argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Housing Benefit — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Housing
Questions: What recent estimate he has made of the number of people whose housing benefit has been reduced as a result of the social sector size criteria.; What recent estimate he has made of the number of people whose housing benefit has been reduced as a result of the social sector size criteria.
George Iain Duncan Smith (Conservative, Centre-right): The latest published figures for August 2014 showed that the number of people affected by the removal of the spare room subsidy has fallen by 75,000. This follows a general downward trend, bringing the number of those affected down from 547,000 in May 2013 to 472,000.
Housing Benefit — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Housing
Questions: What recent estimate he has made of the number of people whose housing benefit has been reduced as a result of the social sector size criteria.; What recent estimate he has made of the number of people whose housing benefit has been reduced as a result of the social sector size criteria.
George Iain Duncan Smith (Conservative, Centre-right): In previous speeches and today, the hon. Lady has talked about the fact that there are just not enough properties in her constituency to enable people to downsize. In fact, I understand that there are 2,700 people subject to the under-occupancy spare room subsidy, but something like 15,000 one and two-bedroom houses in the social sector properties in Wigan. There are many houses—many more than she might have laid out My point to the hon. Lady and the Opposition is that, in their opposition, they need to explain how they will afford it. The policy is saving some £500 million a year. It has already saved £830 million to date. They have no plans for substituting that, which means that their economic record is in tatters. After all, Labour, when in power, was the party that introduced that very policy for those in social sector private rented tenancies.
Housing Benefit — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Housing
Questions: What recent estimate he has made of the number of people whose housing benefit has been reduced as a result of the social sector size criteria.; What recent estimate he has made of the number of people whose housing benefit has been reduced as a result of the social sector size criteria.
George Iain Duncan Smith (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman knows that that is just another attempt to start scaremongering about the whole idea—[Interruption.] Yes, it is. What has been disgraceful about the Opposition is that they have spent their time scaremongering up and down the country about this issue. He knows very well that local authorities and the police work together, they have discretionary housing payments to deal with that matter at a local level and they can resolve it. More than £380 million has been granted to local authorities for discretionary payments I have looked at what the hon. Gentleman said previously about the number of houses available. He said that some 5,000 people are suffering due to the under-occupancy rules because they had nowhere to move, but I remind him that there are 63,500 one and two-bedroom properties in Birmingham. He yet again mis-states the reality, which is that this has to work. I remind him again that it was his Government who introduced this for the private-rented social sector.
Housing Benefit — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Housing
Questions: What recent estimate he has made of the number of people whose housing benefit has been reduced as a result of the social sector size criteria.; What recent estimate he has made of the number of people whose housing benefit has been reduced as a result of the social sector size criteria.
George Iain Duncan Smith (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Lady, like many on the Opposition Benches, is living in cloud cuckoo land. They invent a whole series of issues about this. First, we get these lines about the fact that evictions are up. In fact, evictions are a very small proportion and are down. They say that rent arrears are up, but they are stable and have not risen. They say that homelessness is up, but it is actually down. The reality is that every time the Opposition talk about this subject, they invent these issues. But never once in the whole of the time they were in government—or even now—did they bother to talk about the fact that their policies meant that house building fell to the lowest level since the 1920s and that many people live in overcrowded accommodation, thanks to Labour’s failure, its crashing of the economy and its shocking mismanagement of housing.
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Mixed Topics
Questions: Will the Minister ask officials to look compassionately on benefits arrangements for people with mental health difficulties? So often, when these people are called for assessment, it is not obvious that they really do have problems.; Following my request for a rescheduled meeting about the independent living fund, the Minister kindly wrote to me on 15 January, but why did he make no reference to my request for a meeting and why did he refer me to post-ILF provision under Newcastle city council when my constituency is North Tyneside?; The Government have rightly tackled the long-standing chaos in the Child Support Agency, but attracted controversy with their new 4% admin charge on struggling parents with care when the other parent is not stepping up to the plate. What assessment have the Government made of the big drop-off in the number of parents using the Child Maintenance Service? Are absent parents magically paying up to avoid their charge or are parents with care being scared off to avoid theirs?; The Secretary of State has said that local authorities are choosing to give funds to local food banks. I can assure him that Mayor Joe Anderson in Liverpool does not relish having to spend £138,000 to tackle food poverty locally in Liverpool. Will the Secretary of State sit down with representatives from the Trussell Trust to help him understand how more than 1 million people are being forced to go hungry by the actions of his Department?
