and businesses. In line with the informal agreement between the Government and the Association of British Insurers, firms have been given more than six months’ notice, which gives time to implement the change. The agreement aims to give insurers proper warning of a rate change and to ensure that the correct rate of tax on a policy is known when the policy is arranged The changes made by clause 58 will raise approximately £840 million each year to reduce the deficit, while ensuring that we can fund spending commitments. That really is the answer to the intervention by the hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan). Insurance premium tax is a tax on insurers, not consumers. It will be insurance companies’ choice whether to pass on the 2% rate increase. Even if the increases were passed on in full, the impact would be modest, costing households less than 35p a week on average The changes made by clause 59 will protect revenue by ensuring that insurers cannot artificially avoid paying the new rate of IPT by adjusting contract dates. As I have said, the Government are committed to reducing the deficit, while still investing in the UK. This requires some difficult decisions, including this 2% increase to the standard rate of IPT. The change will be invaluable in funding vital public spending, such as the additional £2 billion committed to social care.
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-04-25
Topic: Transportation
Huw William Merriman (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Lady, like me, may have a rural constituency, where there are lots of young drivers experiencing high insurance costs. Would she welcome signs from the Minister that the Government will look at the impact of the change on the young in the future, particularly if it has an impact on social mobility for the young?
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-04-25
Topic: Macroeconomics
Eleanor Fulton Laing (Conservative, Centre-right): The consent motion for England, Wales and Northern Ireland will now be considered. I remind hon. Members that all Members may speak in the debate, but if there is a Division, only Members representing constituencies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland may vote on the consent motion. Resolved, That the Committee consents to the following certified clauses of the Finance (No. 2) Bill and certified amendments made by the House to the Bill— Clauses certified under Standing Order No. 83L(2) (as modified in it is application by Standing Order No. 83S(4)) as relating exclusively to England, Wales and Northern Ireland and being within devolved legislative competence Clause 2 of the Bill (Bill 156) Amendment certified under Standing Order No. 83L(4) (as modified in it is application by Standing Order No. 83S(4)) as relating exclusively to England, Wales and Northern Ireland The omission in Committee of Clause 60 of the Bill (Bill 156).—(Jane Ellison.) Question agreed to. The occupant of the Chair left the Chair to report the decision of the Committee (Standing Order No. 83M(6)). The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair; decision reported. Third Reading
Fairer Funding Formula for School Pupils in the Congleton Constituency and wider Cheshire East Local Authority Area — House of Commons, 2017-04-25
Topic: Education
Fiona Claire Bruce (Conservative, Centre-right): I rise to present a petition of some 1,600 signatures of residents of the Congleton constituency and wider area The petition declares that current Government proposals for a Fairer Funding Formula for schools do not achieve fair funding for pupils in the constituency of Congleton Indeed, they and other pupils in the Cheshire East local authority area would be the lowest funded in the country. Local headteachers state that that level of funding would not enable them to provide the standard of education, facilities and support that our pupils deserve I fully support the petition, which also states: The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to review the proposed funding formula to reflect a fairer level of funding for local schools, to ensure that children in the local authority area of Cheshire East have the same opportunities as children in similar schools and other local authorities across the country Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of Alsager, Congleton, Holmes Chapel, Middlewich, Sandbach and elsewhere in and outside the Congleton Constituency, Declares that current Government proposals for a Fairer Funding Formula for schools do not achieve fair funding for pupils in the constituency of Congleton. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to review the proposed funding formula to reflect a fairer level of funding for local schools, to ensure that children in the local authority area of Cheshire East have the same opportunities as children in similar schools and other local authorities across the country. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P002038]
Fairer Funding Formula for School Pupils in Macclesfield Constituency and the Cheshire East Local Authority Area — House of Commons, 2017-04-25
Topic: Education
David Henry Rutley (Conservative, Centre-right): I rise to present a petition on fair funding for all schools that has been signed by more than 1,500 residents of Cheshire East, including more than 900 from the Macclesfield constituency. It also includes signatures from residents living in the constituency of the Minister for Vulnerable Children and Families, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Edward Timpson); because his ministerial role prevents him from presenting a petition, he has asked me to do this on his behalf. I am pleased to see him on the Front Bench The petition states that the petitioners request that the House of Commons urges the Government to review its proposed national funding formula for schools in order to ensure that all children have access to a properly funded education, and therefore invest in the future of our country Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of Cheshire East, Declares that the Government should review its proposed national funding formula for schools; further that Cheshire East schools are set to see their funding budgets cut by the new proposal; further that, with rising statutory employer and staffing costs, along with increasing pupil numbers, Cheshire East schools will need to receive increased funding to cover their basic costs; further that under the new proposal, a child in Cheshire East is worth significantly less than the average child in England; and believes that this funding proposal is unfair. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to review its proposed national funding formula for schools in order to ensure that all children have access to a properly funded education, and therefore invest in the future of our country. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P002040]
Contaminated Blood — House of Commons, 2017-04-25
Topic: Government Operations
Peter James Bottomley (Conservative, Centre-right): That is one of the reasons why I believe that over the election period the advisers to Ministers—not just to Health Ministers, but perhaps also to Home Office Ministers—should consider what could be obtained by the kind of call for evidence and inquiry that the right hon. Member for Leigh has rightly proposed.
