argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2019-01-14
Topic: Other
Chris Ian Brian Mynott Philp (Conservative, Centre-right): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you advise me whether there are any ways to remove the need for a money resolution for a Bill brought forward by a Back Bencher? Could you confirm that only the Government can move money resolutions?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2019-01-14
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): That has long been the practice. I am not going to get involved in a detailed disquisition on these matters tonight as I think that would be premature and unnecessary. The hon. Gentleman has asked me a question and I have furnished him with an answer. I trust that satisfies him. If it does, good; but if it does not, never mind.
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2019-01-14
Topic: Other
Kevin John Foster (Conservative, Centre-right): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You may be aware of some speculation in the press, so could you confirm that a Committee of the whole House can only be chaired by the Chairman of Ways and Means?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2019-01-14
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): The Standing Orders are perfectly clear. The hon. Gentleman need not ask me, either on his own initiative or at somebody else’s urging, a question to which the answer is readily available if he bothers to read the relevant material; it is pretty clear.
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2019-01-14
Topic: Other
Rebecca Faye Clark (Pow) (Conservative, Centre-right): On a point of order, Mr Speaker This is a brave moment for me because I have never before made a point of order. I seek just a little bit of clarification regarding these so-called devices that have been much mentioned in the press over the weekend and that might give over control of the Order Paper—something that I would find deeply concerning. I would be very grateful if you gave some indication as to which other Members of Parliament you have had discussions with about these devices and their use. Is this normal procedure or am I just worrying about nothing?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2019-01-14
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear; people do seem a bit confused, but I will certainly try to help the hon. Lady. First, to the best of my knowledge and recollection I have not had any meetings or, as she puts it, discussions about such matters. I see a certain amount of speculation in the press but I am not aware of, or in any way party to or involved with, any such proposals. Secondly—I would have thought that the hon. Lady would know this after nearly four years in the House but perhaps she is not aware of it—more generally I regularly see Members from across the House upon a range of matters if they ask to see me. There is nothing odd or unusual about that; there is nothing without precedent. On the first point that she raised, the fact that there might be speculation about matters that causes perplexity or befuddles some people may be a concern for them, but it is not the responsibility of the Chair. I hope that I have given her a clear and explicit answer which brooks of no misunderstanding.
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2019-01-14
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. I am sure that if she is suggesting what she has just suggested, she would wish to insert the word "inadvertently", because she is a person of impeccable manners and I am sure that she would not suggest for one moment that the Prime Minister had deliberately misled the House. I just seek that assurance; is the hon. Lady suggesting that it was inadvertent?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2019-01-14
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): I was not requesting an apology, although it is very gracious of her to proffer it. I just wanted to hear the insertion of the word "inadvertently". The answer is that, in a sense, the hon. Lady has partially found salvation in the matter by raising the point of order and putting the factual position as she sees it on the record. In terms of further redress, my response is that every Member of this House, including the Prime Minister, is responsible for the veracity of what she or he says. In the event that a Member believes that he or she has made an error, it is incumbent upon that Member to put the record straight. Knowing the commitment to this Chamber of the hon. Lady and her regular presence at statements and other opportunities to interrogate Ministers, I am sure that she can seek a correction in direct exchange with the Prime Minister at the material time.
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2019-01-14
Topic: Other
Rachel Helen Maclean (Conservative, Centre-right): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have seen some changes in precedent in recent days; indeed, you rightly said that precedent can be changed. If there were to be an amendment to the Business of the House motion preventing the Government from controlling the Order Paper, it would be—as I understand it from much more long-standing colleagues—a matter of precedent. What role might the Liaison Committee play in that decision?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2019-01-14
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): I am not a member of the Liaison Committee. I will look at the situation on a case-by-case basis. If the circumstance arises, I shall make an appropriate judgment. I think we should leave it there. May I very gently say to the hon. Lady that the late Lord Whitelaw was so shrewd when he said that he personally preferred to cross bridges only when he came to them?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2019-01-14
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): Well, it will just extend the proceedings if people chunter from a sedentary position ineloquently and for no obvious benefit or purpose. It is a point of order and I am responding to it. If the junior Minister on the Treasury Bench does not like the fact that I am responding to it, he can lump it, because I am going to respond to it in my way and in the fashion that I choose. His approval or disapproval is a matter of staggering irrelevance as far as I am concerned. I certainly would not accuse anybody of being a lickspittle, but I think the record shows that when I was a serving Back Bencher—and, for that matter, often as a Front Bencher—I was not overly preoccupied with the views of my Whips.
