argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Exiting the European Union (Consumer Protection) — House of Commons, 2019-04-02
Topic: Government Operations
Jamie Hume Stone (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I rise as a former Chairman of the Subordinate Legislation Committee in the Scottish Parliament. The Minister has mentioned the co-operation at civil service level. May I have the safety of an assurance that there is similar co-operation at political level between those who handle statutory instruments in Westminster and those who do a similar thing in Holyrood?
Apprentices — House of Commons, 2019-03-28
Topic: Education
Questions: To ask the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, representing the House of Commons Commission, what steps the Commission is taking to increase the number of apprentices in the House of Commons.
Thomas Anthony Brake (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I commend the right hon. Gentleman for his work to raise the profile of apprenticeships in the House. He will know that the House intends to increase the number of apprentices from 14 to 38 by the end of May. He will also be aware that that does not hit the 2.3% target, which the House intends to do by 2021.
Apprentices — House of Commons, 2019-03-28
Topic: Education
Questions: To ask the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, representing the House of Commons Commission, what steps the Commission is taking to increase the number of apprentices in the House of Commons.
Thomas Anthony Brake (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I am afraid that my briefing on the subject has no information on that, so I will write to the hon. Lady to confirm the rate. Hopefully she will be satisfied with the rate House apprentices receive.
Apprentices — House of Commons, 2019-03-28
Topic: Education
Questions: To ask the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, representing the House of Commons Commission, what steps the Commission is taking to increase the number of apprentices in the House of Commons.
Thomas Anthony Brake (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. He may be aware that the House works with Amazing Apprenticeships, an organisation that goes out nationally to 3,500 schools and colleges. Among other things, it is creating a short film about what happens in the House, which I hope has a positive impact on his diversity concerns.
Households Below Average Income Statistics — House of Commons, 2019-03-28
Topic: Social Welfare
Christine Anne Jardine (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I thank the Secretary of State for prior sight of her statement, for the sentiment in it and for her commitment to reducing child poverty My family was once relatively comfortable: we were three children, and my father was working. But that changed. Overnight, we became a single-parent family with three children, and the two-child cap could have driven my mother and the three of us into poverty. Will the Secretary of State look at how the cap can be modified to allow for the fact that people are not always aware of what the future holds when they have their children?
Permitted Development and Shale Gas Exploration — House of Commons, 2019-03-28
Topic: Energy
Wera Benedicta Hobhouse (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I beg to move, That this House has considered use of permitted development and the nationally significant infrastructure project regime for shale gas exploration and production First, may I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing time for this important debate, which I am honoured to lead? I also thank colleagues from all parties who have turned up to contribute, even though we have had a rather long and difficult week This debate follows two over-subscribed Westminster Hall debates. Last October, the Government consultations on giving shale gas exploration permitted development rights and classifying sites under the national significant infrastructure regime came to an end. The Government have yet to publish their responses to those consultations and are instead choosing to push the issue into the long grass. The first two Westminster Hall debates on this subject made one thing clear: Parliament has a view and would like to be heard. The proposed measures to give shale gas exploration permitted development rights and to classify sites under the national significant infrastructure regime are a bad idea for many reasons, but I shall focus on two central points First, to give fracking companies access to permitted development rights under the mantle of nationally significant infrastructure deprives local communities of a voice. Secondly, and even more fundamentally, fracked fuel is a fossil fuel. To support the new development of any fossil fuel is a travesty, given that the threat of global warming should urge us all to rethink completely how we produce our energy.
Permitted Development and Shale Gas Exploration — House of Commons, 2019-03-28
Topic: Environment
Wera Benedicta Hobhouse (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I could not agree more. We have such a long way to go before we become carbon zero and it is so important. What are the Government doing promoting fracked fossil fuel over renewables? We are living through a global climate crisis.
Permitted Development and Shale Gas Exploration — House of Commons, 2019-03-28
Topic: Energy
Wera Benedicta Hobhouse (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I have been involved in the fracking debate for a long time—since 2014—and just to say that it is a bit less of a fossil fuel than the gas we are importing is the wrong argument. It is a fossil fuel and it contributes to global warming; we should not explore these old-fashioned ideas about how to produce our energy.
