argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Nuclear Safeguards Bill — House of Commons, 2018-01-23
Topic: Energy
John Woodcock (Labour, Centre-left): Well, I hope that when the Minister does come up to Sellafield, he will put his voice and the full voice of his Department behind the campaign that the hon. Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) and I are shaping to improve our transport infrastructure. It will take him an absolute age to get there, but I hope that when he is there, he will listen closely to what people say. I hope that he will listen to those in my constituency and that of the hon. Lady who will be relying on the new civil nuclear jobs that will come through the NuGen project in Moorside and think again about how our Parliament can strengthen his hand in creating a seamless transition from the existing arrangements to something which we strongly believe needs to look identical. New clause 1 would do that and, even at this late stage, Members in all parts of the House ought to support it.
Nuclear Safeguards Bill — House of Commons, 2018-01-23
Topic: International Affairs
James Dolan Cunningham (Labour, Centre-left): We understand that there are certain things the Government cannot say about the negotiations, but ultimately we want to know the outcome of those negotiations before withdrawal so that Parliament can have a view on it, rather than the Government operating a Henry VIII clause.
Nuclear Safeguards Bill — House of Commons, 2018-01-23
Topic: International Affairs
Rachel Jane Reeves (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Minister and particularly the Secretary of State for the written ministerial statement published on 11 January, which gave much more clarity on the Government’s aims and ambitions in this area. On the seventh day of consideration of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill by the Committee of the whole House, Ministers gave a commitment to publish a timetable with milestones that the Government will need to achieve to meet the objectives set out in the written statement. When does the Department plan to publish that timetable, because I really think it is crucial? Can we also have an update on progress towards a voluntary agreement with the IAEA for safeguarding inspections, and on how discussions are going regarding the nuclear co-operation agreements, which are crucial to getting the association we need?
Nuclear Safeguards Bill — House of Commons, 2018-01-23
Topic: Energy
Albert Owen (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful to the Minister and the Secretary of State for the clarifications they have given today and previously in writing. I understand what the Minister is saying, but my point is that we are in uncharted waters. We need to get on the front foot, and the best way to do that is by acting on behalf of the UK nuclear industry, which is asking for associate membership. Will the Minister therefore please assure us that he will fight for an associate type of membership?
Nuclear Safeguards Bill — House of Commons, 2018-01-23
Topic: Energy
Alan Patrick Vincent Whitehead (Labour, Centre-left): I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 22, at end insert— "(c) ensuring that inspections of nuclear facilities and materials for the purpose of nuclear safeguards continue at the level previously established by UK membership of EURATOM." This amendment would aim to ensure that nuclear safeguarding inspections continue at the same level subsequent to leaving EURATOM as they were when the UK was a member of EURATOM.
Nuclear Safeguards Bill — House of Commons, 2018-01-23
Topic: Energy
Rosalie Winterton (Labour, Centre-left): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 4, page 2, line 41, leave out from "must" to the end of line 44 and insert— "(a) consult— (i) the ONR, (ii) the National Audit Office, and (iii) such other persons (if any) as the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult, and (b) lay before Parliament a statement declaring that he or she is satisfied that the staffing and financial resource available to the ONR is sufficient for the purpose of assuming responsibility for nuclear safeguarding in the United Kingdom." This amendment would require the Secretary of State to declare that the ONR has the resources necessary to take on extra responsibilities for nuclear safeguarding in the UK. Amendment 5, in clause 2, page 4, line 13, at end insert— "(1A) The Secretary of State may only exercise powers under this section at the point at which amendment of any of the legislation in subsection (1) becomes necessary in order to complete the process of transposition of responsibility for nuclear safeguarding from EURATOM to the Office for Nuclear Regulation, and for no other purpose (1B) Upon exercising the power set out in subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the operation of the power." This amendment would limit circumstances under which the Secretary of State may exercise certain powers in this section and requires a report to be laid before Parliament. Amendment 6, in clause 4, page 4, line 41, at end insert ", but not before the Secretary of State has published draft regulations relating to each of the other provisions of this Act under which the Secretary of State may make regulations." This amendment would ensure that draft regulations specified in the Bill are published before the provisions of the Act come into force.
Nuclear Safeguards Bill — House of Commons, 2018-01-23
Topic: International Affairs
John Woodcock (Labour, Centre-left): I listened carefully to what the Minister has just said, and he seems to be setting up the UK to follow a minimum of the IAEA standards, and not necessarily the higher Euratom standards. Is that the case?
