argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
National Security and Investment Bill — House of Commons, 2020-11-17
Topic: Macroeconomics
Edward Samuel Miliband (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Gentleman is absolutely entitled to his view; we just have a difference of view on this. When it comes to our industrial base, I believe that the current legislation is inadequate, and there have been a series of events that illustrate that point. Indeed, I would make this point as well, which is that the Government say that the crisis of coronavirus makes parts of our corporate sector more vulnerable, and I think that only strengthens the case for action. The overall point I would make is this: I welcome the Bill and think it is the right thing to do, but there is a broader picture here about what a modern industrial strategy looks like, and I do not think we can ignore these vital issues around our economic and industrial base.
National Security and Investment Bill — House of Commons, 2020-11-17
Topic: International Affairs
Edward Samuel Miliband (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Gentleman makes the point that the United States has exactly the regime that I am talking about and does indeed have those wide powers of intervention, so the notion that people are going to set up in the United States rather than Britain, when they have much stronger powers than us, does not hold water.
National Security and Investment Bill — House of Commons, 2020-11-17
Topic: Technology
Kevan David Jones (Labour, Centre-left): Is there not a direct national security issue around telecoms? When BT was privatised, the old General Post Office was advanced in both mobile technology and fibre optics. It was because the Thatcher Government decided to throw it open to the open market that the advantage we had in this country was lost. That is why we now find ourselves at mercy of Huawei and other companies.
National Security and Investment Bill — House of Commons, 2020-11-17
Topic: Law and Crime
Kevan David Jones (Labour, Centre-left): Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the Bill sets out a voluntary reporting and a notification system, but it is not clear how the security services enact any concerns they may come across into this system? I shall be making the point that I do not think this should sit within the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Does he have concerns on that issue?
National Security and Investment Bill — House of Commons, 2020-11-17
Topic: Energy
Charlotte Louise Nichols (Labour, Centre-left): It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), who is my dad’s Member of Parliament. Considering the number of Conservative MPs who are self-isolating, I am glad to see Minister in his place. May I take this opportunity to wish good health to the hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter), who is also self-isolating I welcome this Bill and I am glad that the Government are at last addressing the important issue of protecting important assets when foreign acquisitions threaten national security. However, I fear that they have dragged their feet on this matter and that that has led to paralysis rather than strategic planning in several sectors, most notably civil nuclear power In 2016, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), delayed approval of Hinkley Point C because of fears of the potential for a controlling influence by the Chinese state firm China General Nuclear Power Group. While approval was subsequently granted, that illustrates the governmental hesitation that has beset this vital industry—an industry that depends on long-term certainties—for years now It has taken more than four years for the Government to bring forward the proposals in the Bill to allay those fears. In that time, the nuclear sector, which offers both reliable low-carbon energy and high-skilled, well-paid, unionised jobs, has suffered paralysis. Our fleet of nuclear power stations is ageing and needs renewing. The Government promised an energy White Paper in summer 2019, which has been delayed and delayed ever since. In that time, we have seen Hitachi withdraw from its planned investment in a nuclear plant at Wylfa because of the Government’s hesitation in agreeing a funding agreement. The whole sector, and thousands of people in quality jobs, including almost 4,500 civil nuclear workers in my constituency, are still waiting to hear a clear plan and direction from the Government. We must not lose those jobs, and the planet cannot afford stalling over this green energy sector We know that part of the reason for the delay has been fear of foreign influence in our strategic assets. Dozens of Conservative MPs have even formed an internal lobbying faction called the China Research Group to focus on the threats that they perceive from China. That led to the banning of Huawei from our 5G network back in July. That makes it all the more extraordinary that it has taken so long for the Bill to be brought forward. Labour has called consistently for tougher powers on takeovers since 2012. I hope that now this legislation is finally here, the Government will have no more excuses not to act to give the assurances and firm grounding that nuclear firms reasonably request Alongside the Bill, I look forward to early publication of an energy White Paper that lays out the groundwork for nuclear energy that is environmentally and economically secure, and where the UK’s national interest and national security are protected.