Permitted Development and Shale Gas Exploration — House of Commons, 2019-03-28
Topic: Energy
Wera Benedicta Hobhouse (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Absolutely. There are two big wrongs here: first, it is a fossil fuel industry that we should not support; and secondly, we are overriding local communities and not allowing their voices to be heard. I feel for the communities in Lancashire and the way they have been treated. It is simply wrong. As somebody who used to be a local councillor, I cannot agree more on how wrong it is if local councils and communities are not being heard.
Permitted Development and Shale Gas Exploration — House of Commons, 2019-03-28
Topic: Environment
Wera Benedicta Hobhouse (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): This country has made great strides, and we are leaders, but we will fall behind badly if we do not keep up that lead. That is what worries me. Things have gone badly wrong in the last three years. We are living through a global climate crisis and we must align our policies to become carbon zero before 2050. I am sure the Government have read the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change I have been campaigning against fracking since 2014. In Bath, not only is there concern about global warming; there is concern that fracking will interfere with our hot springs, causing unknown damage to the water table, our unique geology and the natural springs that are the very reason for Bath’s existence and prosperity throughout its rich history. There are additional concerns about the wider environmental damage, such as earth tremors, gas leaks and the huge water consumption the process requires. I do not know whether people have read the recent reports about water shortages. Why are we encouraging an industry that wastes water in this way? What are we doing? Why are we not listening to the environmental concerns?
Permitted Development and Shale Gas Exploration — House of Commons, 2019-03-28
Topic: Energy
Wera Benedicta Hobhouse (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My home is heated through a community energy centre. That said, I am talking about how the gas is produced. I am saying that fracked gas is a fossil fuel but that there are renewable gas alternatives that we need to explore and invest in, and which the Government should be prioritising.
Permitted Development and Shale Gas Exploration — House of Commons, 2019-03-28
Topic: Environment
Wera Benedicta Hobhouse (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I completely agree. Getting to carbon zero is a massive challenge and we must start today. We must think about how our new houses should be built, because the retrofitting of these properties will cost even more. All Departments need to put their minds to it These problems are not unique to Bath or the UK. We know from the United States that fracking operations can result in the contamination of the water table. The effect is wide-ranging. Sometimes people cannot even drink their own tap water because of the health risk. A report in 2016 by the United States Environmental Protection Agency demonstrated exactly how the hydraulic fracturing fluid used to split the bedrock can contaminate groundwater and release gases displaced by it. Communities across the USA have been forced to try to mitigate these problems. We should not even go there. Why should we risk water contamination Added to all this is the amount of industrial infrastructure that will scar our countryside if these proposals are pushed through. Giving permitted development rights to shale gas exploration would in effect remove the control that local authorities usually have over the planning process.
Permitted Development and Shale Gas Exploration — House of Commons, 2019-03-28
Topic: Energy
Wera Benedicta Hobhouse (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I certainly agree that there is a lot of hypocrisy around this issue. A wind farm was built over the communities of Greater Manchester in my old authority, and I remember people talking about the infrastructure that was built just to access the hills in order to put up the wind turbines; it was terrible. Fracking platforms need to move around all the time, and the infrastructure that we need to build to enable that is absolutely incredible. I do not think that people have ever put their minds to that point.
Permitted Development and Shale Gas Exploration — House of Commons, 2019-03-28
Topic: Energy
Edward Jonathon Davey (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, especially in respect of solar power and community energy renewables When I was Secretary of State and had to deal with these issues, some people in the coalition thought that shale gas was the answer to everything and would reduce energy prices. They were extremely keen to push it forward. I was not one of those people. I was helped in my far more cautious approach by colleagues such as the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) and others on the Conservative Benches, who realised that we had to be extremely cautious about the environmental issues and the local planning issues. One reason I am proud of my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for calling this debate is my concern that the controls agreed by the coalition—being very strong on local democracy and risks such as seismicity—are in danger of being removed. I was concerned that this relatively new industry had to be safely regulated, for the environment and to take account of local issues When we looked at seismicity in particular, we took advice from the experts. We had advice from the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering about what would be the right approach to regulation on seismicity. We consulted widely. I published the report that was given to me, and I asked for people’s opinions on it. We took a precautionary approach even to the evidence I came to the view, and accepted the recommendation, that the traffic light system was the way to go and that we needed a precautionary approach, not least because the geologists and experts were telling us that even a small seismic event underground could damage the casing of the wells and the bore holes of the fracks. I therefore accepted that we needed to be cautious, and it was important to give that reassurance to the public. We decided that we would go ahead, but only on that explicitly cautious basis In the ministerial statement I gave in December 2012, setting out that cautious regulatory regime, I said that it could perhaps be looked at again in due course. However, for the benefit of the House, let me be really clear about what we were saying at that time. We wanted a significant amount of evidence—this had to be evidence based. So far we have had very few fracking experiences in this country, so we do not have anywhere near the number of data points or the amount of evidence that we would need to possibly allow anything to go forward.
