argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Labor
Questions: Will the Minister ask officials to look compassionately on benefits arrangements for people with mental health difficulties? So often, when these people are called for assessment, it is not obvious that they really do have problems.; Following my request for a rescheduled meeting about the independent living fund, the Minister kindly wrote to me on 15 January, but why did he make no reference to my request for a meeting and why did he refer me to post-ILF provision under Newcastle city council when my constituency is North Tyneside?; The Government have rightly tackled the long-standing chaos in the Child Support Agency, but attracted controversy with their new 4% admin charge on struggling parents with care when the other parent is not stepping up to the plate. What assessment have the Government made of the big drop-off in the number of parents using the Child Maintenance Service? Are absent parents magically paying up to avoid their charge or are parents with care being scared off to avoid theirs?; The Secretary of State has said that local authorities are choosing to give funds to local food banks. I can assure him that Mayor Joe Anderson in Liverpool does not relish having to spend £138,000 to tackle food poverty locally in Liverpool. Will the Secretary of State sit down with representatives from the Trussell Trust to help him understand how more than 1 million people are being forced to go hungry by the actions of his Department?; What steps is the Minister taking to tackle long-term youth unemployment in areas of high deprivation such as Easington? What specific measures has he identified to help my constituents?
Marcus Charles Jones (Conservative, Centre-right): Not all employers appreciate the social importance and value to the work force that employing disabled people can bring. What more are the Government doing to try to encourage employers to take on disabled people, and to help them into work?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Labor
Questions: Will the Minister ask officials to look compassionately on benefits arrangements for people with mental health difficulties? So often, when these people are called for assessment, it is not obvious that they really do have problems.; Following my request for a rescheduled meeting about the independent living fund, the Minister kindly wrote to me on 15 January, but why did he make no reference to my request for a meeting and why did he refer me to post-ILF provision under Newcastle city council when my constituency is North Tyneside?; The Government have rightly tackled the long-standing chaos in the Child Support Agency, but attracted controversy with their new 4% admin charge on struggling parents with care when the other parent is not stepping up to the plate. What assessment have the Government made of the big drop-off in the number of parents using the Child Maintenance Service? Are absent parents magically paying up to avoid their charge or are parents with care being scared off to avoid theirs?; The Secretary of State has said that local authorities are choosing to give funds to local food banks. I can assure him that Mayor Joe Anderson in Liverpool does not relish having to spend £138,000 to tackle food poverty locally in Liverpool. Will the Secretary of State sit down with representatives from the Trussell Trust to help him understand how more than 1 million people are being forced to go hungry by the actions of his Department?; What steps is the Minister taking to tackle long-term youth unemployment in areas of high deprivation such as Easington? What specific measures has he identified to help my constituents?
Mark James Harper (Conservative, Centre-right): I think that our Disability Confident campaign has contributed to the fact that more than a quarter of a million extra disabled people have started work over the last year. I am also considering improvements that we can make to the Access to Work service, which plays an important role in helping people either to stay in work or to return to it.
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Labor
Questions: Will the Minister ask officials to look compassionately on benefits arrangements for people with mental health difficulties? So often, when these people are called for assessment, it is not obvious that they really do have problems.; Following my request for a rescheduled meeting about the independent living fund, the Minister kindly wrote to me on 15 January, but why did he make no reference to my request for a meeting and why did he refer me to post-ILF provision under Newcastle city council when my constituency is North Tyneside?; The Government have rightly tackled the long-standing chaos in the Child Support Agency, but attracted controversy with their new 4% admin charge on struggling parents with care when the other parent is not stepping up to the plate. What assessment have the Government made of the big drop-off in the number of parents using the Child Maintenance Service? Are absent parents magically paying up to avoid their charge or are parents with care being scared off to avoid theirs?; The Secretary of State has said that local authorities are choosing to give funds to local food banks. I can assure him that Mayor Joe Anderson in Liverpool does not relish having to spend £138,000 to tackle food poverty locally in Liverpool. Will the Secretary of State sit down with representatives from the Trussell Trust to help him understand how more than 1 million people are being forced to go hungry by the actions of his Department?; What steps is the Minister taking to tackle long-term youth unemployment in areas of high deprivation such as Easington? What specific measures has he identified to help my constituents?; The Secretary of State said that by the start of this year no one would wait more than 16 weeks for a personal independence payment assessment. Will he tell us whether that is the case—yes or no?
