argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018: Statutory Obligations on Ministers — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Mixed Topics
Robin Caspar Walker (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman, who once had aspirations to lead the Opposition, might have provided perhaps less drift and dither from the Opposition Front Bench. But what he would not have done, I think, is actually do what the Labour manifesto promised to do, which was to deliver on the outcome of the referendum.
Exiting the European Union: Meaningful Vote — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): Order. I had wanted the hon. Gentleman to complete his intervention. I remind the House that interventions should be brief, not mini speeches, because there is a lot to get through and 32 Members want to contribute after the principal speakers.
Exiting the European Union: Meaningful Vote — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Immigration
Oliver Heald (Conservative, Centre-right): If the right hon. Gentleman followed the debate, he will have noticed that he had complaints about the backstop, as did most of the 164 speakers. Is it therefore not right for the Prime Minister to go and see if she can mend it? If he disagrees with that, why?
Exiting the European Union: Meaningful Vote — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Other
David Roy Lidington (Conservative, Centre-right): I think anybody who has observed my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in action, both in her current office and in the other offices she has held over the years, will be in no doubt about her commitment to parliamentary accountability, whatever the cost to her in terms of the time that you, Mr Speaker, rightly say that she should be spending—and she accepts that she should spend—in answering questions from colleagues in every party in every corner of this House.
Exiting the European Union: Meaningful Vote — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Other
David Roy Lidington (Conservative, Centre-right): For the reasons that I have already set out, there have been many hours already, including the three days so far of debate on the meaningful vote, in which Members of Parliament from all parts of the House have been able to express those views.
Exiting the European Union: Meaningful Vote — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Other
David Roy Lidington (Conservative, Centre-right): My right hon. Friend convened the Cabinet by telephone conference yesterday morning to tell all members of the Cabinet about the decision she had come to, and the Cabinet agreed to support and endorse that decision.
Exiting the European Union: Meaningful Vote — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Other
Peter William Bone (Conservative, Centre-right): Does the deputy Prime Minister agree that had we had the vote today, he would have known the views not of a few Members but of the House? Would that not have strengthened the Prime Minister’s negotiating position, as she could have gone back and said that the House had rejected the proposal?
Exiting the European Union: Meaningful Vote — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Other
David Roy Lidington (Conservative, Centre-right): As she said yesterday, the Prime Minister was in no doubt, having listened to the debate, read Hansard and held direct conversations with Members of Parliament across the House, as to what the outcome was going to be.
Exiting the European Union: Meaningful Vote — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Other
Victoria Grace Ford (Conservative, Centre-right): It seems to me that we have two options—either a Parliament like the European Parliament, where everything is agreed in advance and what someone says in the Chamber does not affect anybody’s opinion or change anything, or a Parliament like this Parliament, where debate is dynamic and Ministers listen to what is said. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a better place to be?
Exiting the European Union: Meaningful Vote — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Other
David Roy Lidington (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) reminded us that she and I had been here for a few years now. I have sat through exchange after exchange in this Chamber—with each main party, at different times, in opposition or in government—where the demand has been that Ministers respond to the debate in the House and the calls made upon them, yet when my right hon. Friend does that, the clamour of criticism increases further.
Exiting the European Union: Meaningful Vote — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): Order. An enormous amount of noisy burbling is being directed at the Minister by right hon. and hon. Members. I have known him for 21 years in the House, and for a decade or so before that, and in my experience he is an unfailingly courteous Minister, and he must be heard.
Exiting the European Union: Meaningful Vote — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Other
David Roy Lidington (Conservative, Centre-right): I want to reiterate what I think the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), made clear earlier this afternoon: the remaining stages of this debate and the votes have not been cancelled; they have been deferred. The business of the House motion that governs the debate, including the amendment successfully moved by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), also remains in force. The terms of that business of the House motion could be changed only if the House itself either amended the motion or passed a new motion to supersede the one currently in place.
Exiting the European Union: Meaningful Vote — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Other
Mark Gino Francois (Conservative, Centre-right): My procedure is a bit rusty, but am I right in saying that the motion as drafted can be amended only by a Minister of the Crown? If the Government wanted to put back the vote because the Prime Minister wanted more time to go to Europe—admittedly, she has only had two years—the honourable thing the Government should have done yesterday was come to the House, table a revised business motion to put the vote back, say, one week, argue to the House why they needed that extra time, and then put the motion to the vote. That would have been the honourable way to proceed. Why did the Government not do that?