Permitted Development and Shale Gas Exploration — House of Commons, 2019-03-28
Topic: Energy
Edward Jonathon Davey (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My hon. Friend makes a good point. If the Government proceed to allow permitted development, that will be in sharp contrast to their planning approach to onshore wind. I had almost weekly battles with the then Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who was trying to stop onshore wind. We won most of them, but after the 2015 election the Government made it almost impossible to build onshore wind in England and Wales. That very negative approach to renewables stands in stark contrast to what the Government appear to want to do on fracking I bring that to the House’s attention because those are completely the wrong priorities, not least because of the climate change crisis. If anything, I have got more sceptical about fracking over the years, because the evidence—particularly after Paris—is that we need to be even more rigorous in reducing our fossil fuel usage. Now that we have gone from a 2° target to a 1.5° target, we have to push the renewable agenda further forward I would say to the Minister that when we were thinking about shale gas, we were thinking about making sure it was linked to technologies such as carbon capture and storage, which are now in abeyance. Without CCS, there is much less of an argument for fracked gas. Moreover, renewables technology has increased and improved dramatically. Prices have come down much further. We have seen storage technology come on. We are not going to need the gas that people thought we would need just a few years ago The relaxation of regulations, whether on seismicity or planning, is completely unjustified, and I hope the House will send a clear message to Ministers. However, I would go even further. Given that we have had such progress on renewables and storage, the case for fracking gas is much weaker than it was just a few years ago. I urge the Government to rethink their priorities. Let us bank and capitalise on the amazing success of new green technologies; let us not look backwards.
Permitted Development and Shale Gas Exploration — House of Commons, 2019-03-28
Topic: Energy
Wera Benedicta Hobhouse (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I thank all hon. Members from across the House for their powerful contributions to this important debate. There is real anger across the board about the Government riding roughshod over local communities, and not allowing local people a voice on shale gas exploration sites. Across the board, there are concerns about the environmental impacts, particularly the industrialisation of the countryside, water contamination and seismic activity. But most of all—I wish the Minister would listen—there is a concern that fracked fuel is a fossil fuel. The Government should entirely change direction and invest in renewables instead. Let us change direction, take some action on climate change and ditch fracking Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered use of permitted development and the nationally significant infrastructure project regime for shale gas exploration and production.
Sittings of the House (29 March) — House of Commons, 2019-03-28
Topic: International Affairs
Christine Anne Jardine (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can we be reassured by the Attorney General that if we approve the motion to the satisfaction of the European Union, whatever we do in this House will become irrelevant because the European Union would regard us as having approved a motion that we have not in fact approved using our own purposes?
No-Deal Brexit: Cross-channel Freight — House of Commons, 2019-05-02
Topic: Transportation
Thomas Anthony Brake (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): On 11 February, the Secretary of State said in response to my question on ferry procurement: "I have been absolutely clear that this procurement was dealt with very carefully by officials in my Department and in the Treasury"—[Official Report, 11 February 2019; Vol. 654, c. 623.] Although the Secretary of State may believe that this matter was dealt with very carefully, I think the rest of the world believes otherwise—that, in fact, he has reached dizzying new heights of incompetence. His latest bungle has cost an extra £43 million, on top of the £2.7 billion he has cost us so far. If P&O wins its case, how much more is the Secretary of State going to cost the taxpayer, and will that be the point at which he finally accepts that he has no choice but to resign?