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2019-01-14
Topic: Other
Luke Patrick Graham (Conservative, Centre-right): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. There has been a lot of speculation—not from you, but from other MPs in the House—about the ability of a Back Bencher to influence the Business of the House motion and take control of business on a specified day. As a Back Bencher, I seek your guidance as to whether any procedural device currently exists or whether a precedent will be set so that such a device can exist going forward.
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2019-01-14
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): I refer the hon. Gentleman to answers that I provided earlier. I am very happy to look at these matters in the round; there may well be discussions to be had about them in subsequent days. It is perfectly legitimate for the hon. Gentleman to seek to engage me on the matter, but I do not think that in this context there is any particular merit in repeating that which has already been said. I therefore urge him to consult the Official Report, and I hope that he will find it productive when he does.
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2019-01-14
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Lady raises an interesting point, but it does not appertain to the consideration that is before us today. I am certainly happy to reflect—[Interruption.] Well, she has asked me a question, very courteously I am sure, and I shall courteously reply. I do not think that the point of order is immediately relevant to the matter that we are debating today. If people want to offer opinions on the subject in the course of the debate, they can. We shall see what unfolds in subsequent days. [Interruption.] I do not know what will unfold. If some people think they are psychic and know what the result will be tomorrow, that is a matter for them.
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2019-01-14
Topic: Other
Brett Charles Anthony Elphicke (Conservative, Centre-right): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have been here for nine years, and I think the whole House knows that I am not entirely a Whips’ lickspittle. May I just ask for a point of clarification? My recollection is that a statutory instrument tends to be moved by a Minister of the Crown, for the very simple reason that legislation provides for that to be the case. Could you confirm that my recollection is correct?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2019-01-14
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): Yes, that has always been the case, and I am not aware that there is any imminent or likely prospect of it being changed. I am not party to any such proposal. Nobody has posited to me a scenario in which I would be expected to agree to any such change. That is the reality. The position that I have set out at present is perfectly clear. The hon. Gentleman, for whom I have the highest regard, is perfectly entitled to ask me whether I understand, with reference to that which has transpired to date, his interpretation of proceedings to be correct. I do.
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2019-01-14
Topic: Other
Nigel Paul Huddleston (Conservative, Centre-right): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. First, I am proud to have friends in the Whips Office—and right across the House. I seek your guidance relating to the speculation in the press this weekend, because it is important and concerning. I believe that it is a very important principle in this place that we are all equal, and that means equal knowledge, access to information and knowledge about procedures. If, as has been speculated, there are likely to be changes in procedures, can I implore you, Mr Speaker, to make sure that equal and fair treatment is considered, and that we are all aware of any changes in policies and procedures to make sure that there is not asymmetry of information, or advantage or disadvantage given to one Member of this House over another?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2019-01-14
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that, as has been my unfailing practice since 22 June 2009, I am always equally open to hearing from, and then, as best I can, responding to any Member of the House of Commons who approaches me.
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2019-01-14
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): I am very grateful to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), who is nodding vigorously in assent to that proposition from a sedentary position. The right hon. Gentleman and I have known each other for well over 20 years, and he knows that I am utterly and scrupulously fair-minded in these matters. I have been, I am, and I always will be. I am not responsible for what other people might be talking about. I do not plant stories in the newspapers. That is a black art perhaps practised by other people from time to time. It is not something that greatly concerns me. I do not get very excited about it. The hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) is entirely entitled to seek the assurance of equality of treatment Let me just say one further thing in the light of some press reports. People really ought to understand, because it is incredibly simple, straightforward and uncontroversial, that any hon. or right hon. Member of this House who wishes to come to see the Speaker about something that concerns him or her can ask to do so, and diary permitting and subject to agreement on suitable dates, that would always happen. The notion that some particular advantage is given to a specified individual, or a little coterie, as part of a secret plot in private apartments is so staggeringly absurd that I would not expect for one moment that someone of the intelligence and perspicacity of the hon. Gentleman would give it credence for so much as a single second. I hope that is helpful to him.