Exiting the European Union: Meaningful Vote — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Other
David Roy Lidington (Conservative, Centre-right): While it might be for the Government to table any amendment to the business of the House motion, of course such an amendment would carry only if the House as a whole voted to approve it.
Exiting the European Union: Meaningful Vote — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Other
David Roy Lidington (Conservative, Centre-right): As I have said, the Government, and the Prime Minister personally, have been extremely committed to this, which can be demonstrated by the number of hours that have been spent in Parliament discussing these issues and responding to questions.
Exiting the European Union: Meaningful Vote — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Immigration
Douglas Gordon Ross (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. He is being extremely generous with his time. Can he confirm that, because the vote has now been deferred, the immigration White Paper, which we have been promised since the summer, will be in front of Members before we vote on this matter?
Exiting the European Union: Meaningful Vote — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Mixed Topics
David Roy Lidington (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. and learned Lady is right: in the wake of the court’s decision, that is a legal and constitutional possibility. But the Prime Minister made it clear again yesterday that it is not the Government’s policy, and indeed not just my party but the Labour party committed last year to respect the result of the 2016 referendum.
Exiting the European Union: Meaningful Vote — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Other
Simon James Hoare (Conservative, Centre-right): While this debate is interesting, it is ultimately futile in having an impact on public policy. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Leader of the Opposition really believes things to be as bad and rotten as Labour says they are, it is surprising that we are not here today debating a vote of no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government, rather than faffing around with a Standing Order No. 24 debate?
Exiting the European Union: Meaningful Vote — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): Order. I must advise the House that no fewer than 31 hon. Members have indicated a wish to catch my eye in this relatively short debate. In consequence of that level of demand, there will have to be a four-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches with immediate effect. I am sorry, but that is the way it is.
Exiting the European Union: Meaningful Vote — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Other
Dominic Charles Roberts Grieve (Conservative, Centre-right): If my hon. Friend listened to what I am arguing, he would realise that I have said repeatedly that I think we are embarked on an exercise in self-mutilation, but that I recognise that, if that is what people want now that the self-mutilation is so apparent, then that is what they will indeed have. What I am not prepared to do, as a Member of this House, is to carry it out myself without going back and asking them if that is what they really want.
Exiting the European Union: Meaningful Vote — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Mixed Topics
Dominic Charles Roberts Grieve (Conservative, Centre-right): I am quite clear that the urgency of the situation that we face, and the divisions both in the country and within this House make it imperative that this House should be able to pronounce on the deal that the Government bring forward.
Exiting the European Union: Meaningful Vote — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): Order. On account of the level of demand and because I am keen to accommodate as many remaining would-be contributors as possible, I am sorry to announce that the time limit must be reduced with immediate effect to three minutes. I call Nadine Dorries.
Exiting the European Union: Meaningful Vote — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I did counsel that this matter should best be addressed outside the Chamber, perhaps through the usual channels. What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is twofold. First, I hope he will understand that, although I am not in any sense arguing the toss with him or disputing the veracity of what he has said, I was not there and I do not know. I would not presume to comment on a conversation that I did not hear. That is the first point The second point is really underscored—over decades, if not centuries—by successive editions of "Erskine May". In essence, it is this: at this place’s best, moderation and good humour are the defining features of parliamentary conduct. We should be able to disagree with each other agreeably or reasonably agreeably. I do not favour anybody being abused I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand if I say that I have a very high regard for him, but I have known the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) for 21 years and I hold him in the highest esteem. I am not going to stand here and criticise a Member from the Chair for conduct that I did not witness. I have made the overall point, and I think it would be best if I leave it there. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) has raised his concern, if that was what he felt he had to do. May we leave it there for today? Thank you If there are no further points of order, we come now to the Ivory Bill (Programme) (No. 3) motion—[Interruption.] Order. I am sure the House is extremely interested in this motion, as of course it should be Ivory Bill (Programme) (No. 3) Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)), That the following provisions shall apply to the Ivory Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 4 June 2018 (Ivory Bill (Programme)) and 4 July 2018 (Ivory Bill (Programme) (No. 2)): Consideration of Lords Amendments (1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement at today’s sitting Subsequent stages (2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put (3) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Dr Thérèse Coffey.) Question agreed to.
