argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Nuclear Safeguards Bill — House of Commons, 2017-10-16
Topic: Education
Rebecca Long-Bailey (Labour, Centre-left): Let me take the Secretary of State on a little journey. If he listens carefully, he might see how dangerous the scope of certain parts of the Bill might be. The explanatory notes indicate that regulations under clause 1 will be subject to the affirmative procedure only "on first use". It would be helpful if he confirmed that that wording is actually a terrible mistake, that he does not actually mean it and that, at the very least, all legislation on the domestic safeguarding regime will be subject to the affirmative procedure I would never cast aspersions on the Secretary of State, but, unfortunately, his ministerial colleagues have shown that they are prepared to use their delegated powers not just to avoid parliamentary scrutiny, but arguably to legislate in open defiance of the House. In particular, I refer to the recent rise in university tuition fees. The original Act allowed any statutory instrument raising the limit to be annulled by either House. Unfortunately, the Government first prevented any vote whatever, and then refused to accept the vote of the House against the regulations. In effect, they used secondary legislation to rule by ministerial decree. They tabled the regulations the day before Christmas recess and the Opposition tabled a prayer against them on the first sitting day after that. But, despite the conventions of the House, the Government dragged their feet for months until eventually conceding the point and scheduling a debate on 18 April. Of course, the Prime Minister dissolved Parliament before that vote could be held. After the election, the new Leader of the House said that there were "no plans" to allow time for the vote that her predecessor had solemnly promised from the Dispatch Box. It was left to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) to secure parliamentary time under the rules of Standing Order No. 24. In that debate, the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation tried to deny that any vote had been secured, leading Mr Speaker to intervene and tell the House: "I had thought there was an expectation of a debate and a vote, and that the Opposition had done what was necessary".—[Official Report, 19 July 2017; Vol. 627, c. 895-6.]
Nuclear Safeguards Bill — House of Commons, 2017-10-16
Topic: Government Operations
Rebecca Long-Bailey (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, but we are talking about very important arguments regarding the machinery of this House. If he will let me conclude my remarks, he might learn something very important Eventually, we had to use an Opposition day motion to revoke the regulations. The House agreed to it, only for the Government to refuse to accept the result after telling their Members to boycott the vote. When the Government say that Parliament still has a say on delegated legislation, there is a catch, and it is a Catch-22: they can refuse time for a vote within the 40 days and then say that it is too late for any vote to count once that deadline has passed. The Bill includes a power to amend primary legislation. The Government want us to trust them with the powers of Henry VIII when, to be frank, they behave like Charles I On the Brexit process, we have had long lectures from Government Members about parliamentary sovereignty, but Ministers have shown in practice that they will deny and defy this House. It is ironic that, just weeks ago, the Brexit Secretary was keen to assure us that no such thing could happen in legislation such as that under discussion. He told the House: "Secondary legislation is still subject to parliamentary oversight and well established procedures. In no way does it provide unchecked unilateral powers to the Government."—[Official Report, 7 September 2017; Vol. 628, c. 357.] Even as he was saying that, his colleagues were refusing to follow those procedures, rejecting parliamentary oversight and using exactly those unchecked, unilateral powers to force higher fees on students The Bill will give the Government similar powers. We know that they will use secondary legislation not just for technical details, but to make controversial and important policy decisions by the stroke of a ministerial pen.
Nuclear Safeguards Bill — House of Commons, 2017-10-16
Topic: Energy
Rebecca Long-Bailey (Labour, Centre-left): I am sorry that I am boring the right hon. Gentleman, but if he listens to the rest of my contribution perhaps his question will be answered at the end. Perhaps that will keep his attention The job of a legislature is to legislate. The Bill is effectively a blank cheque handing that job over to Ministers. I hope that the Minister will give an iron-clad guarantee that the Government will not use those powers in that way and an ultimate guarantee to change the Bill itself. Safeguards are vital for our nuclear industry, but they are needed for our parliamentary democracy as well The Bill’s Henry VIII clauses are particularly worrying, for the simple reason that if the Secretary of State does not use the powers effectively, the UK will simply not have a nuclear safeguarding regime. Our legislation book is scattered with such clauses that have never been enacted, so either the status quo ante prevails or some new primary legislation renders the power irrelevant. That is not the case, however, with the Bill, because if the regime is not fully established into UK law on exit day, it will not work. The point is not only that the Secretary of State "may" introduce such legislation, but that they have to introduce it; otherwise the regime will not work. The Government are, in effect, asking us to trust that they will do the decent thing and make it work, while conceding that the Secretary of State may not, if he or she wishes, actually do it. That certainly does not look very good from the outside looking in, because there is no status quo ante to go back on in the event that the legislation is not properly translated into UK law. We will just fall of a cliff, as we depart from our membership of Euratom For all those reasons, it is evident that this barely fit for purpose Bill will, at the very least, need substantial amendment even to make it work on its own terms. Indeed, we also need a wider consideration of how the UK’s advantages and protections under Euratom can successfully be replaced in a national context We are clear, however, that, should all else fail, of course we need a nuclear safeguarding regime for the UK post Brexit—[Interruption.] I am pleased to get cheers from Government Members. But let me add a caveat: we will need to see evidence of substantial amendment to the procedure set out in the Bill, as well as evidence that the Government are really thinking about the best post-Brexit Euratom formulation, before we can wholeheartedly commit to agreeing to the passage of this Bill on Report and Third Reading.