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2019-01-14
Topic: Other
Matthew Robert Warman (Conservative, Centre-right): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I mentioned during the statement that The Sunday Times was in my constituency taking its temperature. I should say that my constituents did raise your role as well as the role of the Government, and so I would perhaps say gently, in response to your earlier comment, that there is some doubt out there among the public. The question they asked me to ask you was this. You changed some precedents last week, and some of them wanted to know if you expected to change any more.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-01-14
Topic: Other
Liam Fox (Conservative, Centre-right): As we take this debate into the early hours of tomorrow morning, I hope that we will be able to replicate the good humour, good manners and resilience that the Prime Minister showed during her two hours in front of the House this afternoon. [Interruption.] Yes, Mr Speaker, I understand that. As a doctor, I admire good bladder control.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-01-14
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): I am able to stay in the House for many, many hours. We are not talking about two hours, for the avoidance of doubt. I will very happily be here for 12 hours, if necessary, because I take my responsibilities to the House of Commons seriously.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-01-14
Topic: Other
Liam Fox (Conservative, Centre-right): The advice I will give to the hon. Gentleman is this. The point was raised in the previous Session that no House can bind its successor, but 80% of Members of this House were elected on a manifesto that said they would honour the result of the referendum. We have a duty to do so if we are to keep faith with our voters.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-01-14
Topic: Civil Rights
Henry Edward Millar Smith (Conservative, Centre-right): Is it not also the case that the Government spent more than £9 million of taxpayers’ money on a leaflet to every UK household saying that the decision of the British people would be respected, so the claim that people did not know what they were voting for or what the outcome would be is nonsense?
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-01-14
Topic: Civil Rights
Liam Fox (Conservative, Centre-right): I have already given way to the hon. Lady and I will not do so again This was further confirmed by the last general election in which the two main parties, comprising over 80% of the total votes cast, promised to respect the referendum result. Let us imagine that a second referendum were held in which the remain side won, perhaps with a narrow majority but with a lower turnout. Leave supporters like me could well begin demanding a third referendum, a best of three. Where would the process actually end? We have had a people’s vote and we need to respect the people’s vote. Another referendum would not settle the issue or heal our divisions—quite the opposite. It would further divide our already fractious country at a time when we need to come together There is also the constitutional issue. If we overturn this referendum result, we will be setting a precedent that could be applied to other referendums too. Furthermore, a second referendum would create prolonged, not diminished, political and economic uncertainty.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-01-14
Topic: Other
Jacob William Rees-Mogg (Conservative, Centre-right): You are criticising—[Interruption.] I do apologise, Mr Speaker; Even Homer nods. The hon. Gentleman said that the Prime Minister told us that she could not renegotiate, but now criticises her for coming back saying she could not renegotiate, as she said. That seems a little unfair.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-01-14
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): Order. A further 72 right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye in tonight and tomorrow morning’s debate, on account of which there will have to be, with immediate effect, a five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. I counsel colleagues that that limit will, in all likelihood, have to be reduced in due course.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-01-14
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): Order. Just before I call the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), I must point out what some Members will have noticed—namely that, most unfortunately, the timer display to my right is not functioning, which is gravely to the disadvantage of Opposition Members. I have been advised, I am afraid, that it cannot be repaired while the House is sitting, so I would encourage Members to—
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-01-14
Topic: Mixed Topics
Jacob William Rees-Mogg (Conservative, Centre-right): I am delighted to hear that. I think there will be a cascade of Members going into the Lobby to vote against this bad deal, because it denies us the opportunities that will make Brexit a success. It takes us further away from the ability to open up our economy to the benefits of free trade and the benefits that would allow the prices of food, clothing and footwear to be reduced, increasing the standard of living, most particularly of the least well-off in society. Instead, we are tied into a protectionist racket that keeps prices high and makes our economy less efficient. The rest of the world is overtaking us and the whole of Europe because it becomes less competitive as it seeks an outmoded, anti-competitive system, thinking that it can simply protect itself In this withdrawal agreement, there is no end in sight to the backstop—it could go on for generations. How long did the backstop turn out to be for Norway when it voted not to join, before it got a fully-fledged deal of its own? Over 20 years. "Temporary" in European terms is, for most of us, a generation. Of course, "temporary" in parliamentary terms is even longer, as we remember with the Parliament Act 1911 and the Liberal promise never delivered on to abolish the income tax—typical of the Liberals, you might say, Mr Speaker We risk denying ourselves these extraordinary opportunities and, in doing so, taking ourselves away from the electorate, for whom we promised to deliver on Brexit. Ultimately, whatever we think, surely we owe it to our voters to deliver. Otherwise, why should they ever trust us again?
