argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Paris Climate Change Conference — House of Commons, 2015-11-19
Topic: Mixed Topics
Christopher Laurie Malthouse (Conservative, Centre-right): I am sorry to repeat myself, but that was broadly my point. I was trying to make the point about the Paris conference that, as much as the hon. Lady says the emphasis should be on an agreement about behavioural change by business and industry, there should be a global agreement on investment in exactly the technologies that she says are starved of money. That might mean the Government having to make up for a market failure by investing in them to a certain extent. Nevertheless, as she says, given that we need a decadal view—out to when my grandchildren will be born—such investment needs to put in now. It may be that that has to be paid for out of the global public purse.
Paris Climate Change Conference — House of Commons, 2015-11-19
Topic: Mixed Topics
Graham Charles Stuart (Conservative, Centre-right): I agree with most of the speech by the right hon. Gentleman. Providing certainty, and ratcheting and tightening up a deal in Paris over time, send a signal to the investment market. That means that we will get investment in innovation, research and development and the supply chain, which is a prerequisite of driving down costs. Only by that level of commitment will we get the acceleration of a cost curve downwards, which is the way that we will deliver for the planet while also protecting the consumer. That is why we need certainty and those kinds of framework.
Paris Climate Change Conference — House of Commons, 2015-11-19
Topic: Mixed Topics
Rebecca Faye Clark (Pow) (Conservative, Centre-right): I am not going to disagree with that, but it is again no reason for not doing something. That is historic, and we did not have all the science at that time. We do have the science now, which is why we are going to move forward.
Hospital Parking Charges (Exemption for Carers) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-10-30
Topic: Mixed Topics
Philip Andrew Davies (Conservative, Centre-right): I would have more sympathy with the principle of the Bill if it wanted to make the Government’s guidance mandatory, because there would be some logic to that. Clearly, a whole range of people struggle, but just to pick out one group at random seems iniquitous.
Hospital Parking Charges (Exemption for Carers) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-10-30
Topic: Mixed Topics
Christopher Robert Chope (Conservative, Centre-right): We are talking not just about free car parking, but about car parking? Too many hospitals do not have adequate car parking. That is one of the great complaints that so many patients have—that they cannot find anywhere to park when they go to hospital.
Hospital Parking Charges (Exemption for Carers) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-10-30
Topic: Mixed Topics
Philip Andrew Davies (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend is right. There will, as an inevitable consequence of the Bill, be issues about preserving the integrity of the spaces I am not sure, but perhaps the hon. Member for Burnley intends to ask hospitals to provide designated spaces for carers to use, in the same way that there are designated spaces in car parks for people with disabilities or for parents with toddlers. If so, how many spaces should the hospital provide? There are rules and guidance on how many spaces there should be for disabled customers. From my memory of working at Asda, I think the rule is that 4% of all the spaces in a car park plus four should be set aside for disabled customers. That was certainly the situation when I was at Asda. Does she envisage a similar system—a number of designated spaces for carers, but when they are full they are full Does the hon. Lady expect someone to police the car park at all times to ensure that carers use the right spaces and that no one is charged unfairly? I do not know what system she wants. Perhaps she envisages a system of reimbursement, with carers paying for parking normally, just like everybody else, and then going into the hospital to demonstrate that they are a carer and have their costs reimbursed. That may require 24-hour-a-day, constantly manned reimbursement desks to be open at the hospital. Does she envisage that?
Hospital Parking Charges (Exemption for Carers) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-10-30
Topic: Mixed Topics
Philip Andrew Davies (Conservative, Centre-right): Whether it is or not, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will move on I asked my local hospital how many carers already use its car parking spaces, which very much is our concern today. It replied: "The Foundation Trust is currently unable to determine how many carers use the designated hospital car parks. It would therefore be difficult to assess the potential impact on car parking revenue" That goes some way towards answering the question my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch asked. The honest answer is that we do not know what the impact will be on any particular hospital. My local hospital certainly does not know.
