argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Overseas Electors Bill — House of Commons, 2019-03-22
Topic: Mixed Topics
Philip Andrew Davies (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. Obviously I will come on to my amendment 50 when I get to it. I do not really have a particularly strong opinion on whether such polling stations would be useful. It may well be that in areas with a large concentration of overseas voters, that might be more convenient for everybody and it might encourage turnout. I do not have a strong opinion on this, however. I am not necessarily disagreeing with the hon. Gentleman, but I would not want him to take it that I was necessarily agreeing with him either—
Overseas Electors Bill — House of Commons, 2019-03-22
Topic: Civil Rights
Philip Andrew Davies (Conservative, Centre-right): I hope that he will accept that New clause 4 is again one of the hon. Member for City of Chester’s greatest hits. He proposed this in Committee, where he made these points: "It is essential that there is appropriate evaluation and investigation of the effects of passing the Bill on the number of registered electors in each constituency. We must have a clear idea about the sheer volume of people we are enfranchising in order to establish the necessary procedure to register and deal with the inevitable administrative bedlam that will result from the change."––[Official Report, Overseas Electors Public Bill Committee, 17 October 2018; c. 69.] I want to cite some of the figures that the hon. Gentleman gave during that debate, because they were very interesting. He said: "Under the 15-year rule, the number of registered overseas voters in the June 2017 general election reached just over 285,000, surpassing the December 2016 record. The Government have estimated that that is about 20% of eligible expats under the current 15-year limit, giving a potential electorate of around 1.4 million. Indeed, the figure has the potential to increase fivefold with the passing of the Bill. The number of overseas voters registering to vote has risen exponentially over the last 10 years and continues to rise. That can be attributed to the general increase in awareness by overseas voters about voter registration. Until 2015, the number of overseas voters registered to vote had never risen above 35,000."––[Official Report, Overseas Electors Public Bill Committee, 17 October 2018; c. 70.] I thought that that difference was quite telling. What made the seismic difference was the EU referendum in June 2016. I mentioned earlier the amount of work that was done in embassies around the world to try to encourage people to register for that referendum New clause 4 therefore has merit if we are to deal with the scale of the increase in numbers that we are talking about. I am not saying that I would press it to a vote, but I certainly think that it has merit and requires further consideration today, because the points that the hon. Member for City of Chester made in that debate were striking and something that we should all consider.
Overseas Electors Bill — House of Commons, 2019-03-22
Topic: Mixed Topics
Julian Carlton Knight (Conservative, Centre-right): That is a very interesting point, and I am quite staggered that 7 million people overseas could be enfranchised long term if the 15-year rule falls. That is very telling. Is it not true, in terms of my hon. Friend’s reflection on the EU referendum, that when the establishment wants to do something it will put its shoulder to the wheel and get it done? Is it not the case that with this Bill, should it come about, we will find a way to overcome any logistical issues?
Overseas Electors Bill — House of Commons, 2019-03-22
Topic: Civil Rights
Philip Andrew Davies (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is amazing what can be achieved when the Government and the powers that be set out their stall The point that the hon. Member for City of Chester was making, as I see it, was that this measure could make a big difference to elections in this country and ultimately elections could, and might well be, decided in future by people who do not live here. Is that something we want to see? People might well be happy for that to happen, but I brought the new clause back after the hon. Gentleman tabled it in Committee because I think that the people should at least properly consider whether they want to put in place legislation that could in effect mean that the deciding votes in elections in this country are cast by people who do not live here. What might people living here think about that? We need properly to consider it and to ensure that we are content before we go ahead with it. I brought the new clause back so that people could be aware and could think about whether that was what they really wanted to happen with elections in this country.
Overseas Electors Bill — House of Commons, 2019-03-22
Topic: Civil Rights
Neil John O'Brien (Conservative, Centre-right): Before we raise our sights to the question my hon. Friend has just raised, may I press him on the question of new clause 4(2)(c) and "whether the current election timetables are of sufficient duration to enable the full participation of any increased numbers of overseas electors" I was not clear when I read it why there was any fear about this and why there might be any problem with timetabling. If we can get postal ballots out, I cannot see what the problem is that my hon. Friend is trying to address. Perhaps he could enlighten me.
