argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Trade Policy — House of Commons, 2018-07-16
Topic: Foreign Trade
Stewart Hosie (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for advance sight of it, and indeed for the tone that he adopted. I am particularly grateful for what he said about enabling Parliament to scrutinise future trade deals in a timely fashion. However, it should be ensured that we have enough information to be able to scrutinise them properly I will not be as cynical as others, but I find it slightly odd that an urgent statement has been made about a nine-month-old document. Nevertheless, what was said was welcome, especially in relation to liaison with businesses, workers and non-governmental organisations, particularly those concerned with trade justice. I ask the Secretary of State to confirm that there will be sufficient sight and enough detail of future proposals for them to do their work as well I also welcome what the Secretary of State said about liaison with devolved institutions. However, it is not enough simply to have liaison, discussion and consultation if there are real implications that consent may be required. A role in setting the negotiating mandate may be necessary. Actively seeking consent throughout the process towards ratification is a process that I would have expected the Secretary of State to welcome, and I hope he will look at our new clauses 20 to 24 tomorrow in that regard But most importantly, I hope the Secretary of State takes on board when he is liaising—and I take him at his word that this will happen—the deep concern in society, in campaign groups and throughout all sorts of organisations about the implications of trade deals in the future for public safety, good hygiene and the environment, and understands that we never again, as he mentioned in his statement, want to get into a position such as we were with the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, where, after a short period of time, there was mass opposition to a bad treaty not discussed with the public in advance. The Secretary of State talks about future trade deals, and I understand why he is making that distinction, but if we have a trade deal that is being rolled over but requires some tweaks or changes that are subsequently extended beyond five years, that may look very similar to a new trade deal. I hope he will look actively at having the same scrutiny of and consultation on those arrangements as he does simply for deals in the future.
Ministerial Code — House of Commons, 2018-07-16
Topic: International Affairs
Peter Wishart (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I rise to propose that the House should debate a specific and important matter for urgent consideration, namely section 9.5 of the ministerial code I am grateful to you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is my third attempt to secure a Standing Order No. 24 debate. So far the result has been zero out of two, but I am hoping for better fortune with this application Last Thursday’s release of the Department for Exiting the European Union’s White Paper "The future relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union" was nothing less than a farce. Chaotic scenes of Members of Parliament throwing White Papers across the Chamber like frisbees did nothing for the reputation of this House or that of the document itself. At the point when the Secretary of State rose to give his statement neither our office, nor the Labour Whips Office, had received a copy of it. Section 9.5 of the ministerial code states: "A copy of the text of an oral statement should usually be shown to the Opposition shortly before it is made. For this purpose, 15 copies of the statement and associated documents should be sent to the Chief Whip’s Office at least 45 minutes before the statement is to be made. At the same time, a copy of the final text of an oral statement should in all cases be sent in advance to the Speaker." I do not know whether Mr Speaker did receive a copy of the final text of the statement, but what I do know is that that same White Paper had been given to members of the press at 9 o’clock that morning, compounding the total disrespect to this House This was an important statement and an even more important document. The House has been waiting for two years for some kind of negotiating position from Her Majesty’s Government. Equally, the EU has been waiting two years, and people from across these isles had been waiting to hear what the Government were going to propose. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, Scotland did not vote for this Brexit. We did not endorse it and we want nothing whatsoever to do with it. Shambles and crises are occurring right across Whitehall—these crises seem to be developing by the hour May I also take this opportunity to thank Mr Speaker for suspending that chaotic session to ensure that Members had at least a few minutes to skim some of the pages of the White Paper before attempting to hold the Secretary of State to account? What the public must have made of those proceedings is anyone’s guess, but it was not the first time that the Department for Exiting the European Union had done this. One instance might have been an accident, but we are starting to see a troubling trend from this Department and others. This is just about the worst possible example of a breach of the ministerial code, and the matter requires more attention from the House. I humbly request an emergency debate to get the answers that the House and the country need.
Personal Independence Payments — House of Commons, 2018-06-04
Topic: Social Welfare
Alison Emily Thewliss (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): The credibility of this Department lies in tatters. The Secretary of State celebrates the fact that the Government are not appealing this decision, but the fact remains that they had to be dragged through the courts in the first place to be proven wrong I have some questions for the Secretary of State. Will she commit to ensuring that the money for the back payments does not come out of existing DWP budgets? When will the first payments be made and will they be fully backdated, so that nobody loses out? Why are decision makers making decisions as if the High Court case never happened? I have constituency cases in which people are being assessed under unlawful criteria and then forced into the appeals process, all of which delays payments to which they are fully entitled and means that they are living in poverty. When will new guidance be issued to Jobcentre Plus staff and claimants, because there is so much confusion out there that nobody is aware of what they are entitled to This Department is in no fit state to be undertaking the biggest shake-up of social security this country has ever seen. It is incompetent and failing the most vulnerable in our society, and the Secretary of State must do something about it.