Hospital Parking Charges (Exemption for Carers) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-10-30
Topic: Mixed Topics
Philip Andrew Davies (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion. I contend that the Bill is so flawed that it cannot be rescued in Committee, or that rescuing it would involve filleting it to such an extent that it would come out barely recognisable, which would be a pointless exercise. I appreciate that such issues could be considered in Committee—as ever, Mr Deputy Speaker, you are perfectly right Clause 7 says that the Act must come into force "12 months after the day on which this Act receives Royal Assent." There are two pertinent points about that. If it is so unjust for carers to pay hospital car parking charges, how can the hon. Lady justify requiring them to pay charges for another year? Why not introduce the change much sooner? I think I know the answer to that question, and it reinforces my argument. I think the hon. Lady realises that the provisions in the Bill would be a logistical nightmare to implement, for some of the reasons that I have already mentioned—I am sure there are also many others. She probably realises that to make anything of the Bill it would require at least a year to come up with anything that makes any sense. It is interesting that such a measure is part of the Bill, and it justifies my concerns. The hon. Lady said that she would like the measures in her Bill to be extended in future to cover other people. She made the point that this is a good start—
Hospital Parking Charges (Exemption for Carers) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-10-30
Topic: Other
David Nuttall (Conservative, Centre-right): It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood), who gave us his take on the Bill, although I feel the matter is a little more complicated than he would have the House believe I congratulate the hon. Member for Burnley (Julie Cooper) on coming fourth in the ballot for the right to bring in a private Member’s Bill—as a new Member entering the ballot for the first time, she has done very well indeed—and on choosing such an important topic. I do not know if she does the national lottery, but if she does—
Hospital Parking Charges (Exemption for Carers) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-10-30
Topic: Other
David Nuttall (Conservative, Centre-right): Of course, you were there, too, Mr Deputy Speaker, doing the draw, and very well you did it as well. As you know, however, because it is done in reverse, coming first actually means coming 20th.
Hospital Parking Charges (Exemption for Carers) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-10-30
Topic: Other
David Nuttall (Conservative, Centre-right): I will move on This is the first Bill to come before the House for its Second Reading since the new Standing Orders were introduced last week on what generally is referred to as "English votes for English laws" but what I prefer to call, more accurately, "English vetoes for English laws". The new Standing Orders make it clear that the new procedures do not apply to private Member’s Bills, but it is worth noting—
Hospital Parking Charges (Exemption for Carers) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-10-30
Topic: Other
Eleanor Fulton Laing (Conservative, Centre-right): Order. As the hon. Gentleman has drawn my attention to a matter concerning the activities of the House—namely, the printing of the Bill—I will for the sake of clarity make it clear that the Bill that I have, and that I assume other people have, clearly refers to section 2(2) and not section 2(1). I am happy to clarify that point as the hon. Gentleman made his point directly to me.
Hospital Parking Charges (Exemption for Carers) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-10-30
Topic: Other
Christopher Robert Chope (Conservative, Centre-right): Further to what you have just said, Madam Deputy Speaker. At the top of the Bill of which you and I have a copy, it states: "This is a corrected copy and is being issued free of charge to all known recipients of the original publication."
Hospital Parking Charges (Exemption for Carers) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-10-30
Topic: Other
David Nuttall (Conservative, Centre-right): Madam Deputy Speaker, I think we have a solution. It does not say that on my copy. I must have a first edition, and it might be more valuable! It is priced at £3, but now we have discovered that it is a rare first edition, it might be worth a lot more. I am willing to raffle it and donate the proceeds to Carers UK. I am glad that the matter has been corrected, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am sorry if I inadvertently addressed my comments to you personally. I was not trying to suggest that you had had any involvement in the preparation of the Bill.
Hospital Parking Charges (Exemption for Carers) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-10-30
Topic: Other
Eleanor Fulton Laing (Conservative, Centre-right): Order. I always let Members get away with this mistake once, and sometimes twice, but the hon. Gentleman has used the word "you" three times. "You" refers to the Chair, and the hon. Lady is the hon. Lady. I am having to say this every day and it is a long time since the general election, so people really ought to be able to take it on board by now. The hon. Gentleman is not the only person making this mistake, so he should not feel bad about it.
Hospital Parking Charges (Exemption for Carers) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-10-30
Topic: Mixed Topics
David Nuttall (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend touches on a key point, which I mentioned briefly—that is, there are competing pressures in different parts of the country, depending on whether a Member represents a rural area or an inner-city area.
Hospital Parking Charges (Exemption for Carers) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-10-30
Topic: Mixed Topics
Julian Carlton Knight (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. In his speech he also touched on devolution. In my area we have the West Midlands combined authority coming to the fore. Although it does not currently have responsibility for NHS provision, that may come down the track towards us, as in the case of Manchester, which takes charge of its NHS in April 2016. The concern is that although these devolution packages are very tightly costed, if we suddenly add an extra expense in the form of NHS provision and take away a valuable income stream, that may damage the devolution project and other services may end up being cut I support the intention of the Bill and the heartfelt efforts of the hon. Member for Burnley, but it does not take account of an approach that I prefer—local engagement and following the guidelines, which are much more wide ranging than those in the Bill.
