argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-11-17
Topic: Government Operations
Graham Eric Stringer (Labour, Centre-left): I am sorry. I will be precise: the hon. Lady said there is no desire for elected mayors in the cities of Scotland. In the context of this devolution Bill, I think that means the same thing. Obviously, I did not mean devolution to the Scottish Parliament. I suggest to the SNP that it should try it. In England, the Government have been proactive by asking the cities and, as we have heard, they have grabbed the opportunity because they have been offered more powers and resources. In essence, the hon. Lady’s argument is that of democratic centralism, which, sadly, is what is happening in Scotland.
Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-11-17
Topic: Government Operations
Graham Eric Stringer (Labour, Centre-left): I am sorry. Yes, that is the one exception to my argument. In terms of local government in Scotland, however, it is fair to say that the Labour Government at the time were distrustful of the Labour party running some Scottish cities and thought that it would be healthier if its very large majorities in such cities were broken up. As it happens, I think that was a mistake.
Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-11-17
Topic: Government Operations
Graham William Allen (Labour, Centre-left): Of course, the point about party political advantage is very strong in respect of the SNP, which no longer talks about proportional representation for representatives in this place because half the Scottish population is represented by three Members of Parliament and the other half is represented by 56. It has suddenly gone quiet on that point My hon. Friend said that the electoral systems will be decided by local councils under my new clause. I hope he will forgive me for pointing out that electoral systems may change only with the full consent of local people, rather than through a deal by the political parties.
Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-11-17
Topic: Government Operations
Graham Eric Stringer (Labour, Centre-left): I accept that that is what my hon. Friend’s new clause says, but it would provide an opportunity for political parties. For example, if the Liberals unexpectedly gained control of a council they had not led before, they could immediately move to hold a referendum to try to change the system. It would be a mistake to allow that. I think that the electoral system for local government is better determined here. It is genuinely a central function. On that basis, if it were put to the vote, I would not vote for new clause 3 Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-11-17
Topic: Transportation
Clive James Charles Betts (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister talks about the importance of trans-Pennine links, which currently are pretty awful. David Higgins described the links between Sheffield and Manchester as a matter of national concern. This is an important new clause—there are 12 pages of it, so it must be important. Just how will it help us to co-ordinate the delivery of HS3 with that of HS2—I have not found anyone in Government making that link—and how will it deliver a tunnel under the Pennines to replace the ridiculously slow Snake and Woodhead passes, which at present pass for road links between Sheffield and Manchester?
Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-11-17
Topic: Transportation
Clive James Charles Betts (Labour, Centre-left): Will the Minister explain again? What role will the body play in looking at a road tunnel under the Pennines? Would it carry out the review of whether one is necessary? Would it commission the work? Or would it simply be advisory? How would it relate to HS2, given that that will need other transport links? What will its role be in that connection?
Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-11-17
Topic: Government Operations
Graham Eric Stringer (Labour, Centre-left): The section of the new clause that is headed "102M General powers" is drawn incredibly widely. Can the Minister tell us, in plain English, exactly what an STB can and cannot do? There is a generalised limitation in the next section, but given the width of the definition, it is not clear to me whether one of these bodies could turn itself into a housing or education authority.
Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-11-17
Topic: Transportation
Steven Mark Ward Reed (Labour, Centre-left): It is welcome to hear the consensus for devolution from all parts of the House this afternoon, and welcome, too, to hear the Minister tell us he is in listening mode. I hope so, because there is an awful lot still to work out across the Bill, including in the new clauses before us now. It will be important if we can build consensus around them so we have a solid foundation on which to build in the Bills that I am sure will follow this devolution Bill Labour wants to see the devolution of control over local transport so that trains, buses, trams and cycling can be properly integrated. I welcome the Government new clause. It is undoubtedly a step forward, but, like other parts of the Bill, it is limited by three factors: first, it does not go far enough; secondly, the funding and resourcing are not clear; and thirdly, it still keeps too much control in Whitehall. We would welcome further Government thinking on all those areas before we come to a final decision on the Bill.
Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-11-17
Topic: Transportation
Graham Eric Stringer (Labour, Centre-left): No. My hon. Friend mentioned buses. Does he share my surprise that we are discussing this Bill when the Government have still not produced the Bill that will allow these devolved authorities to reregulate the buses?
Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-11-17
Topic: Transportation
Steven Mark Ward Reed (Labour, Centre-left): I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. I hope that the Government will hear it while they are in listening mode, and that they will make the appropriate changes so that we can get maximum devolution and give local authorities back maximum control over their bus services New clause 34 will allow other regions to set up their own Transport for London-style models. TfL was an excellent Labour initiative but it was delivered 15 years ago. Helping other regions to catch up with London is the right thing to do, but it is a missed opportunity not to go significantly beyond that.
Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-11-17
Topic: Government Operations
Steven Mark Ward Reed (Labour, Centre-left): I understand that it is appropriate briefly to mention the issue of Sunday trading when talking about this group. Last month, the Prime Minister declared at the Dispatch Box: "we will be putting"— it— "in front of the House, in the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill"—[Official Report, 21 October 2015; Vol. 600, c. 947.] That was despite the fact that in April he wrote that he had no plans to change the Sunday trading laws and that "the current system provides a reasonable balance." That measure is not before us today; the Government clearly could not get the support that they need. Could we hear from the Minister whether the Government are now ruling it out in this Bill entirely?
Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-11-17
Topic: Macroeconomics
Steven Mark Ward Reed (Labour, Centre-left): Absolutely, Mrs Main, although the Minister was courteous enough to respond to a point on this issue earlier in the debate and it would be helpful to know that the Government are not proposing to bring it back on Report next week New clause 24 stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends. Devolution without fiscal powers is not ambitious enough. As Labour said on day one of this Committee, allowing councils greater fiscal powers would allow them to build greater stability into the system. The Government should commit to providing devolved regions with the resources they need, so that they are not being set up to fail. The Bill cannot just be a means of devolving the blame for cuts made in No. 11 Downing Street; devolution is a much bigger agenda than that, and we have heard support for that view from Members in all parts of the House during this afternoon’s debate and during the passage of this Bill. There are problems with the funding of regional economic growth: local enterprise partnerships can be inefficient; and local areas need long-term commitment and resources from the Government. Regional development agencies, which LEPs replaced, were able to make single three-year funding agreements.
Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-11-17
Topic: Government Operations
Steven Mark Ward Reed (Labour, Centre-left): May I associate myself with the very welcome proposals being made by my fellow co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for London? Given the complexity of London’s governance, it will be difficult for further devolution to happen if such proposals are not accepted by the Government. I endorse the view that is being expressed, and I hope that the Government will listen to it as a means to promote further sensible devolution in London.
Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-11-17
Topic: Government Operations
Clive James Charles Betts (Labour, Centre-left): I wish to raise two issues that the Government and the Committee will have to deal with at some point. When I spoke on Second Reading, I indicated that I was generally supportive of the Bill. I have reservations about some aspects and details of it, but the direction of travel is essentially right, as is the idea that devolution will happen and is on the agenda, and there is a good deal of cross-party support for it. That is an important step change from how things were when I first came to the House in 1992, or in many subsequent years. We are seeing progress. Members of the House are standing up and talking positively about devolution, and no one is saying "Local councils can’t do that—they can’t be trusted", which was very much the attitude a few years ago. I am comfortable and supportive of that idea, but we need a dialogue and debate about two important issues. The first has been raised continually by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), who chaired the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in the previous Parliament. He was a strong advocate for trying to codify or set in a more formal arrangement the powers of local government and its relationship with the centre. That is important because there is a danger that some powers and aspects of policy will be devolved to local councils, but that other powers—without talking about centralisation or taking anything back to the centre—will be removed from local councils, and more controls introduced in their place There are currently two Bills before the House, and I expect the Minister is considering them both fairly widely. The Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill is about devolution. That is welcome, and we can discuss how devolution should take place. We also have the Housing and Planning Bill, and the Royal Town Planning Institute said that it was astonished at the amount of planning centralisation in that Bill. With starter homes, measures in the Bill are attempting to decide on the nature of section 106 agreements, which are essentially agreements about a particular site between a local authority and a developer. That is a particularly wide issue.
Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-11-17
Topic: Government Operations
Steven Mark Ward Reed (Labour, Centre-left): I agree with the Minister that this has been a good, interesting and productive debate. He says he is in listening mode. I am not sure he is hearing quite as much as we might have hoped, but I recognise his intention to build consensus, which is necessary for the important, incremental, constitutional change we have before us this afternoon The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) put forward some proposals that have cross-party support and that would enable further and faster devolution for London. I hear what the Minister says, and I welcome his intention to work with London government and London councils to find a way to make these proposals work, because otherwise the complexity of London government will pull London back from the forefront of progress towards devolution across the country. We cannot consider London as a job done just because London was out there first My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) made some very important points about fiscal devolution, which must be a central part of any devolution package; otherwise, what we are doing is merely a charade. Even if the Minister is not able or willing to bring forward proposals in this Bill, we hope that the matter forms part of future legislation as we move towards a more devolved settlement across the country I regret the Minister’s comments on new clause 36. Our proposals aim to help devolution to work better. Areas on the periphery of combined authorities should not be excluded from decisions that directly affect them. Our proposal merely creates the right to be consulted, which the Government have conceded when it comes to transport. They should consider it for matters of equal importance such as health. We will seek to push that new clause to the vote, but not new clause 39 I note that the Minister did not respond to the issue of whether he would rule out Sunday trading from any future stages of this Bill. His silence will lead Members to draw their own conclusions about what is coming Having reflected on all the comments in the debate, I beg to ask leave to withdraw new clause 24 Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 36 Regard to Neighbouring Authorities In exercising a devolved function, combined authorities must have regard to any significant direct impact on the population of neighbouring authorities." .—(Mr Steve Reed.) This clause raises the concerns of some authorities which neighbour devolved authorities and ensures that combined authorities which have devolved functions give regard to the possible impact on neighbouring populations, particularly over issues such as transport and health. Brought up, and read the First time. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
HGV Drivers — House of Commons, 2015-12-10
Topic: Labor
James Dolan Cunningham (Labour, Centre-left): What is the Minister doing to encourage negotiations between the DVSA and staff in relation to their dispute? There was a high turnout in the vote for industrial action. Will the Minister either refer the matter to ACAS or push the powers that be into negotiations?
High-speed Rail Network — House of Commons, 2015-12-10
Topic: Transportation
Jonathan Neil Reynolds (Labour, Centre-left): Labour supports the extension of high-speed rail services to Scotland. To get there, however, we will have to get to the north of England first. Why are we still waiting for Ministers to confirm the route and the stations for HS2 north of Birmingham, and does the Secretary of State understand that this lack of progress is placing their commitment to HS2 in the midlands and the north in doubt?
M6 — House of Commons, 2015-12-10
Topic: Transportation
Christian John Patrick Matheson (Labour, Centre-left): I thank you for your indulgence, Mr Speaker. I am rather out of breath, sir, and I am very grateful to have caught your eye The local enterprise partnership in Cheshire identified this stretch of the M6 as a problem that needs work, but it failed to identify the M56 in Cheshire where major delays and serious accidents are an almost weekly occurrence. Will the Minister, while he is looking at M6 junctions 16 to 19, consider yet again the problems on the M56 and whether he can bring road safety forward in that part of Cheshire too?
Rail Electrification Programme — House of Commons, 2015-12-10
Topic: Transportation
Elizabeth Anne McInnes (Labour, Centre-left): In my opinion, the Government’s handling of their electrification programme has been nothing short of shambolic. The pausing, then the unpausing, of the TransPennine and midland main line electrification painted a picture of a Department in disarray. What is the added cost to the programme because of the Government’s U-turn, of which there was no mention in the Hendy review?
Rail Electrification Programme — House of Commons, 2015-12-10
Topic: Transportation
Louise Joyce Ellman (Labour, Centre-left): Sir Peter Hendy’s report followed the breakdown and cancellation of previous promises. Will the Minister guarantee that these new proposals will be implemented on time and with the cost as set out, with the right rolling stock in the correct place at the correct time?
Rail Electrification Programme — House of Commons, 2015-12-10
Topic: Transportation
Jonathan Neil Reynolds (Labour, Centre-left): The unpausing of the rail electrification programme is welcome, but the news that completion will be delayed and the costs much higher has understandably caused dismay. The cost of the electrification programme is now set to be at least £2.5 billion more than planned. As a result, Network Rail’s borrowing limit has had to be increased by £700 million, with the rest of the money being found from the sale of its assets. What assurances can the Government give that these asset sales will be sufficient; and given that the costs have already risen by 70%, what happens if they rise further still?
Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy — House of Commons, 2015-12-10
Topic: Transportation
Ruth Margaret Cadbury (Labour, Centre-left): The comprehensive spending review contained little new money: just £1.49 per head over the Parliament. My predecessors in the all-party cycling group recommended £10 per head per year, which the Prime Minister agreed with. How can we deliver an effective cycling and walking strategy with only £1.49 per head?
Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy — House of Commons, 2015-12-10
Topic: Transportation
Daniel Stephen Zeichner (Labour, Centre-left): It is now clear that cycling took a big hit in the spending review and that there will be little left for the cycling and walking investment strategy when it finally appears. The Minister has had the air let out of her tyres. Will she confirm that the figure of £1.49 is the real figure for cycling outside London and that spending on cycling has effectively been halved?
