argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Party Conferences — House of Commons, 2015-10-22
Topic: Other
Questions: If he will make it his policy that the House not adjourn for the period covered by the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat party autumn conferences.
Thérèse Anne Coffey (Conservative, Centre-right): I appreciate the hon. Lady was not here, but in the last Parliament the House resolved to make some changes to its hours. I am conscious of the responsibilities people might have—whether with families, children, parents or other extenuating circumstances—but, as I have advised new Members already, the Procedure Committee looked again at this and decided not to recommend any changes to the House. It is open to the Committee to make further investigations, however, and I am sure that her comments will be passed on to its Chairman and that she can make them directly.
Restoration and Renewal — House of Commons, 2015-10-22
Topic: Public Lands
Thomas Christopher John Pursglove (Conservative, Centre-right): Many people up and down the country recognise and appreciate the value of this place, in terms of both our national history and it being at the heart of our democracy and its tourism value. I have been asked locally whether there are any plans to establish a fund that members of the public can contribute to in order to support those restoration works. Does the right hon. Gentleman have any such plans?
House Business Committee Proposal — House of Commons, 2015-10-22
Topic: Other
Thérèse Anne Coffey (Conservative, Centre-right): There was an absence of consensus on this matter at the end of the last Parliament, and there is still no consensus now. We discussed it in Westminster Hall last week with the hon. Gentleman and two other hon. Members.
House Business Committee Proposal — House of Commons, 2015-10-22
Topic: Mixed Topics
Thérèse Anne Coffey (Conservative, Centre-right): As I explained at length in the Westminster Hall debate last week, one of our predecessors, the noble Lord Lansley set our four tests. We have yet to receive a recommendation or create a proposal that can pass the four tests that we believe necessary for the creation of a House business committee.
House Business Committee Proposal — House of Commons, 2015-10-22
Topic: Other
Peter William Bone (Conservative, Centre-right): I will take that as a no—that the Minister will not bring forward a motion on this matter. The Backbench Business Committee, however, has put down such a motion and Members will have the opportunity in a week’s time to vote on whether they want to discuss proposals for a House business committee. Does the Minister agree that that is an excellent way forward?
House Business Committee Proposal — House of Commons, 2015-10-22
Topic: Other
Thérèse Anne Coffey (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend is a member of the Backbench Business Committee, and I know he has an interest in this issue. He displayed his knowledge of Standing Orders in Westminster Hall last week, and I believe he advised the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) to contest the decision. Of course, that situation has arisen in this Session because we used to adjourn in Westminster Hall but it now considers motions. The Backbench Business Committee has decided that this is a good use of parliamentary time next Thursday—it is a judgment that it has made.
China (Human Rights) — House of Commons, 2015-10-22
Topic: Civil Rights
Timothy Paul Loughton (Conservative, Centre-right): As we have heard yet again, freedom of speech and dissent in China are being brutally repressed, not least in Tibet, where the mere possession of a photograph of the Dalai Lama can result in imprisonment or worse. In the UK, our democracy is built on the principle of free speech, so can the Minister tell me why protesters in the Mall exercising their right to draw attention to human rights abuses in Tibet were this week corralled behind barricades at the back while Chinese state-sponsored cheerleaders were given "Love China" T-shirts, Chinese diplomatic bags and a prime position at the front?
China (Human Rights) — House of Commons, 2015-10-22
Topic: Mixed Topics
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): We are immensely grateful to the Minister of State for looking after two thirds of the world, as he puts it. The right hon. Gentleman is not understated on the matter. It is on the record, and we are deeply obliged.
China (Human Rights) — House of Commons, 2015-10-22
Topic: Other
Hugo Swire (Conservative, Centre-right): I subscribe to the words that "persuasion and dialogue achieve more than confrontation and empty rhetoric." Those are not my words; they are the words of the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] Yes, the Prime Minister of the time—Tony Blair, in October 1998.
China (Human Rights) — House of Commons, 2015-10-22
Topic: Other
Hugo Swire (Conservative, Centre-right): I would only say to the hon. Gentleman that I agree with another statement: "We will make our position clear as we always do, but the best way to do it is without grandstanding or hectoring" Those are the words of the Prime Minister—Tony Blair, back in 1998.
China (Human Rights) — House of Commons, 2015-10-22
Topic: Civil Rights
Peter William Bone (Conservative, Centre-right): I will sleep better in my beds tonight—[Laughter.] I will sleep better in my bed tonight knowing that the Minister is looking after two thirds of the world. I would sleep even tighter if I knew who was looking after the other third. Does he agree that the way in which human rights will change in China is through working with countries like ours and seeing that there is nothing to fear from freedom of religion and freedom of speech?