Hospital Parking Charges (Exemption for Carers) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-10-30
Topic: Mixed Topics
Christopher Robert Chope (Conservative, Centre-right): Of course, it does not say that in the Bill. That is a point of detail that I am sure was just overlooked in the drafting. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that clearer The provision applies to "car parking spaces provided directly or indirectly, including under contract, by or on behalf of a health care provider…for patients and other users to whom car parking charges would otherwise apply." Again, my submission is that that goes far too wide because it drags in contractual provisions in the private sector and could impose directly on hospitals that have contracted out by agreement to private providers. They might have said, "Please build this car park and provide spaces for our patients, and in return we will allow you to charge patients," and a business plan will have been drawn up accordingly. Clause 1(3) would effectively drive a coach and horses through that contractual arrangement. It could result in a compensation bill being payable by the hospital concerned to the private provider because of a breach of contract. That is another example of why clause 1 is far too wide On clause 2, which is about qualification for the parking charge exemption, I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) for explaining the number of people who have an underlying entitlement to carer’s allowance. In my constituency, where there are a large number of pensioners, a significant number would be subject to the overlapping benefit rule and would therefore be included as carers under the Bill by reason of having an underlying entitlement The bigger problem is that the Bill would not help unpaid carers. The vast majority of the 6 million carers in this country do it voluntarily and do not get any help from the state or the taxpayer, yet the Bill would not help them at all. Indeed, it could perversely make them worse off.
Business without Debate — House of Commons, 2015-10-30
Topic: Other
Eleanor Fulton Laing (Conservative, Centre-right): I know that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this is not a point of order for the Chair, but a point about when this important matter can be discussed in some form here in this Chamber. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman, rather than wishing me to comment on a matter of order, simply wishes to draw attention, as he very skilfully has done, to the fact that this event has occurred. I am sure that Members on the Treasury Bench will have heard what he has said, and I have every confidence that in due course there will be an opportunity for the matter to be debated and considered here in this Chamber.
Hospital Acute Services — House of Commons, 2015-07-07
Topic: Other
Benedict Gummer (Conservative, Centre-right): I very much look forward to meeting my hon. Friend and his colleagues, and I have already committed to doing so. I hope that the lead he has taken with his colleagues in forging a cross-party consensus will be copied across the House.
NHS Funding — House of Commons, 2015-07-07
Topic: Mixed Topics
Questions: What changes in funding he plans to make to address the NHS funding shortfall forecast in NHS England’s most recent “Five Year Forward View”.
Jeremy Richard Streynsham Hunt (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. It was a terrible tragedy—I had constituents who died—and I can confirm that we will be meeting the commitments made by the Prime Minister to bring forward a solution very shortly.
English Votes on English Laws — House of Commons, 2015-07-07
Topic: Other
Oliver Heald (Conservative, Centre-right): Is the right hon. Gentleman not ignoring history? Scotland has had special arrangements in this House since the Victorian period. From 1948 Bills could be dealt with by the Scottish Grand Committee, and that was expanded in the 1990s, as he knows very well, and eventually Scotland ended up with its own Parliament. He cannot stop some change on the basis that it is not the final change.
English Votes on English Laws — House of Commons, 2015-07-07
Topic: Mixed Topics
Jacob William Rees-Mogg (Conservative, Centre-right): I think that the right hon. Gentleman misses the key point about this being done through Standing Orders, which is that Standing Orders can be suspended by the House in a specific instance or permanently, and that therefore the sovereignty of this House remains unaffected.
English Votes on English Laws — House of Commons, 2015-07-07
Topic: Other
Alexander Jesse Norman (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful. Is there not a clear distinction between two things? The first is whether this should be introduced by means of Standing Orders, and the second is what procedure, or method of reflection, the House may go through in deciding how and whether to adopt it, and under what circumstances. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was drawing the House’s attention to the latter point and the apparent lack of a timetable for proper consultation on this issue.
English Votes on English Laws — House of Commons, 2015-07-07
Topic: Mixed Topics
Christopher Stephen Grayling (Conservative, Centre-right): Not at this moment, no. We have an established method of using legislative consent motions. It is not unreasonable that we should use that same device in this House when an English-only matter affects English-only constituencies. Why does the right hon. Gentleman think that he should resist the idea of a legislative consent motion approved by English Members of Parliament on matters that affect only their constituencies?
English Votes on English Laws — House of Commons, 2015-07-07
Topic: Civil Rights
David Thomas Charles Davies (Conservative, Centre-right): Could my right hon. Friend tell me how it can possibly be right that I as a Welsh MP should be able to tell his constituents how to run their education and health service, or even why I should want to spend my time doing so? We have a Welsh Assembly and a Scottish Parliament, so is it not absolutely right that English constituents should have exactly the same right to self-determination?
English Votes on English Laws — House of Commons, 2015-07-07
Topic: Other
Oliver Heald (Conservative, Centre-right): Does my right hon. Friend accept that what he is proposing is a measured response based on precedent? Over the years, we have made changes to Standing Orders to deal with Scottish Bills, for example, in the way he suggests. We have amended Standing Orders when changes have been needed over time. Is not what he is doing absolutely in the tradition of how the House of Commons deals with these matters?
