argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Steel Industry — House of Commons, 2015-01-14
Topic: Labor
Nicholas Desmond John Smith (Labour, Centre-left): On the topic of jobs, looking to the future, what binding guarantees are the Secretary of State and the Government obtaining from Klesch about maintaining jobs and ensuring greater steel capacity in the UK for the future?
Steel Industry — House of Commons, 2015-01-14
Topic: Labor
Tom Blenkinsop (Labour, Centre-left): Bringing the Secretary of State back to his comments on spasms of contractions of labour in the steel industry, he will know that between 1987 and 1992, in my locality and particularly the Teesside Cast Products site, the work force went from 25,000 to 5,000. My predecessor but one, the now Lord Langbaurgh, actually celebrated that in his maiden speech in this House when he was elected in 1992.
Steel Industry — House of Commons, 2015-01-14
Topic: Energy
Mark Richard Tami (Labour, Centre-left): Does the Secretary of State not accept that, as I said at the beginning of the debate, it is possible to become far more efficient, but, no matter how much efficiency is improved, there will still be a massive gap between energy costs.
Steel Industry — House of Commons, 2015-01-14
Topic: Macroeconomics
Chuka Harrison Umunna (Labour, Centre-left): If the Treasury, the European Commission and state aid approval are the issues, why has the Secretary of State not started having a discussion with the Treasury on that point, or has he done so already?
Steel Industry — House of Commons, 2015-01-14
Topic: Macroeconomics
Chuka Harrison Umunna (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way again. Does he not accept that simply waving the flag of EU state aid approval problems in respect of the use of procurement is a red herring? So long as the benefit for growth and jobs in this country is not the sole criterion used for making procurement decisions, it can be taken into account when making such decisions. It seems to me that that is not really happening in government.
Steel Industry — House of Commons, 2015-01-14
Topic: Energy
John Healey (Labour, Centre-left): Weak demand is always a problem for an industry such as the steel industry. Although in the past year UK demand for steel has increased by 15%, most of that has been supplied by imported steel, not UK-produced steel—that is what we have to change. It is the high energy prices that pose the risk of pricing British steel-making out of business. The full cost of energy for large energy-intensive users, such as steel makers, is €77 per megawatt-hour in the UK, which compares with €49 in France, €38 in the US and €33 in Germany. Of course when high-end products go through several processes—melting, casting, re-melting, rolling and finishing—that premium and extra cost is multiplied. We need the Secretary of State to commit his Government to bringing in, once state aid clearance is achieved, help with the cost of the renewables obligation—that is imperative. We need help and a promise to negotiate a good transatlantic trade deal which benefits the metals industry and many of its user industries and deals with some of the problems associated with restricted procurement practices arising through the "Buy America" regime. Finally, we need to see a commitment to using any local economic benefit clauses that can be put in place in public procurement. Just as there is common ground in the industry among companies and the trade unions on the future of the industry and what is needed, we need in this House, from today’s debate, common ground among the parties.
Steel Industry — House of Commons, 2015-01-14
Topic: Macroeconomics
Angela Christine Smith (Labour, Centre-left): I welcome this debate. As has been rehearsed already today, the importance of steel to the UK economy cannot be underestimated, and neither can its importance to my local economy in south Yorkshire Tata’s speciality steels operation, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop), is headquartered at Stocksbridge in my constituency. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) pointed out, it nearly went under in 2008. He paid tribute to the trade unions and the management of Tata in Stocksbridge for pulling the plant around. I also want to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), who as Minister of State worked hard, alongside the unions and Members, to secure the future of the plant.
Steel Industry — House of Commons, 2015-01-14
Topic: Macroeconomics
Ian Murray (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister may want to mention that in his speech. We were also reminded earlier of the contribution that my hon. Friend made in highlighting the Government’s decision about Sheffield Forgemasters My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) spoke about the steel industry in her constituency. She said that it was a proud British industry that should form an integral part of the future. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) pointed out that, in a globalised world, we did not want protectionism; all we want is a level playing field. I think that that is a very sensible and pragmatic approach. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) is not just called Champion; she champions the steel industry and jobs in her constituency My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis) is a founder member of the all-party parliamentary group on steel and metal related industries. We shall certainly miss his contribution to steel debates when he leaves the House later this year. He ended with a poignant reminder of the dangers involved in the industry; we should all remember those whom he lost in the tragedies in his constituency We have had a wonderful debate, which has shown that Labour Members, at least, stand up for steel. Our motion makes clear the importance of the steel industry to this country. The industry supports tens of thousands of jobs, and supports many of the supply chains that are key UK sectors. It supports communities and livelihoods. The Government must provide a co-ordinated response that involves energy-mitigation measures, challenges the European Union in regard to certification and safety, and supports an active industrial strategy for the metals industry in the United Kingdom. It is time for the Government to stand up for steel. Labour clearly stands up for it, but we want the Government to support it as well. I commend our motion to the House.
