argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Wind Farm Applications (Subsidies) — House of Commons, 2015-06-25
Topic: Energy
Philip Wilson (Labour, Centre-left): Durham county has an excellent record on renewable energy development, especially wind farms. The issue now in the county is the cumulative impact of so many wind farms in a given area, and, because of that, the planning system is now working and further development is being rejected. If the planning system is working, why is there a need to have a blanket ban on wind farm subsidies, which will affect jobs and investment in the future?
Wind Farm Applications (Subsidies) — House of Commons, 2015-06-25
Topic: Energy
Alan Patrick Vincent Whitehead (Labour, Centre-left): Will the Minister confirm that, under existing secondary legislation, her Department is obliged to issue renewable energy certificates to all applicants until March 2017? Will she also confirm that her Department will continue to issue renewables obligation certificates after March 2016 in the event that her proposed legislation to bring them to an end is not on the statute book by that date?
Household Energy Efficiency — House of Commons, 2015-06-25
Topic: Energy
Deborah Angela Elspeth Marie Abrahams (Labour, Centre-left): More than 2 million households are in fuel poverty, including 4,259 in my constituency of Oldham East and Saddleworth. Energy efficiency is key to tackling fuel poverty, but with an 80% reduction in such measures in this Parliament, is the Secretary of State serious about doing that or is she just going to redefine what it is?
Household Energy Efficiency — House of Commons, 2015-06-25
Topic: Energy
Sue Hayman (Labour, Centre-left): In the coming years, there is a huge amount of proposed infrastructure investment in west Cumbria as well as a new academy school to be built in my constituency. We also have the new National College for Nuclear. What financial incentives and support will the Government provide to developers so that energy efficiency is central when we build these large projects?
Household Energy Efficiency — House of Commons, 2015-06-25
Topic: Energy
Joan Marie Ryan (Labour, Centre-left): Some 4,000 households in my constituency —that is one in 10—are in fuel poverty. The energy company obligation, which suffered severe cuts in the last Parliament, is due to end in 2017. How will the Government meet their responsibilities to people in fuel poverty once the ECO has ended?
Household Energy Efficiency — House of Commons, 2015-06-25
Topic: Energy
Jonathan Neil Reynolds (Labour, Centre-left): Energy efficiency measures are the only way to prevent fuel poverty, and the levels of fuel poverty in the UK are a national disgrace. The Conservative manifesto promised that just 1 million homes would be insulated in this Parliament—a reduction of more than 80% from what was done in the last Parliament. At that rate, it will take more than 100 years to eliminate fuel poverty. That would be financially and morally wrong. What is the Secretary of State going to do to put that right?
Carbon Abatement Technologies — House of Commons, 2015-06-25
Topic: Environment
Ifor Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Centre-left): I welcome both Ministers to their positions. The fourth carbon budget report stressed the criticality of carbon abatement technology, and increasingly so post-2030, but the International Energy Agency report shows that if we fail, particularly on carbon capture and storage, the costs of decarbonisation and lower emissions could be up to 70% higher. On that basis, if the fifth carbon budget recommends greater investment in carbon abatement technologies and a faster trajectory to decarbonisation, will the Government accept those recommendations without reservation?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2015-06-25
Topic: Energy
Kerry Gillian McCarthy (Labour, Centre-left): The Competition and Markets Authority will publish its remedies for the energy retail market next week, but what does the Minister think should be done to address the persistent exploitation by the big six of their most loyal customers? New customers are attracted with loss-leading tariffs, whereas the most vulnerable customers are often kept on the highest tariffs. What consideration has the Secretary of State given to a proposal by Ovo Energy that Ofgem set a 12-month social tariff for which all the suppliers’ most vulnerable customers should be auto-enrolled?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2015-06-25
Topic: Energy
Questions: My constituency will benefit from the knock-on effects of the development of Hinkley Point C, the first new nuclear power station to be built in the UK for decades, which will bring with it a predicted 4,000 jobs across Somerset. Can the Secretary of State give assurances: a, that the project is progressing; and b, that the Government are working to enable and encourage other low-carbon industries to develop around it, as they will benefit not only Taunton Deane and Somerset, but the wider economy?
Julie Elliott (Labour, Centre-left): The Green Investment Bank is a vital tool for boosting our clean energy generation. Thus far, the bank has used £2 billion of investment to leverage a further £6 billion of private capital. However, it has been shackled by the Government’s refusal to grant crucial borrowing powers. The Minister has confirmed that the Government will privatise the bank. What reassurances can the Secretary of State give that the Chancellor is not simply raiding the bank’s capital reserves and, in so doing, robbing the UK of a unique tool to power the clean energy sector?
