argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Housing Completions and Demand — House of Commons, 2015-02-02
Topic: Housing
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): The policy of permitted development has been in operation for much longer. Will the Minister kindly look into that? Developers are able to convert office or industrial premises into residential housing with no social obligation whatsoever. In constituencies such as mine in central London, where there is a massive housing waiting list, that is not helping the situation; it is making it worse and forcing more families to leave the borough.
Crowdfunding — House of Commons, 2015-02-02
Topic: Mixed Topics
Barry John Sheerman (Labour, Centre-left): Is the Minister aware that, because there is such an unfair funding formula, councils such as Kirklees have been cut to the bone and many of the services we have grown to expect to be provided by the council will now have to be provided in other ways? Will he do even more to help the social enterprise sector to provide those services that many of us think should still be delivered by local councils?
Brownfield Sites (Pendle) — House of Commons, 2015-02-02
Topic: Housing
Andrew John Gwynne (Labour, Centre-left): Absolutely, Mr Speaker. Last year the planning Minister told me that green-belt protection throughout the ancient county of Lancashire, which incorporates my constituency as well as Pendle, meant that development would not be permitted unless there was extensive consultation with the local population through an amendment to the development plan, and only then in exceptional circumstances. What would the Minister’s view be of a local authority that did not consult extensively with the local community and then approved a development in the green belt, as Liberal Democrat-controlled Stockport council has now done?
Neighbourhood Planning and Community Rights — House of Commons, 2015-02-02
Topic: Housing
Philip Wilson (Labour, Centre-left): Developers Gladman have won, on appeal, the right to build 250 houses on a greenfield site at Middleton St George in my constituency, at a time when the local residents are developing a neighbourhood plan. The development is against the wishes of local people and Darlington borough council. Local people feel that their views are being ignored and have called into question the Department’s commitment to localism. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the consequences of the housing development and Middleton St George’s neighbourhood plan?
Firefighters’ Pensions — House of Commons, 2015-02-02
Topic: Mixed Topics
Lyn Carol Brown (Labour, Centre-left): On 15 December, the Minister said that if someone fails a fitness test "through no fault of their own"— and they do not qualify for an ill-health retirement, they will get "an alternative role or an unreduced pension."—[Official Report, 15 December 2014; Vol. 589, c. 1153.] The Minister further confirmed that that would be put on a statutory footing in the national framework. Will she confirm that the national framework does not guarantee a full pension or redeployed role? It merely requests fire authorities to consider options for redeployment or a full pension. It is a sham guarantee—it is no guarantee. How does the Minister square what she told the House with the ministerial code?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2015-02-02
Topic: Public Lands
Barry Strachan Gardiner (Labour, Centre-left): May I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s remarks on the holocaust memorial, which is fundamentally important? Will he confirm that, in 2015-16, Brent’s core funding will be cut by 14% and its revenue support grant by 28%? Will he also confirm that the reason why his Department curiously refers to Brent’s spending power is that it includes £23 million of money that Brent council does not receive and has no power over, and that doing so gives him the singular advantage of allowing him falsely to claim that Brent is being cut by only 1.8%?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2015-02-02
Topic: Mixed Topics
Questions: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) have both kindly visited the largest redundant mill complex in Lancashire, Brierfield mill in my constituency. Following the fantastic news of Government funding for the project in last week’s growth deal, will Ministers commit themselves to continuing to work with Pendle borough council and myself to move forward this massive regeneration project?; One fire authority responding to queries from firefighters about how it was going to honour the Minister’s commitment wrote to them and said: “We are advised that the addendum to the National Framework…continues to provide discretion over the award of an unreduced pension…We are further advised that such discretion cannot be fettered, and that to provide the ‘guarantee’ you are seeking would be unlawful.”Will the Minister begin the audit to which she has committed and ensure that fire authorities honour the commitment that she has made?; Durham is ranked the fifth most deprived area in the country on the Government’s own index and is recognised as having much higher need than other wealthier areas. If we are all in this together, will the Minister explain why Durham unitary authority has lost £180 spending power for every man, woman and child in Durham, while Wokingham authority, one of the wealthiest areas in the country, has seen a gain in its spending power for every man, woman and child?; Why does the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) think that the fire authorities are saying that this is not a guarantee?; May I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests? This time last year, the Department published a consultation paper on the private rented sector that, among other items, proposed that the installation of working smoke alarms be mandatory. Since then, Ministers have repeatedly failed to meet their own—frequently deferred—deadlines for saying when the consultation will be published. Why are they dragging their feet on such a simple and popular measure that will save lives?
