argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
US Trade Agreement Negotiations — House of Commons, 2020-09-03
Topic: International Affairs
Mark Phillip Hendrick (Labour, Centre-left): Given the impending failure of the Prime Minister’s fictitious oven-ready deal with the EU, how much leverage, or lack of leverage, will that failure give the Secretary of State in her negotiating position with whichever candidate wins the US November presidential elections, and what impact will that have on a UK economy already battered by covid-19 and a no-deal Brexit?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2020-09-03
Topic: International Affairs
Mohammed Afzal Khan (Labour, Centre-left): As we speak, Palestinian communities remain at risk of forcible transfer as a result of Israeli annexation. The UK prohibited all trade from Crimea after Russia’s illegal occupation and annexation in 2014, and we should follow that precedent when it comes to illegal settlements. Has the International Trade Secretary had discussions with her Israeli counterpart over the illegal annexation, and will she reconsider UK trade deals with settlement territories?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2020-09-03
Topic: Foreign Trade
Ruth Margaret Cadbury (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister said that he welcomed the Government’s appointment of Tony Abbott as a trade adviser, but on Sky this morning, Kay Burley reminded the Health Secretary that the appointee is a misogynist and homo- phobe, which the International Trade Secretary’s colleague appeared to confirm by saying, "But he’s also an expert on trade." Could the International Trade Secretary not find an expert for the role who demonstrates positive British values and, by the way, is not a climate change denier?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2020-09-03
Topic: Environment
Anthony Joseph Lloyd (Labour, Centre-left): Environmental protections do work in bilateral trade agreements, but they work best when the process is genuinely internationalised. Will Ministers tell the House and the country what steps are being taken in the preparations for COP26 to make sure that international trade with strong environmental protections is a major item, to ensure that we can save the planet?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2020-09-03
Topic: Foreign Trade
Paul Christopher Blomfield (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for taking this point of order, because it relates to the questions that we have just heard. In answer to my question on rolling over the deals that we currently enjoy through membership of the European Union, the Under-Secretary of State for International Trade, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), said, and I quote, that "the vast majority of the trade covered by those deals has already been secured," and that was repeated by one of his colleagues. It is, however, contradicted by the Department’s own website, which says that 19 deals have been secured worth £84.07 billion last year, but there are 18 deals outstanding worth £84.5 billion—and that does not even include Japan. Will the Minister take this opportunity to correct the record and confirm that the vast majority of trade is not covered by these deals, and in fact they cover slightly less than half?
Kickstart Scheme — House of Commons, 2020-09-03
Topic: Labor
Stephen Creswell Timms (Labour, Centre-left): I opposed the closure of the future jobs fund in 2011. The Work and Pensions Committee, in its report in June, highlighted what a great job that scheme did 10 years ago, and I warmly welcome and applaud its return. Will the Secretary of State encourage charities, as happened last time, to take full advantage of the scheme, because they can create jobs that will give many young people a great start to their working lives? What will she do to ensure that disabled young people can take full advantage of it? Will she ensure the collection of sufficient data to allow a thorough evaluation subsequently, like the one published by her Department in November 2012?
Kickstart Scheme — House of Commons, 2020-09-03
Topic: Labor
Rachel Louise Hopkins (Labour, Centre-left): What safeguards has the Secretary of State put in place to ensure that disabled young people are fully able to benefit from the kickstart programme? The employment rate for them stands at 37%, which compares with a figure of 57% for non-disabled people, so will she ensure that this new programme supports disabled young people?
Kickstart Scheme — House of Commons, 2020-09-03
Topic: Labor
Nicholas Desmond John Smith (Labour, Centre-left): Cyber College Cymru in Blaenau Gwent gives opportunities for young people in the digital security sector, where there is strong employer demand. That industry will be vital to our future economy. Boosting jobs for young people is the right thing to do, but this needs to deliver long-term job security. Will the Minister clarify how many jobs will be created by the scheme and over what period?
Kickstart Scheme — House of Commons, 2020-09-03
Topic: Labor
Stephen John Doughty (Labour, Centre-left): It is good to see the Secretary of State learning not only from the Future Jobs Fund example but the Jobs Growth Wales example set by the Welsh Labour Government over the past few years. It is so crucial that this leads to long-term employment, not just temporary employment, so will she agree to work closely with the Welsh Government to dovetail this scheme with the existing Jobs Growth Wales scheme, the apprenticeship scheme, the traineeship scheme and the ReAct scheme, which are already in place, to ensure that there is a full package for young people in particular to stay in work? Will she look again at the 30-person limit? SMEs are a much bigger part of the economy in Wales and we need to ensure that they are able to benefit as much as they can from the scheme.
