argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Scottish Representation in the Union — House of Commons, 2015-02-04
Topic: International Affairs
James Gordon Brown (Labour, Centre-left): I am going to finish There is a myth that the Union can survive this new polarisation of Scotland and England. The myth is that it is held together by bonds that are of such long standing that they can overcome what may be seen as a local difficulty. I say to the House, however, that what may have been true in the aftermath of the second world war and its shared sacrifice has given way to a new world where none of our ancient institutions is strong enough or popular enough on its own to hold us together The Union cannot survive on mutual respect alone—it is in short supply at the moment—or just on the basis of mutual toleration, a minimalist policy of holding each other at a distance for fear that we will fight. The Union will hold together only if there are things that the people of our four nations believe they have in common; if we emphasise that there are common needs, mutual interests and similar values that make us want to co-operate; and, in short, if there is a belief that we do best by sharing. In the modern world, where countries survive or falter on the basis of a daily referendum of opinion, such sharing has to preserve our historical willingness to share risks and transfer resources between each other to tackle issues such as poverty, unemployment and inequality The 18th-century Prime Minister Lord North is today remembered for only one thing, which is that he lost America. Will this current Prime Minister—this is the statesman’s question—now act to ensure that he will not be remembered in history as the Lord North of the 21st century? On 19 September 2014, for purely short-term gain—putting party before country, without considering the long-term interests of our united country, and ignoring the need to reconcile people and bring them together—he may have lit a fuse that eventually blows the Union apart I have made proposals for reform. I do not want us to pre-empt a constitutional review. I know that the Secretary of State for Scotland supports the position I am representing. The issue tonight is whether he can persuade his colleagues in the coalition Government and Government Members before it is too late.
Health Service Commissioner for England (Complaint Handling) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-02-27
Topic: Government Operations
Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Centre-left): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, after ‘Commissioner’ insert— ‘before the end of that period’ Amendment 4, page 1, line 8, at end insert— ‘together with an estimate of the target date for completion of the investigation.’ Amendment 1, page 1, line 8, at end insert— ‘(b) The Commissioner shall subsequently keep the complainant informed, as far as reasonably practicable, as to the progress of the investigation.’ Amendment 5, page 1, line 8, at end insert— ‘( ) If the reason for the delay specified in Section 2HA is lack of financial resources it shall be the duty of the Commissioner to set out the action which is being taken to remedy that lack of financial resource’ Amendment 2, page 1, line 15, leave out ‘, and’ and insert— ‘(ba) the reasons for each of those delays, and’.
Health Service Commissioner for England (Complaint Handling) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-02-27
Topic: Government Operations
Stephen Pelham Pound (Labour, Centre-left): I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman heard the comments by the Minister on the previous group of amendments but I think she addressed that point precisely. There is a complexity within the system that cannot be anticipated, and it would artificially fetter the discretion of the commissioner if an arbitrary time limit were put in place. Does he not agree that there are occasions when the complexity is such that we simply cannot fix the rigid metallic corset of a time limit on it without diminishing the value of the investigation?
Health Service Commissioner for England (Complaint Handling) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-02-27
Topic: Government Operations
Luciana Clare Goldsmith (Berger) (Labour, Centre-left): I shall not speak for long, but I think it right to respond to the contributions, and to speak on the options proposed by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). As we know, new clause 3 proposes to make it a statutory duty for complaints to be resolved within 12 months. We do not think that that is necessary. It is clear that the Bill sets out sufficient steps to achieve that. I agree with the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) that, as we know, the overwhelming majority of cases are dealt with within that time, but there are obviously reasons why it may sometimes take longer. As hon. Members suggested, there may be complex cases, other agencies may be involved, or there may be a historical or long-running case that requires the extraction of data from decades past, which it may take a long time to collate. It is often not the ombudsman’s fault that these things take time. We therefore do not think it appropriate to make meeting the 12-month deadline a statutory duty On the amendments, it is proposed that when the ombudsman contacts complainants, she gives them an estimate of how long the investigation might take. We discussed the point earlier in relation to new clause 2. We Members of Parliament can get updates from the ombudsman on the progress of cases and share those with our constituents if they want further updates. To be fair, if we think about all the processes in which we support our constituents, this is one in which updates are provided, and complainants are provided with information about how their complaints are progressing and when an outcome might be provided Amendment 1 would require the commissioner to keep the complainant informed of progress. There is nothing wrong with this in principle. We should encourage the ombudsman to do this anyway. As I mentioned, as Members of Parliament supporting those complaints, we can receive updates. On the point about financial resource, I have looked closely at the amendment and listened to the debate this morning, and think that where delays occur in the progress of complaints, more often than not that is down to the complexity of the cases, rather than a lack of financial resources, so amendment 5 is not necessary. We do not believe that new clause 3 or the five amendments are necessary.