Steel Industry — House of Commons, 2015-01-14
Topic: Energy
Tom Blenkinsop (Labour, Centre-left): Perhaps the Minister can give a succinct answer. Given that the Government are not opposing the motion, they must support it. The motion "urges the Government urgently to reconsider whether mitigating measures on energy prices, planned to start in April 2016, can be brought forward" Could they be brought forward before or at the Budget?
Steel Industry — House of Commons, 2015-01-14
Topic: Macroeconomics
Rosalie Winterton (Labour, Centre-left): claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36). Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put Question agreed to. Main Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House recognises the importance of the UK steel industry including as a provider of highly-skilled jobs and research and development; values the steel supply chain which supports strategic industries such as automotive, aerospace and construction; notes with concern Tata’s proposed sale of its Long Products Division and the impact this could have on UK steel industry capacity; welcomes the efforts of UK steel producers to cut carbon emissions and expresses concern that losing trade to countries with less efficient processes could increase global carbon emissions; further notes with concern that some steel imports do not meet British standards; calls on the Government to recognise the importance of the steel industry and to work with it, the Scottish and Welsh Governments and trade unions to provide a co-ordinated plan for the industry’s future; urges the Government urgently to reconsider whether mitigating measures on energy prices, planned to start in April 2016, can be brought forward to support the competitiveness of UK steel producers, to press the European Commission to launch an inquiry into the CARES certification of imported steel products to ensure safety and traceability and to take action through the EU and World Trade Organisation to challenge the uncompetitive subsidisation of steel products; and further calls on the Government to introduce an active industrial policy for the metals industry, including strengthening supply chains, strategic approaches to public sector procurement, encouraging innovation, skills development and resource efficiency and providing support for steel exporters.
London-based Civil Servants — House of Commons, 2015-01-07
Topic: Government Operations
Thomas Clarke (Labour, Centre-left): Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that an outstanding example of civil service dispersal is the Department for International Development in East Kilbride. As long as Scotland remains in the UK, which I believe it will for a very long time, can such an example be emulated?
London-based Civil Servants — House of Commons, 2015-01-07
Topic: Government Operations
Barry John Sheerman (Labour, Centre-left): Is the Minister not aware that there is a great deal of disillusionment in the civil service? Is it not our job in this House to support really good people with the highest level of skills coming into the civil service so that they are happy and motivated in their job? What will he do about morale in the civil service?
Miners Dispute (Outstanding Documents) — House of Commons, 2015-01-07
Topic: Labor
Ian Lavery (Labour, Centre-left): What have this Government got to hide with regard to the miners strike, because only 30 out of 500 digitised documents relating to the strike were released last week? There was no mention of Orgreave, but there was an admission that the Government tapped National Union of Mineworkers members’ phones. When will the documents that have not been released be released, and will they be released unredacted?
Miners Dispute (Outstanding Documents) — House of Commons, 2015-01-07
Topic: Macroeconomics
Dennis Edward Skinner (Labour, Centre-left): Is not the whole subject of these papers embarrassing to the Government and to the Minister? At the beginning we argued that 75 pits were to be closed, and the Thatcher Government said at the time that there were only 20. They lied continually in the House of Commons, repeating that figure, and then the Cabinet papers revealed that it was 75 after all and that the miners had been right. He is embarrassed to reveal other papers simply because that Government decided to attack the NUM and Britain’s manufacturing base, and that has been carried on by the Tories ever since.
Big Society Network/Society Network Foundation (NAO Report) — House of Commons, 2015-01-07
Topic: Social Welfare
Questions: What assessment he has made of the implications for his Department’s policies of the findings of the report from the National Audit Office entitled “Follow-up: grants to the Big Society Network and the Society Network Foundation”, HC 840.
Paul Christopher Blomfield (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister clearly must have read a different version of the report. Voluntary sector organisations in my constituency tell me that they are struggling to maintain vital services for the most vulnerable as a result of this Government’s polices, yet the NAO report shows that millions of pounds of public money was wasted on failing projects as a direct result of prime ministerial interference and ministerial decisions taken despite "concerns raised about financial sustainability and weak performance" Is not that truly shocking? When other charities are struggling to survive, how does the Minister justify it?