Personal Independence Payments — House of Commons, 2018-06-04
Topic: Social Welfare
Gavin Andrew Stuart Newlands (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I have spoken to countless constituents who are completely petrified by the PIP process, which causes debilitating stress and anxiety that, in some cases, compounds the effects of their existing condition. When will the Secretary of State go back to the drawing board and come up with a benefit that represents a more humane method of supporting those who need it the most?
US Steel and Aluminium Tariffs — House of Commons, 2018-06-04
Topic: Foreign Trade
Stephen Patrick Gethins (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): In spite of what the International Trade Secretary says, so much for the special relationship and the special treatment that the Government were seeking from President Trump. Coming hard on the heels of the weekend’s report that the Government are preparing for a Brexit armageddon, the chickens are truly coming home to roost for Brexiteers, who have had years to prepare for their big moment. But this has an impact on all of us, and the Scottish Government were left to secure steelworks in Lanarkshire. Will the Secretary of State tell us what discussions he has had with the Scottish Government and the industry in Scotland? His statement shows just how important the European Union is in these matters. Does it not make more sense to remain close to those who are closest to us economically and politically in Europe, and stay part of the customs union?
US Steel and Aluminium Tariffs — House of Commons, 2018-06-04
Topic: Foreign Trade
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): As Chair of the International Trade Committee, may I take this opportunity to thank the Secretary of State for his courteous phone call to me at the end of last week outlining the situation that he found himself him? These tariffs stem from the very weird belief of the US President that if the US has a deficit with anyone, it is a result of unfair trading. Given that just about any two sets of nations find themselves in surplus or deficit with each other at times, there would be global trade chaos if the rest of the world were to follow his example of what the Secretary of State calls unjustified decision making. Meanwhile, how confident is the Secretary of State that the UK can legally take safeguarding trade defence measures if it finds itself out of the EU in March 2019, and that a trade remedies authority will be in place? My Committee has concerns about that, as I am sure he knows.
Rail Timetabling — House of Commons, 2018-06-04
Topic: Transportation
Alan Brown (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Another week, another rail shambles. When will the Secretary of State admit that the rail franchise system is broken and do something to fix it properly? It was really disappointing to hear that travellers who were forced to get rail replacement buses at short notice were sometimes turned away because the buses were full or simply did not turn up. That is even more ironic considering that Arriva also operates overlapping bus groups. That just highlights the farce that is going on at the moment We know that late-running Network Rail projects reduced the time available for train operators to plan the new schedules, but what assessment has the Secretary of State made of his Department’s culpability in this, with regard to Network Rail? Despite assurances that all was well, it is now clear that there was no possibility of the timetables being capable of being operated in full from day one. Why did no one in the train operating companies, Network Rail or the Department for Transport ask for a postponement of the new timetable roll-out The Secretary of State has said that he will take the strongest enforcement action against GTR if it has broken its franchise agreement. Will that action be stronger than that taken against Virgin Trains East Coast, which has been allowed to walk away owing the Department for Transport billions of pounds What is the Secretary of State’s exact timeframe for resolving these timetable issues? He has mentioned putting in additional resources. What additional resources will be put in from his Department? What is he doing to ensure that the driver shortage is not met by poaching drivers from other franchises, which could have an impact on services elsewhere? On the question of compensation, what will he do to ensure that the rail industry does not recover the costs of compensation from other fare-paying passengers The Secretary of State continually highlights Network Rail failings, but when will he accept that he has responsibility and culpability for Network Rail and fall on his own sword? An apology is not good enough.
Nuclear Power — House of Commons, 2018-06-04
Topic: Energy
Alan Brown (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I thank the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement but, to be truthful, it did not tell us any more than we have been able to glean from the media today. I find the Government’s nuclear obsession mind-boggling. When Hinkley was first proposed all those years ago it was on the basis that it had to be commissioned by December 2017 or there would be a risk of the lights going out. All these years later, it will not be generating at full capacity until something like 2030, which seems to undermine the need for new nuclear Hinkley is shocking value for money, with a 35-year megawatt-hour strike price of £92.50, whereas recent offshore auctions have returned bids of £57.50 per megawatt-hour over a 15-year period. That is the real cost benchmark that the Government should use. Considering that the National Audit Office concluded that it would be impossible to know for decades whether building Hinkley represented good value for money for UK taxpayers, it is utterly incredible that we are diving headlong into another costly venture. The Secretary of State has said that he wants to do a sector deal, but we do not know what value for money that will provide. It has been reported that the strike price for the new power station will be something like £15 per megawatt-hour cheaper than at Hinkley, but how much of that cost reduction is due to the billions of pounds of direct investment from the taxpayer Given the company’s questionable track record on safety, will the Government confirm that Hitachi will be financially liable in the event of any accidents? Given the unprecedented level of taxpayer investment, how will the Government demonstrate that they have met the Public Accounts Committee’s demand for a full value for money assessment before they finally sign off the deal, and how will Parliament be able to scrutinise that? When will we know the level of the financial commitments If the Secretary of State is so willing to commit taxpayers’ money directly for stakes in projects, will he consider paying for national grid upgrades to further facilitate the deployment of renewables, instead of tagging such upgrades on to the costs of renewable projects? As bad as the Government’s obsession with nuclear is, this is also about their attacks on renewable investment. When will they have a coherent energy policy and proper investment in future technologies rather than a technology that has had its day?