Mark James Harper (Conservative, Centre-right): As the hon. Lady will know, this Wednesday I shall publish some properly verified statistics. I shall also engage in a lengthy session before the Work and Pensions Committee, when I shall set out the facts in full, as I have been requested to do.
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Labor
Questions: Will the Minister ask officials to look compassionately on benefits arrangements for people with mental health difficulties? So often, when these people are called for assessment, it is not obvious that they really do have problems.; Following my request for a rescheduled meeting about the independent living fund, the Minister kindly wrote to me on 15 January, but why did he make no reference to my request for a meeting and why did he refer me to post-ILF provision under Newcastle city council when my constituency is North Tyneside?; The Government have rightly tackled the long-standing chaos in the Child Support Agency, but attracted controversy with their new 4% admin charge on struggling parents with care when the other parent is not stepping up to the plate. What assessment have the Government made of the big drop-off in the number of parents using the Child Maintenance Service? Are absent parents magically paying up to avoid their charge or are parents with care being scared off to avoid theirs?; The Secretary of State has said that local authorities are choosing to give funds to local food banks. I can assure him that Mayor Joe Anderson in Liverpool does not relish having to spend £138,000 to tackle food poverty locally in Liverpool. Will the Secretary of State sit down with representatives from the Trussell Trust to help him understand how more than 1 million people are being forced to go hungry by the actions of his Department?; What steps is the Minister taking to tackle long-term youth unemployment in areas of high deprivation such as Easington? What specific measures has he identified to help my constituents?; The Secretary of State said that by the start of this year no one would wait more than 16 weeks for a personal independence payment assessment. Will he tell us whether that is the case—yes or no?
David Mowat (Conservative, Centre-right): The Independent Project Board, which was set up by the Office of Fair Trading, recently established that more than £8 billion-worth of private pension assets were subject to charges of between 2% and 3%. That makes it almost impossible for such schemes to grow. Will the Minister tell us what action he will take to deal with that?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Education
Questions: Will the Minister ask officials to look compassionately on benefits arrangements for people with mental health difficulties? So often, when these people are called for assessment, it is not obvious that they really do have problems.; Following my request for a rescheduled meeting about the independent living fund, the Minister kindly wrote to me on 15 January, but why did he make no reference to my request for a meeting and why did he refer me to post-ILF provision under Newcastle city council when my constituency is North Tyneside?; The Government have rightly tackled the long-standing chaos in the Child Support Agency, but attracted controversy with their new 4% admin charge on struggling parents with care when the other parent is not stepping up to the plate. What assessment have the Government made of the big drop-off in the number of parents using the Child Maintenance Service? Are absent parents magically paying up to avoid their charge or are parents with care being scared off to avoid theirs?; The Secretary of State has said that local authorities are choosing to give funds to local food banks. I can assure him that Mayor Joe Anderson in Liverpool does not relish having to spend £138,000 to tackle food poverty locally in Liverpool. Will the Secretary of State sit down with representatives from the Trussell Trust to help him understand how more than 1 million people are being forced to go hungry by the actions of his Department?; What steps is the Minister taking to tackle long-term youth unemployment in areas of high deprivation such as Easington? What specific measures has he identified to help my constituents?; The Secretary of State said that by the start of this year no one would wait more than 16 weeks for a personal independence payment assessment. Will he tell us whether that is the case—yes or no?; The Secretary of State will be aware that 1,250 young people in my constituency are long-term unemployed. As well as helping those people directly, will he link much more closely with the Department for Education so that we can pre-empt those problems through good careers guidance, helping the pre-NEETs and ensuring that young people are job-ready at the age of 16, 17 and 18?
George Iain Duncan Smith (Conservative, Centre-right): May I first commend the hon. Gentleman for the work he has done? It has been a shining example both in his own area and nationally on early intervention and in setting up the Early Intervention Foundation. He has worked closely with Government and his own side. Yes, the answer is that of course we want to look at linking closely with the Department for Education, and I am very happy to discuss it with him further, but I also want to congratulate him on the hard work he does
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Environment
David Thomas Charles Davies (Conservative, Centre-right): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will be aware that the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee last week tabled an amendment to the Infrastructure Bill based on the Committee’s findings but ahead of their publication. Obviously we are all aware that it is a clear breach of Select Committee rules to leak a report in advance of publication, and I make no suggestion that that has been done here. However, I seek your guidance, Mr Speaker, as to whether amending a Bill in such a way as to reveal key parts of a report prior to its publication is in order, and whether you could remind the House of the duty of Select Committee Chairs to ensure that they do not give an impression that inquiries are being rushed through in order to make political points.