Andrew Joseph McDonald (Labour, Centre-left): Does the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) not accept that for a promise and guarantee made to this House in December to be in tatters by January does nothing to help good industrial relations? Is not the general secretary of the FBU entirely right to say that firefighters have been utterly cheated?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2015-02-02
Topic: Other
Andrew John Gwynne (Labour, Centre-left): I am very grateful to you, Mr Speaker. Of course, I bow to the hon. Gentleman’s knowledge of the history of the county palatine of Lancashire. However, I wish to place on record that not all my constituency is in the county palatine; in fact, Dukinfield is on the Cheshire side of the River Tame.
Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-02-02
Topic: Civil Rights
Madeleine Moon (Labour, Centre-left): Has the Minister seen the briefing from the Equality and Human Rights Commission? It says that "there are compelling legal and practical arguments for removing the requirement in section 121 of the Equality Act 2010 for a service complaint to be raised before a discrimination claim is made to the employment tribunal." Does she agree that members of the armed forces facing discrimination should have greater rights to go to an employment tribunal?
Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-02-02
Topic: Other
Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Centre-left): Order. Out of enormous respect to the right hon. Gentleman and bearing in mind that he is standing down at the next election, I have been a little generous on those points, but I hope that his one and a half pages of notes do not stretch to engaging in a full discussion, tempted by his hon. Friend’s question.
Constitutional Law — House of Commons, 2015-02-02
Topic: Civil Rights
Sandra Currie Osborne (Labour, Centre-left): I very much welcome the motion. Does the Secretary of State think it strange that we are saying that it is all right for 16-year-olds to vote in the referendum, but not in the general election? Surely if they are old enough to vote in one election, they are old enough to vote in every election.
Constitutional Law — House of Commons, 2015-02-02
Topic: Civil Rights
John Robertson (Labour, Centre-left): The right hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way. A few weeks ago I asked the Prime Minister the same question about votes for 16 and 17-year-olds, and he said that although he was inclined to keep the voting age at 18, he was looking forward to a vote. Perhaps the Secretary of State should have a word with him so that we can have that vote.
Constitutional Law — House of Commons, 2015-02-02
Topic: Civil Rights
Brian Harold Donohoe (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State is being generous in giving way, which is very useful. Surely it is possible to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote for the whole United Kingdom, even at this late stage, because in Scotland all the facts and figures are already on the register. Surely that could be replicated across the whole United Kingdom. Would not that be in all our favour?
Constitutional Law — House of Commons, 2015-02-02
Topic: Civil Rights
Margaret Curran (Labour, Centre-left): On the day that Scottish Labour has set out how we will enhance the vow in our home rule Bill if and when we are elected, it is fitting that we are debating, for the first time since the Smith agreement, powers to be transferred to the Scottish Parliament It is worth reminding the House of how we have reached this stage. The result of the referendum on 18 September was emphatic. The call for change was equally significant, and it was a call that we heard. Labour promised people safer, faster, better change with a no vote in September, and that is exactly what we have delivered. The cross-party Smith agreement reached just 10 weeks after the referendum vote was the first time that all Scotland’s parties had reached that degree of consensus on new powers for Scotland. The Smith agreement gives Scotland modern home rule, with extensive new powers over jobs, tax and welfare, and that is what we will legislate for if we are in power after May. Today’s discussion and agreement of this order should be another demonstration to the people of Scotland that the vow has been delivered and that we are standing true to the word we gave during the referendum campaign. The timetable set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) has been met As the Secretary of State explained, the order deals specifically with the power that was promised in section 25 of the final report of the Smith commission—namely, that control of the franchise for Scottish Parliament elections be transferred to the Scottish Parliament. Last year, Labour Members called for these powers to be brought forward quickly, and we are pleased that the Government are now doing so. As the Secretary of State said, it is obviously for the Scottish Parliament then to determine what the franchise should be, but it is clear that all the parties at Holyrood will support the lowering of the voting age to 16. It is right that we are debating these powers today so that we can give a guarantee that 16-and-17 year olds will be able to vote in the next Scottish Parliament elections in 2016. I hope that the Scottish Government will move to ensure that those same young people are able to vote a year later in Scottish local government elections Too many people, too often, are cynical about our young people, but the referendum campaign in Scotland showed many of them at their very best, engaging with politics, getting involved in the campaign, and participating in record numbers in debates in schools and college across Scotland. I am sure that many hon. Members can pay tribute to the debates held in their constituencies during the referendum campaign. The young people in my constituency of Glasgow East were a great credit to the referendum campaign and, in particular, to their schools. They organised very balanced debates to inform themselves and encourage participation.