Nuclear Safeguards Bill — House of Commons, 2017-10-16
Topic: International Affairs
Albert Owen (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the hon. Gentleman for referring to the debate I led on 12 July. There was consensus in that debate in the Grand Committee Room that we should have associate membership of Euratom. That was the general theme of what was said by Members from both sides of the House, and we need to move towards it. In particular, I do not think that the Bill provides the lifeboat necessary for us to leave Euratom. Many of us are arguing for a transition period so that we will remain in Euratom until we get either associate membership or third-party agreements.
Nuclear Safeguards Bill — House of Commons, 2017-10-16
Topic: Technology
James Dolan Cunningham (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Gentleman is making some interesting points. I have consulted the powers that be in my constituency, where I have two universities, and there is concern about the consequences for science of ending the free movement of labour, certainly in relation to the specialists who come in to help train people. Experts very often come from Europe to teach science and technology, and there is concern because if we do not get this right, those people may well not be available for those universities.
Nuclear Safeguards Bill — House of Commons, 2017-10-16
Topic: Energy
Rachel Jane Reeves (Labour, Centre-left): Except the hon. Gentleman. However, we are where we are, and the Government have made their decision. I urge them not to abandon what I and many hon. Members regard as a sensible approach: to pursue a transition period during which we stay under Euratom’s auspices, and then seek some sort of associate membership so that we do not have to recreate everything that the Minister and others have said that we value from our membership I understand the need for the Bill. There is a risk that we could crash out of the EU and Euratom, and we need a back-up, given that the Office for Nuclear Regulation will take on the responsibilities that Euratom has today. Unlike trade, there is no fall-back option for nuclear. With trade, we have the World Trade Organisation, but with nuclear, if we do not have an arrangement with the IAEA, we will not be able to trade or move nuclear materials around the EU. The Bill is an important belt-and-braces measure in case we crash out, which I hope does not happen, but is a risk The Bill does part of one thing—pass the remit for safeguarding inspections from Euratom to our regulator, the ONR. As hon. Members know, the ONR is not new, but there are serious pressures on its capacity. It is currently recruiting a new chief nuclear inspector, and only last week the Government had to put aside more money for it as part of the clean growth strategy. We therefore know that the ONR is under pressure even before taking on the new responsibilities that the Government may pass on to it. As a senior ONR official was forced to admit to a Select Committee in the other place, the timescale for adding safeguarding responsibilities is "very challenging".
Nuclear Safeguards Bill — House of Commons, 2017-10-16
Topic: Law and Crime
Albert Owen (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend is making an important point about the ONR’s resources. Indeed, it takes about seven years to train the experts to ensure that they are competent enough to do the work. The lack of resources means that we really need a transitional period.
Nuclear Safeguards Bill — House of Commons, 2017-10-16
Topic: Energy
John Woodcock (Labour, Centre-left): It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse)—[Hon. Members: "Why?"]—because he at least made an argument, unlike some previous Conservative Members, whose speeches were filled with vapid nonsense about how everything would be wonderful. His argument, however, was essentially: the Germans are coming and we need to pull up the nuclear drawbridge.
Nuclear Safeguards Bill — House of Commons, 2017-10-16
Topic: Energy
Paul Christopher Blomfield (Labour, Centre-left): I agree that it is irresponsible language and I am sorry to have heard it from some Conservative Members during this debate This is an important issue and the sector is hugely important, as the hon. Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) pointed out in a thoughtful and informed contribution when she said that it is important that we get this right. The Government therefore need to answer some key questions. The ONR cannot exercise these new powers until it has a voluntary offer agreement and additional protocol from the IAEA for a UK safeguards regime. What work has been done on that and when do the Government anticipate that will be ratified? What have the Government done to ensure that the ONR has the necessary skills to take on the safeguarding of nuclear material? Euratom employs 160 people on safeguarding, 25% of whom work on UK installations, whereas the ONR currently employs eight staff. I understand that it takes five years to train a nuclear safeguards inspector. Two years will not be long enough to reskill the necessary number of inspectors. Are plans under way to re-employ the current Euratom officials or do the Government have another contingency up their sleeve?
