argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Voluntary Sector: Faith Organisations — House of Commons, 2016-05-05
Topic: Civil Rights
Fiona Claire Bruce (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank the Minister for his wholehearted and heartfelt support in applauding the work of the many organisations of faith that have been referred to in the debate. I also thank all Members who have spoken and I join them in applauding the work of the organisations to which they have referred. I also thank the Minister for his offer to meet me, because there are four issues that he did not touch on in his response, although I accept that the content of the debate has ranged across several Departments First, will the Minister write to me in response to my point about how central Government could work with local authorities to promote religious literacy across our communities, which in turn would promote community cohesion? Secondly, how can our Government explore the concept of reasonable accommodation? Other countries have looked at that, so it would be helpful if we could do so, too. Thirdly, it might have come as a surprise to the Minister to hear that the top concern expressed by evangelical Christians was that policies should promote liberty and freedom of expression. Will he examine the considerable concern that certain policies are having a chilling effect, which I am sure that the Government would want to deter, on free speech on the part of people of faith? Finally, I would appreciate it if he would give a written response to the concerns I expressed in the last part of my speech, which others have touched on, about proposals on out-of-school settings. The consultation was held many months ago and tens of thousands of people across the country are awaiting the Government’s response to the contributions that they spent a long time submitting Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the contribution of faith organisations to the voluntary sector in local communities. Business of the House (9 May) Ordered, That, at the sitting on Monday 9 May, the backbench business set down for consideration may be entered upon at any hour, may continue for two hours regardless of the moment of interruption, and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of.—(Kris Hopkins.) Sittings of the House (12 May) Ordered, That, on Thursday 12 May— (1) there shall be no sitting in Westminster Hall; and (2) the Speaker shall not adjourn the House, if a Message from the Lords Commissioners is expected, until that Message has been received.—(Kris Hopkins.)
Smart Meters — House of Commons, 2016-05-12
Topic: Mixed Topics
Questions: What steps her Department is taking to ensure that consumers’ data on smart meters are accessible to and controllable by those consumers; and how she plans to monitor the effectiveness of those steps.
Amber Rudd (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Lady should know that privacy is absolutely protected and at the heart of the smart meter programme. She should be careful not to put fear into the hearts of people where none should exist. The data are protected, and they belong not to the Government—which some people might, not unreasonably, fear—but to the energy companies. We will always reassure consumers that privacy is at the core of delivering safe meters.
Smart Meters — House of Commons, 2016-05-12
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Questions: What steps her Department is taking to ensure that consumers’ data on smart meters are accessible to and controllable by those consumers; and how she plans to monitor the effectiveness of those steps.
Andrew James Bridgen (Conservative, Centre-right): The Competition and Markets Authority has recommended a temporary safeguard for vulnerable users who have pre-payment meters, which could result in savings of up to £300 million a year for those consumers. Will the Secretary of State commit to implementing that measure as soon as possible to protect those vulnerable users?
Smart Meters — House of Commons, 2016-05-12
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Questions: What steps her Department is taking to ensure that consumers’ data on smart meters are accessible to and controllable by those consumers; and how she plans to monitor the effectiveness of those steps.
Amber Rudd (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The preliminary report from the Competition and Markets Authority addresses head-on the difficulties and higher costs often faced by people on pre-payment meters, and, yes, we will be implementing its recommendations. We look forward to seeing its final recommendations over the next few months.
Smart Meters — House of Commons, 2016-05-12
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Questions: What steps her Department is taking to ensure that consumers’ data on smart meters are accessible to and controllable by those consumers; and how she plans to monitor the effectiveness of those steps.
Amber Rudd (Conservative, Centre-right): Yes, the Government are glad that the Competition and Markets Authority has said that it will make available in a controlled way the details of people who have not switched. We will have to ensure that that is done in a way that does not result in consumers feeling overwhelmed by suggestions. The Competition and Markets Authority has yet to come up with its final solution on this point, but I am confident that it will do so in a measured way and that this will help to ensure that people who have not switched will have access to switching and to the opportunities that it provides.
Offshore Wind: Scotland — House of Commons, 2016-05-12
Topic: Mixed Topics
Andrea Jacqueline Leadsom (Conservative, Centre-right): I commend my hon. Friend for both his tenacity and his command of the English language. Whether from Scottish projects or from projects in the Humber region, this project pipeline will benefit the UK supply pipeline enormously. That is what we really want. He will be aware of the ongoing east coast review, and I am talking with individual developers to try to ensure that we buy British wherever possible and use UK fabricators, and that the UK has the opportunity to get more of this valuable business, which has been a real success story for the UK.
