argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
The Climate Emergency — House of Commons, 2019-10-17
Topic: Environment
Alexander David Sobel (Labour, Centre-left): The Members sitting on the Government Benches look comfortable, unruffled and complacent, while the Extinction Rebellion protests are being fiercely suppressed on the streets just outside this House. Amnesty International has called this move "chilling and unlawful". The Government seem unbothered by September’s UN report that waters are rising, ice is melting, and species, including pathogens, are moving The Government can point to successes started under Labour, such as cheaper offshore wind and the phasing out of coal, but they are failing in imagination, they are failing in ambition, and they are failing because they think they are acting fast enough, but they are not. I implore them to be braver in their policy making if they are going to bring forward solutions commensurate with the climate challenge The Committee on Climate Change—the Government’s own advisers—wrote recently that the Government had completed only one of their 25 headline policy actions, and on 10 of them they had not even made partial progress. The report goes on to say that the policy gap has widened and the Government are going backwards. The Government have no right to be complacent, given that they are going to miss their own climate change targets. We are scientifically sure that this will costs millions of lives globally In the short time available, I will talk about what we need to achieve. I will start with energy. Why are we seeing an effective ban on onshore wind in England? Why is the new solar smart export not guaranteeing surety of income or contracts? Why are we seeing solar projects being cancelled right across the country? Why are we not seeing a fracking ban The flipside of that is demand. Why are we not seeing a big roll-out of super insulation across the country? Why are so many homes still leaky? That is just in one sector, but in other sectors the same problems abound Transport emissions increased by 1% last year. Where is the cycling infrastructure? Why is bus patronage dropping? Why is the train still so expensive that people choose to use their cars? One of the largest sources of transport emissions is aviation. The Prime Minister himself said that he was going to lie in front of the bulldozers at Heathrow, but we have seen no evidence of the Government acting against aviation. Seventy per cent. of all flights are taken by 15% of the people; the Government need to introduce a frequent flyer tax to start rolling that back If the Government are worried about public support, they should stop suppressing Extinction Rebellion and the youth climate strikers, and start listening to them. They should make citizens’ assemblies, test the ideas, learn from the people and engage with them in a positive way. My final message is: stop the complacency; act ambitiously.
The Climate Emergency — House of Commons, 2019-10-17
Topic: Environment
Stephen James Morgan (Labour, Centre-left): Madam Deputy Speaker, "There is no planet B." These are not my words; they are the words of eight-year-old Poppy from Portsmouth. We owe it to Poppy and others across our country to ensure the planet we pass on is fit for the future. We see our children take to the streets, giving up their school attendance for politicians’ attention. However, the perception that this is a problem for future generations could not be further from the truth. It is affecting people now, and none more so than the people of Portsmouth. As the British Heart Foundation has warned, harmful pollutants in my city are breaching World Health Organisation limits, meaning that due to the poor air quality the 11,000 people with a heart condition living in Portsmouth South are at far greater risk. It is no wonder that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has described this illegal air pollution crisis as a "public health emergency" It is not just air pollution that must be addressed. As a coastal community, people in my city disproportionately bear the brunt of climate change. The report by the IPCC said that if we do not act to stop a temperature increase of more than 2° C, we will see severe coastal flooding. In my city, the local authority is engaged in a programme of building the largest sea defence scheme this nation has ever seen. Without it, nearly 9,000 residential properties, 800 commercial buildings and millions of pounds-worth of essential infrastructure run the risk of ruin But it is not all doom and gloom. On 1 May, Labour forced the Government to agree to the UK Parliament becoming the first in the world to declare a climate emergency. With that trailblazing motion, pressure was rightly applied to force the Government to bring forward urgent proposals. Last year, Labour published plans for a green transformation, in which we set out how we would decarbonise our economy. That has been followed by exciting policy announcements, such as the promise to build 37 new wind farms and a fleet of 30,000 electric vehicles for hire The mildly technical nature and distant-sounding threat of climate change may not be enough to invoke people to come out fighting from their beds, but pretty much all of us would do so to protect our loved ones, homes and livelihoods, and to build a better planet. The Government owe it to young people such as Poppy from Portsmouth to tackle this priority once and for all.