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Energy
Timothy Stephen Kenneth Yeo (Conservative, Centre-right): Yes, directly, Mr Speaker. You made reference to two Select Committee reports, one from the Environmental Audit Committee and one from the Transport Committee, directly relevant to this Bill. May I also draw the House’s attention to the fact that my Energy and Climate Change Committee has reported twice in detail on the specific issue of shale gas and fracking?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Education
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point of order, but the short answer is that we already have a scheme, which is effectively a grant scheme or subsidy mechanism, that makes it less burdensome for school groups from areas of the country either a considerable distance from London or characterised by disadvantage to come here. That is already in place, and should we continue with such a scheme and perhaps even redouble our efforts in 2015—I think we should—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who is always young at heart, will be enthusiastic about the scope of the education centre when it is opened in the late spring or early summer. That centre, which will be a state-of-the-art facility charting the journey to rights and representation, will allow us to double the number of young people coming through this place. There are people on both sides of the House who strongly supported this, and it is something we can all unite in welcoming.
Infrastructure Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Government Operations
John Henry Hayes (Conservative, Centre-right): Mr Speaker, it is always a joy to perform in this Chamber under your benevolent stewardship, but a still greater joy to be able to move the programme motion on this important proposed legislation I will just say a word about the programme motion. It is important that we emphasise that, although we do not want to take up too much of the House’s time—this is a big subject—there is a range of subject matter contained in the Bill and the need to ensure effective and fair consideration of it is the basis of the programme motion. The House needs to be afforded sufficient time to debate all the Bill’s areas effectively. We considered the number of amendments and the strength of feeling among hon. Members to create a programme fit for the purpose of enabling the House to do so The programme motion accordingly provides until 5.30 pm to debate the new clauses and amendments relating to energy. Thereafter, it provides until 7.30 pm to debate the new clauses and amendments on environmental control of animal and plant species, and on planning, land and buildings. All other provisions, including those relating to strategic highways companies, will be considered until 9 pm In fairness, the Opposition raised the issue of needing more time on Report when the Government introduced new clauses and schedules in Committee. Given that the Government intend to remove the additional and, admittedly, late-in-the-day provisions on the electronic communications code, and that no amendments have been tabled against our new clauses on the Public Works Loan Commissioners, the reimbursement of persons who have met expenses in the electrical connections market and the mayoral development orders, I cannot see why they want time for further deliberation at this stage The Bill has so far been debated in the right spirit. Indeed, I would go further: the mature and measured consideration it was given on Second Reading and in Committee speaks well of the House and, if I may say so, of the Opposition. Their team scrutinised the Bill carefully and fully, but in a considered way, while not in any sense failing in their duty to test the Government’s arguments and to make good arguments of their own To that end and in that spirit, we have in turn listened carefully and taken on board some of the criticisms made of the Bill since its inception. In all the Bill does, it has evolved by a process of careful scrutiny, such as I have described. It has also moved forward because Governments need to think about the arguments made in this place and elsewhere when proposed legislation of such significance comes before the House It is in everyone’s interests to send a signal from this House that there is consensus on the Bill, and that we can deliver it on time. On that note, as a father might say to his young children, I say, "Don’t spoil it now." Let us maintain that spirit and send out such a signal. Let us do right by the House, but right by the nation, too.
Infrastructure Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Environment
Anne Margaret Main (Conservative, Centre-right): I am a little disappointed, because I wrote to the Public Bill Committee and asked whether it would consider an amendment, but I gather there was not time for it to do so. This is probably the only time I can raise the matter I want to mention today because, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) said, the debates will be quite crowded. When there are huge pieces of infrastructure work such as the proposed 3.5 million square foot rail freight development in my constituency, there is no obligation on developers at least to consider green, environmental measures. It is a loss that we will not get to debate that today.
Infrastructure Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Energy
Amber Rudd (Conservative, Centre-right): I rise to speak to new clause 15 and amendments 98 and 103. Both shale gas and geothermal energy are exciting new energy resources for the UK, with the potential to provide greater energy security, growth and jobs, while also playing an important role in the transition to a low-carbon economy.