Electricity Pylons: Sensitive Environments — House of Commons, 2016-05-12
Topic: Mixed Topics
Questions: What steps her Department plans to take to (a) require the undergrounding of power cables and (b) mitigate in other ways the effect of electricity pylons on sensitive environments.
Andrea Jacqueline Leadsom (Conservative, Centre-right): It is quite right that network companies give proper consideration to the protection of communities and sensitive areas, and my hon. Friend is right to speak up for his local residents. I hope I can reassure him and his constituents that legislation already puts such a requirement on network companies. Local communities will always be properly consulted on how new transmission networks might affect their local environment.
Electricity Pylons: Sensitive Environments — House of Commons, 2016-05-12
Topic: Mixed Topics
Questions: What steps her Department plans to take to (a) require the undergrounding of power cables and (b) mitigate in other ways the effect of electricity pylons on sensitive environments.
Andrea Jacqueline Leadsom (Conservative, Centre-right): I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that getting on with projects and avoiding delays is important, and I am sure he will appreciate that there is a balance to be struck. A recent independent study showed that the undergrounding of transmission lines can cost up to £24 million per kilometre compared with up to £4.4 million per kilometre for overhead lines, and such costs are ultimately paid through consumer bills. I reassure him that existing planning guidance will ensure that undergrounding is always fully considered.
Electricity Pylons: Sensitive Environments — House of Commons, 2016-05-12
Topic: Housing
Questions: What steps her Department plans to take to (a) require the undergrounding of power cables and (b) mitigate in other ways the effect of electricity pylons on sensitive environments.
Andrea Jacqueline Leadsom (Conservative, Centre-right): I hope I can reassure the hon. Lady that local authority planning processes do always take into account the cumulative impact of yet one more project getting under way. I suppose that this is a question for the Department for Communities and Local Government, but the existing planning arrangements not only allow for proper local consultation and proper consideration of all the alternatives, including undergrounding to take infrastructure right out of sight, but consider what one more project will do and whether things can be brought together. If an area is affected, different projects can be undertaken in the same place, rather than being spread out and ruining the landscape.
Energy Bills — House of Commons, 2016-05-12
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Amber Rudd (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend makes a good point. Consumers are sometimes put off from switching not only by the complications that they perceive, but by the length of time it can take. We are working with Ofgem and are confident that it will reach reliable next-day switching by 2018.
Energy Tariffs — House of Commons, 2016-05-12
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): Only last week, the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) owned up to having brought a hedgehog into the Chamber some years ago—I am pleased to say that it was not during my tenure of the Chair. With all the reference to price comparison websites, I am glad that no one has thought it necessary to bring a meerkat into the Chamber.
Pre-pay Meters — House of Commons, 2016-05-12
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Amber Rudd (Conservative, Centre-right): The Government agree with the Competition and Markets Authority that consumers on pre-pay meters are getting a poor deal. Supporting such consumers was at the heart of our decision to support the CMA investigation in the first place. The hon. Lady may have seen the estimate by Citizens Advice that 23% of households in her constituency have pre-payment meters, which is above the national average of 16%. That is why it is so important that we take on board the recommendations of the CMA following the publication of its final report.
Pre-pay Meters — House of Commons, 2016-05-12
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Amber Rudd (Conservative, Centre-right): We do not yet have the specific recommendations, but the hon. Lady will, like me, be aware that what we have had proposed so far in the draft recommendations is a safeguard tariff for those people on pre-payment meters. It is not clear yet whether that will be temporary or long term, but we will look carefully at the recommendations of the CMA to get the best outcome for the most vulnerable customers, which, I know, she desires as well.
Pre-pay Meters — House of Commons, 2016-05-12
Topic: Mixed Topics
Amber Rudd (Conservative, Centre-right): I am sure that the hon. Lady has looked at the CMA’s report. It has a proposal for a safeguard tariff, and we welcome that. It is one of the key reasons why we were keen to propose this review by the CMA. We are expecting it to come forward with the final report soon. When it does so, we will act on the recommendations and hope that it will deliver what we and she hope it will, which is support for people on pre-payment meters, who are often the most vulnerable.