National Security and Investment Bill — House of Commons, 2020-11-17
Topic: International Affairs
Charlotte Louise Nichols (Labour, Centre-left): I agree that, given the national security risks posed by actions being taken by the Chinese state, including what our military refers to as sub-threshold activity, we should, as a nation, make sure that we have a Bill that ensures that our national security is protected from the Chinese state and anyone else, anywhere in the world, who seeks to damage our national security Developing a robust takeover regime is essential if we want firms in our key sectors to grow and provide good jobs here in the UK, and this Bill is a key part of that. I worry, though, that it misses the opportunity to go much further in strengthening powers that prevent damage to the UK’s national economic interest, as well as our national security, as in the case I have outlined. I therefore hope that the Government will consider amendments in Committee to widen the scope of what constitutes national security.
National Security and Investment Bill — House of Commons, 2020-11-17
Topic: Macroeconomics
Chinyelu Susan Onwurah (Labour, Centre-left): The right hon. Member is talking to a chartered engineer who strongly believes that our capability in engineering and the kind of key technologies of which he talks is a basis for our national security, and that national security, without some degree of important technological sovereignty, is difficult to wholly achieve. I look forward to debating that in Committee It is worth pointing out that the Government’s powers have been used only sporadically in previous interventions, and they are seemingly not underpinned by any real strategy. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) made a similar point Many Conservative Members are vehemently opposed to extending the remit of the Bill to cover industrial strategy, including, but not limited to, the hon. Members for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), for North West Norfolk (James Wild), for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), for Wantage (David Johnston), for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford), for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) and for South Dorset (Richard Drax). Labour believes, however, that the Government should be able to intervene in the takeover of a critical business on industrial strategy grounds. That power should be paired with defined criteria and transaction thresholds to give businesses and foreign investors clarity and confidence, and to truly make it clear that we are open for business and not exploitation—to coin a phrase. Why did the Government not bring forward legislation to ensure that technology firms remain in the UK and to end the current ad hoc approach to industrial strategy being pursued by Ministers? That has seen binding commitments often negotiated at the last minute, companies lost, and no clarity as to the rhyme or reason why the Government choose to intervene or not. I urge the Secretary of State and the Minister to continue to approach the Bill in the spirit of collaboration, to address the undefined areas and issues that we have raised, and to shed some light on their long-term industrial strategy, including their plans to keep high-growth technological companies flourishing in the UK.
Police violence in Lagos on 20 October 2020 — House of Commons, 2020-11-17
Topic: International Affairs
Chinyelu Susan Onwurah (Labour, Centre-left): I rise to present a petition calling for the Government to rally international condemnation of police brutality in Nigeria. The petition was instigated by the Nigerian Association, Tyne and Wear The petition states: The petition of residents of the constituency of Newcastle Upon Tyne Central, Declares that the British Government and wider international community should condemn in the strongest possible terms the Nigerian military opening fire on protesters at Lagos Lekki Toll Gate on 20 October 2020 in which there are reports that 69 people were killed, of whom 51 are believed to be civilians, 11 police officers and seven were soldiers; further declares that these people were peacefully protesting against police brutality committed by, but not limited to, the Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS) The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take action to rally the international community and ensure the Nigerian Government investigates this brutal violation of human rights in full, to encourage the relevant authorities to charge officers and soldiers guilty of killing unarmed protestors, to explore sanctions on the Nigerian Government if guilty of corruption, and to provide a strong voice against corruption and violence in Nigeria And the petitioners remain, etc [P002628]
Disabled People: Covid-19 — House of Commons, 2020-09-23
Topic: Social Welfare
Deborah Angela Elspeth Marie Abrahams (Labour, Centre-left): Between March and July, disabled people, including people with a health condition or impairment, accounted for almost 60% of all covid deaths, yet a survey of disabled people in Greater Manchester revealed that eight out of 10 were not included in the official Government shielded group, in spite of 57% having significant support needs. With the second wave upon us, what is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that all clinically vulnerable people are shielded and properly supported?