Kickstart Scheme — House of Commons, 2020-09-03
Topic: Labor
Kevin Denis Brennan (Labour, Centre-left): I support the general principle of the Government intervening to help young people into work in this way and I was really disappointed in 2010 when the Government dropped the Future Jobs Fund. I am slightly disappointed that this scheme has been allowed to be designed in such a way that it is for the convenience of the Department, rather than small businesses. Having been a Government Minister I know how this works in the Department for Work and Pensions, but could the Minister, in all seriousness, go back and talk to officials and see if there is any way of making this more friendly to small businesses?
Kickstart Scheme — House of Commons, 2020-09-03
Topic: Labor
Rachael Helen Maskell (Labour, Centre-left): Charities and social enterprises delivered over 60% of placements under the Future Jobs Fund, with over half retaining employment after six months. However, most organisations can only take on one or two young people due to capacity. The Labour Government worked closely with the sector to make it easily deliverable, yet this Government’s engagement with charities and social enterprises has been insufficient. Will the Secretary of State commit today to meet sector leaders from organisations such as the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and Social Enterprise UK to ensure that every job that can be found is found and that young people are given real hope and a future?
Kickstart Scheme — House of Commons, 2020-09-03
Topic: Labor
Daniel Owen Jarvis (Labour, Centre-left): The UK is one of the most regionally unequal countries in the developed world, especially when it comes to employment, so will the Secretary of State say how the kickstart scheme fits with the Government’s levelling-up agenda? What guarantees can she give that communities such as the ones that I serve in South Yorkshire will get the additional support that they need?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2020-11-17
Topic: Social Welfare
Paula Barker (Labour, Centre-left): Our home care workers have gone above and beyond during the pandemic. Tragically, they are some of the lowest paid workers in the entire labour market. Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a role for local government, as the commissioners of home care services, in strengthening enforcement of national minimum wage legislation to ensure that no home care worker, anywhere, is not properly paid for travel time between visits?
Continuity Trade Agreements: Parliamentary Scrutiny — House of Commons, 2020-11-17
Topic: Foreign Trade
Emily Thornberry (Labour, Centre-left): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question on an issue that should never have become urgent. The Government have literally had years to protect our free trade with countries such as Canada, Singapore and Mexico, but with just six weeks to go until the end of the transition period, 15 of those continuity agreements have still not been secured, leaving £80 billion of UK trade at risk—two and a half times our trade with Japan. Those 15 agreements have been left so late that the Government will now have to ride roughshod over the rules of parliamentary scrutiny to implement them in time Why do we find ourselves in this sorry mess? Why were 20 agreements signed in 2019, but only four so far in 2020? Why have we heard Governments such as Montenegro and Cameroon saying that formal talks were held in September 2019, but then nothing for a full year afterwards? Why, in just the past week, have we heard the Prime Minister of Canada say that Britain has lacked the "bandwidth" to do a deal and the Government of Ghana express dismay that their UK counterparts would turn up late and badly briefed to meetings and then leave early with nothing resolved Those are all the hallmarks of Ministers who are simply not doing their job. How else do we explain why the agreement reached two weeks ago with Kenya has still not been laid before Parliament and cannot now receive the full 21 days of scrutiny? It is sheer bumbling incompetence, and instead of taking responsibility today, the Secretary of State has sent her Minister in her stead —a fitting symbol of a total failure to grasp this issue during her 16 months in office. It therefore falls to the Minister of State to answer my three final questions. First, what new steps is his Department taking to get these 15 agreements over the line before Christmas? Secondly, when will UK businesses be told if any of those agreements, including with Mexico, are definitely not going to be reached? Thirdly, how can Ministers continue to defend the adequacy of the rules for parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals after the absolute mockery that they have made of them today?
Continuity Trade Agreements: Parliamentary Scrutiny — House of Commons, 2020-11-17
Topic: International Affairs
Barry John Sheerman (Labour, Centre-left): I am surprised that the Minister keeps evading the whole thrust of the urgent question he was asked. Why is he so terrified of parliamentary scrutiny? He can talk about chaos on the Labour side, but chaos and confusion reign in No. 10. There is chaos and confusion in our relationship trying to get an agreement with the European Union as we leave. What is wrong with this Government? I am a member of the Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union, which is being abolished just when we need it for parliamentary scrutiny. Why are this Government so terrified of being responsible and accountable to this House?