Overseas Electors Bill — House of Commons, 2019-03-22
Topic: Civil Rights
Philip Andrew Davies (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point, and I do not disagree. It was a helpful point to make New clause 5—I am on a bit of a roll now—is another one that I have to thank the hon. Member for City of Chester for, as he prompted me to table it. When he tabled it in Committee, he said that the "new clause requests a detailed report on the representation of overseas voters, including how they might be ‘represented by their MPs’ and ‘any additional demands that may be placed on MPs and their resources as a consequence of the provisions of this Act’." The guidance provided to MPs regarding constituency correspondence with expatriates is also vague, probably because there are not that many of them at the moment. The Bill does not define the responsibilities of Members of Parliament towards their overseas voters, and the assumption is that the current position and precedents will be maintained. The code of conduct says that Members of Parliament have a special duty to their constituents The hon. Gentleman went on to say: "Given the Minister’s insistence…on treating overseas voters with the same importance as UK-based, domestic voters, there needs to be a…discussion about how best to achieve democratic representation" before we open it up to many more people, and he asked: "What assessment have the Government made of the representation of overseas voters by Members of this House?" ––[Official Report, Overseas Electors Public Bill Committee, 14 November 2018; c. 112-113.]
Overseas Electors Bill — House of Commons, 2019-03-22
Topic: Mixed Topics
Roger James Gale (Conservative, Centre-right): Would my hon. Friend accept that some others in this House represent the views and interests of overseas voters, irrespective in some cases of whether they are constituents or not, and find that it does not place an intolerable burden on us? I am quite sure that my hon. Friend and his staff could manage.
Overseas Electors Bill — House of Commons, 2019-03-22
Topic: Mixed Topics
Philip Andrew Davies (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that point, and his first point is absolutely right. I do not think that anybody in this House does more to champion overseas voters than he does, and I pay tribute to him for what he has done over a sustained period of time. I will take his second point as a vote of confidence in me, and I am grateful to him for that.
Overseas Electors Bill — House of Commons, 2019-03-22
Topic: Other
Philip Andrew Davies (Conservative, Centre-right): Certainly not. I think the best measure of our ability to represent our constituents is shown at an election by whether or not our electorate wish us to continue to represent them. That is the best scorecard I can think of.
Overseas Electors Bill — House of Commons, 2019-03-22
Topic: Other
Neil John O'Brien (Conservative, Centre-right): Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), it seems to me that in new clause 5(2)(a) we are asking for something that is impossible, as it is simply a radically subjective measure. Is the Minister supposed to measure the turnaround time of correspondence, to look at a Member’s contributions in the Chamber or measure their eloquence? I am afraid that it simply seems impossible.
Overseas Electors Bill — House of Commons, 2019-03-22
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): Order. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his characteristic courtesy. How fitting it is, colleagues, that the Chamber is as well attended as it is at this time, on this very significant day—thank you. Colleagues, we shall now observe a minute’s silence in memory of those who died in the Westminster attack on 22 March 2017.
European Council: Article 50 Extension — House of Commons, 2019-03-22
Topic: Other
Kwasi Alfred Addo Kwarteng (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman asks a number of questions and makes a number of assertions, some of which are simply not true, frankly. The idea that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has refused to compromise is an exaggeration; I do not think that is an accurate reflection of what has happened. With respect to his remarks about the meaningful vote, the Leader of the House set out clearly in her business statement yesterday that she will make a further business statement next week, which would be appropriate—[Interruption.]
European Council: Article 50 Extension — House of Commons, 2019-03-22
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): I do not think it was unparliamentary language. Whether it was altogether tactful is a matter for speculation and conjecture, and people will have their own view on that. I am inclined charitably to interpret what the Minister said from the Bench; when he said that the Opposition spokesman had made statements that were "not true", I have to assume that he was asserting that the shadow Minister was incorrect—that he was erroneous. I cannot believe for one moment that the Minister was accusing the shadow Minister of lying, because that would be disorderly.
European Council: Article 50 Extension — House of Commons, 2019-03-22
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): Indeed, the shake of the head from the Minister on the Treasury Bench, which will be recorded in the Official Report, testifies to the correctness of my interpretation. May I gently suggest to the Minister, who has had a difficult time at the Box this week, that a felicitous use of phrase would probably be to his advantage?
European Council: Article 50 Extension — House of Commons, 2019-03-22
Topic: Other
Kwasi Alfred Addo Kwarteng (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman will know that Friday sittings are a matter for the House—[Interruption.] Absolutely, they are, in terms of procedure. We do not even know whether the meaningful vote will take place or get through. The hon. Gentleman will know that that is a matter of procedure.