STEM Subjects — House of Commons, 2020-09-23
Topic: Labor
Janet Jessica Daby (Labour, Centre-left): In the UK, female employment in the technology industry stands at 16.7% and grew less than 1% in the last 10 years. This is one of the most promising and booming industries, but it is one that women hardly find themselves in. What discussion has the Minister’s Department had with her Cabinet colleagues to provide incentives for technology businesses to employ women?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2020-09-23
Topic: Macroeconomics
Grahame Mark Morris (Labour, Centre-left): I hope, respectfully, that the Prime Minister is not having problems with his memory. Just yesterday—we have just had a recent exchange—metaphorically, he promised to put his arms around the British people and support jobs and the economy. The CBI and the TUC, businesses and unions, employers and workers, and now even the Bank of England, are united in a call for a targeted expansion of a covid job retention scheme. Make no mistake: a tsunami of job losses is in the pipeline within 38 days. Will the Prime Minister please listen to that advice and take urgent action? I would like a yes or no answer.
Engagements — House of Commons, 2020-09-23
Topic: Education
Siobhain Ann McDonagh (Labour, Centre-left): Before lockdown, children on free school meals finished education on average 18 months behind their classmates and the gap was getting worse. Schools closed and a quarter of these children did less than one hour’s schoolwork a day. Lockdown was temporary, but the impact could be lifelong. To help these children catch up, and in the spirit of togetherness invoked by the Prime Minister earlier, will his Government give time for my Bill to close the digital divide and give children on free school meals access to the internet in their homes?
EU Exit: End of Transition Period — House of Commons, 2020-09-23
Topic: Transportation
Hilary James Benn (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement, although a queue of 7,000 lorries would not be much of a great prize for the country. As he knows, for months, those who move goods for a living across the short straits have been warning Ministers that systems and training will not be ready in time. Now the industry says that it is being "fitted up" to take the blame for the Government’s failure to grasp, in the words of one logistics expert involved in the talks, "real-world complexities". The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster just told the House that the Goods Vehicle Movement Service and the Smart Freight IT systems are in operation. When did that happen?
EU Exit: End of Transition Period — House of Commons, 2020-09-23
Topic: Macroeconomics
Feryal Demirci Clark (Labour, Centre-left): The Government have promised a shared prosperity fund to replace EU structural funding for regeneration and growth since 2017. Despite originally promising a consultation, we have not seen one. There have not even been any engagement events since the Prime Minister took office. When will the Minister publish the framework through which the shared prosperity fund will work, to keep it accountable and prevent pork barrel politics and bungs to target seats?
EU Exit: End of Transition Period — House of Commons, 2020-09-23
Topic: Transportation
Kevin Denis Brennan (Labour, Centre-left): Seven thousand HGV lorries parked end to end would stretch from this building to Dover—that is the scale of the problem that the Minister has set out. Where will the 29 extra lorry parks be? We need to know that. This is about Government preparedness. His statement seemed to be all about passing the blame on to business for the chaos being caused by his Government.
EU Exit: End of Transition Period — House of Commons, 2020-09-23
Topic: Foreign Trade
Daniel Stephen Zeichner (Labour, Centre-left): In just 100 days, all food exports to the EU will require an export health certificate and an authorised vet to sign it off. Do we have enough vets to do that? I understand that £80 million has been made available for the 50,000 custom agents required. Can we be told how much of the money has been drawn down and put in place? As a former IT person, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is really confident that the IT systems will be in place and working?
EU Exit: End of Transition Period — House of Commons, 2020-09-23
Topic: Foreign Trade
Andrew John Gwynne (Labour, Centre-left): I was listening very carefully to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about business preparedness, not least because it is only three months to the end of the transition period. Businesses in the food and drink industry in my constituency would love to be able to be ready for Brexit, but there is no guidance yet about what labels businesses need to use to legally sell their goods in the EU and in Northern Ireland next year. When will the Government announce these measures, so that food and drink manufacturers are not held back from making the preparations they need to make?
EU Exit: End of Transition Period — House of Commons, 2020-09-23
Topic: Foreign Trade
Justin Piers Richard Madders (Labour, Centre-left): I do not think we have had clarity in response to earlier questions as to how many customs agents are in place now. Will the Secretary State provide that figure? Will he also guarantee that when the time comes, any business that needs the services of a customs agent will be able to access one?
EU Exit: End of Transition Period — House of Commons, 2020-09-23
Topic: Technology
Chinyelu Susan Onwurah (Labour, Centre-left): This morning I met the North East England chamber of commerce and local businesses. We discussed the massive investment in technology and digital skills required by the pandemic to move processes, services and products online. Now we have another transition to face, so will the Minister list each IT system with which a business will have to interface, and when it will be available to be tested by them so that they can begin the process of preparedness?