School Funding: Chelmsford — House of Commons, 2017-03-20
Topic: Education
Justine Greening (Conservative, Centre-right): For Chelmsford, a shift to fairer funding would mean an overall increase in schools funding of 1.9%. We want schools and local areas to receive a consistent and fair share of the schools budget so that they can give every child the opportunity to reach their full potential. These are important reforms, and we must make sure we get them right. We want to hear a wide range of views through our consultation, which closes later this week.
School Funding: Chelmsford — House of Commons, 2017-03-20
Topic: Education
Simon Hugh McGuigan Burns (Conservative, Centre-right): Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is to be warmly welcomed that 31 out of 35 schools in Chelmsford will get increased funding as a result of the fairer funding programme? Of the four schools that will have modest decreases in funding, two are grammar schools, the funding of which will decrease owing to their relatively low number of pupils. Can anything be done to rectify that problem for two centres of academic excellence?
School Funding: Chelmsford — House of Commons, 2017-03-20
Topic: Education
Justine Greening (Conservative, Centre-right): My right hon. Friend is right that Chelmsford schools overwhelmingly gain from the shift to fairer funding. Our approach essentially sees money follow the child, with extra money for those pupils with extra needs. In our "Schools that work for everyone" consultation we set out our desire to see grammars take more young people from disadvantaged and lower family income backgrounds. If they do so, selective schools will also be able to benefit financially from that approach.
School Funding: Chelmsford — House of Commons, 2017-03-20
Topic: Education
Justine Greening (Conservative, Centre-right): Our approach will operate consistently for young people and children, wherever they are growing up. We cannot have an accountability system with similar expectations for all schools that ends up funding children differently. I simply reflect to the right hon. and learned Lady that, even after the changes we are making to introduce a fair and consistent funding formula for the first time, London’s schools, because of the many challenges and factors they face, will still receive 30% more than other schools on average.
School Funding: Chelmsford — House of Commons, 2017-03-20
Topic: Education
Heidi-Suzanne Allen (Conservative, Centre-right): I understand that the Secretary of State has an incredibly hard job to do and that money does not grow on trees. When she reviews the consultation findings, however, I urge her to look at the core funding a school needs even to be able to open its doors, because I fear that deprivation has been overweighted in the formula.
School Funding: Chelmsford — House of Commons, 2017-03-20
Topic: Education
Justine Greening (Conservative, Centre-right): One thing we have seen as a result of launching the second phase consultation is the first properly informed debate on how we should be funding schools and what the relative balance of investment should be for different children with different challenges. The consultation finishes later this week, and I thank the House and colleagues for their engagement with it. We will respond to the points that people have made in due course.
School Funding: Chelmsford — House of Commons, 2017-03-20
Topic: Education
Justine Greening (Conservative, Centre-right): I pay tribute to Dame Vera Lynn, who has been an iconic and amazing figure. She is a fantastic female role model for many young girls and women growing up in our country We need to make sure that, for the first time, our country sees consistent funding for all children, wherever they are growing up. We have seen significant rises in the overall schools budget over the years. Indeed, this Government have not only protected the overall schools budget in line with inflation but have made sure that the cash amount per pupil is protected, too. That is important, but we now have to make sure that we fund children in our schools fairly, wherever they are.