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-01-14
Topic: Mixed Topics
Andrew James Bridgen (Conservative, Centre-right): The shadow Chancellor says that the prediction is that a no-deal Brexit could cost the UK economy 10% of GDP. Would he bear in mind that total trade—import and export—with the European Union comes to only 9.5% of our economy altogether?
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-01-14
Topic: Mixed Topics
Neil John O'Brien (Conservative, Centre-right): The former head of the European Council’s legal service, responding to the shadow International Trade Secretary’s call for a customs union in which the UK would have a say, has said: "Obviously this is ruled out. It is contrary to the basic EU principle of autonomy of decision making. Don’t even think about it!" Does the right hon. Gentleman think he knows better?
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-01-14
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Jo Johnson (Conservative, Centre-right): Has the Chancellor by any chance read the powerful letter in today’s Financial Times from the former EU Financial Services Commissioner, Jonathan Hill? He said that he had yet to meet anybody who felt that the Norway model would work for the UK’s financial services industry. In fact, he felt that EEA members had so little influence on the EU’s rule making for financial services that they were grateful if anybody even replied to any of their correspondence.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-01-14
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Philip Hammond (Conservative, Centre-right): I have been making effectively the same point myself for about the last year. We concluded that the EEA model would not work for Britain’s most important sector, financial services. The deal that the Prime Minister has negotiated has within it good and strong provisions for financial services and will be a much better result for the financial services industry than the EEA model would be.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-01-14
Topic: Immigration
John Henry Hayes (Conservative, Centre-right): We have heard once again that the backstop is undesirable and no one wants it. We have heard that it is temporary and an insurance policy. Every insurance policy is time-limited. If neither side wants it and everyone acknowledges that it is temporary, why can we not put a date on it and end it at a particular time? Surely that is not unreasonable.
Delegated Legislation — House of Commons, 2019-01-14
Topic: Mixed Topics
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): With the leave of the House, I propose that we take motions 6 to 8 together Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), Exiting the European Union (Financial Services) That the draft Alternative Investment Fund Managers (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 29 November, be approved Exiting the European Union (Financial Services) That the draft Venture Capital Funds (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 13 November 2018, be approved Exiting the European Union (Financial Services) That the draft Social Entrepreneurship Funds (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 13 November 2018, be approved.—(Jo Churchill.) Question agreed to. Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), Immigration That the draft Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) Order 2018, which was laid before this House on 3 December, be approved.—(Jo Churchill.) Question agreed to. COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS Ordered, That Douglas Chapman be discharged from the Committee on Standards and Stewart Malcolm McDonald be added.—(Jo Churchill.) COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES Ordered, That Douglas Chapman be discharged from the Committee of Privileges and Stewart Malcolm McDonald be added.—(Jo Churchill.) HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE committee Ordered, That Dr Lisa Cameron be discharged from the Health and Social Care Committee and Dr Philippa Whitford be added.—(Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
St Rollox Railway Works: Closure — House of Commons, 2019-01-14
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): No, I am sorry. If the hon. Gentleman has secured the agreement of the sponsoring Member and the Minister and the Chair, he can make a speech, but he has not secured that agreement. This is an intervention, and I think it is reaching its conclusion. [Interruption.] It is not a speech; sorry.
St Rollox Railway Works: Closure — House of Commons, 2019-01-14
Topic: Other
Andrew Hanson Jones (Conservative, Centre-right): In the meeting this afternoon, the company said it would be very happy to participate in the consortium the hon. Gentleman describes, which seems very positive. I hope all sides will enter this opportunity with their eyes open and with a constructive attitude.