Fuel Poverty — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Mixed Topics
Richard Harrington (Conservative, Centre-right): I beg to move, That this House has considered fuel poverty I hope that no Members will leave the Chamber during such an important debate. I have just spilt a glass of water over the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and I apologise. [Interruption.] Yes, it is not the worst thing that has happened to Members today from what I have heard Fuel poverty is debated annually in the House. Let me give some background to that. Our 2015 fuel poverty strategy for England committed us to ensuring appropriate parliamentary scrutiny as we take action to tackle fuel poverty. That commitment to transparency is why we created the Committee on Fuel Poverty and why we hold the annual debates The problem of fuel poverty crosses party lines and needs action from many different stakeholders. I welcome all contributions today and the positive way in which I know they will be made. I am looking at the shadow spokesman when saying that and pleading with her to show her usual grace and dignity in opposing me.
Fuel Poverty — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Mixed Topics
James Stephen Heappey (Conservative, Centre-right): The ECO programme has been very successful indeed, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just the barrier technologies of insulation in roofs and better windows, doors and floors that make a difference but the introduction of clean tech in homes? Clean tech can often deliver significant savings, too, so I hope that, as a result of the recent consultation, things like smart thermostats will now be included in the ECO catalogue.
Fuel Poverty — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Housing
Richard Harrington (Conservative, Centre-right): As usual, my hon. Friend is well informed and well spoken on this subject. I share his hope, and he makes a significant point. I hope he will see this come to pass We are also clear that landlords should play a role in upgrading the energy efficiency of the properties they rent out. The private sector regulations will require landlords to improve the energy efficiency of band F and band G properties so that their tenants will be living in properties rated band E or above by 2020. We expect that these regulations, which require landlords to invest up to £3,500 on their property, will enable all privately rented F and G properties to receive support, and about half of these homes will be improved to an energy performance level of band E. This action to tackle the worst homes first—those rated F or G—is consistent with the approach set out in our fuel poverty strategy, but we will be consulting on options to ensure rental properties are improved to the band C target level by 2030. The private rental sector has to make its contribution as well We recognise that long-term sustainable solutions such as the ones I have mentioned are little comfort to those who are cold now. It is important to complement this approach with more immediate support, which is why we extended the warm home discount to 2021, so that it can continue to provide more than 2 million low-income and vulnerable households with a £140 rebate off their energy bill each winter.
Fuel Poverty — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Mixed Topics
James Stephen Heappey (Conservative, Centre-right): The Minister, or at least the Treasury, will know who receives cold weather payments. Is any measure taken of the energy-efficiency of the homes in which those recipients live and therefore of whether, rather than just spending money every time the weather is cold, we might improve the energy-efficiency of those properties and so reduce the requirement for those payments to be received in the future?
Fuel Poverty — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Mixed Topics
Richard Harrington (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank the hon. Gentleman for saying that my constituents in Watford are doing well out of smart meters, and they are, but the pace of the expansion is under continual review with the suppliers. The Secretary of State’s powers were extended in the recent Smart Meters Act 2018 and will be used to encourage take-up of smart meters, which is gathering momentum. I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point, though, because it is patchy in different parts of the country The main point is that for the first time we have an opportunity to ensure that our fuel poverty strategy is joined up with our holistic plan to improve energy efficiency throughout Britain. The new strategy will focus on better ways of identifying those in fuel poverty and targeting our assistance to them directly. It will help us to identify the most cost-effective means of achieving our target in 2020, 2025 and 2030 Let me bring the focus back to our main goal, which is to improve the lives of those in fuel poverty. No one deserves to live in a cold home. We have the opportunity next year to set out a refreshed fuel poverty strategy that will lay out an updated plan for meeting the 2030 target. I would welcome hon. Members’ views based on their experience of fuel poverty, so that we can work together to set out a new, ambitious plan. This issue transcends party lines and affects us all. I look forward to hearing hon. Members’ questions and contributions on this topic.
Fuel Poverty — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Other
Eleanor Fulton Laing (Conservative, Centre-right): Order. The House will be aware that this is a necessarily short debate. I hope that we will manage without a formal time limit, but I advise Members who wish to take part to prepare around five minutes of speaking notes, and no more.