Continuity Trade Agreements: Parliamentary Scrutiny — House of Commons, 2020-11-17
Topic: International Affairs
Barry Strachan Gardiner (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister knows, but did not say, that the current CRaG process was put in place when many other layers of democratic scrutiny were applied to international treaties through the EU, but those layers are now gone. Now that his Department has failed to conclude the roll-over agreements, does he accept that democratic scrutiny needs to reflect not just the convenience of Government, but the proper oversight and challenge of Parliament? Or will he only change his view when he finds himself in opposition?
Continuity Trade Agreements: Parliamentary Scrutiny — House of Commons, 2020-11-17
Topic: International Affairs
Diana Ruth Johnson (Labour, Centre-left): As my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) pointed out, the Canadian Prime Minister said last week that Canada was ready to reach a continuity agreement with the UK but that the British Government lacked the "bandwidth" to finalise the deal and, indeed, that his offer to provide support to the UK’s negotiators had not been taken up. Is not this just an embarrassing situation for the Government, who claim to be promoting global Britain?
Continuity Trade Agreements: Parliamentary Scrutiny — House of Commons, 2020-11-17
Topic: Foreign Trade
Matthew Toby Perkins (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister seems keen to tell us how hard he and his team are working; meanwhile, crucial trade partners such as Canada seem to feel that the Government just have not got their act together and are not giving this the attention it deserves. Does he not realise that what is really important here is that British businesses, which need certainty about what their trading arrangements will be in January, are sat here in the middle of November still no clearer about whether we are going to be able to trade tariff-free with Canada?
Continuity Trade Agreements: Parliamentary Scrutiny — House of Commons, 2020-11-17
Topic: Foreign Trade
Emma Louise Lewell-Buck (Labour, Centre-left): If the Government were in control of this situation and favoured transparency, they would have come to the House to make a statement, not be forced to via an urgent question. British businesses need to know how existing arrangements will be preserved. The Government’s negligence is leaving them susceptible to disruption to as much as £80 billion of global trade. I have listened carefully to the Minister and, as expected, it was lacking in any detail. When will the Government be able to share any real detail on how we are going to avoid this imminent risk to jobs and livelihoods?
Continuity Trade Agreements: Parliamentary Scrutiny — House of Commons, 2020-11-17
Topic: Foreign Trade
Clive Stanley Efford (Labour, Centre-left): Is it not true that the Government have just overstated the ease with which they would be able to do all this? We were going to have 40 trade deals on 29 March 2019, and we were going to have a trade area bigger than the EU, which was going to include China and the US. Prime Minister Trudeau said the talks hit the buffers because of the inability of the UK Government to negotiate trade deals—that is the truth of it. What are the Government going to do to ensure not only that we get these rollover trade deals dealt with, but that we have proper scrutiny of them?
Continuity Trade Agreements: Parliamentary Scrutiny — House of Commons, 2020-11-17
Topic: Foreign Trade
Rachael Helen Maskell (Labour, Centre-left): At a time when our economy is in peril and just 44 days before we leave the transition arrangements, we still have no agreement with the EU. Fifteen continuity agreements are yet to be agreed, breaching the Government’s own deadline which the Prime Minister clearly said was immoveable, yet the Trade Minister comes to the Dispatch Box and says that he will extend provision into January. Will he tell businesses what will happen to their trade with those 15 countries on 1 January, so they can now make their plans?
Continuity Trade Agreements: Parliamentary Scrutiny — House of Commons, 2020-11-17
Topic: Foreign Trade
Chinyelu Susan Onwurah (Labour, Centre-left): As chair of the all-party group on Africa, I wish to emphasise the importance of trade between the UK and Africa. By offering Ghana levels of market access that differ from those of its neighbours in the regional trading bloc ECOWAS—the Economic Community of West African States—the Government are forcing Ghana to choose between new trade barriers within ECOWAS or tariffs with the UK, which would plunge Ghana’s banana and cocoa producers, many of whom are already in poverty, into even more extreme poverty. So instead of bullying countries such as Ghana, will the Minister work with African countries to agree deals that promote trade and fair, sustainable economic development?
Continuity Trade Agreements: Parliamentary Scrutiny — House of Commons, 2020-11-17
Topic: Foreign Trade
Anthony Joseph Lloyd (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister glossed over a question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) earlier. My hon. Friend made the point that the CRaG procedures were established when the European Union was our main negotiating host and the scrutiny came through that process. Does the Minister accept that public distrust of bad trade agreements and public confidence in trade agreements will be established by parliamentary scrutiny, and will he now re-examine whether these procedures are adequate for a modern trading country such as the United Kingdom?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2020-11-17
Topic: International Affairs
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): As I know the hon. Member will expect me to say, that is not a point of order, but of course it is important that she has raised the issue. I hope that the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and the Ministers who now have that responsibility, have been listening to what she said. If there is going to be a policy change, I would expect the House—not the media—to hear it first, as we keep emphasising. It is media speculation at this time. The hon. Member has some good avenues through which to pursue the matter; some named day questions would be a good start. However, I am sure that it is only media speculation. Surely a Government would not use this House as a secondary vehicle, when it should be the primary one.