English Votes on English Laws — House of Commons, 2015-07-07
Topic: Other
Christopher Stephen Grayling (Conservative, Centre-right): That is absolutely right. Indeed, my hon. and learned Friend might like to know that those with long experience of the workings of this House, including Members of the other place who have worked in positions of authority in this one, are all united in the view that changing Standings Orders is the right way to proceed. As I made very clear in my statement last week, hon. Members may form a different view over the next 12 months. When we review these matters in 12 months’ time, I shall be very open to such views. I am very clear, however, that changing Standing Orders is the starting point.
English Votes on English Laws — House of Commons, 2015-07-07
Topic: Other
Christopher Stephen Grayling (Conservative, Centre-right): One of the reasons for publishing the Standing Orders two weeks in advance was to give Members the opportunity to raise precisely that sort of question. I am very happy to discuss that with the hon. Lady. She has not come to my office to ask me to do so, but if she wants to I shall be happy to discuss with her after this sitting how we are going to handle that debate.
English Votes on English Laws — House of Commons, 2015-07-07
Topic: Other
Peter William Bone (Conservative, Centre-right): I absolutely endorse the spirit of what the Leader of the House is trying to do, but will he deal with the issue of whether we should do it by altering Standing Orders or through primary legislation? The problem with changing Standing Orders is that, as we know from experience, Governments can just suspend them on the day, without any recourse; if the changes were made in primary legislation, Governments would have to repeal the Act. Is there not therefore a stronger argument for primary legislation?
English Votes on English Laws — House of Commons, 2015-07-07
Topic: Other
Christopher Stephen Grayling (Conservative, Centre-right): It is clear that primary legislation is one possibility. As I have said, however, the advice we have received from the Clerks and those who have been involved in overseeing the House in the past is that such changes are normally done through Standing Orders. We have sought to deal with this measure, which was in our manifesto, through Standing Orders. I made it very clear in my statement last week that if Members have a different view when we review all this in 12 months’ time, as I have committed us to do, we will look at such an issue very carefully.
English Votes on English Laws — House of Commons, 2015-07-07
Topic: Other
Christopher Stephen Grayling (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand that Standing Orders are not some "obscure mechanism", as one newspaper called them, but the means by which the House is governed on a day-to-day basis. They determine all the ways in which we operate in this House, so we are using the conventional mechanism by which the House operates. There is nothing strange about that. The question is whether we should do something different, and I am saying that we can discuss that as part of the review in 12 months’ time.
English Votes on English Laws — House of Commons, 2015-07-07
Topic: Other
Christopher Stephen Grayling (Conservative, Centre-right): As I said, I want to be as helpful to the House as possible. There will be an opportunity to debate and vote on more than one amendment to Standing Orders. It is of course up to the Speaker whether to select an amendment, but I expect amendments to be tabled and to be debated. If the hon. Lady wants to sit down with me afterwards to work out how best to handle that debate, I will be very happy to do so.
English Votes on English Laws — House of Commons, 2015-07-07
Topic: Other
Christopher Stephen Grayling (Conservative, Centre-right): As I have just said, there will be an opportunity to debate and vote on more than one amendment to the Standing Orders. I give the hon. Lady that undertaking. There is absolutely no intention of limiting the debate.
English Votes on English Laws — House of Commons, 2015-07-07
Topic: Other
Christopher Stephen Grayling (Conservative, Centre-right): As I said, there will be an opportunity to table and vote on more than one amendment. I am happy to look at whether we can provide a little more time for the debate. This change is intended to fulfil our manifesto commitment, but if there is a desire among Members to have a little more time, I am happy to look at how best we can provide it.
English Votes on English Laws — House of Commons, 2015-07-07
Topic: Other
Christopher Stephen Grayling (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman clearly did not read our manifesto and clearly did not pay attention to what took place before the election, because these proposals were published months ago and have been discussed extensively. They were also set out in fine detail in our manifesto. He is claiming that we should not be implementing our manifesto commitment. There may be other parties in this House that do not believe in fulfilling their manifesto commitments, but we do.
English Votes on English Laws — House of Commons, 2015-07-07
Topic: Other
Christopher Stephen Grayling (Conservative, Centre-right): Let me conclude the point on double majority votes and then I will give way one more time We have proposed double majority votes for the consideration of Lords amendments and for other votes in which the agreement of English MPs in the whole House is required, simply to avoid the House having two Divisions, rather than one. Since we have the technology to do it in a single Division through a double majority vote, we can make things a lot easier for the workings of this House. That will be a lot more efficient than having everybody walk through the Division Lobbies twice in a row.