House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-02-27
Topic: Government Operations
Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Centre-left): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 2—Bill of Rights— "Nothing in this Act shall be constructed by any court in the United Kingdom as affecting Article IX of the Bill of Rights 1689." This clause, modelled on section 1 of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, preserves the exclusive cognisance of the House of Lords over its own proceedings and membership. New clause 3—Code of conduct— ‘(1) Standing Orders of the House of Lords may provide for the adoption of a code of conduct (2) A resolution passed by virtue of section 1(4) must include a reference to the relevant provision of any code of conduct which the House of Lords may have adopted and which has not been superseded by a subsequent decision of the House." This clause allows the House of Lords to adopt a code of conduct and also requires the application of penalties under this Bill to be linked to that code, if there is one. Amendment 18, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, at end insert "on the ground of that member’s conduct as set out in the resolution".
House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-02-27
Topic: Government Operations
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): The new clause will have to be moved formally Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 3 Code of conduct "(1) Standing Orders of the House of Lords may provide for the adoption of a code of conduct (2) A resolution passed by virtue of section 1(4) must include a reference to the relevant provision of any code of conduct which the House of Lords may have adopted and which has not been superseded by a subsequent decision of the House."— (Mr Chope.) This Clause allows the House of Lords to adopt a code of conduct and also requires the application of penalties under this Bill to be linked to that code, if there is one. Brought up, and read the First time. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-02-27
Topic: Government Operations
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 2, page 1, line 7, leave out subsection (2) Amendment 7, page 1, line 17, at beginning insert "in relation either to an expulsion or to a suspension" This is linked to the amendment below which prevents retrospective judgement of behaviour leading to a final expulsion of a member of the House of Lords. Amendment 6, page 1, line 17, after "Act", insert "and any Standing Orders made under subsection (1)" Amendment 19, page 1, line 17, after "Act" insert "and any Standing Orders made under this section" Amendment 8, page 1, line 18, leave out paragraph (b) This removes all reference to previous conduct that was not public knowledge. Amendment 9, page 1, line 18, at beginning insert "in relation only to a suspension" This removes the power of expulsion in respect of previous conduct that was not public knowledge. Amendment 10, page 1, line 18, leave out from "Act" to end of line 19 and insert "but since 1 January 2015" This limits the application of the Bill’s sanctions to previous conduct that was not public knowledge to just the current year. Amendment 11, page 1, line 18, leave out from "Act" to end of line 19 and insert "but since 1 January 2000" This limits the application of the Bill’s sanctions to previous conduct that was not public knowledge in the past 15 years only. Amendment 12, page 1, line 18, leave out from "Act" to end of line 19 and insert "but since 1 January 1985" This limits the application of the Bill’s sanctions to previous conduct that was not public knowledge in the past 30 years only. Amendment 13, page 1, line 19, after "knowledge", insert "in the United Kingdom" This limits the scope of public knowledge of previous conduct to what was not known in this country. Amendment 14, page 1, line 19, at end insert— ‘(4A) A resolution under subsection 4(b) may not relate to expulsion" This is an alternative approach to removing the power of expulsion in respect of previous conduct that was not public knowledge. Amendment 15, page 1, line 19, at end insert— "(4A) Standing Orders of the House of Lords set out guidance on what constitutes public knowledge under subsection 4(b)" This allows for some certainty as to what might constitute public knowledge of previous conduct. Amendment 20, page 1, line 19, at end add— ‘(5) nothing in this section shall authorise the expulsion or suspension of members of the House of Lords on the grounds of age, health or length of service" Amendment 3, in clause 2, page 2, line 2, leave out "Expulsion and" Amendment 4, page 2, line 4, leave out clause 3 Amendment 5, in clause 4, page 2, line 9, leave out "Expulsion and" Amendment 16, in the title, line 1, leave out "expel or".
Labour Market Trends — House of Commons, 2015-03-04
Topic: Labor
Albert Owen (Labour, Centre-left): The unemployment figures in my constituency have been coming down for the past 15 years, with the exception of the recession years between 2008 and 2012, but many of those jobs are zero hours, part time and for agency workers. I have written to the Secretary of State about the prospect of between 200 and 300 jobs being lost at 2 Sisters. Will he meet me and a delegation from the company, because it is important to the Welsh and UK food industries?