Child Poverty — House of Commons, 2015-06-25
Topic: Social Welfare
Frank Field (Labour, Centre-left): May I congratulate the Secretary of State on the public relations success of winding up the media with the idea that these would be the worst figures ever published? Might that ingenuity now be applied to developing indices on life chances? What taxpayers are interested in is whether we can prevent poor children from becoming poor adults. Might he ask the Select Committee on Work and Pensions to undertake that inquiry and report to the House and then to his Social Justice Committee, so that the Government might act on it before the year is out?
Child Poverty — House of Commons, 2015-06-25
Topic: Social Welfare
Karen Patricia Buck (Labour, Centre-left): Poverty in inner London after housing costs is the highest in the country, at a scandalous 33%. Does the Secretary of State share my disappointment that, while we all believe that work should pay and is the best route out of poverty for many, the numbers on low pay in London have risen for the fourth year in a row and a third of a million more Londoners are now on low pay than in 2010? Can he reassure me that the way to tackle low pay is not to cut tax credits?
Child Poverty — House of Commons, 2015-06-25
Topic: Social Welfare
Helen Catherine Goodman (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State has been in his post for five years. In that time, the number of households living in absolute poverty has gone up by 2 million and the number of children doing so has gone up by half a million. Is not ditching the relative poverty measure and moving to focus on absolute poverty a complete own goal?
Child Poverty — House of Commons, 2015-06-25
Topic: Labor
David George Hanson (Labour, Centre-left): Unemployment in Wales has clearly fallen, but a third of the children in Wales—200,000 children—are living in absolute poverty. What plans has the Secretary of State to tackle zero-hours contracts, insecurity at work and low pay, and does he think that cuts in child tax credit will improve the present situation dramatically?
Child Poverty — House of Commons, 2015-06-25
Topic: Social Welfare
Barry John Sheerman (Labour, Centre-left): Does the Secretary of State agree that all of us who want every child in our country to have a full and happy life do get worried about not just the issues in this morning’s debate, but the fact that responsibility for children is spread over so many Departments? There is no longer enough focus on children in a holistic sense. Will he lead the Government in doing something quite quickly about that?
Child Poverty — House of Commons, 2015-06-25
Topic: Social Welfare
David Julian Winnick (Labour, Centre-left): If the situation has, according to the Secretary of State, improved substantially, why are there so many food banks—a far larger number than previously? Is it not quite clear that some Tory Members have no idea at all about the amount of poverty that exists—in many cases in their own constituencies?
Child Poverty — House of Commons, 2015-06-25
Topic: Social Welfare
Conor Patrick McGinn (Labour, Centre-left): Child poverty in St Helens is higher than the national average. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that taking in-work benefits away from working families would increase or decrease the level of child poverty in my constituency?
Child Poverty — House of Commons, 2015-06-25
Topic: Social Welfare
Jonathan Neil Reynolds (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State can use any definition he likes, but the root cause of child poverty in my area is the fact that a quarter of all the full-time jobs pay less than the living wage. What is this Government’s strategy on low pay and in-work poverty?
Child Poverty — House of Commons, 2015-06-25
Topic: Macroeconomics
William Roffen Esterson (Labour, Centre-left): For the avoidance of doubt, I should like to ask the Secretary of State a question about people who are already in work. Will he tell me whether cutting tax credits for people in work will help or harm the poorest children?
Child Poverty — House of Commons, 2015-06-25
Topic: Social Welfare
Kelvin Peter Hopkins (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State will have no doubt read "The Spirit Level", which shows that social ills correlate strongly with income inequality—crime, mental illness, infant mortality and much more besides. At the worst end, there is the USA, and at the best end, the Scandinavian countries. These social ills cost billions to the public purse. We continually languish close to the USA end, rather than the Scandinavian end. Does that not make a powerful case for dramatically reducing income inequality and thus reducing child poverty?
Child Poverty — House of Commons, 2015-06-25
Topic: Labor
Wesley Paul William Streeting (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State will find support on the Labour Benches if he champions a higher minimum wage and asks employers to pay the living wage. Is it not the case, however, that getting every employer to pay the living wage will take considerable time, whereas his Government are looking to cut tax credits for people who are in work and on poverty pay overnight?
Child Poverty — House of Commons, 2015-06-25
Topic: Social Welfare
Diane Julie Abbott (Labour, Centre-left): London has some of the highest levels of child poverty in the country. Given that the Secretary of State’s welfare cuts will be particularly harsh for working Londoners because of our high housing costs, why is he not at least calling for the implementation of the London living wage?
Child Poverty — House of Commons, 2015-06-25
Topic: Social Welfare
Kerry Gillian McCarthy (Labour, Centre-left): With the approaching long school summer holidays, this is a particularly difficult time for children living in food poverty, as they do not have access to free school meals or breakfast clubs. What is the Department going to do to tackle that issue?