Transport Infrastructure — House of Commons, 2015-12-10
Topic: Transportation
Questions: How much the Government plan to spend on transport infrastructure between 2015 and 2020; and how much was spent on such infrastructure between 2010 and 2015.
Diana Ruth Johnson (Labour, Centre-left): With no news on the privately financed electrification of the line between Selby and Hull, and with yesterday’s announcement on the TransPennine franchise failing to give additional services to Hull for city of culture 2017 and providing only refurbished, not new, trains, can the Secretary of State understand why people in Hull were rather taken aback by the comments of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) on "Look North" when he said that investment in northern transport is about to overtake that of the south? Do not those words show that the Under-Secretary is away with the Christmas fairies?
Road Congestion — House of Commons, 2015-12-10
Topic: Transportation
Questions: Having visited my constituency a number of times, the Secretary of State will know that the specific and complicated problem of traffic congestion in Bradford on Avon is having a significant impact on business and residents. Can he suggest a way of dealing with it?
Andrew John Gwynne (Labour, Centre-left): The pinch-point scheme at junction 24 of the M60 in Denton has been a great success in tackling congestion. Unfortunately, however, one of its unintended consequences has been the increased motorway noise experienced by nearby residents of Thompson Close. Highways England has promised to introduce noise reduction measures, including new road surfaces, in the next financial year; will the Secretary of State please ensure that that happens early in the next financial year?
Road Congestion — House of Commons, 2015-12-10
Topic: Transportation
Questions: Having visited my constituency a number of times, the Secretary of State will know that the specific and complicated problem of traffic congestion in Bradford on Avon is having a significant impact on business and residents. Can he suggest a way of dealing with it?; One of the key campaigns in my constituency to reduce road congestion is for an M4 link to the Avon ring road, which would involve an extra junction, 18A, on the M4. Next year the joint transport study commissioned by the local enterprise partnership and the surrounding councils will look at how to reduce road congestion in the area, and I hope the M4 link will be an integral part of that. Will the Transport Secretary meet the LEP, the local council and me to discuss this?
Richard Haines Burden (Labour, Centre-left): Over the summer, roads to the channel ports ground to a halt, lorry drivers who were stuck in their cabs needed emergency water to drink, and local businesses were hit as Kent villages near the motorway network were cut off. The Chancellor’s announcement of a new lorry park may be a step in the right direction, but it will not keep the traffic moving of itself and it falls well short of highways management road improvement works that local partners tell me are needed if Kent is going to be protected from similar snarl-ups in future. Does the Secretary of State consider his lorry park "job done"? If not, what else is he going to do before, rather than after, the people of the south-east go through the same thing again?
Transport Minibus Fund — House of Commons, 2015-12-10
Topic: Government Operations
Dennis Edward Skinner (Labour, Centre-left): Following on from that question, is the Minister aware that the real culprit in this business is the Tory Government? They have cut Derbyshire County Council’s grant by—are you listening?—£157 million. Give Derbyshire the money back and we can sort everything out in the whole county.
Smart Ticketing — House of Commons, 2015-12-10
Topic: Transportation
Peter John Kyle (Labour, Centre-left): Flexible ticketing was announced in 2013 and was wildly popular in the south-east when it was trialled in 2014, but there are rumours that it is being kicked into the long grass. Will the Minister scotch those rumours for long-suffering commuters in the south-east by announcing the date for its roll-out?
Rail Services: South-East — House of Commons, 2015-12-10
Topic: Transportation
Barry John Sheerman (Labour, Centre-left): A bit like many Members of Parliament, when I am here in London and the south-east, I use Southern rail, and I will be very pleased if it is to be improved. None of us begrudges that investment, but we do put it into perspective, which is that we are not getting enough infrastructure investment in the north, linking the big towns and cities. It must be north first and south second.
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2015-12-10
Topic: Transportation
Lilian Rachel Greenwood (Labour, Centre-left): The closure of roads and rail lines in recent days is a timely reminder of the strain extreme weather events place on transport networks. We all remember the flooding at airports in 2010 and 2013, the loss of the Dawlish seawall and, as the Secretary of State said, the heroic response of Network Rail’s orange army. So will the Secretary of State explain why the Dawlish resilience options report, due last month, has not been published? What assurance can he give that the lessons of previous periods of disruption have been learned?