China (Human Rights) — House of Commons, 2015-10-22
Topic: Civil Rights
Hugo Swire (Conservative, Centre-right): I know that Mrs Bone will be following my hon. Friend’s comments about how many beds he has. There are things that we take for granted in this country. We should be ever-vigilant of the fact that others around the world do not enjoy those same liberties. I agree with him that the UK can show that we are able to have criticism, dialogue and debate and that, at the end of the day, no one is threatened by it. Freedom of religious expression is a fundamental human right. That is one of the things that all too often in this country we accept as the norm. We should be jealous in guarding the privileges that we enjoy and do everything we can to export them to countries that are less fortunate.
China (Human Rights) — House of Commons, 2015-10-22
Topic: Mixed Topics
Hugo Swire (Conservative, Centre-right): We are getting a little wide of the mark there, but I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), who is not in his place but who goes around the world restating British policy against the death penalty. That is our official policy; it is what we use as such at every meeting and we will continue to do so.
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2015-10-22
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and for his courtesy in giving me notice of it. On the basis of what he has told me in writing, I have to tell him that it is not for me to conclude whether there has been a change of policy or not. I leave others to make that judgment. However, it is a long-established principle in this place that if a Minister has a policy announcement to make, that announcement should first be made to the House. The Minister concerned will therefore have to consider whether he or she believes that a change is involved, and to draw the appropriate conclusions. The hon. Gentleman is a sufficiently adroit and dextrous Member of the House to be well aware, if he is dissatisfied with the development of events in the coming days, of the toolkit available to Members to draw the urgent attention of the House to a matter that they believe warrants its consideration.
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2015-10-22
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): Certainly, Backbench Business Committee debates can take place, and the hon. Gentleman requires no encouragement from me on that front. More widely, I note that he is a most assiduous member of the shadow Cabinet and that he is somewhat of a highbrow academic type. He will therefore know perfectly well what the opportunities are to air matters in the House. I have a hunch that he simply wanted a prime-time opportunity to tweak the Government’s tail. I know that he would not think it right to abuse his privileges as a Member on the Front Bench, however. These matters can be aired on a subsequent occasion, but time is pressing and we will leave it there for today
Standing Orders (Public Business) — House of Commons, 2015-10-22
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): We now come to the main business, which is a motion in the name of the Leader of the House on the Standing Orders (Public Business). Under the Order of the House agreed on Tuesday, the debate may continue till 4 pm, when the Chair must put the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion, including the questions on any amendments selected, which may then be moved. A list of the amendments that I have selected for debate has been circulated We shall proceed—I hope this is helpful to the House—as follows. The Leader of the House will open the debate and move the motion in his name. The debate will then take place on the main motion. Those Members whose amendments have been selected may speak to those amendments in the debate, but they will not be called to move them formally until the end of the debate. The House will then have an opportunity to decide on the amendments moved in sequence, and finally to decide the main motion either as it stands or as amended. I hope that colleagues will feel that the choreography of this matter is now clear, and it should lend itself to the efficient management of the time available.
Standing Orders (Public Business) — House of Commons, 2015-10-22
Topic: Other
Eleanor Fulton Laing (Conservative, Centre-right): Order. If the hon. Member for Cardiff West had whispered that remark, I would not have heard it. As he made it very loudly, I could not help but hear it, and I must ask him to apologise to the House for using that language.
Standing Orders (Public Business) — House of Commons, 2015-10-22
Topic: Mixed Topics
Christopher Stephen Grayling (Conservative, Centre-right): I did say that I would give way in a moment but just wanted to set out some remarks first; that was all This has been one of the frustrations of the debate on this issue. Anyone who reads these proposals will know full well that they do not exclude any Member of Parliament from any vote in this Chamber in which they can currently take part. It is simply not the case. Yet I keep hearing about MPs being excluded. That will simply not happen. I hope we will not hear that error repeated in today’s debate.
Standing Orders (Public Business) — House of Commons, 2015-10-22
Topic: Other
Mark Steven Spencer (Conservative, Centre-right): Will the Leader of the House reflect on the abbreviation for this legislation, which seems to have been boiled down to EVEL? Will he reflect on changing it to something more appropriate, such as laws only votable in England? The House could then could vote for LOVE, not EVEL.
Standing Orders (Public Business) — House of Commons, 2015-10-22
Topic: Other
Christopher Stephen Grayling (Conservative, Centre-right): I cannot confess to being the greatest fan of the acronym, but, sadly, that had been set before I came along. I rather like my hon. Friend’s alternative. Certainly, as I always say to my friends in the Scottish National party in this House, we may disagree violently about the future of our Union and we may disagree on a whole range matters, but I value our debates and their presence in the House. We will continue to have a lively time, but I hope also a friendly time, working together.