Big Society Network/Society Network Foundation (NAO Report) — House of Commons, 2015-01-07
Topic: Government Operations
Questions: What assessment he has made of the implications for his Department’s policies of the findings of the report from the National Audit Office entitled “Follow-up: grants to the Big Society Network and the Society Network Foundation”, HC 840.
Lisa Eva Nandy (Labour, Centre-left): Will the Minister explain why his Department, which is supposed to be responsible for Government transparency, has refused to release any minutes or attendance lists of meetings between his advisers, the Big Society Network and the Society Network Foundation, and why over six months he has refused to answer 76 parliamentary questions on the subject? Some £3 million were wasted, there were two damning reports from the National Audit Office, thousands of charities are in crisis, and the only beneficiary from the big society has been a Tory donor’s bank account. Is it any wonder that the Minister does not want to answer questions about it?
Digitising Government Services — House of Commons, 2015-01-07
Topic: Technology
Chinyelu Susan Onwurah (Labour, Centre-left): Digitising public services creates vast amounts of data that can be used further to improve services and accountability, transforming the relationship between citizens and Government—a subject dear to your heart, Mr Speaker. However, each Government Department has a different approach to handling data, and there is total chaos among officials and Ministers about what is allowed, with, consequently, deep distrust among the public. In government, we will instigate a review to set out a coherent and ethical approach to data sharing. Will the Minister join us in committing to the principle that people own their own data and it is for them to say what happens to it?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2015-01-07
Topic: Government Operations
Questions: Given the recent cyber-attacks on the United States, what strategies are the Department and the Government putting in place to protect Britain and Britain’s corporations from cyber-terrorism?
Lucy Maria Powell (Labour, Centre-left): In February 2010, when he was shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Gentleman wrote to the Cabinet Secretary to complain that in asking Treasury officials to cost Conservative party policy, Labour had "compromised the impartiality of the Civil Service and used the taxpayer funded service for political attacks." What discussions has he had with the Chancellor about special advisers using civil servants to propagate political smears and fiction this week, and has he redrafted his letter to the Cabinet Secretary?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2015-01-07
Topic: Social Welfare
Edward Samuel Miliband (Labour, Centre-left): This is about politics—it is the Prime Minister’s politics, and they have failed. No answer on walk-in centres, so let us try him on another decision he has made that has been a cause of the crisis. When he decided to reduce the availability of social care services, so that 300,000 fewer older people are getting the help they need, was it not blindingly obvious that if people could not get the care they needed at home, it would have a big impact on A and E?
Stormont House Agreement — House of Commons, 2015-01-07
Topic: Macroeconomics
Peter Hain (Labour, Centre-left): I congratulate the Secretary of State and all the party leaders on reaching an agreement, not least in view of the Prime Minister’s astonishingly premature exit from the previous summit, and his lack of engagement, which has been greater than that of any Prime Minister for more than 20 years. How can the Secretary of State be sure that this process will not long-grass the key flashpoint issues of parades and flags? On corporation tax, is she aware of Sir David Varney’s 2007 report to the Treasury, which showed that 95% of businesses in Northern Ireland do not pay corporation tax? That is not a silver bullet; it will leave a £300 million hole, or 3%, in the block grant, if there is equalisation with the Republic of Ireland.
Stormont House Agreement — House of Commons, 2015-01-07
Topic: Law and Crime
Elizabeth Anne McInnes (Labour, Centre-left): Failure to agree on contentious issues such as flags and parading has led to violent protests, as we all know. What additional steps has the Secretary of State taken to ensure that the PSNI has adequate resources to guarantee security for the people of Northern Ireland and the capacity to police public events?