Child Poverty — House of Commons, 2015-06-25
Topic: Social Welfare
Ruth Smeeth (Labour, Centre-left): In my constituency, 31% of the children—more than 6,000 children —are born into poverty, and the parents of 36% of them earn less than the living wage. I have already had people who are working arrive at my surgeries in tears, terrified about what will happen when the Government chop tax credits. What would the Secretary of State like me to tell my constituents?
Child Poverty — House of Commons, 2015-06-25
Topic: Social Welfare
Stephen James McCabe (Labour, Centre-left): Has the Secretary of State considered calls for the establishment of a child poverty prevention board or council, as happens elsewhere, so that we can focus all our energies on the things that really make a difference and avoid getting trapped in a sterile debate about how we measure, rather than how we reduce, poverty?
Child Poverty — House of Commons, 2015-06-25
Topic: Social Welfare
Deborah Angela Elspeth Marie Abrahams (Labour, Centre-left): I have to say I found the Secretary of State’s tone absolutely breathtaking. Given that two thirds of children living in poverty are from working families, will he answer the question—this is the sixth time of asking—what assessment have his Government undertaken of the proposed cuts in tax credits and how they will affect child poverty levels?
Child Poverty — House of Commons, 2015-06-25
Topic: Social Welfare
Katherine Anne Green (Labour, Centre-left): Today’s households below average income survey report, on page 45, makes it quite clear that the percentage of children in relative income poverty has been flatlining since 2011-12, so it is not the policies of either this or the previous coalition Government that have reduced poverty; it is the legacy of the previous Labour Governments. Does the Secretary of State agree?
Child Poverty — House of Commons, 2015-06-25
Topic: Social Welfare
John Eugene Joseph Dromey (Labour, Centre-left): Following his damascene conversion on the road to a Glasgow housing estate, the Secretary of State pledged that there would be no going back on Labour’s target to end child poverty. With nearly 9,000 children in poverty in Erdington, the great majority in working households, what does he have to say to the working mums I met in the Erdington food bank, who despair at what now looms for them in the next stages? To use the grotesque words of the Chancellor, these are strivers, not shirkers, but his Government are about to make them and their children poorer.
Network Rail — House of Commons, 2015-06-25
Topic: Transportation
Louise Joyce Ellman (Labour, Centre-left): Network Rail certainly has many good achievements, but last January the Transport Select Committee warned that escalating costs and poor planning jeopardised the investment programme and, indeed, questioned whether that programme was ever realistic. Will the Secretary of State explain precisely what his statement means for the pause in electrification in the north and for the midland main line service?
Network Rail — House of Commons, 2015-06-25
Topic: Transportation
John Martin McDonnell (Labour, Centre-left): I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am the chair of the RMT parliamentary group I assume from his statement that the Secretary of State has resisted some of the calls from the wider elements of his party for the breaking up and privatisation of Network Rail. The fourth point that he made in his statement was, "it is important that we understand what can be done better in future investment programmes." May I suggest to him that one of the key elements of that would be to start listening to some of the workers on the front line? May I also suggest that Dame Colette Bowe’s review should include a mechanism for ongoing consultation with the trade unions about how those programmes can be improved?
Network Rail — House of Commons, 2015-06-25
Topic: Transportation
Graham Eric Stringer (Labour, Centre-left): Eight months ago, when the Secretary of State appeared before the Transport Committee, I asked him whether he was satisfied with the governance arrangement for Network Rail whereby it was, in effect, marking its own homework. He said then that he was completely satisfied with the arrangement, but today he has come to the House and changed it. Does he not regret that decision? In his statement, he blamed Network Rail for not having foreseen these problems, but if he had taken action then, would he not have been able to foresee them and do something about them?
Network Rail — House of Commons, 2015-06-25
Topic: Transportation
Clive James Charles Betts (Labour, Centre-left): There will be a great deal of anger in Sheffield today about the decision on the midland main line, especially among businesses. There will also be some cynicism about the fact that the electrification which was on track before 7 May has been abandoned so soon after that date. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, contrary to what he has just said, Ministers gave clear commitments—both in the House and in writing—that it would be completed by 2020? He has reneged on those commitments today, and he really has no idea when, or if, electrification will actually take place.
Network Rail — House of Commons, 2015-06-25
Topic: Transportation
Paul Christopher Blomfield (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State knows that his deliberate decision to choose to de-prioritise electrification for the midland main line means that talk of a northern powerhouse will be seen as empty words in Sheffield, but he also said that the line improvements will continue. Will he confirm that that means all the line improvements, including Market Harborough, and will he say when the work will be completed?
Network Rail — House of Commons, 2015-06-25
Topic: Transportation
Katherine Anne Green (Labour, Centre-left): My constituents will be alarmed at the pause in the electrification of the route between Manchester and Leeds, and not just those who use it. What consequences will there be for improved train services on other lines that depend on electrification for the release of rolling stock?