Nuclear Safeguards Bill — House of Commons, 2018-01-23
Topic: Energy
Alan Patrick Vincent Whitehead (Labour, Centre-left): I have listened carefully to the Minister this afternoon and would like to thank him for the constructive way he took the Bill through Committee. My personal view is that that is how we should legislate in practice. He has played a substantial part in making the process as good as it could be. However, just as I do not blame him personally for the fact that his football team recently scored a completely illegal goal—it was hand-balled—against my team and deprived it of two points, I do not blame him for the way the Bill has been constructed. He has attempted to justify parts of it that he is unable to amend, but nevertheless their construction, in my view, remains deeply unsatisfactory I am happy to withdraw amendment 1 and not to press the amendments that relate to the staffing and funding of the ONS—the Secretary of State has committed himself to reporting quarterly on progress with Euratom, which was the subject of one of our amendments in Committee, for which I am grateful—but I will press amendment 5 to a vote, because it relates to the Henry VIII clauses, which are a fundamental defect in the structure of the Bill. We wish to put it on the record that we would not wish such arrangements to be proceeded with under other circumstances. I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 1 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 2 Power to amend legislation relating to nuclear safeguards Amendment proposed: 5, page 4, line 13, at end insert— ‘(1A) The Secretary of State may only exercise powers under this section at the point at which amendment of any of the legislation in subsection (1) becomes necessary in order to complete the process of transposition of responsibility for nuclear safeguarding from EURATOM to the Office for Nuclear Regulation, and for no other purpose (1B) Upon exercising the power set out in subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the operation of the power."—(Dr Whitehead.) This amendment would limit circumstances under which the Secretary of State may exercise certain powers in this section and requires a report to be laid before Parliament. Question put, That the amendment be made.
Nuclear Safeguards Bill — House of Commons, 2018-01-23
Topic: Energy
John Woodcock (Labour, Centre-left): Following the Minister’s earlier answer, I was not entirely clear whether the Government are committed to Euratom standards from day one of this new regime, or looking at the de minimis of the International Atomic Energy Agency?
Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority — House of Commons, 2018-01-23
Topic: Government Operations
Valerie Carol Marian Vaz (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Leader of the House for what she has said. I wish to thank the independent panel appointed by Mr Speaker—the independent chair, Mark Addison; Ruth Evans, the IPSA chair; Shrinivas Honap, the lay member of the Speaker’s Committee for IPSA; Meg Munn, former MP for Sheffield, Heeley; and Michael Whitehouse, former chief operating officer of the National Audit Office—for its assiduous work in identifying possible candidates. I also wish to thank the outgoing IPSA board member, Elizabeth Padmore, for all her work The panel has been independent, transparent and diligent in its work. It was the panel’s unanimous view, which was endorsed by the Committee, to appoint Jackie Smith, who, as the Leader of the House has said, is currently the chief executive and registrar at the Nursing and Midwifery Council, and so has had experience in dealing with an organisation of more than 800 staff over five locations across the four countries of the United Kingdom. She was also head of investigation and lay affiliate for standards and fitness to practise at the General Medical Council. Ms Smith’s experience in regulation and delivering performance will serve her well The Opposition endorse the appointment of Jackie Smith to the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, and wish her well in her new role. She will be there from 19 February 2018 to 18 February 2023 Question put and agreed to.
Electoral Commission — House of Commons, 2018-01-23
Topic: Government Operations
Valerie Carol Marian Vaz (Labour, Centre-left): May I thank the Leader of the House for her comments? I also thank the chair of the independent panel, Joanna Place, and the other panel members, namely Sir John Holmes, the chair of the Electoral Commission, and my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), who is a member of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, for their work in identifying the candidates and going through the selection process. My thanks also go to the outgoing commissioner, Toby Hobman, who has served two terms since 2010 The unanimous view of the panel was that Professor Sir Ian Kennedy should be appointed as an electoral commissioner. Sir Ian has been involved in public life for more than three decades. The Opposition therefore agree with the independent panel’s recommendation on the appointment of Professor Sir Ian Kennedy from 1 February 2018 to 31 January 2022.