The Climate Emergency — House of Commons, 2019-10-17
Topic: Environment
Helen Elizabeth Hayes (Labour, Centre-left): It has been galling this afternoon to listen to Government Members welcome the environmental commitments in the Gracious Speech as a step change in our commitment to the environment. In reality, those commitments are partial and incomplete, and they sit in the context of a decade of failure and a climate emergency. We already have legally binding carbon reduction targets, and the Government are failing to meet them—indeed, we are currently predicted to miss the fourth and fifth carbon budgets The Government are still investing billions of pounds in fossil fuel extraction overseas, when an emergency demands that fossil fuels are kept in the ground. They have announced a paltry package of measures in response to intense public pressure and anxiety about their failure to act. The Gracious Speech ignores the Government’s utter complacency, and nowhere is that more evident than in relation to the built environment. Some 14% of UK carbon emissions come from residential buildings, yet over the past 10 years, the Government have scrapped the zero-carbon homes programme, which means that every new home currently being built is a lost opportunity to deliver carbon reductions The removal of subsidies for domestic solar power has all but halted the installation of solar panels by private individual homeowners. The introduction and then closure, just two years later, of the disastrous green deal for retrofitting, means that next to no progress has been made on reducing carbon emissions from existing homes. There is no programme to reduce our reliance on gas to heat our homes, and one in 10 UK households are still living in fuel poverty. Deregulation of the planning system has reduced the quality of many new homes, as well as the quantum of new urban green space being built alongside new homes Finally, the Government talk in the Gracious Speech about a world-leading approach, but the UK is already world-leading because of our role in the EU. Within the EU, we have helped to weight the balance of power towards greater ambition on climate change, and we will have helped to push EU states that are reluctant to do more. If we leave the EU, that ability to lead will be lost and the UK will be stuck between a European Union where we have no seat at the table and the America of Donald Trump, one of the greatest climate vandals of our time. Dressing up some minimalist commitments after 10 years of failure and negligence, in a policy context in which whatever we do will be diminished by Brexit, is simply not an adequate response to an emergency.
The Climate Emergency — House of Commons, 2019-10-17
Topic: Environment
Janet Jessica Daby (Labour, Centre-left): Air quality is an issue of huge importance to my constituents in Lewisham East, to London and to the country. It is a key part of efforts to tackle the climate emergency. The concentration of nitrogen dioxide in the air in many areas of my community exceeds World Health Organisation standards, which are designed to protect us. People living in London’s most deprived areas and disadvantaged communities are, on average, exposed to a quarter more nitrogen dioxide than others. According to the British Health Foundation, air pollution is now linked to 36,000 deaths a year nationwide. That is tragic Lewisham Council is due to trial school streets, which is a pilot scheme in Lee Green in my constituency to reduce air pollution and traffic congestion around several schools in the area. Last month, I visited Brindishe Lee primary school to meet the local community, teachers and children who closed the road near their school for a car-free day. It was an absolute joy to see them playing and enjoying their local street outside their school. The Mayor of London’s ultra low emission zone will improve air quality, meaning that by 2025 there will be no primary or secondary schools in areas exceeding legal high quality limits. That means the gap in quality between high and low-income areas of London will be reduced by a significant 71%. The Government need to support that, however, with new air quality laws Earlier this week, the Government published their Environment Bill. Some of its content was welcome, but there were few details on the Government’s apparently ambitious air quality target. If, as the Government constantly claim, leaving the European Union will be an opportunity to legislate better, why have they have not proudly announced that measures in one of their flagship Bills will exceed existing EU standards? Why do they fail to take advantage of the opportunity to reach the higher standards set by the WHO? Why does the proposed new watchdog move backwards on measures designed to enforce these targets, such as fines? The Government must not shift the responsibility to local authorities while continuing to cut funding to avoid the difficult decisions The Government are not moving far or fast enough to improve our air quality and protect our children. I have marched, I have visited, and I have spoken at a number of climate change and air quality events across my constituency. We are passionate about this issue. In many cases it is children, the next generation, who are leading the way for cleaner air. Let us make it easier for them.
