argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Procedure of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
William Hague (Conservative, Centre-right): It would certainly have been much more difficult to do it, so the absence of Lords amendments made a big change and allowed us to consider more motions than might otherwise have been the case. On that issue I am happy to facilitate bringing the motion to the House for decision before the end of this Parliament, as requested by the Procedure Committee. I hope the House will support the extension of the trial in the way outlined. It will then be for the Procedure Committee in the next Parliament to evaluate the trial further, before bringing it to the House for a decision on whether the changes should be made permanent.
Procedure of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
William Hague (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman can take his own view and is able to vote in the coming Division on whether we should make this change. If his view is that we should not, he can vote that way.
Procedure of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
William Hague (Conservative, Centre-right): Of course the recommendation could have been considered earlier in the Parliament, but it was not. As it was not considered, it is important that before the new Parliament Members are able to express their views on it.
Procedure of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
Gregory Knight (Conservative, Centre-right): I think my right hon. Friend has inadvertently misled the House. The recommendation from the Procedure Committee in 2011 that we should visit this issue and vote on whether the election of the Speaker should be by secret ballot was a reiteration of an argument that that Committee first put forward in 2009, as it felt that the decision should have been made before the 2010 election.
Procedure of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
William Hague (Conservative, Centre-right): That is an important point. There was a clear view from the Procedure Committee in 2009, but it was not acted on at the end of the last Parliament. It is possible to go on for ever not acting on those recommendations and arguments in one Parliament after another.
Procedure of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
Peter William Bone (Conservative, Centre-right): Will the Leader of the House confirm what would happen at the beginning of the next Parliament? As I understand it, the Father of the House—whoever that is—will take the Chair and will decide on the collection of voices whether there is a contest or not. It will be up to the Father of the House to decide whether there are enough voices
Procedure of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
Peter James Bottomley (Conservative, Centre-right): May I suggest that we accept that, with the presence of the Speaker in the Chair now, it is a depersonalised issue and one for the House and the procedure it wants to follow, rather than a yes or no against a particular person?
Procedure of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
William Hague (Conservative, Centre-right): I think the House should treat this issue in that way because we are talking about procedures of the House that may stand for a long time. They may of course be changed by a subsequent Parliament, but it should be treated in that way.
Procedure of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Mixed Topics
William Hague (Conservative, Centre-right): Before I give way again let me discuss some of the arguments because I want to leave time for the shadow Leader of the House and others The arguments in favour of the status quo are that it is a familiar procedure, that it is a quick procedure, and that the Speaker stands for election as the Speaker in his or her constituency in expectation of continuing in office and is therefore in a different situation from other officeholders. But obviously the arguments the other way are very strong. We conduct the great majority of elections in the House, and all elections out in the country, by secret ballot for reasons well understood and instantly appreciated. That has been a general principle of our democracy since the 19th century. Whenever voters elect someone to a position of power and authority over them, the principle is that they should be able to do so without fear or favour. It is how we elect our party leaders, it is how we elect our Select Committee Chairs—[Interruption.] It is certainly how we elect our party’s leader. It also frees MPs from pressure from the Chair or from their parties.
Procedure of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Mixed Topics
William Hague (Conservative, Centre-right): Personally, I come down on the same side of the question because I think that a secret ballot frees Members from pressure from their parties or from the Chair. It is the right thing to do in principle. Although the case can be made that those arguments do not apply when it comes to the election of the Speaker, it can also be argued that they apply particularly in that instance so that Members can vote without fear or favour.
Procedure of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Mixed Topics
William Hague (Conservative, Centre-right): I have already answered that question. It would certainly have been much more difficult and I doubt whether we would have been able to do so, but we have been able to bring them forward, and we do have time The House can decide as it wishes, and it should decide on the basis put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), which is not on any individual case but on what it thinks is the best and right procedure. My opinion, as Leader of the House, is that a secret ballot would be right, fair and democratic in such circumstances, and thus completely justified. I hope therefore that the House will approve the motion.