Esther Louise McVey (Conservative, Centre-right): I apologise: I missed the question. What I do know, however, is that no one has any limits, or targets, or whatever it may be, for benefits or for sanctions. There are no targets for sanctions, and there will be no numbers.
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful to the hon. Lady. Precisely because the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) courteously gave me notice both of his intention to raise the point or order and its thrust, I have, unsurprisingly, a prepared response. The House can make its own assessment of this situation, but I confess that my own reading of it was analogous to that of the hon. Lady. I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter, but let me just say this for the record. It is certainly unusual for a Select Committee to release information about the conclusions of its report prior to publication, and to do so would normally be considered a discourtesy to the House, though not a contempt given that the report had been formally reported to the House. However, in this case I understand that the Committee considered that it was helpful for the House to have notice of the relevance of its report, which was published this morning, to the amendment, which was required to be tabled last week. Therefore no harm has been done by it. I think the House will be grateful to both the Environmental Audit Committee and the Transport Committee for the work they have done on matters relevant to the Infrastructure Bill, although of course I note in passing, non-evaluatively, that it does not follow that all Members will necessarily agree entirely with their conclusions. We will leave it there for now.
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): I was not aware of that, though far be it from me to dispute the assiduity of the hon. Gentleman. It was of course open to him and his Committee to have put that on the Order Paper. For whatever reason, it did not, but the hon. Gentleman, in prime time and with some alacrity, has now sought to remedy that deficiency.
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): I am not sure there is anything further to say, but the hon. Gentleman has been here for 35 years and I have a feeling that if I do not let him come in, he will be badgering me for another 35 years.
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): I do not think we will circulate the subsidy, but we will circulate awareness of the fact of it. I hope that meets the needs of the case. I know what the hon. Gentleman is driving at, and I think the House appreciates his purpose On a separate matter, I hope, I call Helen Jones.
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Civil Rights
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Lady is a very experienced Member of this House and I think she has already served her cause; I suspect that what she said will be echoed by Members on both sides of the House. I am not sure it is a matter for the Chair. The only thing I would say is that Nazism is one of the most evil phenomena in our history, and the holocaust a despicable crime. People in whatever party should be very careful not to bandy about terms of abuse in contexts which most sensible people would think completely inappropriate. I think both sides of the House will agree on that. Perhaps we can now make some progress. I thank the hon. Lady for what she said.
Infrastructure Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Other
John Henry Hayes (Conservative, Centre-right): I beg to move, That the Order of 8 December 2014 (Infrastructure Bill [Lords] (Programme)) be varied as follows: (1) Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order shall be omitted (2) Proceedings on Consideration shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table (3) The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table Table Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings New Clauses, new Schedules, amendments to clauses and amendments to Schedules relating to Part 5 5.30pm New Clauses, new Schedules, amendments to clauses and amendments to Schedules relating to Parts 3, 4 and 7 7.30pm Remaining proceedings on Consideration 9.00pm (4) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 10.00pm I will say a few words on the programme motion, if I might, Mr Speaker.
Infrastructure Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): Yes, but I think that probably relates to amendments that it might have been in someone’s mind to table, but which have not yet been tabled and do not relate directly to the programme motion. However, the hon. Lady has opted for an elastic interpretation of the terms of the motion, and she has got her points on the record, so I hope she is content.
Infrastructure Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Other
Amber Rudd (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Lady will know that this matter is included in one of the amendments, which I will come on to discuss more fully later. Although I cannot make the commitment she is asking for, I will speak more fully on it a little later.
Infrastructure Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Other
Amber Rudd (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point—one that was not raised in Committee, although we did debate this fairly fully. I take the view that the Bill is not the place to do that, but it could be considered after the next general election.