Green Research and Development — House of Commons, 2016-05-12
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): We would take this question with Question 19 if the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) were here, but he is not, so we will not. I do not know what has happened to the chappie, but I hope he is all right.
Oil and Gas: North Sea — House of Commons, 2016-05-12
Topic: Mixed Topics
Peter Lilley (Conservative, Centre-right): Although I sympathise with the constituents of the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) who have lost their jobs in the North sea, would not the best thing for them be for us to create new jobs by allowing fracking in Scotland for those very people, with those skills, who have been denied the prospect of such jobs by the hypocrisy of the SNP Government in Scotland?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2016-05-12
Topic: Housing
Amber Rudd (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Lady will be aware that this Government, and this Department specifically, are refocusing our support, as far as possible, on to those who are most vulnerable. We have just closed the consultation on the warm home discount and we are looking at the results. She can rest assured that we will, as far as possible, target it at those who are most in need, which is the right thing to do.
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2016-05-12
Topic: Other
Questions: I have been contacted by a number of constituents who are concerned about fracking in Dorset. What reassurance can the Minister give to me and to my constituents about environmental considerations, about issues of public consultation and letting local residents have their say, and, importantly, about fracking being considered only in appropriate locations?
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): The Minister, rather like the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), cannot be accused of excluding from her observations anything that might be in any way, at any time, to any degree material. She is certainly comprehensive; we are most grateful.
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2016-05-12
Topic: Housing
Questions: I have been contacted by a number of constituents who are concerned about fracking in Dorset. What reassurance can the Minister give to me and to my constituents about environmental considerations, about issues of public consultation and letting local residents have their say, and, importantly, about fracking being considered only in appropriate locations?; What progress has my right hon. Friend’s Department made in working with the big energy suppliers such as EDF Energy, partly located in my constituency, with regard to the roll-out of smart meters for the benefit of consumers?; I hope that this will be a case of third time lucky. I have asked the Housing Minister this question twice, and I have also notified the Secretary of State’s office of the question, so I hope I am going to get a reply. What is the difference in the annual energy bill that a family in a zero-carbon home would have to pay as opposed to a family in a home that has the insulation and energy efficiency standards that the Government propose?
Amber Rudd (Conservative, Centre-right): The right hon. Gentleman’s question starts from an incorrect premise. [Interruption.] I am trying to answer his question; bear with me. I think that he is referring to the zero-carbon proposal that was rejected by the other place last night, although it was agreed that a review would be ongoing. The problem with zero-carbon homes, as conceived in the Bill, was that they would add costs to the house. If we add costs to the house, we add costs, ultimately, to the house owner, the consumer and the bill payer. The problem with the allowable solutions portion was that it would act as a tax on home builders and, ultimately, it would be of no benefit to the homeowner.
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2016-05-12
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Questions: I have been contacted by a number of constituents who are concerned about fracking in Dorset. What reassurance can the Minister give to me and to my constituents about environmental considerations, about issues of public consultation and letting local residents have their say, and, importantly, about fracking being considered only in appropriate locations?; What progress has my right hon. Friend’s Department made in working with the big energy suppliers such as EDF Energy, partly located in my constituency, with regard to the roll-out of smart meters for the benefit of consumers?; I hope that this will be a case of third time lucky. I have asked the Housing Minister this question twice, and I have also notified the Secretary of State’s office of the question, so I hope I am going to get a reply. What is the difference in the annual energy bill that a family in a zero-carbon home would have to pay as opposed to a family in a home that has the insulation and energy efficiency standards that the Government propose?; The Committee on Climate Change recommended in its 2015 report to Parliament that the Government produce an effective policy framework on aviation carbon dioxide emissions. Part of that plan was that UK emissions in 2050 should not be higher than those in 2005. Will the Department work with the Department for Transport to publish such an important policy before a decision on a new runway is made?; I am going to push the Minister of State further on fracking, because a week tomorrow an important decision will be made. In Ryedale, one energy company wants to frack the beautiful landscape just south of the North York Moors national park. More than 4,000 well- informed local people want to protect their local community and environment. Who should have the greatest influence?; Citizens Advice estimates that 7,300 households in Wakefield are paying over £400 a year more for their gas and electricity than they should be paying because they are stuck on prepayment meters. Last month, the Competition and Markets Authority recommended a price cap to protect my constituents from this indefensible overcharging. This week, we hear that the chief executive of the CMA is to be the Department’s new permanent secretary. Does that mean we can look forward to him implementing his own recommendations in the very near future?