European Council: Article 50 Extension — House of Commons, 2019-03-22
Topic: Other
Kwasi Alfred Addo Kwarteng (Conservative, Centre-right): Obviously, if the House is asked to decide a way forward, it would be surprising if those votes were not free votes. Again, though, my hon. Friend will understand that the ultimate decision is for the business managers and will be taken as and when the debate takes place. [Interruption.] I said it would be a matter of surprise to me.
European Council: Article 50 Extension — House of Commons, 2019-03-22
Topic: Other
Kwasi Alfred Addo Kwarteng (Conservative, Centre-right): With respect, the hon. Gentleman utterly misheard, or certainly misunderstood, what I said. I was not referring to the meaningful vote; I was referring to the indicative votes suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) in her question.
European Council: Article 50 Extension — House of Commons, 2019-03-22
Topic: Other
Kwasi Alfred Addo Kwarteng (Conservative, Centre-right): As with my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell), I am not getting into hypo- theticals. I have said that we hope to have a meaningful vote—let us see, Mr Speaker, if you decide that it is in order—and then we can test the will of the House.
European Council: Article 50 Extension — House of Commons, 2019-03-22
Topic: Mixed Topics
Christopher Robert Chope (Conservative, Centre-right): So the statutory instrument will be issued on Monday or Tuesday? It has taken a long time to get even that information out of my hon. Friend. Can he expand upon whether the SI will be issued in draft before or after the Government’s next—and likely failed—attempt to get this ludicrous deal through?
European Council: Article 50 Extension — House of Commons, 2019-03-22
Topic: Other
Kwasi Alfred Addo Kwarteng (Conservative, Centre-right): I am not going to say today—Friday—the exact hour and time the meaningful vote will take place or the SI will be tabled. I have set out the path and the process very clearly. My hon. Friend should refer to my earlier remarks.
European Council: Article 50 Extension — House of Commons, 2019-03-22
Topic: Other
Kwasi Alfred Addo Kwarteng (Conservative, Centre-right): I am not going to second-guess your decision on the meaningful vote, Mr Speaker, but there is a body of opinion, which I happen to share, that the circumstances will have changed—we will have had EU input on the timetable—and that it may well be argued that those changed circumstances allow another meaningful vote.
European Council: Article 50 Extension — House of Commons, 2019-03-22
Topic: Other
Kwasi Alfred Addo Kwarteng (Conservative, Centre-right): I agree with the hon. Lady to a point. If the meaningful vote is voted down, it would be reasonable to have a wide debate in the House, as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster suggested two weeks ago, to find what the House would tolerate and how it sees things going forward. I agree with that.
European Council: Article 50 Extension — House of Commons, 2019-03-22
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Kwasi Alfred Addo Kwarteng (Conservative, Centre-right): In all this noise and debate, the course outlined by my hon. Friend is the most secure one. It is the best one for delivering on certainty for our businesses. I, along with him, will continue to support the deal.
European Council: Article 50 Extension — House of Commons, 2019-03-22
Topic: Other
Kwasi Alfred Addo Kwarteng (Conservative, Centre-right): All I said—I want to repeat it—is that, in the event of the House voting down the meaningful vote, it would not be unreasonable to have subsequent votes to find out what the House actually supported.
European Council: Article 50 Extension — House of Commons, 2019-03-22
Topic: Other
Kwasi Alfred Addo Kwarteng (Conservative, Centre-right): The technicalities of the business of the House are a matter for the Leader of the House. The hon. Gentleman says he is confused, but he ably set out the path for next week. We want to have a debate and a meaningful vote. In either eventuality after the meaningful vote, we will be looking to introduce an SI to amend the exit date. That is a very clear path.
European Council: Article 50 Extension — House of Commons, 2019-03-22
Topic: Other
Kwasi Alfred Addo Kwarteng (Conservative, Centre-right): I am very pleased that the tweet confirms what I have been saying. I have consistently said that the SI would be introduced early next week, and Monday or Tuesday conforms to what I said earlier from this Dispatch Box.
European Council: Article 50 Extension — House of Commons, 2019-03-22
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): It would. Whether such will be forthcoming, I do not know, but the hon. Gentleman’s point of order contained three propositions—or at any rate, two assertions and a proposition. He was right in every particular. We will leave it there for now. I cannot add anything at this hour, but my not being able to add anything at this hour does not put me into a position markedly different from that of the Minister on the Treasury Bench.
