argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2015-06-16
Topic: Macroeconomics
Questions: Last week, the Chancellor announced a simple new rule to ensure that we run a surplus in normal times. Does he agree that the Opposition’s description of this as no more than a “distraction” proves that no lessons have been learned and that they would make exactly the same mistakes if they were ever given the opportunity again?; Pensioners in Romsey and Southampton North have welcomed their new freedoms over their pensions. What evidence does my right hon. Friend have that they are taking advantage of those new freedoms?; Given that the population of Greater Manchester is bigger than those of both Wales and Northern Ireland and not far short of the population of Scotland, why are the people of Greater Manchester being denied the opportunity to decide whether they want a directly elected mayor? What is wrong with a constitutional referendum in England for a change?; The latest Office for National Statistics figures show that disposable household income was rising more quickly in the west midlands than anywhere else in the country. Will the Chancellor consider creating further local enterprise zones such as Waterfront Business Park in Dudley South to help create further local growth, opportunities and prosperity for my constituents?; Is the Chancellor aware of the letter in The Guardian on Friday from 80 senior economists, in which they say—these are their words—that his plans are “risky experiments with the economy to score political points…have no basis in economics”and“are not fit for the complexity of a modern 21st-century economy”?Does this not show that the Chancellor’s extreme cuts agenda is out on a limb and that his ideological fixations are outside the economic mainstream?; The Chancellor’s Government keep talking about the Tory fantasy of a northern powerhouse, which never mentions Lancashire. Is it still his Government’s policy on the Treasury revenues from fracking that 1% will go to Lancashire and more than 60% will go to Whitehall?; I am sure the Chancellor agrees that pro-business parties are pro-European parties, so when will he come off the fence and confirm that he will be leading the charge for Britain to stay in Europe?; Given that the Chancellor wants to create the west midlands powerhouse, what is he doing to protect the powers and identity of local authorities such as Coventry?
Stephen William Hammond (Conservative, Centre-right): Yesterday, borrowing costs across Europe increased as the contagion from the Greek economic crisis spread. May I congratulate the Chancellor on the long-term economic plan, which, in contrast, has brought jobs and growth to the UK economy? May I also urge him to use the Budget to reduce the deficit by increasing resources for infrastructure, such as the £250 million needed for Crossrail 2, which will bring even more jobs to my constituency and to the UK?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2015-06-16
Topic: Macroeconomics
Questions: Last week, the Chancellor announced a simple new rule to ensure that we run a surplus in normal times. Does he agree that the Opposition’s description of this as no more than a “distraction” proves that no lessons have been learned and that they would make exactly the same mistakes if they were ever given the opportunity again?; Pensioners in Romsey and Southampton North have welcomed their new freedoms over their pensions. What evidence does my right hon. Friend have that they are taking advantage of those new freedoms?; Given that the population of Greater Manchester is bigger than those of both Wales and Northern Ireland and not far short of the population of Scotland, why are the people of Greater Manchester being denied the opportunity to decide whether they want a directly elected mayor? What is wrong with a constitutional referendum in England for a change?; The latest Office for National Statistics figures show that disposable household income was rising more quickly in the west midlands than anywhere else in the country. Will the Chancellor consider creating further local enterprise zones such as Waterfront Business Park in Dudley South to help create further local growth, opportunities and prosperity for my constituents?; Is the Chancellor aware of the letter in The Guardian on Friday from 80 senior economists, in which they say—these are their words—that his plans are “risky experiments with the economy to score political points…have no basis in economics”and“are not fit for the complexity of a modern 21st-century economy”?Does this not show that the Chancellor’s extreme cuts agenda is out on a limb and that his ideological fixations are outside the economic mainstream?; The Chancellor’s Government keep talking about the Tory fantasy of a northern powerhouse, which never mentions Lancashire. Is it still his Government’s policy on the Treasury revenues from fracking that 1% will go to Lancashire and more than 60% will go to Whitehall?; I am sure the Chancellor agrees that pro-business parties are pro-European parties, so when will he come off the fence and confirm that he will be leading the charge for Britain to stay in Europe?; Given that the Chancellor wants to create the west midlands powerhouse, what is he doing to protect the powers and identity of local authorities such as Coventry?
George Gideon Oliver Osborne (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend is right to remind the House after an hour and five minutes of Treasury questions that out in the real world there are some serious economic risks, not least the risk that we see growing in Greece of a potential default and exit from the euro. People should not underestimate the damage that that would do to financial confidence. Of course, in the UK we take all steps to prepare for and protect ourselves from such eventualities, but the best thing that a Government can do is to ensure that it is living within its means, that it has a productive economy and that its public finances are in good order. That is what we are going to deliver in this Parliament.
European Union Referendum Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-16
Topic: International Affairs
Chris Ian Brian Mynott Philp (Conservative, Centre-right): Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that matters such as this are determined at the UK level, so the reason Scotland is voting with the rest of the UK as one is that the Scottish people themselves voted last year to remain part of the United Kingdom, and therefore, on matters of foreign affairs and the European Union, we speak as a nation with one voice?
European Union Referendum Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-16
Topic: International Affairs
Kenneth Clarke (Conservative, Centre-right): The right hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way. Will he confirm my suspicion that his secret wish—the perfect result, from his point of view—is for Scotland to vote yes and England to vote no? Personally, I would regard that as a disaster. Does he agree that if Scotland voted to stay in the European Union and England voted to leave, the end of the United Kingdom would probably be quite imminent?