Ivory Bill — House of Commons, 2018-06-04
Topic: Environment
Lisa Cameron (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): The Scottish National party welcomes the fact that robust measures to help to protect elephant populations for future generations are one step closer to becoming law and being realised. Today is a good day in Parliament, for this is the right thing to do and we are getting on with achieving it together I am pleased that work on the Bill has included widespread consultation with experts, including the environmental groups and charities that see the desperate plight of the decline in elephant populations and the carnage of poaching. They have worked so very hard, and I pay tribute to the International Fund for Animal Welfare, Stop Ivory, the Born Free Foundation and Tusk, to name just a few. The general public overwhelmingly support a ban on ivory, guiding Parliament, as they always do. We must be mindful that we are simply the representatives of the people’s voice. With the 70,000 responses to the consultation, the people have spoken, and we must listen. Musicians and representatives of the antiques trade have contributed to the process, stating that the preservation of ancient ivory is important, but fundamentally ivory belongs to elephants and rhinos—to nature, not to mankind.
Leaving the EU: Devolution — House of Commons, 2018-10-17
Topic: International Affairs
Questions: What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament upon the UK leaving the EU.; What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament upon the UK leaving the EU.; What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament upon the UK leaving the EU.; What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament upon the UK leaving the EU.; What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament upon the UK leaving the EU.; What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament upon the UK leaving the EU.
Gavin Andrew Stuart Newlands (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Not only have the Government taken the Scottish Government to court for trying to protect their own devolved powers; the Secretary of State is now saying that any measures offered to Scotland to reflect the overwhelming remain vote would cause him to consider his own position—a position confirmed this morning by Adam Tomkins as no idle threat made in the heat of the moment. Is he really surprised, therefore, that the Scottish people see this blatant Tory power grab for what it is, and will he follow through on his threat to go, and go now?
Leaving the EU: Devolution — House of Commons, 2018-10-17
Topic: Agriculture
Questions: What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament upon the UK leaving the EU.; What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament upon the UK leaving the EU.; What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament upon the UK leaving the EU.; What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament upon the UK leaving the EU.; What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament upon the UK leaving the EU.; What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament upon the UK leaving the EU.
Kirsty Ann Blackman (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): If the Secretary of State really believes that he is "fighting Scotland’s corner", as he said in Holyrood Magazine, why is he supporting an Agriculture Bill that will remove powers from the Scottish Parliament, and simultaneously failing to honour Tory promises on funding made to Scottish farmers?
Leaving the EU: Devolution — House of Commons, 2018-10-17
Topic: International Affairs
Questions: What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament upon the UK leaving the EU.; What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament upon the UK leaving the EU.; What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament upon the UK leaving the EU.; What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament upon the UK leaving the EU.; What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament upon the UK leaving the EU.; What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament upon the UK leaving the EU.
Christopher Charles Stephens (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Given the non-answers so far, can the Secretary of State tell us whether there are any circumstances in which he would support the devolution of powers to protect Scotland’s interests after Brexit—or is it the case, given his threats to resign, that he would rather resign his own position than support any measure aimed at ensuring that Scotland is protected from a hard, right-wing Tory Brexit?
Leaving the EU: Devolution — House of Commons, 2018-10-17
Topic: International Affairs
Questions: What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament upon the UK leaving the EU.; What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament upon the UK leaving the EU.; What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament upon the UK leaving the EU.; What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament upon the UK leaving the EU.; What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament upon the UK leaving the EU.; What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament upon the UK leaving the EU.; Thank you, Mr Speaker. The devolution of significant amounts of welfare powers will represent a step change in the maturity of devolution in Scotland. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in order for this to work for my constituents and his, it is absolutely vital that Scotland’s two Governments work together properly?
Peter Wishart (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Over the weekend, the Secretary of State threatened to resign and almost typically managed to make a pig’s ear out of it. Apparently he was so concerned that Scotland might join Northern Ireland in an outcome that would spare us the worst Brexit excesses that he would show them and go. Surely if anything requires his resignation, it is his inability to look after and protect the devolution settlement.
Leaving the EU: Devolution — House of Commons, 2018-10-17
Topic: International Affairs
Questions: What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament upon the UK leaving the EU.; What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament upon the UK leaving the EU.; What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament upon the UK leaving the EU.; What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament upon the UK leaving the EU.; What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament upon the UK leaving the EU.; What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament upon the UK leaving the EU.; Thank you, Mr Speaker. The devolution of significant amounts of welfare powers will represent a step change in the maturity of devolution in Scotland. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in order for this to work for my constituents and his, it is absolutely vital that Scotland’s two Governments work together properly?
Thomas Sheppard (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): In the Secretary of State’s first answer, he referred to progress at the JMC on the common frameworks, which will constrain the operation of devolved powers after Brexit. Can he update the House by saying in how many areas frameworks have been agreed, which they are and by which date he expects the remainder to be completed?