Constitutional Law — House of Commons, 2015-02-02
Topic: Civil Rights
Pamela Nash (Labour, Centre-left): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this momentous debate for the young people of Scotland. I am often referred to as a young person in debates such as this because I am the youngest MP in Parliament. I feel increasingly fraudulent about that claim, however, as I must be—now in my 30s—the oldest youngest MP for quite some time! I continue to appreciate being referred to as a young person. [Interruption.] I thank hon. Members for saying that I do not look my age—and I am glad that that will now be on the record for eternity Today’s order will devolve the control of the franchise of the Scottish Parliament to its rightful place—the Scottish Parliament. It seems ludicrous now that that was not done at its establishment. There appears to be a consensus among the parties represented in the Scottish Parliament that the voting age should be lowered to 16. Even the Tory leader Ruth Davidson, who had previously said that she was opposed to this move has reportedly, like many others, changed her view. She said that her referendum experience of young voters had changed her mind. I look forward to her Westminster colleagues following suit. Many others previously unsure about the move to lower the voting age now concede that there is no going back after the referendum in Scotland, where we saw our young people thoughtfully and passionately engage in the debate on the future of their country. As I say, there has been consensus, but I was disappointed by the tone adopted by the hon. Members for Moray (Angus Robertson) and, in an intervention, for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). They seemed to be trying to seek divisions in the debate when there is cross-party support for the devolution of the power and for votes at 16 in elections for the Scottish Parliament. At the time, some did not agree that young people of 16 or 17 in Scotland should have the vote in the referendum. There will be some examples of that, of course, but my overwhelming recollections of the debate and the conversations people were having at the time was that there was support for votes at 16. There was, however, strong scepticism—even from myself, a long-term supporter of votes at 16—about the SNP’s view that the power should be devolved for the purpose of the referendum when they had not called for the franchise to be devolved previously.
Constitutional Law — House of Commons, 2015-02-02
Topic: Civil Rights
Brian Harold Donohoe (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his generosity in giving way. One matter concerns me greatly. We are approaching a general election in May, and the same youngsters who were enabled to vote in the referendum will then be disfranchised. What effect will that have on their future involvement in politics? The point was not made this evening, although I expected it to be.
European Convention on Human Rights — House of Commons, 2015-06-23
Topic: Civil Rights
Andrew Francis Slaughter (Labour, Centre-left): Sir John Major, giving the inaugural Edward Heath lecture on the subject of Magna Carta last week, said that he respected the "power and significance" of the European convention on human rights, and that where there was conflict with the UK Parliament, "I expect consultation and compromise to settle this issue." Should not the Minister, and indeed the Lord Chancellor, heed the advice of someone with so much experience of running a Tory Government with a wafer-thin majority?
European Union (Finance) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-23
Topic: Mixed Topics
Barbara Mary Keeley (Labour, Centre-left): Before we go any further, may I point out that my constituency is now called Worsley and Eccles South? The people of Eccles would rightly be very upset if we left them out of the equation; Eccles is a very important town in my constituency I rise to speak to the new clauses standing in my name and those of my hon. Friends. We are dealing with a slight complexity, in that the Bill is simple but drafted in such a way as to make it complex to amend. Amendment 1 is therefore a technical paving amendment which can bring in the new clauses, so it is that amendment that we will push to a vote, if necessary. The Bill relates to agreement of the own resources decision that will be incorporated into UK law, based on the agreement reached at the February 2013 European Council. The Minister covered that at great length over the past hour and 20 or so minutes. Decisions on UK contributions reaching €14 billion are brought into sharper focus in a week when Ministers are discussing cuts to tax credits for the low-paid and have not been prepared to rule out cuts to financial support for disabled people. We find ourselves in a serious and austere financial context, so we must ensure that we look at every aspect of value for money, budgetary control and the reform of priorities within the EU budget When we debated the MFF in this House in October 2012, the Government’s motion talked about agreeing that we must see "significant improvements in the financial management of EU resources by the Commission and by Member States and significant improvements in the value for money of spend".—[Official Report, 31 October 2012; Vol. 552, c. 295.] The last debate contained many examples, some of which I shall refer to, showing that we are not there yet. I am sure the Minister would agree, so what we are simply trying to do with the new clauses is find ways in which we can enhance value for money assessments, budgetary control and the reform of priorities. That is very important to many of the Members in the Committee today and to Members throughout the House The proposals standing in my name and those of my hon. Friends will assist greatly in ensuring that reports are made to this House on value for money and budgetary control, and on budget priorities and waste and inefficiency within the EU budget. Examples have been given in interventions that give us an understanding of the extent of concerns about this out in the country—which we explored on Second Reading—and those can only increase.