Electoral Commission — House of Commons, 2018-01-23
Topic: Government Operations
Bridget Maeve Phillipson (Labour, Centre-left): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak. As the only Member of this House to serve on the appointments panel, and as a member of the Speaker’s Committee, I should like to make a short contribution setting out a bit more about the process mentioned by the Leader of the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz). I reiterate that the recruitment process that was followed was the same open, fair and transparent process that has been used in the past to recruit all electoral commissioners. It is also worth stressing that this appointment represents one of 10 places on the board, four of whom were nominated by the main political parties. As the Leader of the House set out, the appointments panel was composed of Joanna Place, the chief operating officer at the Bank of England, who served as our independent chair; Sir John Holmes, the chair of the Electoral Commission; and me, as the representative of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission With the support of independent consultants, and following an open advertisement, a long list and short list were drawn up. Five very strong candidates were selected for interview, and following a comprehensive and lengthy interview process, the panel concluded that Professor Sir Ian Kennedy was the strongest candidate, and unanimously recommended his appointment. The Speaker’s Committee in turn then agreed with that recommendation. As we have heard, the leaders of all the main parties were consulted, and no objections were received I seek to reassure the House that this was a fair, open and transparent process that followed all the usual steps that should be followed and that were followed in previous processes. I am confident in the rigorous process that was followed, and as a panel we stand by our decision to recommend the appointment of Sir Ian Kennedy.
Electoral Commission — House of Commons, 2018-01-23
Topic: Government Operations
John Francis Spellar (Labour, Centre-left): Like other colleagues, I shall not detain the House for long. Many relevant points have already been made by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) I think that there is concern about this appointment. Quite apart from more general questions as to the role of the Electoral Commission and whether it is a body that has been losing its way, which is a wider debate for another day, we do need to look at this. Let us be frank: Sir Ian Kennedy, many colleagues feel, largely created the dreadful, anti-elected-Member, vindictive attitude that has permeated so much of IPSA, which has basically taken as its premise that it is there to make life difficult for Members of Parliament I have to say in all honesty to my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), who is an excellent Member of Parliament—I do not say that in any patronising way, but in a genuine way—that if Sir Ian Kennedy was the best candidate, I do wonder about the process through which we are undertaking appointments. We ought to look at how other countries run such electoral commissions. They have serving politicians who actually understand the current electoral system, rather than, as we do so often with such bodies in this country, putting it out to the great and the good, and the relentless quangocrats. When people read out the long list of quangos on which they have served, I regard it as a criticism rather than a commendation that they have constantly been on these public bodies, rather than, as used to be the case, people from industry on one side and from trade unions on the other who had much broader experience Why Sir Ian Kennedy, the arch-quangocrat? The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East mentioned Sir Ian Kennedy’s record at the Healthcare Commission. Many of those who were here at the time remember the disdain with which IPSA, his organisation, treated Members who had difficult transport issues, family housing issues or disabilities. In the case of new Members who might have been inclined to give more slack to the organisation, I know that many of them, and their staff, have found dealing with it incredibly difficult, due to the amount of staff time that that takes, and its great obstructionism and very limited access. That stemmed from the culture imbued there at the start With that record, I do not think that Sir Ian Kennedy has shown the qualities and comprehension appropriate to this position, which involves dealing with those in elected office. Frankly, I hope that we will reject this appointment and do better next time.
Toft Hill Bypass — House of Commons, 2018-01-23
Topic: Transportation
Helen Catherine Goodman (Labour, Centre-left): The life of my constituent Alex Wright was literally shattered when a van drove into her living room and totally destroyed it. She had to move out for months while the house was rebuilt For years, the residents of Toft Hill have been calling for a bypass, and 950 people have signed this petition. This is not purely a local issue; it raises questions of national road policy. Currently the criteria focus on housing and congestion. We would like to see a rebalancing of the criteria towards northern concerns, such as economic development and quality of life The petition states: The petition of residents of Toft Hill, Declares that the A68 that runs through Toft Hill is unsuitable and unsafe for the volume and nature of vehicles, especially HGV Lorries; and further that the proximity of the primary school and proposed future development in the village would make this stretch of road more dangerous to local residents The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department for Transport to priorities a new relief road to alleviate the problems faced by residents of Toft Hill And the petitioners remain, etc [P002098]
Personal Incomes — House of Commons, 2018-01-16
Topic: Macroeconomics
Questions: What assessment he has made of the effect on average personal incomes of recent increases in the national minimum wage and national living wage.
John Derek Twigg (Labour, Centre-left): The problem is in constituencies like mine, which is one of the most deprived in the country, where more and more people are having to go to food banks. What is the Chancellor doing, in terms of the economic development of the country, to ensure that we get better-paid jobs, especially in places that are severely deprived such as Halton?
Air Passenger Duty — House of Commons, 2018-01-16
Topic: Transportation
Catherine McKinnell (Labour, Centre-left): The Government’s own figures show that Newcastle airport will be most affected by any cuts to air passenger duty or air departure tax in Scotland. The continued uncertainty about this issue is also incredibly damaging. From his newly elevated position, will the Minister tell us what progress has been made on the issue? Is he in a position to confirm how English regional airports will be protected from the effects of any cuts?