Access to Justice — House of Commons, 2019-03-12
Topic: Law and Crime
Thomas Anthony Brake (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The Loughborough University report "Priced out of Justice?" identified how many people were excluded from justice because of the means test. I welcome the review of the means test that the Government are conducting but, pending the outcome, would the Minister support calls from the Law Society for the means test threshold to be uprated now as part of the spring statement?
Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Opinion — House of Commons, 2019-03-12
Topic: International Affairs
John Vincent Cable (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Those of us who remember some infamously politicised legal opinions, as with the Iraq war, will want to acknowledge the Attorney General’s total integrity and independence, but can he explain to a non-lawyer how respect for the international rule of law is enhanced by a unilateral declaration to break it?
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-03-12
Topic: International Affairs
Thomas Anthony Brake (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I thank the Prime Minister, who is being very generous. Does she agree, however, that whatever happens today—whether her withdrawal agreement is passed or not—we will have to have an extension to article 50, because there is not time to complete the business we will need to complete before 29 March?
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-03-12
Topic: Foreign Trade
John Vincent Cable (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I do not think that Switzerland is a very encouraging example when it comes to external trade deals. Its trade deal with China consisted of opening up the Swiss market to everything and getting virtually nothing in return. Actually, that illustrates a much wider point: one of the things that we sacrifice with Brexit is bargaining. The hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) has now disappeared from the Chamber, but he pointed out a week or so ago—and he is a hardline Brexiteer—that our bargaining power with the United States over food standards is massively weaker than it would be if we continued to be a member of the European Union, and very poor standards will be inflicted on us. That is the kind of debate that we ought to be having, but we are not. All the costs associated with the unravelling of the single market will be compounded by the loss of the customs union—I know that the Labour party has given that priority, and it is important, but it is not as important as the single market—and also by uncertainty. Had the Government done what they promised to do, which was to have a clear picture of the endgame before they completed Brexit, all that uncertainty would have gone. British firms with a time horizon of more than two years will now be afflicted by massive uncertainty about whether to invest in this country, and many of them will not do so. The future is wholly uncertain The combination of those factors has major economic consequences. I have taught economics for many years and worked in it for many years, and I know that it is not a precise science. However, one of the most fundamental principles of economics, going back to Adam Smith—and, indeed, before—is that if you put up barriers to trade, you make yourself poorer. That will now be compounded many times over In addition to all the economic costs, there is the unravelling of the collaborative arrangements. One of the best institutions in my constituency is an organisation called the National Physical Laboratory, which is a centre for key metrology standards. Alan Turing did much of his professional work for it, and I attended and spoke at its annual dinner a few days ago. The people who work there are absolutely horrified at the breaking up of their scientific network, and their inability now to attract European staff. That is being replicated in campuses, universities and scientific institutes across the country The European Investment Bank has hardly been discussed here. Crossrail, which has been one of the big innovations in London in recent years, was substantially financed by it, but it is now being dismantled. Those are some examples of the damage that has been done, and that is why the Government must go back to the public and put the deal to them. If they cannot get their deal through Parliament, they must give the people the final say.
Fisheries Bill — House of Commons, 2019-06-19
Topic: Agriculture
Alexander Morrison Carmichael (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The last time that I asked the Secretary of State about the Fisheries Bill, he deflected the question by saying that "we will see what happens when the Bill returns on Report."—[Official Report, 16 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 1152.] That was five months ago, and we have still not had the Fisheries Bill on Report. When are we going to get it?
Breathing Space Scheme — House of Commons, 2019-06-19
Topic: Social Welfare
Wera Benedicta Hobhouse (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Financial difficulties are considered an adverse childhood experience. Facing problem debt in the family as a child can perpetuate cycles of poor mental health, low achievement, poor employment opportunities, prison, drug addiction and so on. I am very pleased that the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) earlier drew attention to ACEs. Will the Minister assure me that the breathing space scheme will include advisers being trained in adverse childhood experiences and trauma, so that the problems of financial hardships are not perpetuated into the next generation?
Management of Offenders: Local Authorities and PCCs — House of Commons, 2019-06-04
Topic: Law and Crime
Wera Benedicta Hobhouse (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I also congratulate the new Ministers on their appointment Short sentences target the most vulnerable offenders, especially women, with 75% of all women offenders sentenced to less than a year going on to reoffend. Has the Secretary of State made an assessment of the impact of short prison sentences on offenders and communities?