Network Rail — House of Commons, 2015-06-25
Topic: Transportation
Kerry Gillian McCarthy (Labour, Centre-left): I welcome the assurance that the Great Western main line will remain a priority, but as we have heard, the cost of the scheme has more than trebled to £1.7 billion, and the rumours are that it has already been delayed by more than a year. What reassurance can the Secretary of State give people travelling on that line from Bristol to London that there will not be any further pain and misery in the months and years to come?
Reports into Investigatory Powers — House of Commons, 2015-06-25
Topic: Law and Crime
Yvette Cooper (Labour, Centre-left): No, I am not. I am part way through an argument that there are different kinds of warrant and different circumstances. In cases involving foreign affairs, where sensitive relationships with other Governments may be at stake, the Executive clearly have an important role to play; they cannot be seen simply as judicial matters. However, there are other kinds of warrant—for example, intercept warrants for the purposes of tackling serious and organised crime, where if the action was not intercept, but was instead knocking down someone’s door and breaking into their home, authorisation would be an entirely judicial process. There are significant questions about why intercept in the interests of pursuing serious and organised crime should have no judicial authorisation, whereas knocking down somebody’s door should have judicial authorisation That is why I think there is a strong case for introducing judicial authorisation to provide a clearer system of separation of Executive and judiciary and to introduce clearer checks and balances into the process. It does have to be done in the right way and there will be different considerations around crime and national security and foreign affairs, but I believe it is possible because other countries manage it. If we were the only country in the "Five Eyes" that did not have a process of judicial authorisation, even though we have similar intercept arrangements, that would pose a big question for us. Those who simply defend the status quo need to explain why they think the arrangements in all those other countries are inadequate and worse than ours, given the added legitimacy that some judicial authorisation processes should bring I recognise the complexity here; that is why it is wise that we hold this debate now, in advance of the Government making their final decisions on the issue and setting out their proposals. It is also wise that we have a period of consultation on the draft legislation, so that people can table amendments and have these debates. However, I do not see why judicial authorisation need threaten or jeopardise the work of the agencies—quite the reverse. If it is a way to provide greater legitimacy, and support from overseas, for this work, it could add strongly to the process, and to agencies’ work. On the legislative process, I welcome the Home Secretary’s proposal for a period of proper reflection and discussion on the detail before final votes are taken in Parliament. That is the right approach. We are keen to continue discussions with her on this subject, and I welcome the briefing that she provided for me to enable us to do that. When the Snowden leaks first appeared in the media, there was a sense that Parliament was not debating these issues, that the Government were not responding, and that other countries were having a more informed and up-to-date debate about the response and the processes.
Reports into Investigatory Powers — House of Commons, 2015-06-25
Topic: Law and Crime
Emily Thornberry (Labour, Centre-left): I may speak very quickly to get through everything I want to say, Madam Deputy Speaker I will refer to the reports by the ISC and the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, not the two later reports, which we have not really had an opportunity to read or consider properly. The report by David Anderson, QC, aptly entitled "A Question of Trust", has rightly been complimented in the House for its thoroughness and rigour. Perhaps we should give a warning to those who might want to read it, though—do not drop it on your foot. Anderson’s recommendation that the law on investigatory powers should be made both comprehensive and comprehensible has also been widely endorsed, and it is surely right. If it is unintelligible to a lay reader, it will seem esoteric and inaccessible to all and will therefore not inspire public confidence I would like to focus on the main bone of contention, which is who should have authority to grant permission for access to the content of people’s private communications. The ISC’s report, for all its strengths, offers an insider’s view. The Home Secretary no doubt found much more to agree with in that report than in others, not least because she found herself extensively quoted in it. After hearing evidence that, in my view, was heavily weighted towards Ministers and officials from the security services, the ISC came down squarely on the side of the status quo. It concluded that the current system of ministerial authorisation of interception warrants should be maintained. I listened with some interest to the comments of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) on that issue The Committee appears to have reached its conclusion based almost wholly on the recommendations of Ministers themselves, with the concerns of civil liberties groups being given comparatively short shrift. In concluding that Ministers were better equipped than judges to make decisions on warrants, the Committee relied on arguments some of which, in my view, were based on flawed logic. I will give one example. It argued that, "Ministers are able to take into account the wider context of each warrant application and the risks involved, whereas judges can only decide whether a warrant application is legally compliant." The example that the Committee provided by way of support for that rather extraordinary claim was the diplomatic fracas following the allegations in 2013 that the US National Security Agency had tapped the German Chancellor’s phone. The ISC’s less than subtle implication was that whereas a Minister would have the wisdom to reject such an application, judges would be too clueless to understand the requirements of international diplomacy and could not possibly be trusted to understand the diplomatic implications of such a decision.