Amber Rudd (Conservative, Centre-right): Forgive me for making no comment about the appointment. I certainly share the hon. Lady’s view that prepayment meters need reform, that we need the safeguard tariff that the CMA has proposed and that it is unacceptable for the most vulnerable customers—usually those on the lowest incomes—to be stuck on higher tariffs. We will support the CMA to ensure that it delivers on that.
EU Migrants: National Insurance Numbers — House of Commons, 2016-05-12
Topic: Immigration
John Alan Redwood (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful to the Minister for his statement, but does he not accept that the very popular programme of making a substantial reduction in net migration that he, I and other Conservative MPs stood on at the general election is quite impossible to honour as a promise given the Government’s own figures for migration, never mind the figures for national insurance? Migration has been running well above the maximum total that we suggested to the electorate. Does that not show that all the time we stay in the European Union we cannot control EU migration in the way we promised at the general election? Does the big difference between the national insurance numbers and the migration figures have implications that will worry Members across the House, given the impact on public services Over five years, 1.2 million additional people came to the UK, got a job and a national insurance number, and lived here for a considerable time, even if some of them have now departed. Those people needed doctors surgeries, school places for their children, and so on. In the past two years, an additional 1.1 million people have registered for GP services. That implies that national insurance numbers are closer to the truth, and that we need to consider those figures as well as the formal migration numbers when planning public provision Does the Minister share my concern that we are not offering a sufficiently good welcome in terms of GP places, health facilities and school places, and that that is putting a lot of pressure on settled communities and not offering something good to the newcomers? Does he share my wish to get a grip on that, so that we can properly plan our public services? The note that was slipped out—fortunately Mr Speaker allowed this urgent question—does not explain that discrepancy or deal with the fundamental point that if someone comes here, works and gets a national insurance number, we must provide public facilities for them.
EU Migrants: National Insurance Numbers — House of Commons, 2016-05-12
Topic: Immigration
James Peter Brokenshire (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for allowing me to clarify those points, and today’s statement from the ONS is clear. As Glen Watson, the deputy national statistician for population and public policy, said: "We are confident the International Passenger Survey remains the best available way of measuring long-term migration to the UK." My right hon. Friend correctly highlighted the pressure on public services, and the Government remain committed to reducing net migration to the long-term sustainable levels that existed before the previous Labour Government. We remain focused on achieving that, which is why we have taken steps to reform the visa system and to confront illegal migration. Measures in the Immigration Bill, which the House approved earlier this week, are pivotal to that The ONS is clear that we should not be looking at national insurance numbers for an assessment of the pressures of migration. Some have suggested that leaving the EU will in some way deal with the migration issue, but we need only consider the examples of other countries that have decided to be outside the EU yet have free movement and pay into the EU budget. There is an idea that things would be better outside the EU, but I find it inconceivable that we would have access to the single market and not have those issues of free movement We must also stress the important achievements of the Prime Minister in his renegotiation, and in putting the welfare brake into effect and dealing with some of those pull factors, as well as important steps on deregulation. He secured important elements in that renegotiation for the benefit not just of the UK, but of the EU as a whole. We must grow that economy and see other European nations succeeding and creating jobs and employment in the way that this country has done. I recognise the concerns that my right hon. Friend has rightly highlighted about public services. Those issues remain a concern of this Government, but we have taken, are taking and will continue to take action to see net migration figures reduce to sustainable levels, and to address concerns about public services and the pressures on our communities.
EU Migrants: National Insurance Numbers — House of Commons, 2016-05-12
Topic: Immigration
James Peter Brokenshire (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman’s last point is obviously a matter for colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions, and clearly we continue to assess these matters, but his key point was about the long term versus the short term. The clear statements from the ONS highlight that the right measure to look at is the long-term immigration measure through the international passenger survey data. That is the clearest way to set out the pressures of migration. The ONS has also said very clearly that national insurance numbers are not an appropriate measure of assessment for that purpose. Yes, they indicate trends or patterns, but for overall net migration numbers the international passenger survey remains conclusively the best measure we have, and it is right that the Government use it, as we have been doing consistently, in line with the UN definitions for that mechanism. I note what he says and his endorsement of the ONS’s report this morning.