Labour Market Trends — House of Commons, 2015-03-04
Topic: Labor
Owen Smith (Labour, Centre-left): May I begin by wishing you a belated happy St David’s day, Mr Speaker, and all Members of the House and by adding my thanks to all the Welsh Members of all parties who are retiring, but particularly my right hon. Friends the Members for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) and for Neath (Mr Hain), both distinguished former Secretaries of State who have served Wales extremely well We have heard an impressive array of statistics from the Secretary of State this morning, but will he set aside the spin for one moment and tell us what has really happened to the jobs market in Wales on his watch? How many of those new Tory jobs in Wales are on zero-hours contracts and pay a pittance in wages?
Labour Market Trends — House of Commons, 2015-03-04
Topic: Labor
Owen Smith (Labour, Centre-left): I think workers in Wales are heartily sick of this Tory propaganda. The truth is that of the 100,000 new jobs in Wales, as the Office for National Statistics said last week, 90,000 are zero-hours contracts paying, on average, £300 less per week than full-time jobs. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies said this morning, the average family incomes of workers in Wales have declined under this Government. Why does the Secretary of State not say the one thing he can to workers from Pwllheli to Pembrokeshire that would give them hope: vote Labour?
EU Membership — House of Commons, 2015-03-04
Topic: International Affairs
Susan Elan Jones (Labour, Centre-left): I am intrigued. The Minister said earlier that businesses had told him various anti-EU things. Can he name a single business across the length and breadth of Wales—north, south, east or west—that has told him it would like Wales to leave the EU?
Severn Barrage — House of Commons, 2015-03-04
Topic: Energy
Peter Hain (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful to the Secretary of State. Is he aware that the company now taking forward the Severn barrage—exclusively for any form of renewable energy—requires no consumer subsidy through a contract for difference? That could be a game changer for the Government With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, may I thank my Welsh Labour colleagues for their comradeship, especially during my two years as a Welsh Minister and seven years as Secretary of State for Wales? We can be proud that we established a Welsh Assembly, and it has been a privilege to serve.
Jobs Growth Wales — House of Commons, 2015-03-04
Topic: Transportation
Questions: What discussions he has had with Ministers in the Welsh Government on the role of Jobs Growth Wales in tackling youth unemployment in Wales.; What discussions he has had with Ministers in the Welsh Government on the role of Jobs Growth Wales in tackling youth unemployment in Wales.
Nicholas Desmond John Smith (Labour, Centre-left): Jobs Growth Wales has created more than 400 jobs for young people in Blaenau Gwent. However, people need to be able to get to the jobs market on the coast in Cardiff and Newport. Given that the funding is now agreed, when will the valley lines electrification be completed?
Jobs Growth Wales — House of Commons, 2015-03-04
Topic: Labor
Questions: What discussions he has had with Ministers in the Welsh Government on the role of Jobs Growth Wales in tackling youth unemployment in Wales.; What discussions he has had with Ministers in the Welsh Government on the role of Jobs Growth Wales in tackling youth unemployment in Wales.; Will my right hon. Friend note that in my constituency unemployment has fallen by more than 30% since my election? Will he take every opportunity to remind the electorate and the House of something that has been true throughout the 23 years since I was first elected to the House, which is that every Labour Government have left office with unemployment higher than when they came to office?
Nia Rhiannon Griffith (Labour, Centre-left): Given the 80% success rate of the Labour Welsh Government’s Jobs Growth Wales programme and the Secretary of State’s new-found enthusiasm for devolution, why did he not include in his St David’s day announcement the devolution of the Work programme, which, under his Government, gets only a miserable 10% of clients into work in Wales and is clearly failing people in Wales?
Income Tax Assignment — House of Commons, 2015-03-04
Topic: Macroeconomics
Questions: What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister on income tax assignment to Wales being carried out on the same basis as applies in Scotland.
Graham William Allen (Labour, Centre-left): Does the Minister accept that Scotland has now set a precedent on income tax assignment that can meet the base load of its expenditure? Will he continue his work to ensure that Wales also has income tax assigned? Will he talk to his colleagues in England to ensure that they understand that the basis of devolution in England must be financial independence by income tax assignment, too?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2015-03-04
Topic: Macroeconomics
Khalid Mahmood (Labour, Centre-left): The Chancellor was asked six times this morning whether he had had conversations with Lord Green about tax avoidance. He refused to answer. Will the Prime Minister now clarify whether he or the Chancellor had conversations with Lord Green when he was a trade Minister about tax avoidance at HSBC?