Infrastructure Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Energy
Amber Rudd (Conservative, Centre-right): I will make some progress, but I will give way to the hon. Lady during my speech. The provisions in the Bill provide for a right to use deep-level land for the purposes of exploiting petroleum or deep geothermal energy. That will help us unlock exploration for shale gas and deep geothermal as we move towards a low-carbon economy Several hon. Members have brought forward new clause 4, which would place a statutory duty on the Committee on Climate Change to produce reports on the effect of shale on the UK’s net carbon emissions. Amendment 44 states that the right of use, and the carrying out of hydraulic fracturing, are conditional on the finding in the Committee’s reports "that shale…exploitation leads to a net reduction of UK carbon emissions." The Government are committed to reducing carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. To meet our challenging climate targets we will need significant quantities of renewables, nuclear and gas in our energy mix, and we are committed to listening to the experts and their advice on how to reach those targets.
Infrastructure Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: International Affairs
Amber Rudd (Conservative, Centre-right): That is why, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Government have been so keen to get targets into Europe that apply across the whole of Europe. He will be aware that we are leading on those, and we will continue to do so. It is very important to lead by example, and he is right to raise the issue relating to Germany, which is why we are pleased to have a cross-European agreement. However, that does not detract from the importance of making sure that we do the right thing in this country.
Infrastructure Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Energy
Gregory Barker (Conservative, Centre-right): On that point about displaced coal, is it not a fact that it is displaced coal from north America that is contributing to a rise in the burning of coal in Europe? If we take matters into our own hands and develop more gas, we can reduce the amount of coal that is burned. It is coal that is the enemy of climate change and that is enemy No. 1. Gas is our ally in a green future.
Infrastructure Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Energy
Amber Rudd (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend makes an excellent point based on his clear expertise in this area. The Committee on Climate Change has said that for flexible power supply, the UK will "continue to use considerable, albeit declining, amounts of gas well into the 2030s" which will leave "a considerable gap between production of North Sea gas and our total demand." It argues that that demand "can either be met through imports or UK production of shale gas." It concludes that "if anything, using well regulated UK shale gas to fill this gap could lead to lower overall lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions than continuing to import LNG. It would also increase the proportion of energy produced within the UK, improving our energy sovereignty."
Infrastructure Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Energy
David Mowat (Conservative, Centre-right): The Minister rightly said that the displacement of coal by gas could make a massive impact on reducing our carbon emissions. But it is also right to say that that is no good if countries such as Germany go down the coal route. Does she think she can persuade those countries to follow us in going towards gas more quickly?
Infrastructure Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Environment
Amber Rudd (Conservative, Centre-right): We will certainly do our best. The UK is a leader in Europe in providing our own example and in trying to corral our European partners to ensure that we move to a low carbon economy.
Infrastructure Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Environment
Amber Rudd (Conservative, Centre-right): I will make a little more progress Professor David MacKay and Dr Timothy Stone have supported the findings of the Committee on Climate Change and in 2013, they published recommendations on how to reduce emissions from shale gas operations, which the Government have accepted. In addition, the Environment Agency has agreed to make green completions—techniques to minimise methane emissions —a requirement of environmental permits for shale gas production.
Infrastructure Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Environment
Amber Rudd (Conservative, Centre-right): I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but first I want to outline what the Government are doing on this matter I am pleased to say that we have tabled an amendment that will place a duty on the Secretary of State to seek advice from the Committee on Climate Change as to the impact of petroleum development in England and Wales, including shale gas operations, on our ability to meet the UK’s overall climate change objectives over time, and it is not limited to a specific carbon budget period. The Secretary of State must consider the advice of the Committee on Climate Change and report on his conclusions at least every five years. By introducing this amendment, we are making it absolutely clear that shale development will remain compatible with our goal to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Infrastructure Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Environment
Amber Rudd (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I am confident that our amendment addresses exactly that. The Committee on Climate Change will take a view on what it sees, now that there is an obligation on the Secretary of State to consult with it. I am encouraged by the fact that that obligation is now in place.
Infrastructure Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Energy
William Nigel Paul Cash (Conservative, Centre-right): On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), is the Minister aware that, historically, the German nation has been providing massive subsidies—up to £4 billion a year—to its coal industry? She could do something in the Council of Europe about solving the problem that she has been describing. Will she do that