Infrastructure Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Mixed Topics
Amber Rudd (Conservative, Centre-right): The Secretary of State for Wales has announced that a set of commitments agreed by the four main political parties in Wales on the way forward for Welsh devolution will be in place by 1 March. These commitments will form a baseline for devolution after the election. I understand that a strong case is being made for devolution of those powers That covers the hon. Gentleman’s amendment 66, which seeks to render the application of the clauses to the approval of the National Assembly for Wales. In addition, the current Government of Wales Act 2006 clearly sets out that oil and gas are excluded from the list of devolved subjects, and the exploitation of deep geothermal resources cannot be considered to have been conferred under any of the subjects in schedule 7. We see no grounds on which this measure would currently be within the legislative competence of the Welsh Assembly. That is the situation for now. Scotland and Wales will continue to have substantial control of onshore oil and gas, and geothermal activities through their own existing planning procedures and environmental regulation, as these are already devolved. I ask hon. Members not to press their amendments New clause 6 and amendments 2 and 83 suggest that the national planning policy framework leaves gaps in respect of protected land, but this is not the case. Strong protections already exist for these areas and further protections are not necessary. A blanket ban, as proposed, would be disproportionate.
Infrastructure Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Public Lands
Amber Rudd (Conservative, Centre-right): If the hon. Gentleman will let me comment on that aspect in my own words, I hope that will reassure him The existing legislative framework provides a robust framework of protection for those sensitive areas. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 require a developer to undertake a habitats regulation assessment whenever a proposed project is likely to have a significant impact on a special conservation area or a special protection area. These protections derive from European law and set a very high bar. The regulations are supported by the national planning policy framework, which recognises areas that should be given a high level of protection, even if the development is outside the site boundary. These include special areas of conservation, special protection areas, sites of special scientific interest and Ramsar sites Planning guidance published last July set out the specific approach to planning for unconventional hydrocarbons in national parks, the broads, areas of outstanding natural beauty and world heritage sites. The guidance makes it clear that planning authorities should refuse planning applications for major development in these areas unless it can be demonstrated both that exceptional circumstances exist and that it is in the public interest.
Infrastructure Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Public Lands
Amber Rudd (Conservative, Centre-right): Let me add to my earlier comments that we have agreed an outright ban on fracking in national parks, sites of special scientific interest and areas of outstanding natural beauty. I hope that will reassure the right hon. Gentleman about the liability potential for any of the areas that I know he is particularly keen to protect.
Infrastructure Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Public Lands
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Centre-right): I know that my hon. Friend will shortly respond to some of the amendments tabled in my name, but will she complete the sentence? Is she saying that there will be an outright ban on any fracking in national parks? Have the Government removed the words "except in exceptional circumstances"?
Infrastructure Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): I think that is a matter of the hon. Gentleman’s interpretation. For the avoidance of doubt, I must say that no manuscript amendment has been tabled. The normal course would have been for it to be tabled prior to the start of the debate, and it has not been. I think that the best course at this stage is for hon. Members in all parts of the House simply to listen to the Minister’s speech. [Interruption.] There is indeed no manuscript amendment—I do not think that I can be clearer.
Infrastructure Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): No amendment is required to prove that there is no amendment. That makes me think that the hon. Lady has been reading Heidegger—"the nothing noths". There is no manuscript amendment, and consideration of this matter should not be clouded by thoughts of a manuscript amendment. I have been given no indication that there will be a manuscript amendment. It would be extraordinary, to put it mildly, for a manuscript amendment to be proposed or put forward for consideration by me or by professional advisers when the debate has already started. Things need to be dealt with in an orderly manner.
Infrastructure Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): Of course Members must listen to what the Minister has to say, but, for the avoidance of doubt, Members will be voting on that which is on the amendment paper. I do not mean this in any sense discourteously, but it is not for the Chair to seek to interpret amendments or new clauses, and I would not presume to do so. Each right hon. or hon. Member must make his or her own assessment of the merits or demerits, and implications, of new clauses and amendments and vote accordingly. We are voting only on what is on the amendment paper, not on that which is not on it. I call the Minister.