Nuclear Safeguards Bill — House of Commons, 2017-10-16
Topic: Energy
David Drew (Labour, Centre-left): The problem is that the nuclear industry is not currently able to call on that level of expertise. It already suffers because of a shortage of labour in many parts of the industry, so that can only get worse.
Nuclear Safeguards Bill — House of Commons, 2017-10-16
Topic: International Affairs
Rachel Jane Reeves (Labour, Centre-left): What a gentleman! Thank you very much The Minister is setting out two alternatives: the ONR taking responsibility or our staying in Euratom. However, there is a third way forward—a third way—which is to seek a transition period in which we remain in Euratom and then go for some sort of associate membership of Euratom. Are the Government exploring that opportunity, which would best serve our industry and those jobs?
Fly-tipping — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: Environment
Barry John Sheerman (Labour, Centre-left): Fly-tipping is a curse not only on farmland in Huddersfield, but up and down this country. It is usually associated with people who operate just above the law. They hire out skips, and then take the money, evade landfill duty, and tip the waste everywhere. We must have an Environment Agency with the powers and resources to do something about that.
Ivory Trade — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: Environment
Questions: I thank the Secretary of State for his answer; I think that he is doing the right thing. Will he give us an undertaking that he will come to the House as soon as possible after the consultation and lay out a timetable for the proper implementation of a full ban?; I, along with students and residents across my constituency, welcome the Government’s commitment to a near total ban on ivory sales in the UK. How will the Government work with our friends abroad, especially in south-east Asia, to ensure that together we bring an end to poaching by illegal armed gangs?
Graham Peter Jones (Labour, Centre-left): I met some Angolan MPs last week who were unaware of a recent report stating that Angola’s elephant population has fallen from 200,000 to 3,400. Is not it the case that the world simply is not doing enough to protect the African elephant, as well as other animals and environmental species? We have to do more to save the planet, and the African elephant is a start.
Badger Culling — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: Agriculture
David Drew (Labour, Centre-left): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think I can dine out on that for a few more days I hear what the Minister says, but now that the culls are coming to an end, it is estimated that between 20,000 and 33,000 badgers were caught and dispatched in the roll-out. Is he seriously telling me that we will not test a significant proportion of those badgers so that we can at least have some scientific efficacy and know that there is some sense in what the Government are trying to do, even though Labour Members totally oppose it?
Leaving the EU: Finance — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: Agriculture
Helen Catherine Goodman (Labour, Centre-left): The uplands have some of the most important environmental benefits in the country, but the farmers have extremely marginal incomes. Will the Minister therefore commit to making no cuts to the support for hill farmers in the uplands?
Leaving the EU: Common Fisheries Policy — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: Foreign Trade
Questions: Whether the rules of the common fisheries policy will apply to the UK during any transition period in the event that the UK leaves the EU.
Benjamin Peter James Bradshaw (Labour, Centre-left): That is very interesting: we will not have a voice at the table but we will have to abide by all the CFP rules. Can the Minister give an assurance to our industry, which exports more than 80% of what it catches straight to the rest of Europe, that it will not face any tariffs or other barriers during or after that transition period?
Leaving the EU: Common Fisheries Policy — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: Agriculture
Questions: Whether the rules of the common fisheries policy will apply to the UK during any transition period in the event that the UK leaves the EU.
Holly Jamie Walker-Lynch (Labour, Centre-left): May I take this opportunity to send our sincere condolences to the family of the crew member of the fishing vessel Solstice who sadly died at sea since the last DEFRA questions While the Brexit negotiations on the common fisheries policy continue, the fishing Minister will appreciate that the safety of our fishermen and women must be paramount. The Solstice is the third fishing vessel to sink involving the loss of life in the last two years where there has been a delay in launching lifeboats. With that in mind, will the Minister reassure the fishing industry that he is working with his colleagues in the Department for Transport to secure a full investigation into the Solstice, in order to rebuild confidence in the fishing community that the coastguard is able to respond quickly and effectively to incidents at sea?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: Agriculture
Kerry Gillian McCarthy (Labour, Centre-left): Is it appropriate for the 2 Sisters group to be allowed to undertake any mergers and acquisitions while the Food Standards Agency is conducting its investigations and until it has reported in full, not least in case any issues of corporate governance are uncovered during the investigation?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: Environment
Questions: The £100 million Boston flood barrier is probably the biggest public investment in the town’s entire history —promised and delivered under a Conservative Government. I know that the Minister has had the public inquiry’s report; can she update the House on when we are likely to start actually building the thing?