Overseas Operations (Service Personnel And Veterans) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-09-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Kevan David Jones (Labour, Centre-left): I agree with the Secretary of State’s comments about Phil Shiner, but I have asked his Department for the numbers of cases—as, I understand, have representatives from the Scottish National party—but it has not produced them. The explanatory notes say that there were 900 civil claims. When is he going to produce the figures?
Overseas Operations (Service Personnel And Veterans) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-09-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Stephen Creswell Timms (Labour, Centre-left): When the Secretary of State’s Department consulted on the Bill in July last year, it suggested that there were two categories of offence that might be excluded from the Bill. One was sexual offences, and the other was torture. Sexual offences have been excluded; why has torture not been?
Overseas Operations (Service Personnel And Veterans) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-09-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Labour, Centre-left): My right hon. Friend was touching on an important point that Members on the Government Benches have touched on as well. The problem is, as it stands, the long investigations and the repeated investigations that allow double jeopardy not via the courts, but by intimidation of investigation. The Bill does nothing whatever to deal with some of those issues. Is that not a reason for the Government to go away and rewrite parts of the Bill or even issue proper investigatory guidelines to stop that kind of thing happening?
Overseas Operations (Service Personnel And Veterans) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-09-23
Topic: Law and Crime
John Healey (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for conceding that I am making some valid points. His point is certainly valid, and it will be a point of central argument, probably in the debate today, but certainly as the Bill passes through both Houses Let me return to the biggest problems in the Bill. Part 1, as the Secretary of State said, introduces what the Government have called their so-called triple lock to make prosecutions for the most serious crimes harder. The presumption against prosecution for all crimes except sexual violence clearly creates the risk that the very gravest crimes, including torture and other war crimes, go unpunished if an incident does not come to light for five years or if the investigations are drawn out beyond that deadline.
Overseas Operations (Service Personnel And Veterans) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-09-23
Topic: Law and Crime
John Healey (Labour, Centre-left): The changes will give protections that are fit for the future. They will give protections that are required, and they will avoid parts of the Bill that at the moment put at a disadvantage in a unique fashion those British troops who serve overseas, which is why we argue that it breaches the armed forces covenant To come back to the presumption against prosecution, in the explanatory notes the Government maintain: "Nothing in this Bill will stop those guilty of committing serious criminal acts from being prosecuted." That is a point the Secretary of State made, but many legal experts disagree and say that the Bill, as it intends, will be a significant barrier to justice. The Law Society’s briefing on this debate says: "The Bill creates…a limitation period for a select group of persons in specific circumstances, i.e. armed forces personnel alleged to have committed offences overseas." Alongside the extra factors for prosecutors to take into account and the requirement for the Attorney General to give the go-ahead for such prosecutions, that clearly risks breaching the Geneva convention, the convention against torture, the Rome statute, the European convention on human rights and other long-standing international legal obligations. Where the UK is unable or unwilling to prosecute, the International Criminal Court may well act. So rather than providing relief for the troops accused, the Bill also risks British service personnel being dragged to The Hague, the court of Milošević and Gaddafi, instead of being dealt with in our own British justice system Let us just step back a moment from the technical detail. This is the Government of Great Britain bringing in a legal presumption against prosecution for torture, for war crimes and for crimes against humanity. This is the Government of Great Britain saying sexual crimes are so serious they will be excluded from this presumption, but placing crimes outlawed by the Geneva convention on a less serious level and downgrading our unequivocal commitment to upholding international law that we in Britain ourselves, after the second world war, helped to establish.
Overseas Operations (Service Personnel And Veterans) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-09-23
Topic: International Affairs
John Healey (Labour, Centre-left): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The facts of the Bill are that it places torture and other war crimes on a different level to crimes of sexual violence. That is not embarrassing; that is unconscionable for a country with a proud record of upholding unequivocally the international conventions that we helped to draw up.
Overseas Operations (Service Personnel And Veterans) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-09-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Kevan David Jones (Labour, Centre-left): I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but I am saying that these are people of higher rank, and others, who understand the command of that justice system. You cannot get a higher person than the Judge Advocate General. He was not even consulted on the Bill, which I find remarkable. The most senior lawyer in that system was not actually consulted.