Corporation Tax (Northern Ireland) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-03-04
Topic: Macroeconomics
Shabana Mahmood (Labour, Centre-left): I would like to associate myself with the Minister’s comments about the quality of our debate thus far on the Bill. We have had a thorough discussion. It has been shorter than originally anticipated, but that is because the Bill has wide-ranging support across the House, and it is a pleasure to rise, once again, to support the measures in it We are committed, as are Members across the House, to supporting measures to increase inward investment into Northern Ireland and support the much-needed rebalancing of its economy. We have all recognised that Northern Ireland has lagged behind the rest of the UK on productivity and prosperity. Over the years, measures have been implemented to boost the Northern Ireland economy, including through increased levels of investment and job creation programmes, but few have met with long-term success. It is important to consider a measure that would put a rocket-booster under the approaches taken so far to rebalancing and strengthening Northern Ireland’s economy. In that spirit, we have supported the Bill As I noted in Committee, the Bill is both straightforward and complicated. It is short in respect of the number of clauses, but those clauses include a huge amount of detail, some of which has still to be worked out. The Minister alluded to that in his comments. It is important to recognise that we are at the start-point rather than the end stage of the process Let me draw out a couple of issues that will be the subject of live discussions between the UK Government and the Northern Ireland Executive. Before I do so, however, let me reinforce a point made in the intervention by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon)—that it would be a mistake to think that corporation tax devolution will, in and of itself, do what is needed to rebalance Northern Ireland’s economy. It has to be part of a much wider picture that includes other policy drivers to help make this measure a success. That is certainly the experience of the Republic of Ireland, whose extremely low corporation tax does not sit alone; it is supported by other policy measures, particularly on skills and infrastructure. If this Bill is to be a success in Northern Ireland, it will be important for all parties to work together to ensure that the rest of the policy framework is in place to allow the rebalancing that we all want to happen.
Corporation Tax (Northern Ireland) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-03-04
Topic: Macroeconomics
Shabana Mahmood (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the perception of business is really important, but he will recognise, I think, a point that businesses often make to Members of all parties—that headline rates of corporation tax are extremely important for decisions about where to locate businesses, but that they are not the only factor that businesses take into account. I recognise the importance of this Bill for Northern Ireland, given the unique situation in which Northern Ireland finds itself. As I say, it is putting a rocket-booster under the approach taken so far to try to rebalance the Northern Ireland economy, but it will not succeed on its own—it has to be part of a wider policy framework. Despite recognition of the importance of a wider policy framework, we have not yet heard a huge amount of detail about what it will look like on the ground in Northern Ireland. These are matters largely for the Northern Ireland Executive, but they need to know and to hear that the Opposition support them in having a wider framework of policy measures around skills and infrastructure that will help to make all this a success, which we all want to see.
Corporation Tax (Northern Ireland) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-03-04
Topic: Macroeconomics
Shabana Mahmood (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention, but I am afraid that I am going to disappoint her a little because my reading of the Bill, what it is intended to achieve and of the agreement that has been struck is very similar to that of the Minister. I agree with him that a deliberate part of the agreement relates to trading profits. Under the new Northern Ireland regime, corporation tax is to be devolved only in so far as it relates to trading profits rather than other aspects of business. That part of the policy is designed to make it successful and ensure that this devolution results in a genuine rebalancing of Northern Ireland’s economy. With respect, I feel that takes care of the point about the credit unions I have some sympathy with the argument when it comes to the Progressive building society. I have received communication from it about how it feels it will be caught unfairly by these provisions. I felt that the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) did not take care of the scope for profit shifting within the financial services sector. We are all alive to that threat, but I am afraid that the amendment did not deal satisfactorily with the problem that the good work of the Progressive in Northern Ireland could slip through and be accounted for, whereas everything else that could result in profit shifting would be excluded. To that extent, my reading is similar to that of the Minister, and that will certainly be our approach. I am happy to give an undertaking—dependent on the outcome of the general election—to continue a debate with Members who feel strongly about this point, as did the Minister.
Corporation Tax (Northern Ireland) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-03-04
Topic: Macroeconomics
Shabana Mahmood (Labour, Centre-left): Forgive me, but because of time considerations, I will not Let me raise a couple of issues that received lengthy debate in Committee and will be important aspects of the work needed to take the Bill forward. I speak particularly of the block grant. I am grateful for the letter that the Minister sent to the Public Bill Committee, further setting out the Government’s approach to calculating the element of the block grant that the Northern Ireland Executive will have to pay back to the UK Government. We are still a long way from a nail-down formula, as it were, for how the block grant reduction will be calculated, particularly in respect of measuring and calculating behavioural effects that will need to be taken into account I note the indication in one of the appendices to the letter that the devolution of corporation tax to the Northern Ireland Executive in 2019-20 is expected to cost about £325 million if Northern Ireland opts for a 12.5% rate rather than the United Kingdom’s 20% rate, but much more work will need to be done on that, and an agreement will need to be struck with the Northern Ireland Executive.