European Union (Finance) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-23
Topic: Mixed Topics
Barbara Mary Keeley (Labour, Centre-left): Indeed, that is a very real fear. If we look down the list of commitments and compare it with the payments made, we will see the level of commitments that are still to roll forward, which is a very frightening prospect. I go back to the point that I have just made. This is a system designed to drive up budgets. We support what has taken place and recognise that the House voted for it back in 2012, but unless this system changes we will be in a situation in which commitments are being made in the period up to 2020 of €960 billion, which is €52 billion more. It is a serious matter. Clearly, it is serious if the Commission is taking on budgets and then not paying bills, but it is the upward pressure on the budget process that is the great concern In our last debate on this Bill, the hon. Members for Corby (Tom Pursglove), for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), and for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) referred to a range of concerns that their constituents had about EU finance, how the EU budget is spent and the need for control of the budget. That is a point to which we will keep returning In the debate of 15 January 2008 on the Committee stage of the European Communities (Finance) Bill—I have already mentioned this—the Financial Secretary, then shadow Treasury Minister, and his shadow Treasury colleagues called for a report on "all aspects of EU spending". Clearly, both the Opposition then and the current Opposition have had concerns about this. The Minister and his colleagues called for that report in 2008. I hope that we still have time in the rest of this debate for him to repent his view that we do not need further reviews As I have mentioned, there were complications in the wording of the amendment in 2008. I have read through the debate. The difficulty that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends on the shadow Treasury team at that time ran into was that the amendment called for Treasury certification that it "considers the outcome of the review is satisfactory to the interests of the United Kingdom" That seemed to be the sticking point. We have avoided such complications in this Bill by tabling simpler amendments that ask for an analysis of the basis used for appropriations and the study of alternative arrangements The Minister has said that such a review is ongoing. Will he tell me at this point when we will see that review?
European Union (Finance) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-23
Topic: Mixed Topics
Barbara Mary Keeley (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister can hear the comments being made by Members from sedentary positions. Clearly, we are working through a crucial time in the run-up to the referendum, and the budgetary information, with all the decisions that have to be made, will be crucial for the people out there In our amendments, we have expressed the wish to have these reviews and the reports. We want to send out the message that this House is serious about scrutinising the EU budget At the end of our debate on Second Reading, the Economic Secretary talked about the need for scrutiny on the payment gap. She told us that the European Commission has committed to publish more frequently its analysis on payment forecasts. I join the hon. Lady in welcoming an enhanced level of information on the EU budget, but believe that much more needs to be done on that. Does the Minister agree now—after both of us have spoken on the matter—that it is time that the EU moved away from a system in which it can make commitments of billions of euros more than it can pay, creating pressure on member states to ever-increasing budgets New clause 2 calls for a reform of the priorities in the EU budget, and specifically requests a review by the Council of Ministers of budget priorities and waste and inefficiency in the EU budget. The Minister has mentioned reviews that are already taking place, but I do not think that he mentioned a review of priorities of the kind that our new clause invites On Second Reading, I raised the need for further reform of budget priorities. Labour believes that expenditure on growth and jobs should continue to be prioritised by cutting back even further on agriculture spending The Financial Secretary to the Treasury told us that overall spending on the common agricultural policy will fall by 13%, compared with the last financial period, and that spending on research and development will increase by 4%. As welcome as that fall in agriculture spending is, we believe that the level of spending is still too high compared with spending to support growth and jobs. The Minister has responded to points made by his own side today, but he has not really got to the nub of the point As I said on Second Reading, agriculture accounts for only 1.6% of the European Union’s total output. If that is the case—I think that we will keep returning to this point—is it still appropriate that it accounts for 30% to 40% of the budget?
European Union (Finance) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-23
Topic: Other
Kelvin Peter Hopkins (Labour, Centre-left): The right hon. Gentleman makes a strong point. That is one of my red lines, and I shall put that case to the Prime Minister when I have an opportunity. I have said that many times before in the Chamber.