Gaza Border Deaths: UNHRC Inquiry — House of Commons, 2019-03-22
Topic: Other
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to make a statement on the vote at the United Nations Human Rights Council this morning.
Julian Murray Lewis (Conservative, Centre-right): I agree with every word of the Government’s position, as just read out by the Minister. I therefore do not understand why we just abstained, instead of voting against the proposal. If we felt that this particular organisation would produce only a partial and unbalanced report, and if we want an impartial and balanced report, would it not have made more sense to vote against the proposal?
Gaza Border Deaths: UNHRC Inquiry — House of Commons, 2019-03-22
Topic: Mixed Topics
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to make a statement on the vote at the United Nations Human Rights Council this morning.
Alistair James Hendrie Burt (Conservative, Centre-right): No. We maintained the position of abstention because that reaffirmed our position in relation to the nature of the inquiry itself. However, the inquiry produced matters of concern to the United Kingdom in relation to what it did, such as listing those who were killed and wounded. The nature of the account led us to the belief that our concern could properly be expressed not by voting against it, but by maintaining our previous position.
Gaza Border Deaths: UNHRC Inquiry — House of Commons, 2019-03-22
Topic: Civil Rights
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to make a statement on the vote at the United Nations Human Rights Council this morning.
Alistair James Hendrie Burt (Conservative, Centre-right): The short answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is, yes, of course I was disturbed. Section 6 on protected groups is a large section that goes through the children shot and either killed or injured, and there are also the medical personnel and those with disabilities; no one in human terms could be unaffected by this. I made clear earlier in my remarks why we made the extension but that does not stop the concern about what happened, the need for accountability and our calling out of those who have been responsible.
Gaza Border Deaths: UNHRC Inquiry — House of Commons, 2019-03-22
Topic: Civil Rights
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to make a statement on the vote at the United Nations Human Rights Council this morning.
Alistair James Hendrie Burt (Conservative, Centre-right): I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s comments, but no, my remarks were not intended to convey that. I have explained why, procedurally, we believe that it was right to abstain in relation to a report that was bound to be flawed from the word go. We were not alone: eight states voted against the report, 23 states voted in favour of it and 15 abstained. I think this proves the point that it is important for the Human Rights Council to act in a manner that all its members will be able to support. This report, from the outset, did not do that. Accordingly, we are having an argument over the terms of the report instead of doing what we should do, and what everyone in the House wants to do, which is to concentrate on how the deaths and injuries came about and, above all, on what we can do to stop them. That requires a balanced understanding, not something that is inherently flawed by being one-sided from the beginning.
Gaza Border Deaths: UNHRC Inquiry — House of Commons, 2019-03-22
Topic: Other
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to make a statement on the vote at the United Nations Human Rights Council this morning.
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): It is a convention rather than a rule of the House, and the requirement is to notify a Member before a visit. It has to be acknowledged that in terms of the courtesies it should be done in good time. I am not personally privy to the circumstances of this case and am familiar with it only by virtue of what the hon. Lady has just said and on the strength of what she shared with me momentarily at the Chair, but what she has received does not seem to me to constitute adequate or courteous notice. This is often raised by Members on both sides of the House, and really we ought to be able to depend on colleagues to treat each other with respect. It is not acceptable to visit somebody else’s constituency in a public capacity and not to do that person the courtesy of providing prior notification. I am disappointed that the hon. Lady has had this experience, and I hope that it will not be repeated.
Emergency Summit on Knife Crime — House of Commons, 2019-03-22
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): Strictly speaking, Government make a judgment about whether they can provide an answer. It is not a matter of order on which the Chair can adjudicate. That said, if I understood the hon. Gentleman’s point of order and he has previously been given an indication in a Committee sitting of average waiting times, it seems not unreasonable that he should then put down a question seeking to ascertain the facts on that matter. Therefore, my advice to him is really twofold. First, at the risk of irritating the House, I would repeat my general advice in matters of this kind: persist, man. Persist. Persist. Keep asking the question. The hon. Gentleman might wish to put it in a different way—or possibly even to a different Department, although I doubt it—and to try to persuade the Minister, perhaps privately, of the reasonableness of the inquiry. Beyond that, it is open to the hon. Gentleman to seek to use freedom of information legislation to secure the response that hitherto has been denied to him. I hope that he will profit from my counsels and that it will not be necessary for him to raise the matter again, but if it is, I am sure that he will.