Procedure of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): There is not a time limit and it is not that common to have a time limit on procedural matters. I would urge colleagues to have regard to each others’ interests, but there is no fixed time limit. That is the short answer to the hon. Gentleman.
Procedure of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): The short answer is no. The motion has been tabled by the Government for the debate to last for up to one hour. Colleagues can make their own assessment of whether they think that is a sufficiency of time for this matter, but I am not in a position to extend the time.
Procedure of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
Julian Murray Lewis (Conservative, Centre-right): Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I just say that my right hon. Friend has just excelled himself in the atmosphere he has generated in this House, in precisely the way in which the Leader of the House has excelled himself in the atmosphere of the country?
Procedure of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): I am very happy to respond to the right hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker). The short answer is that I have not found it necessary to seek advice on this matter. It is commonplace for the Speaker to be in the Speaker’s Chair. I am genuinely sorry if that disquiets the right hon. Gentleman, but it has been my normal practice to do at least the expected number of hours of the Speaker in the Chair, and frequently rather more so. I have not generally found that that has met with disapproval in the House.
Procedure of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Mixed Topics
Charles Ashley Rupert Walker (Conservative, Centre-right): Thank you for calling me to speak in this debate this afternoon, Mr Speaker. I am not ashamed to say that I admire you. I am a friend of yours. I have not yet seen your kitchen, but I hope to one day. You have done an enormous amount for this House and you have done an enormous amount to empower this Chamber. Mr Speaker, we do share a weakness and we both know what that weakness is: we both have a temper, and we need to work together to better manage our tempers in the future. I was quite cross with a couple of very decent Whips yesterday and I apologise to them today, as I did yesterday The report should not be about you, Mr Speaker, and it is becoming about you. I fear that the Government have wanted it to become about you. It should be about the position of Speaker. On 6 February 2013, my Committee decided to bring forward this report. We were going to recommend a motion that the status quo be retained. This was an amendable motion, so those colleagues who disagreed could have amended the motion and a vote could have taken place. On 7 February, I wrote a letter to the then Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley), notifying him of this matter and asking that our debates be taken in prime time, so the whole House could come to an informed decision At about that time, circumstances meant that the Government felt unable to bring forward the report. We agreed with the Government’s view on the matter. On 28 January 2015, we met the Leader of the House and had further discussions about various reports, including on the election of the Speaker. I sent a letter on 3 February confirming the Committee’s firm and unanimous view—the Committee is made up of all sorts of people from all sorts of parties—that any vote should take place in prime time so that the House could come to an informed decision I do say to the Government that this is not, I think, how they expected today to play out. The Government were hoping that the party would be kept here under a three-line Whip for a party meeting and that others would have gone home. This does not reflect well on the Government May I just say that how one treats people in this place is important? This week, I went to the leaving drinks for the Leader of the House. I spent 20 minutes saying goodbye to his special adviser yesterday. I went into his private office and was passed by the Deputy Leader of the House yesterday. All of them would have been aware of what they were proposing to do. I also had a number of friendly chats with our Chief Whip yesterday, yet I found out at 6.30 pm last night that the Leader of the House was bringing forward my report I have been played as a fool. When I go home tonight, I will look in the mirror and see an honourable fool looking back at me. I would much rather be an honourable fool, in this and any other matter, than a clever man. [Applause.]
Procedure of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Mixed Topics
Gregory Barker (Conservative, Centre-right): On the contrary, I have not made a single personal remark about the Speaker during my entire time in Parliament. The hon. Gentleman has wandered rather far from the motion. Will he address himself to it and tell us whether he is in favour of a secret ballot or against it? This is similar to when Labour consistently opposed secret ballots in the reform of the trade unions. It is their dirty little prejudice against real democracy.