Standing Orders (Public Business) — House of Commons, 2015-10-22
Topic: Other
Christopher Stephen Grayling (Conservative, Centre-right): I say to the hon. Lady today, as Leader of the House, that I do not want her to be excluded from any debate or vote that she may currently take part in on the Floor of this House. Nothing in the proposals will make that happen. As I keep saying to the SNP’s shadow Leader of the House, I would not take a step that prevented us, in the rare moment when it might happen, from walking through the Division Lobby together, perhaps because we had all come to the view that some of the views of the Labour party were beyond the pale. There are quite a few these days that look like they might be just that.
Standing Orders (Public Business) — House of Commons, 2015-10-22
Topic: Mixed Topics
Karen Lumley (Conservative, Centre-right): When my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) and I campaigned for a no vote in Wales, we warned that this would happen. Does my right hon. Friend agree that these proposals are the only fair way to move matters forward?
Standing Orders (Public Business) — House of Commons, 2015-10-22
Topic: Other
Christopher Stephen Grayling (Conservative, Centre-right): I studied the hon. Gentleman’s amendment carefully. There are two problems with it, or two reasons why our approach is right. First, it prejudges the length of the Session. We have not announced the length of the Session. Opposition Members will remember that the first Session of the last Parliament was two years long. Therefore, in some circumstances, his proposal would extend the trial period rather than reduce it. We do not know the date of the end of the Session, so it is difficult to commit to a pilot of that length Secondly, if the Session does finish next spring, we will not even, in my judgment, be able to test to the level recommended by the Procedure Committee, because not enough Bills to which these procedures apply would have been laid before the House. I understand the point the hon. Gentleman is making but, with respect, I think the approach we have taken is better and I intend to stick to it.
Standing Orders (Public Business) — House of Commons, 2015-10-22
Topic: Civil Rights
Christopher Stephen Grayling (Conservative, Centre-right): It baffles me that English Labour MPs seem to be set against these sensible and balanced proposals. They do not exclude anyone from debate, but they give the English a clearer voice so that they can say no to something being imposed on them against their wishes.
Standing Orders (Public Business) — House of Commons, 2015-10-22
Topic: Other
Christopher Stephen Grayling (Conservative, Centre-right): They cannot; if they do not turn up, they cannot participate. They are Members of this House but they do not turn up and so they cannot participate. That situation is not going to change, be it in relation to something that is before the whole House or to a Committee.
Standing Orders (Public Business) — House of Commons, 2015-10-22
Topic: Mixed Topics
Stephen James Metcalfe (Conservative, Centre-right): Is the point not a simple one? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the people of Basildon and Thurrock will find it very hard to understand how people who are not affected by legislation can force it on those who are? What this measure does is resolve that issue.
Standing Orders (Public Business) — House of Commons, 2015-10-22
Topic: Other
Christopher Stephen Grayling (Conservative, Centre-right): I could not have said it better myself. My hon. Friend is absolutely right and puts his finger on the heart of these reforms. They are fair and sensible. Whatever Opposition Members say today, I am entirely comfortable, as a Unionist, in presenting them to this House.
Standing Orders (Public Business) — House of Commons, 2015-10-22
Topic: Mixed Topics
Christopher Stephen Grayling (Conservative, Centre-right): I am not excluding the hon. Gentleman from the English Grand Committee. He will be able to speak in that Committee and to vote on Bills. I am simply leaving the English with a requirement to give their consent before something can happen. Where we legislate in this House for a variety of issues affecting Wales, we require a legislative consent motion from the Welsh Assembly Government. That is no different from this House seeking a legislative consent motion from the English in order to proceed.
Standing Orders (Public Business) — House of Commons, 2015-10-22
Topic: Civil Rights
Robin Caspar Walker (Conservative, Centre-right): Like many Members, I have raised petitions on this issue and I have received enormous support from my constituents. One challenge with raising petitions in Worcester is that when we go out on the high street, we constantly meet day trippers from Wales. What I found was that when I explained to them that this was about English votes for English laws and English and Welsh votes on English and Welsh issues, they happily signed the petitions and gave strong support for the approach we are taking.
Standing Orders (Public Business) — House of Commons, 2015-10-22
Topic: Other
Christopher Stephen Grayling (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend makes an important point: the public are on our side over this. It is perhaps a sign that we are in government and the Opposition are not that we are more in touch with what the public think.
Standing Orders (Public Business) — House of Commons, 2015-10-22
Topic: Mixed Topics
Conor Burns (Conservative, Centre-right): Does the Leader of the House agree that these relatively modest proposals do something powerful, which is allow us to say to our constituents—I say this as a Member of Parliament born in Belfast but representing an English constituency—that in future there is no chance of the rest of the United Kingdom’s Members of Parliament imposing on them something that they do not want in England? The reason there is so much hostility from Scottish National party Members is that they realise this is a safety valve that will help to protect the future of the United Kingdom.