School Funding: Chelmsford — House of Commons, 2017-03-20
Topic: Education
Kevin John Foster (Conservative, Centre-right): Torbay’s schools have done a great job in teaching pupils despite being among some of the most historically underfunded. Although the figure for Torbay goes up by 2.3% overall, the proposed formula hits the grammar schools quite badly, so will the Secretary of State assure me that we are still seeking a solution for those schools?
School Funding: Chelmsford — House of Commons, 2017-03-20
Topic: Education
Justine Greening (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend raises an important point. As I have said, it is important that we reflect the fact that our funding needs to follow children who have additional needs. In particular, we know there is an attainment gap for children from lower-income and more disadvantaged areas and families. We also know that many children will start both primary and secondary school already behind, so we need to give an uplift for those pupils to enable their teachers to help them to catch up. These are important parts of the formula but, as he set out, we need to look carefully at other aspects of it, and we will do so.
School Funding: Chelmsford — House of Commons, 2017-03-20
Topic: Education
Justine Greening (Conservative, Centre-right): I think I have answered the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Sir Simon Burns), but the bottom line is that the only budget that would go up under Labour is debt interest, which would lead to fewer teachers and less investment in education, not more.
Maintenance Loans — House of Commons, 2017-03-20
Topic: Education
Questions: What discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the timetable for the introduction of maintenance loans for students undertaking (a) technical qualifications and (b) distance learning.; What discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the timetable for the introduction of maintenance loans for students undertaking (a) technical qualifications and (b) distance learning.
Robert Henry Halfon (Conservative, Centre-right): It is essential that we support learners while they study if we are to grow the number of skilled workers that the economy needs. The Government will introduce maintenance loans for learners studying higher-level technical qualifications at level 4 at national colleges and the new institutes of technology from the 2019-20 academic year. Maintenance loans will be available for the first time for both full-time and part-time higher education distance learners in the same year, subject to satisfactory controls being in place.
Maintenance Loans — House of Commons, 2017-03-20
Topic: Education
Questions: What discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the timetable for the introduction of maintenance loans for students undertaking (a) technical qualifications and (b) distance learning.; What discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the timetable for the introduction of maintenance loans for students undertaking (a) technical qualifications and (b) distance learning.
Robert Henry Halfon (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I am very supportive of distance learners and the incredible work of the Open University. We want to offer these maintenance loans, but we want to get this right; we have a duty to ensure that we are providing the right value for money for the public and that the right controls are in place.
Maintenance Loans — House of Commons, 2017-03-20
Topic: Education
Questions: What discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the timetable for the introduction of maintenance loans for students undertaking (a) technical qualifications and (b) distance learning.; What discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the timetable for the introduction of maintenance loans for students undertaking (a) technical qualifications and (b) distance learning.
Robert Henry Halfon (Conservative, Centre-right): It is this Government who have introduced advanced learner loans; we are going to have maintenance loans for students going to institutes of technology or national colleges, and for future distance learners; and we have just announced an extra £500 million to support further education. This Government are actually backing skills and giving people the funding they need.
Maintenance Loans — House of Commons, 2017-03-20
Topic: Education
Questions: What discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the timetable for the introduction of maintenance loans for students undertaking (a) technical qualifications and (b) distance learning.; What discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the timetable for the introduction of maintenance loans for students undertaking (a) technical qualifications and (b) distance learning.
James Whiteside Gray (Conservative, Centre-right): Britain’s record in engineering and technical training at the moment is deplorable, with our being 16th among OECD countries, so I very much welcome the Minister’s announcement earlier about maintenance grants. Does he agree that the private sector has a role to play? In particular, will he welcome Sir James Dyson’s recent announcement that he intends to open a new technical and engineering college at Hullavington in my constituency, with it being at least partly paid for by giving the students salaries?
Maintenance Loans — House of Commons, 2017-03-20
Topic: Education
Questions: What discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the timetable for the introduction of maintenance loans for students undertaking (a) technical qualifications and (b) distance learning.; What discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the timetable for the introduction of maintenance loans for students undertaking (a) technical qualifications and (b) distance learning.
Robert Henry Halfon (Conservative, Centre-right): I could not have put it better myself; my hon. Friend is exactly right, and I congratulate Dyson. What is happening with that company and elsewhere in the country, with the investment the Government are putting into skills—the £500 million extra announced last week, and the £40 million for pilots in lifelong learning and studying—show that we are investing. We are putting our money where our mouth is and building a skills and apprenticeship nation.