Procedure of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): There is, of course, a device of moving the previous question, but it would affect only the first of the motions, which is not the one that has excited the debate. It could be done, but I rather suspect that it would not be effective.
Procedure of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): Order. Before I take more points of order, let me explain that I would like to call a couple more colleagues in the very short time available and that I hope colleagues will be considerate of each other.
Procedure of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): The Leader of the House can respond to the point of order if he so wishes, but he does not wish to do so. [Interruption.] Order. Reference was made to tabling at 7.30 pm. In the interests of proper transparency, it is only fair to say—I want accurate information to be before the House—that the Leader of the House notified me of his intentions on this matter at 5.30 pm.
Procedure of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
Julian Murray Lewis (Conservative, Centre-right): I am going to break the habit of a lifetime and say nothing myself, quoting instead a Liberal Democrat colleague with approval. Following some discussion of this matter on a programme this morning, I received the following message from the hon. Member—and he is honourable—for St Ives (Andrew George). He said: "I feel very frustrated and annoyed by this. In addition, I cannot be there. My father died last night and, as you might expect, I have other priorities today which I cannot alter. Had I been able to attend, I would object in the strongest terms to THE WAY THIS IS BEING DONE— the emphasis is his. He continued: "I don’t mind a motion being brought forward in an open and honest manner, but not in this underhand way. If it helps, I’d be happy for you to make reference to any of this message in your remarks." I need add nothing further other than to endorse those sentiments.
Procedure of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
James Gerald Douglas Howarth (Conservative, Centre-right): I am not opposed in principle to the idea of a secret ballot, and I very much regret, Mr Speaker, that this debate has become centred on you personally. I have to say that I did not vote for you, and you and I have crossed swords many times over a wide range of issues, but I want to put on record that you have shown me, and many of my colleagues in all parts of the House, a most courteous approach and a most courteous attitude, and I appreciate that very much—although you are not, of course, without your faults. [Laughter.]
Procedure of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
James Gerald Douglas Howarth (Conservative, Centre-right): Indeed—who is I must say to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—whom I revere as well—that I feel very uncomfortable about the procedure that the Government have adopted, which has allowed only an hour for debate. I think that that is unfortunate, given that we are debating a House of Commons matter. However, I cannot vote with the Opposition, because, unlike my right hon. and hon. Friends, they have displayed a monolithic, partisan approach to this issue, which has demeaned them and, I am afraid, has done no credit to the House either.
Procedure of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): If the hon. Gentleman’s complaint is that there is inadequate time for right hon. and hon. Members to be called in this debate, let me say, with a clarity that is beyond peradventure, that I would be happy to sit here all day and all night for right hon. and hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman is a constitutionalist, and I think that he prides himself on understanding Parliament. The motion was tabled by the Government, and the time for it was determined by the Government. I think that that is clear.
Procedure of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
Jacob William Rees-Mogg (Conservative, Centre-right): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As there is such widespread demand for an increase in the time available, would it be permissible to suggest, under Standing Order 24, an emergency debate on the subject?
Procedure of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): The answer to that, I fear—as far as the hon. Gentleman is concerned—is that the Government tabled the motion earlier in the week, which removed any possibility of Standing Order 24 debates today. The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s point of order is that there cannot be such a debate, but that is the reason. It has nothing to do with a decision by the Chair; it has to do with a judgment that the Government have made I must now put the Question.
Elections for Positions in the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): Order. I will come to other points of order, but first may I thank the hon. Lady for her courtesy in giving me notice of her intention to raise this point of order and for what she has said? I know she will not take it amiss if I say that although her point of order contained an inquiry as to how she could put the matter straight, I think that she has found her own salvation. What I do want to say is that it is one of the courtesies expected of hon. Members that they should give notice—I make this statement on advice; I do take advice on these matters, as the House would expect—to another Member if they intend to make personal criticism of them in the House. I listened carefully to what the hon. Lady said in her question to the Prime Minister yesterday. I took the view that it was not evidently out of order. Whether it was wise or appropriate to raise matters relating to the internal working of a Select Committee in Prime Minister’s questions is a different matter, on which Members will doubtless have different views. The hon. Lady says that she has not been referred for any investigation. In this respect, I understand that she is correct. The Health Committee has not, at this stage, made any report on the matter. She has put her view on the record I think we should leave this matter there. I would simply add my view that mutual trust between members of Select Committees and confidence that the confidentiality of private discussions in Committee will be respected are important to the effectiveness of Select Committees.