The Climate Emergency — House of Commons, 2019-10-17
Topic: Environment
Ruth Margaret Cadbury (Labour, Centre-left): There is little dispute that we are living in a climate crisis. If serious action is not agreed on and embedded soon, we will reach a tipping point where it will be impossible to reverse global temperature rises. We know that those who will suffer most from a lack of action on the environment will be those who are least well off. Whether they are farmers in low-lying Bangladesh hit by flash floods or children in cities growing up breathing polluted air, the poorest are hit hardest by our lack of action I recently met the children at Belmont primary school in Chiswick during their amazing climate awareness week. They are already urging their parents to switch energy providers to renewable sources and to use their cars less, but however much individual households change their habits, change needs to start from the top. To have any hope of achieving net zero by 2050 we need clear Government targets now No issue is more totemic than transport. It is responsible for 27% of greenhouse gas emissions, yet the sector is the slowest in addressing emissions. Replacing all petrol and diesel vehicles with electric will not scratch the surface of the challenge. Also, how can we make a difference when it is far cheaper to fly 400 km than to travel that distance by train? I am disappointed that the Queen’s Speech mentioned no legislation to cut transport emissions If the Government want to take one simple step towards the carbon target for the UK, they can scrap the third runway proposal for Heathrow. That scheme means an additional 6 million tonnes of CO2. Yet Government figures show that the net economic benefit of the scheme is zero. Seventy per cent. of UK flights are made by just 15% of the population. Runway 3 is not even being built to fulfil business needs, as international business travel is flatlining. Almost all the additional passengers at Heathrow after expansion will be UK- based people taking leisure flights abroad—and those are Department for Transport figures. Yesterday, the Government rejected the recommendation of the Committee on Climate Change, which had said that they should assess their airport capacity strategy in the context of net zero. The Government’s response stated that the matter should instead be addressed by the UN. Zero-emission planes will not come on stream until 2050 at the earliest—far too late to address aviation’s disproportionate impact on UK emissions. In other words, in the UK’s response, the Government are not accepting responsibility for getting UK aviation emissions down to net zero. They say they may do so "at a later date". That is deeply disappointing Cycling and walking can also make a significant contribution to cuts in air pollution and carbon emissions. People young and old regularly tell me that they want to cycle more but feel unsafe doing so. That needs ring-fenced capital funding for segregated cycle paths, and safe crossings for those on foot or riding bicycles.
Eden Project North (Morecambe) — House of Commons, 2019-10-17
Topic: Transportation
Catherine Jane Smith (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Gentleman is making a strong case for the collaboration that is truly going on to try to make Eden Project North happen. I hope that he can see, while he is reading his speech, that the Minister is making some very positive nods of the head. I hope that means that the Minister has his cheque book ready to ensure that the project can be delivered. The hon. Gentleman has made some points about the different stakeholders that are involved, but he has also touched on the green agenda. Does he agree that First Group, which now has the franchise for the west coast main line, should also be part of the conversation, to ensure that public transport solutions for getting to Eden Project North become a reality? We do not want more cars on our roads in Lancaster and Morecambe.
Compliance with the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 — House of Commons, 2019-09-26
Topic: International Affairs
Ian Murray (Labour, Centre-left): (Urgent Question): I am happy to have been slightly delayed by an actual point of order. My urgent question is to ask the Prime Minister to make a statement on compliance with the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019.
Compliance with the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 — House of Commons, 2019-09-26
Topic: Law and Crime
Ian Murray (Labour, Centre-left): Question No. 2: do we have to take the Prime Minister to court again to comply with the law? Question No. 3: what message does it send out when the Prime Minister says no to a straight question of whether he will comply with the law? Lastly, and most importantly, the Minister said, and the Attorney General said, that the Government will obey the law. What does that mean? Can the Minister just come to the Dispatch Box and say that obeying the law means that the Government will seek an extension to 31 January if the provisions of that Act are not met?
Compliance with the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 — House of Commons, 2019-09-26
Topic: International Affairs
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): The Act that was passed three weeks ago is very simple. If by 19 October the Prime Minister has not got a deal through and has not secured the agreement of the House to no deal, he must seek the extension in the terms that are set out in the Act. It is very simple It is true that the terms of the letter that the Prime Minister must write were set out in a schedule, as was the duty to accept the extension that the EU agrees. Those were not in the previous version of the Act, which was passed in April, because there was a consensus that the then Prime Minister would comply with the law, understood the rule of law and could be trusted, and it was therefore not necessary to put them in the Act. They are in the Act now because, I am afraid to say—and this is a low point in our history—across the House those assumptions no longer hold, and the answers given by the Prime Minister last night, and his behaviour, make that less likely. If the Prime Minister genuinely wanted to get a deal through the House, he would not have divided the House in the way that he did yesterday. That is not the behaviour of a man who is trying to unite the House so that it can come together around a deal. The role of the Prime Minister is to unite the country. This Prime Minister is whipping up division, and I have not seen that from any Prime Minister in my lifetime There is a very simple, non-hypothetical question, and a precise question. If a deal has not been passed by the House by 19 October and there has been no agreement in the House to no deal, will the Prime Minister comply with the law by asking for the extension, given that that is what the Act requires? Let me make clear that if he does not do so, this will be enforced in the courts, and we will take collective action in the House to do whatever is necessary to make him comply with the law.