Standing Orders (Public Business) — House of Commons, 2015-10-22
Topic: Other
Eleanor Fulton Laing (Conservative, Centre-right): Order. Before I call the shadow Leader of the House, I should say that it will be obvious to Members that a great many people—more than 50 Members—have indicated that they wish to take part in this debate for which there is now really a very short time remaining. I will not impose a time limit on Back-Bench speeches quite yet, but I implore Members of the House, even very senior and terribly important ones, to seek to prove the power and quality of oratory by speaking for less than five minutes. Of course I am not making such a request of the shadow Leader of the House. I call Mr Chris Bryant.
Standing Orders (Public Business) — House of Commons, 2015-10-22
Topic: Other
Eleanor Fulton Laing (Conservative, Centre-right): Order. With 50 Members waiting to speak, we just cannot have long interventions. It is simply discourteous to those who are waiting to speak. We must have interventions to keep the debate flowing lest it becomes unlively.
Standing Orders (Public Business) — House of Commons, 2015-10-22
Topic: Other
Kevin John Foster (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman said that he would give a prize to anyone who produced a short summary and said that it would be impossible. The House of Commons Library has managed it in three quarters of a page; would it have helped him to have read that before he came here today?
Standing Orders (Public Business) — House of Commons, 2015-10-22
Topic: Other
Karl McCartney (Conservative, Centre-right): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have said this before, but I did not break the hon. Gentleman’s leg. He might be fleet of foot in this Chamber, but he certainly is not on the rugby pitch.
Standing Orders (Public Business) — House of Commons, 2015-10-22
Topic: Housing
Christopher Stephen Grayling (Conservative, Centre-right): No one is giving any instructions to the Speaker. It is custom and practice for those drafting a Bill to set out its territorial extent. No doubt those who drafted the Housing and Planning Bill will know precisely the territorial extent of clause 44. I do not happen to remember what clause 44 is; perhaps he does.
Standing Orders (Public Business) — House of Commons, 2015-10-22
Topic: Other
Eleanor Fulton Laing (Conservative, Centre-right): Just for a change, I can directly answer the hon. Gentleman’s point of order. The view of the Chair is that if a Member has requested to speak but makes several long interventions, that Member’s place in the speaking order will go further down the list every time they intervene. I can make that absolutely clear. I hope the House is listening and will allow the hon. Gentleman to finish his speech.
Standing Orders (Public Business) — House of Commons, 2015-10-22
Topic: Mixed Topics
Christopher Stephen Grayling (Conservative, Centre-right): I was simply going to point out, as the hon. Gentleman and I were both Members at the time, that the top-up fees Bill in 2003-04 would not have secured a legislative consent motion because the English were opposed to it. Therefore, under these measures, it would not have happened.
Standing Orders (Public Business) — House of Commons, 2015-10-22
Topic: Other
Eleanor Fulton Laing (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman makes a very reasonable point. Many Members are waiting to speak, and they have legitimate points of view that the House must hear, which is why I have appealed for brevity and for short interventions. The shadow Leader of the House has another minute until he reaches half an hour, at which point I will raise my eyebrows at him.
Standing Orders (Public Business) — House of Commons, 2015-10-22
Topic: Other
Charles Ashley Rupert Walker (Conservative, Centre-right): There are thousands of lawyers in this country, and they all have different views—that is how they earn a living. I am sure that Lord Hope’s views are sincerely held, but I disagree with them, as I am sure does my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), who served with such distinction on the Committee. Is he seeking to intervene?
Standing Orders (Public Business) — House of Commons, 2015-10-22
Topic: Mixed Topics
Bernard Christison Jenkin (Conservative, Centre-right): I am not going to give way We are carrying out an evaluation of English votes for English laws that perhaps looks to a new settlement in the United Kingdom—what it might look like and what the financial consequences might be. This might finish up with exactly the kind of Joint Committee that has been proposed by Lord Butler of Brockwell, and that might be a good way of resolving these differences in the long term.
Standing Orders (Public Business) — House of Commons, 2015-10-22
Topic: Other
Iain Aitken Stewart (Conservative, Centre-right): Forgive me, but time is very limited and a lot of Members want to get in The point of the motion is not to exclude contributions, but that where a measure applies solely to England, Members from England should consent to the motion before them. Nothing in the motion excludes Members from Scotland from speaking on any Bill before this House.
Standing Orders (Public Business) — House of Commons, 2015-10-22
Topic: Civil Rights
Iain Aitken Stewart (Conservative, Centre-right): I am not going to give way again. I have very limited time I look forward to contributions from Scotland on all matters, but I want to have, for my constituents, the important principle of consent: that their Members of Parliament approve matters that apply only to them. This is an issue that has been running around for decades, and it is an issue on which there is strong public support on both sides of the border. I refer the House to two opinion polls this year. In an Ipsos MORI poll in July, 59% of people across the United Kingdom approved of the principle of English votes. In Scotland, in a ComRes survey in May, 53% approved.