Sue Hayman (Labour, Centre-left): In the referendum last year, people did not vote for dangerous levels of pollution and the weakening of environmental protections. It is all very well for the Secretary of State to make worthy speeches about a green Brexit, but as it stands, the Government’s repeal Bill makes this an impossibility. Will he now admit that the omission of the "polluter pays" principle and other environmental protections are a fundamental flaw, and will he work with me and other colleagues to guarantee the strongest possible protections for our environment as we leave the EU?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: Environment
Questions: The £100 million Boston flood barrier is probably the biggest public investment in the town’s entire history —promised and delivered under a Conservative Government. I know that the Minister has had the public inquiry’s report; can she update the House on when we are likely to start actually building the thing?
Sue Hayman (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Secretary of State for his comments. Clearly, many of our environmental protections come from Europe. Another victim of the repeal Bill that I would like to draw his attention to is the precautionary principle, which sets a benchmark to protect the environment from policy and developmental proposals that would do irreparable harm. Is his commitment to me now therefore a commitment to working cross-party to ensure that these vital environmental protections are transferred into EU law as promised, or is he happy for the EU to reclaim its reputation as the dirty man of Europe?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: Education
Questions: The £100 million Boston flood barrier is probably the biggest public investment in the town’s entire history —promised and delivered under a Conservative Government. I know that the Minister has had the public inquiry’s report; can she update the House on when we are likely to start actually building the thing?; The Government are committed to planting 11 million trees. May I encourage the Secretary of State to ensure that many of them are planted in Chipping Barnet? He would be very welcome to visit to see those trees planted in our wonderful green spaces.; Like many other MPs across the House, the Secretary of State and I supported CAMRA’s general election pledges for beer and pubs, because we recognise the role of pubs in our communities. Is he putting pressure on the Chancellor to freeze beer duty in the Budget?; Does my right hon. Friend agree that as powers are repatriated from the EU, everywhere in the UK should feel the benefit? Would he be willing to visit my constituency to meet colleagues and representatives of Scottish agriculture to understand local concerns, and to discuss the potential placement of further UK Government Departments in Scotland?; Do we expect progress in sorting out abandoned waste sites owned by the Crown Estate, such as the one at Sandy Lane in my constituency?
Rachael Helen Maskell (Labour, Centre-left): Last Friday I visited Askham Bryan agricultural college in York. It says that the new exam framework does not work because assessment of, for instance, the felling of trees cannot be done in the tight window of the spring, and the harvest cannot be brought in during the spring either. Will the Secretary of State make representations to the Education Secretary about broadening the scope within which assessments can take place?
Income Inequality — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: Macroeconomics
Kerry Gillian McCarthy (Labour, Centre-left): Earlier this month the Archbishop of Canterbury wrote a powerful article for the Financial Times on how our economic model is broken and no longer working for everyone. Does the right hon. Lady agree with him—I appreciate she has just said she cannot answer for everyone—and particularly on the need for a fairer tax system, does she believe the Government are listening?
Electoral Returning Officers — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: Government Operations
Bridget Maeve Phillipson (Labour, Centre-left): The Electoral Commission provides guidance for returning officers, and it monitors and reports on their performance. The commission targets monitoring and support on areas where it is needed, including where there is a change of returning officer or a change in the electoral services team. The commission will publish its report on the administration of the 2017 general election and the performance of returning officers in November.
Electoral Returning Officers — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: Government Operations
Luke Pollard (Labour, Centre-left): A shortage of trained returning officers was identified as one of the contributing factors to 6,500 votes being missed out on the declaration for my seat and to 1,926 postal votes not being sent out. What further action can be taken to train more returning officers?
Electoral Returning Officers — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: Government Operations
Bridget Maeve Phillipson (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend will be aware that the returning officer for Plymouth commissioned an independent review, led by Dr Dave Smith. The investigation reported in September. The Electoral Commission fully supported the investigation and continues to support the city council in delivering the improvements required The Electoral Commission is working with the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and the Association of Electoral Administrators on the issue of the decreasing number of election and registration specialists.
Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: International Affairs
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union if he will make a statement on the Government’s policy of a meaningful vote in Parliament to agree the final withdrawal agreement with the European Union.