National Security and Investment Bill — House of Commons, 2020-11-17
Topic: Law and Crime
Kevan David Jones (Labour, Centre-left): Does my right hon. Friend agree that what is also going to be needed is some very close relationships and working with the security services, because the information that it could rely on in these cases will mostly not be accessible straightaway by this new unit?
National Security and Investment Bill — House of Commons, 2020-11-17
Topic: Technology
Edward Samuel Miliband (Labour, Centre-left): It sounds like a good idea to me, and I would welcome that. Actually, that is a convenient segue to the wider points that I want to make on this Bill. Our view is that this is only one part of the change we need, because I believe that the existing legislation has been found wanting. That legislation was passed by a Labour Government—I checked—and I think it was more or less agreed across parties; certainly, the then Opposition did not vote against it. It has been found wanting not just on national security but on wider issues such as the public interest test for takeovers on economic grounds I just want to raise a very specific issue, because it illustrates the point. We are in the midst of a threatened takeover in the tech sector: the Nvidia-ARM deal. We know that ARM is the crown jewel of the British tech sector. We know that Nvidia competes with companies to which ARM supplies. There is a widespread view across the tech sector and across this House that this takeover could be a risk to the future prosperity and success of the sector in the UK, but looking at the Secretary of State’s statement of intent, I do not think that it falls in this list. The list of trigger risks are: disruptive or destructive actions; espionage; or inappropriate leverage. Those are not the issues with Nvidia. The issue is our wider economic interests, which speaks to the point that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) made In the two months since the takeover was announced, we have heard little from Ministers. It is true that there could be a referral on competition grounds—I am sure that the Secretary of State is a bit constrained in what he can say about this, but let us hear it if there is. But we are deeply worried about the future of ARM. We are worried about the strength of the legal assurances on its headquarters and other matters. It would be good if Ministers could tell us what they think about this issue. These are deeply serious issues about our industrial strategy and our economic base, and they go beyond national security and, on my understanding, the tests that are set out in the Bill.
National Security and Investment Bill — House of Commons, 2020-11-17
Topic: Technology
Edward Samuel Miliband (Labour, Centre-left): I really appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point. These are not Christmas tree baubles that I have suddenly raised now. In 2010, there was the issue of the Kraft takeover of Cadbury. In 2014, there was the threatened takeover by Pfizer of AstraZeneca that had deep implications for our science base. I have felt for a decade that our legislation is not fit for purpose—and I acknowledge completely that this legislation was put in place by the Labour Government. These are deeply serious questions about the future of our industrial strategy and industrial base I do not pretend that these issues are easy to resolve. Of course there are dangers on both sides of the ledger, and we have to strike a balance between those two dangers, but we have enough experience with Kraft-Cadbury and with Pfizer and AstraZeneca— which did not happen, but not because of any powers of Government—to be anxious about Nvidia-ARM. If, as I believe, the whole basis of this legislation is to say that other countries are taking this action when it comes to national security and so should we, the logic applies here as well. It is not straightforward, it is not simple, and I completely acknowledge that to the hon. Gentleman, but I see the case for change.
National Security and Investment Bill — House of Commons, 2020-11-17
Topic: Technology
Edward Samuel Miliband (Labour, Centre-left): It is interesting; I believe the hon. Gentleman supports this Bill—I may be wrong—but on national security, the Government will apply some tests and we could apply some tests when it comes to our industrial base. Let me make this point to him: it is not just France, but Germany, Australia, Japan and the United States. It is all of the other major industrial economies that say, "Well, no, we do have a strategic interest in certain industries." Of course, if we decided to go down that route, we would have a debate in this House about the specific areas in which we wanted to be able to intervene. We would have to look at exactly the criteria, and it is not just about whim, but the question is: is the status quo adequate I say to the hon. Gentleman that the status quo is not adequate, and we do not just have 10 years or more of experience to suggest that the status quo is not adequate; we also have a real situation now with Nvidia and ARM. If anyone in the House wants to get up and say, "We think it is fine. We think this should just go ahead. We are not concerned about what that means for our tech sector", then fine, but everybody I speak to in the tech sector who knows about this issue, including my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central, says that there is a real worry. Why have we not developed enough of these world-leading companies in this country? Why do we want to see ARM taken over?