Elections for Positions in the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): I am very taken aback by the idea that any question should be unanswered for so long. Members will have heard me many times say, on behalf of the House, that Ministers should answer questions speedily and as comprehensively as they can. The Leader of the House has noted that. Probably a nod of assent from the Government Chief Whip will suffice to acknowledge the point on his part.
Elections for Positions in the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. She is, of course, a member of the Committee in question and therefore has a very direct interest. I hope she will not take it amiss if I say that I think my fairly comprehensive response to the point of order from the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) treated of those matters. I acknowledged the veracity of what she had said, but I also made the point about courtesies and confidentiality and, by implication, the inappropriateness of breaching such conventions. I hope colleagues will feel that there is nothing that now needs usefully to be added.
Valedictory Debate — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): Before I call the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young), may I just explain to the House that a very large number of colleagues wish to speak and I have decided that the first two speakers should have eight minutes each? I hope that that is considered acceptable by the House, and of course there is scope for interventions, which would add to that eight minutes. Thereafter the limit will have to be tighter. I would happily sit here until midnight listening to the speeches, but, unfortunately again, I am subject to the timetabling, which is not determined by me. The first speaker in the debate will be the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire. I call Sir George Young.
Valedictory Debate — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): The right hon. Gentleman has done the House a wonderful service, not only in terms of his service in the House but in once again being briefer than he had to be, and it is appreciated.
Valedictory Debate — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
Brooks Phillip Victor Newmark (Conservative, Centre-right): As many Members here have said, it really has been a privilege to serve in this House. I think of myself as a nine-year-old boy moving to this country and merging two families when my mum, who is from the South Bronx and had four children, married my step-dad, who lived in a very large English country house and had four children, and they had two children between them. We became a sort of Anglo-American version of "The Brady Bunch", with me as the eldest. I really never dreamed I would be in this House today, and I do feel almost teary that I am leaving, but it has been a privilege.
Valedictory Debate — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): Order. I say to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) that there is no problem on the issue of latitude. The time limit for Back Benchers is shorter, but the opportunity for interventions still exists.
Valedictory Debate — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
Andrew Lansley (Conservative, Centre-right): It is a great privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford); I found much in his speech with which to agree. I am sorry we did not have more opportunities to agree on precisely those things over these years, but he justified in his career his remark about leaving Ministers in their office. He showed tremendous capacity as local government and housing Minister, and was much admired for his work in this House You and I entered the House in 1997, Mr Speaker, as part of the small Conservative intake. I am choosing not to stand again, but I and our 1997 colleagues wish you well for the future. I will look on with pride at that intake. I remember way back when, as we were engaging in—what did we call it?—in-flight refuelling in opposition against the Labour Government’s large majority, we learnt some of the tricks of the trade of parliamentary life, and the 1997 intake has demonstrated some skill in that area in subsequent years.
Valedictory Debate — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said. It might be helpful to the House to know that there are 13 colleagues still seeking to catch my eye, and I am looking to call the wind-up speeches from the Front Bench at approximately 4.10 pm. Members can do the arithmetic for themselves. It is roughly five minutes each, but no more.
Valedictory Debate — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): I note the hon. Gentleman’s joy at meeting his heroines. I empathise: having half an hour last November with Roger Federer in London was one of the most memorable experiences of my life, and I will never forget it. For the greatest tennis player of all time to spare half an hour for me was extraordinarily generous of him.