Infrastructure Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Other
Amber Rudd (Conservative, Centre-right): I am only sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not have time to listen to the Committee, where we spent many, many hours debating this subject and many different subjects. That gave everyone a great opportunity to raise all the issues. There is no suggestion that there has not been enough time to address this matter.
Infrastructure Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): I do not think that that is a matter for the Chair. Members must make their own assessment. The hon. Gentleman has made his assessment. For all I know, he might beetle around the Chamber to share it with others, but people will form their own assessment. Let us hear the Minister’s oration.
Infrastructure Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Mixed Topics
Amber Rudd (Conservative, Centre-right): I am going to make progress On fugitive emissions, I have spoken about the report produced by Professor David MacKay and Dr Timothy Stone. Their report determined that, with the right safeguards in place, the net effect on greenhouse gas emissions from shale gas production will be relatively small. We report fugitive emissions from onshore energy extraction annually as part of our international reporting obligations on the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions. That is done in accordance with guidelines produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and is audited annually by a group of international experts.
Infrastructure Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Other
Amber Rudd (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend has raised that issue before and I hope that we will hear from him later. As he will be aware, we believe that that question is best decided later, when we have a charter in place that will address the issue.
Infrastructure Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Other
Amber Rudd (Conservative, Centre-right): I do not think the hon. Lady quite heard my comments. If somebody in another Department has prepared something, a junior member perhaps, and it was not appropriate for them to have done so, which is a comment I have fairly made, I do not think it is appropriate for it to be released. It could mislead the public. It is because I am so concerned about the public that we have taken this view.
Infrastructure Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Mixed Topics
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Centre-right): I think my hon. Friend would wish to put a message out to rural communities today that we take their concerns very seriously indeed. We must be seen to listen, in the House this afternoon, to their concerns. It is unfortunate that the report will not be in the public domain. My hon. Friend answered one point on my amendment relating to blight. Does she also accept that in the event a house could not be sold, there may be an option for the fracking company to compulsoily purchase that property?
Infrastructure Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Housing
Amber Rudd (Conservative, Centre-right): Of course, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government take very seriously the security, the safety and the right of good abode of everybody in the rural community, and we will keep that constantly in our minds as we move forward.
Infrastructure Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Other
John Henry Hayes (Conservative, Centre-right): I have no desire to embarrass the hon. Gentleman—I regard him almost as a protégé, so I would never want to do that. I have to tell him, however, that the letter in question, which he claims not to have received, was dated 20 January and was sent by me on the specific issue raised by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller). It was addressed, by the way, to "the right honourable Andrew Miller, MP" and it says at the bottom: "I trust this is a response to your question and I am copying it to the Chair and members of the Public Bill Committee." There must therefore be some misunderstanding on the part of the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex). I know he is a decent and honourable man, so I take it that the matter is now closed.
Infrastructure Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Other
Nicholas Soames (Conservative, Centre-right): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) has not only wasted 40 minutes of the House’s time, but has been dilatory in reading his Bill Committee letters?
Infrastructure Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Other
Julian Murray Lewis (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman is being very courteous in giving way, but may I appeal to him, on behalf of my constituents, to try to leave these procedural matters behind and deal with the substantive issues about which they and other Members’ constituents are concerned?
Infrastructure Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Mixed Topics
James Gerald Douglas Howarth (Conservative, Centre-right): I am concerned about the potential impact of subsidence from fracking. I represented Cannock and Burntwood for nine years, and I saw the effects of subsidence from coal mining. The coal industry did not require planning permission to undermine people’s homes.
Infrastructure Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Other
John Henry Hayes (Conservative, Centre-right): Let me give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. If the letter was not clear that is my fault, not his. I am absolutely clear that the information must be made available in an appropriate and proper form and in the way that he describes.
Infrastructure Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Public Lands
Julian Murray Lewis (Conservative, Centre-right): Will the Minister reassure my constituents in public, as the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), has tried to do for me in private, that given a proposal such as the massive port development at Dibden bay, on the edge of the New Forest, which was stopped by a year-long public inquiry, the forest would be no less protected as a result of the Bill?