Stormont House Agreement — House of Commons, 2015-01-07
Topic: International Affairs
Matthew Toby Perkins (Labour, Centre-left): I congratulate all the parties involved in enabling the statement to be made and in achieving the agreement, which is a significant step forward for Northern Ireland. The rising inequality and rising child poverty that we have seen under this Government and their hostility to public sector work have had an impact on Northern Ireland, creating a potential breeding ground for paramilitaries and political extremists. Has the Secretary of State had any discussions with the Chancellor about the impact on Northern Ireland of the decisions this Government have taken and of increasing poverty? What is she going to do to support a peaceful future by ensuring that Northern Ireland, and the rest of the United Kingdom, is able to have a more equal future than it has had in the recent past?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2015-01-07
Topic: Transportation
Fiona O'Donnell (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 4 December in answer to written question number 216656 about cuts to the east coast main line by the new operators Virgin and Stagecoach and the reduction in the number of stops, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport with responsibility for rail franchises, the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), replied with a list of stations that would receive a reduction of one daily stop. This included Dunbar station in my constituency, and as you can imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker, it caused great upset and distress for many of my constituents. However, today I was contacted by Stagecoach which informed me that my constituents and I have been misled. What assistance can you give me to ensure that the Under-Secretary corrects her answer, provides more accurate answers in future and apologises to my constituents?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2015-01-07
Topic: International Affairs
Kelvin Peter Hopkins (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On Monday this week, the Prime Minister chose to make only a written statement on the European Council meeting instead of his customary oral statement during which Members can question him on the issues raised. Given the intensification of the eurozone crisis and its implications for Britain, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, to which there has been much opposition, and the many other important matters that have been raised, it was vital for the Prime Minister to report to the House in person and submit to questioning from Members, even if on a later day than usual. Will you use your good offices, Madam Deputy Speaker, to seek to persuade the Prime Minister to make his European Council statements orally on all occasions so that all Members have an opportunity to question him personally and in public?
Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill — House of Commons, 2015-01-07
Topic: Government Operations
Diana Ruth Johnson (Labour, Centre-left): I beg to move amendment 7, page 15, line 21, leave out subsection (5) and insert— ‘(5) Before giving guidance under this section, or revising guidance already given, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament— (a) the proposed guidance or proposed revisions; and (b) a draft of an order providing for the guidance, or revisions to the guidance, to come into force (6) The Secretary of State must make the order, and issue the guidance or (as the case may be) make the revisions to the guidance, if the draft of the order is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament (7) Guidance, or revisions to guidance, come into force in accordance with an order under this section (8) Such an order— (a) is to be a statutory instrument; and (b) may contain transitional, transitory or saving provision." This would ensure that statutory guidance produced under Clause 24 was subject to an affirmative resolution of each House.
Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill — House of Commons, 2015-01-07
Topic: Law and Crime
Diana Ruth Johnson (Labour, Centre-left): Let me begin by expressing my horror at the terror attack that took place in Paris today. I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House will be with the family and friends of the victims of that attack, and, of course, we all stand in solidarity with the French people at this time Part 5 of the Bill contains measures to counter extremism in communities and to deal directly with vulnerable individuals. As Ministers will recall, it was the last Labour Government who introduced both the Prevent agenda and the Channel programme, and we remain absolutely committed to supporting and, indeed, strengthening both policies. Obviously the Government reviewed Prevent when they came to office, and it is important for us to view the measures in the Bill in the context of the changes that they introduced. I think that those changes are a rather mixed bag, and I am not sure that they were particularly successful Both Prevent and Channel require a partnership between central Government and local agencies, and amendments 7 and 6 are intended to ensure that the Government support local bodies in the delivery of both programmes. While we agree that Prevent should involve local delivery, it seems to us that the recent problems stem from central Government. There has been a marked decline in Prevent’s funding, which has fallen from £17 million a year to just £1 million. Some of that clearly resulted from a conscious decision, but there also appears to have been mismanagement. Every year £5.1 million has been allocated for local delivery, but I understand that over the past four years more than 60% of it has gone unclaimed In Committee, I raised a number of concerns about the delivery of Prevent at national level, and about the monitoring and support supplied by central Government to local agencies. I am sure that the Minister for Security and Immigration, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire)—although I am pleased to see the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) in the Chamber today—recalls that I spoke at length about my concern about the performance of the Department for Education. I do not want to go through all that again, but I think that the Government’s role should be formalised in the Bill so that we know what is expected of them.
Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill — House of Commons, 2015-01-07
Topic: Government Operations
Diana Ruth Johnson (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Minister for going through the answers to my questions in such detail. The impact assessment says that 90 local authority areas are at high risk, the consultation document identifies 50 priority areas and the Minister is now talking about 30 areas and an additional 14 areas. These numbers all seem a bit confused to me. Will she say the exact number of Prevent priority areas the Government are concerned about?
Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill — House of Commons, 2015-01-07
Topic: Government Operations
Diana Ruth Johnson (Labour, Centre-left): It is very helpful to hear the Minister set that out, but once agreement has been reached with the devolved Administrations, will there be a further period of consultation on the guidance, so that local authorities and other bodies can comment on what has been agreed between the Governments?