Fuel Poverty — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Housing
James Stephen Heappey (Conservative, Centre-right): Not only do I have lots of them in my constituency—I have just bought one and am in the process of renovating it. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In rural areas, the deadly combination of solid walls and not being on the gas grid can often mean that fuel poverty is at its most acute in areas that look relatively affluent. Tackling that can and should be a priority, but it is monstrously expensive. When someone is going through the process of renovating a home, they are making lots of decisions, and the energy efficiency measures are by far the least glamorous of those that they choose when the alternatives are things like decorating, carpets and all the other stuff Those who live in fuel poverty are having to make choices that we really should not be asking them to make when the technology exists out there for us to help them to use less energy through what we put in their walls, roofs and floors, but also through the tech that we put in their homes that can help them to manage their demand in a really helpful way. I know that the Minister is very focused on this and that the Housing and Planning Minister also recognises the enormous value in setting higher standards so that those who live in social housing have better energy efficiency.
Fuel Poverty — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Housing
Edmund Francis Hughes (Conservative, Centre-right): I cannot thank the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken by mentioning his constituency because that would use up all of my time There are two things that I think are important for the people of Willenhall and Bloxwich who may be suffering from fuel poverty. The first is that, even if they have to insulate their lofts themselves, the cost of that for a three-bedroom property is approximately £300, and Which? estimates that the payback would be in two years. That is a saving of £225 per year on their fuel bills, so it is definitely worth the investment. The second is that people do not switch energy provider. To me, it is heartbreaking that 60% of people surveyed a year ago had not switched their energy provider. Doing so would afford them a great opportunity to save money. I would like to say to the people of my constituency, "Please get your loft insulated, and please make sure that you are getting the best deal from your energy provider". I would like to talk briefly about my time with the YMCA. When I started working at the YMCA, it had a 72-bed direct access hostel for people who had previously been rough sleepers. It was a revelation to go to that building, which was 60 years old. Originally, it served as a home for men who had come to work in Birmingham and needed somewhere to live. As I have said, it was then used to provide accommodation for former rough sleepers The YMCA did not have much cash, so when I got there it still had the original Robin Hood Beeston boiler. The boiler was over 50 years old; it had originally started life as a coal-powered boiler before being converted to run on oil and subsequently on gas. It was probably the most inefficient heating system in the UK, heating a 72-bed hostel, with very poor control—absolutely crazy. I would frequently get there during the summer to find the heating on and the building so hot that the windows were open, because it did not have a sophisticated system However, along came Homes England with a grant of £2.6 million. The YMCA was able to raise £700,000 itself and has now introduced a much more efficient heating system. The building has been completely clad to improve the U-values and has had new windows fitted. As a result, the cost of heating the building has dropped dramatically, and when we are talking about people with very low funds contributing through a service charge to heat the building, that is an essential improvement. That is what this Government have done to help.
Civil Service Relocation — House of Commons, 2018-12-19
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Oliver James Dowden (Conservative, Centre-right): I know, thanks to my hon. Friend and other hon. Members, that Plymouth is a great place to work and do business. A number of potential hub locations are under active consideration. I would of course be delighted to meet a delegation from Plymouth, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster intends to visit Plymouth shortly.
Civil Service Relocation — House of Commons, 2018-12-19
Topic: Mixed Topics
Oliver James Dowden (Conservative, Centre-right): That is precisely the idea behind the Places for Growth strategy, which is to ensure Government activity benefits all parts of the United Kingdom. That is why we have created hubs across the United Kingdom—for example, in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Belfast, Leeds, Birmingham and Cardiff, to name just a few.
Leaving the EU: Civil Service Capacity — House of Commons, 2018-12-19
Topic: Immigration
Questions: What recent assessment he has made of the capacity of the civil service to manage additional responsibilities arising from the UK leaving the EU.; What recent assessment he has made of the capacity of the civil service to manage additional responsibilities arising from the UK leaving the EU.
Brandon Kenneth Lewis (Conservative, Centre-right): All reports of the National Audit Office are obviously interesting, but I have absolute confidence in the words of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is very confident that the Border Force will be ready—as am I, from my previous experience in that Department—for any eventuality of Brexit.