Compliance with the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 — House of Commons, 2019-09-26
Topic: International Affairs
Yvette Cooper (Labour, Centre-left): May I ask the Minister what his interpretation of the law is? If no deal has been agreed by Parliament or if the Prime Minister does not get a deal and Parliament has not voted in favour of no deal, does he think that the law will then require the Prime Minister to write a letter? Yes or no?
Compliance with the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 — House of Commons, 2019-09-26
Topic: International Affairs
Hilary James Benn (Labour, Centre-left): The House is grateful to the Minister for confirming that the Government will obey the law, but it should not need saying. The fact that the Minister is here today, having to answer these questions is a sign of the anxiety felt on both sides of the House and by many people in the country about the way in which the Government are conducting this matter. The problem is that the Minister’s clear answer is not compatible with the answer that the Prime Minister gave yesterday evening to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray). I want to read the exchange. My hon. Friend asked: "if he does not get a deal or a no deal through this House by 19 October"— those are the two conditions to meet that mean that he would not have to write the letter— "will he seek an extension to 31 January from the European Union The Prime Minister: No."—[Official Report, 25 September 2019; Vol. 664, c. 821.] How on earth can what the Minister has said, in good faith—and I have great respect for him—possibly be reconciled with what the Prime Minister said to the House of Commons last night?
Compliance with the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 — House of Commons, 2019-09-26
Topic: Law and Crime
Angela Eagle (Labour, Centre-left): Notwithstanding the Minister’s answer today, the Prime Minister hinted in answer to my question last night that he would obey the law but said directly to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) that he would not. The Minister’s answers today would be listened to with a little more belief if senior sources in No. 10 did not keep briefing that they are going to break the law.
Compliance with the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 — House of Commons, 2019-09-26
Topic: Government Operations
Barry John Sheerman (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister is a popular man in the House. We all know that some Members are more popular than others, and some less so. Indeed, a junior Minister has just left the Chamber shouting. I deplore that. I want all of us to work together harmoniously. The Minister has said that he wants greater transparency. There is a rumour running around the place—it is in the press—that the Government are going to shut down Parliament again for their own purposes. Is that right and why are they doing it?
Compliance with the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 — House of Commons, 2019-09-26
Topic: International Affairs
Benjamin Peter James Bradshaw (Labour, Centre-left): People watching will notice that the Minister has been at the Dispatch Box for nearly 40 minutes and has repeatedly failed to answer a simple question, which I will put to him again. In the absence of this House supporting a deal or no deal, how will the Government comply with the Benn Act and leave the European Union on 31 October?
Compliance with the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 — House of Commons, 2019-09-26
Topic: International Affairs
Seema Malhotra-Saluja (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister has repeatedly answered questions with what the Government want to do. In circumstances relating to the law, however, what is important is not necessarily what we want to do but what we might be obligated to do. Could I ask the Minister a slightly different question? What is his understanding of what the Benn Act asks the Government to do if, by 19 October, neither a deal has been agreed by this House nor a no deal has been passed?
Compliance with the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 — House of Commons, 2019-09-26
Topic: International Affairs
Lisa Eva Nandy (Labour, Centre-left): Many of us in this House genuinely want a deal and have been working cross-party to achieve it—in fact, we amended the withdrawal (No. 2) Bill to make it clear that the purpose of the extension was to achieve and agree a deal. I say to the Minister that we can see what is happening here. We can see what the Prime Minister was doing with that horrendous, divisive language yesterday. We can see that it is a clear electoral strategy to whip up hate and try to divide us and to whip up the hate of people against Parliament. For those of us who want to work cross-party to achieve a deal, that is making it much, much more difficult. Will the Minister now restore some trust to this House of Commons and tell us clearly, on the record, that if a deal is not achieved by 19 October, the Prime Minister will sign that letter seeking an extension from the European Union?
Compliance with the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 — House of Commons, 2019-09-26
Topic: International Affairs
Clive James Charles Betts (Labour, Centre-left): Is the Minister saying that the Government believe that if this House does not agree a deal and does not agree no deal by 19 October, there is a doubt that the law requires the Prime Minister to sign the letter asking for an extension?