Government Borrowing — House of Commons, 2018-01-16
Topic: Macroeconomics
Helen Catherine Goodman (Labour, Centre-left): The Chancellor says that he does not want to incur more debt, but yesterday the Treasury approved a minute providing for a contingent liability on Carillion, for which we have had no estimate. Will he please explain to the House what sort of expenditure will be covered—I see that he has given an indemnity to the receiver—and how he will report to the House on how much money the Government will be liable for?
Government Borrowing — House of Commons, 2018-01-16
Topic: Macroeconomics
Jonathan Neil Reynolds (Labour, Centre-left): It is amazing that the Government should want to plant questions about high levels of borrowing, given that they have missed every single one of their deficit reduction targets, and let us not forget that this Conservative Government have borrowed more than any Labour Government in history. Under Labour’s fiscal rules, we would close the deficit on day-to-day spending over five years, but exclude investment spending from that figure. Given the huge challenges that the country faces in relation to productivity, infrastructure and skills—challenges that he has already mentioned—does the Chancellor not recognise that that is a prudent and sensible way forward?
Household Debt — House of Commons, 2018-01-16
Topic: Macroeconomics
Katherine Anne Green (Labour, Centre-left): I, too, have read the IFS report, which points out that debt is a real problem for a significant minority of low-income householders who are struggling to pay the bills and make debt repayments. Does the Minister accept that imposing a freeze on benefits when inflation is standing at 3% will make things even tougher for those families?
UK Internal Market — House of Commons, 2018-01-16
Topic: International Affairs
Wesley Paul William Streeting (Labour, Centre-left): Thank you, Mr Speaker; that is the nicest thing anyone is likely to say to me today The Chancellor rightly extols the benefits of the UK single market, but is not the rank hypocrisy of the Government exposed by listening to the comments of the chief executive of Airbus last night that leaving the European single market would be hugely damaging to the UK economy? We do not have to pick and choose: why will the Chancellor not put a jobs first Brexit at the heart of the Government Brexit strategy and commit to keeping us in the European single market?
Employment — House of Commons, 2018-01-16
Topic: Social Welfare
Emma Louise Lewell-Buck (Labour, Centre-left): Here is a reality check for the Minister. Limited well-paid jobs and record levels of in-work poverty coupled with this Government’s unflinching assault on the welfare safety net have contributed to the United Nations estimating that 8 million households in the UK are food insecure. My cost-neutral household Food Security Bill will robustly measure these factors and lead to policy development that will eradicate hunger. Why will her Government not back it?
Employment — House of Commons, 2018-01-16
Topic: Macroeconomics
John Martin McDonnell (Labour, Centre-left): Thousands of Carillion workers will turn up to work tomorrow unsure whether they have a job, and they may not appreciate Conservative boasts about employment today. The workers face cuts to their pensions, and hundreds of small firms along the supply chain are also uncertain about their futures. The traditional role of the Treasury is to protect our public finances, so will the Minister explain to the House what involvement the Treasury had in the billions of pounds of contracts held by Carillion at the time of its liquidation? We know that Treasury approval is required for PFI contracts, so will she tell the House how many PFI and PF2 contracts were signed by the Treasury during the current Chancellor’s time in office? What will happen to those projects and to the staff working on them? When there were loud and clear worrying signs about Carillion, why did Treasury Ministers, instead of intervening, collude in the strategy of drip-feeding more contracts to Carillion to buoy up an obviously failing company?
Employment — House of Commons, 2018-01-16
Topic: Macroeconomics
John Martin McDonnell (Labour, Centre-left): We are asking questions about when it was obvious that this company was failing and what the Treasury’s role was. I put it no stronger than this: at this stage, there are real suspicions that the Government were too close to the company and too wedded to its privatisation role. We need full transparency on the meetings and discussions that took place between Ministers, civil servants and representatives of Carillion. What warnings were given to Ministers and what action was recommended, whether it was implemented or not? We need the Treasury to start playing its proper role and to provide an independent assessment of the potential costs and risks facing the taxpayer. As has already been mentioned, a Cabinet Office minute was published after the statement yesterday that established a contingent liability. We urgently need to know from the Treasury about the potential range of costs now facing the taxpayer.
Leaving the EEA — House of Commons, 2018-01-16
Topic: Foreign Trade
Questions: What assessment his Department has made of the effect of the UK leaving the European economic area on the economy and the service industry.
Stephen Nathan Kinnock (Labour, Centre-left): The Chancellor has said that he wants a jobs-first Brexit. Given that 80% of the British economy is in the services sector, and given that the EEA-based model of Brexit is the only one that gives maximum access for our services industries, does the Minister agree that an EEA-based Brexit is the only viable option for our country?