European Union Referendum Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-16
Topic: International Affairs
Dominic Charles Roberts Grieve (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. It seems to me that he, too, has put his finger on the issue, which is essentially a political one. Although he might wish to change the current structure of the United Kingdom and there might be arguments in favour of a federal or other solution, that structure currently clearly provides that the decision should be taken in common. In those circumstances, although there might be terrible fallout from a result that produced separate outcomes in Scotland and England, that fallout would be political and would not justify the amendment.
European Union Referendum Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-16
Topic: Government Operations
Dominic Charles Roberts Grieve (Conservative, Centre-right): It seems to me that the question is about not lack of respect, but what decisions are taken in common and in relation to what decisions we give a veto to the different component parts. The right hon. and learned Gentleman argues—it is a perfectly persuasive argument—that there should be an effective veto in each component part. However, there is an equally perfectly valid argument that the decision is ultimately a political one for the Government and that the Government would be entitled to take a view that, in the interests of the community in its widest sense—all the component parts—they should come to a decision one way or the other, irrespective of the fact that one component part did not want that decision.
European Union Referendum Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-16
Topic: Government Operations
David John Barrington Burrowes (Conservative, Centre-right): The right hon. Gentleman is making not a party political point, but an important cross-party point. The Committee on Standards in Public Life made that case in 1998, when it reported—this relates to section 125 of the 2000 Act—that "just as in general election campaigns, neither taxpayers’ money nor the permanent government machine—civil servants, official cars, the Government Information Service, and so forth—should be used to promote the interests of the Government side of the argument." The then Government accepted that point.
European Union Referendum Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-16
Topic: International Affairs
Christopher Robert Chope (Conservative, Centre-right): Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why he and his party objected to my Bill in the last Parliament calling for an independent audit of the economic costs and benefits of our current membership of the EU? Is that not the most fundamental issue about which the public want to be informed before the referendum?
European Union Referendum Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-16
Topic: Government Operations
William Nigel Paul Cash (Conservative, Centre-right): I very much agree, and it may be of interest to Members, if they have not already noticed, that the Electoral Commission has examined not only the Bill but my amendments, and has stated: "The Commission is therefore generally supportive of proposals to reinstate restrictions on the publication of promotional material by central and local government in the run-up to the poll." Even after Second Reading, the Electoral Commission—which is, after all, charged with these duties—has concluded it would be important to retain these restrictions. Some adjustments may need to be made in due course, but we should secure the status quo, then have the discussions, and then have the vote on Report. That would be the right way round.
European Union Referendum Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-16
Topic: Government Operations
Kenneth Clarke (Conservative, Centre-right): How far does my hon. Friend want to take this? In a general election, the whole government machinery closes down for four weeks and studies the potential future of alternative political masters and waits to see what the political policy of the new Government will be. In this case, however, the Government at the time of the referendum will be the Government for the next several years, and the Government, as a Government, will have been involved in producing the terms that are part of the referendum. Does my hon. Friend intend that no Minister can act as a Minister, as could be the case if we strictly applied purdah, or take advice for all those weeks on anything that might pertain to an issue in the referendum? Is the Prime Minister going to be prevented from expressing a view? Surely some compromise that is a modification of purdah is required—
European Union Referendum Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-16
Topic: Government Operations
William Nigel Paul Cash (Conservative, Centre-right): I seem to have spurred my right hon. and learned Friend to a passionate pursuit of his arguments, because he does not want what I am proposing at all. The fact is that the Electoral Commission says the proposal to remove section 125 "could mean that governments and others will be free to spend unlimited amounts of public funds promoting an outcome at the referendum right up until polling day." It goes on to say: "In the Commission’s view, there is a risk that the use of significant amounts of public money for promotional activity could give an unfair advantage to one side of the argument. Unlimited government spending would also undermine the principle of having spending limits for registered campaigns." We have already heard about the interference in the Scottish referendum, and what the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) said is completely right.
European Union Referendum Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-16
Topic: Government Operations
Christopher Robert Chope (Conservative, Centre-right): Does my hon. Friend agree that it is ironic that the section 125 provisions were adopted by the Venice Commission in the following year and are now universal best practice, and that the Venice Commission has endorsed the fact that there should be a prohibition on Government expenditure in the four weeks of the referendum campaign?
European Union Referendum Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-16
Topic: International Affairs
William Nigel Paul Cash (Conservative, Centre-right): That is absolutely right. I was going to refer to that, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making the point I want to refer to what section 125 actually does say, because the proposal is to remove that tonight, in the face of our opposition. The explanatory notes accompanying the Bill state what they do: "These Explanatory Notes have been prepared by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office…to help inform debate" and "in order to assist the reader of the Bill" However, paragraph 52 of the notes gives no explanation and simply says: "Paragraph 25 provides that section 125 of the 2000 Act does not apply for the purposes of this referendum", and then mentions a consequential amendment. There is no explanation at all. That itself is a reason for our being concerned about the way this is being done I want to return to the question of what we are repealing. What is in the 2000 Act is very sound. It refers to "any material which— (a) provides general information about a referendum to which this Part applies; (b) deals with any of the issues raised by any question on which such a referendum is being held; (c) puts any arguments for or against any particular answer to any such question; or (d) is designed to encourage voting at such a referendum." It is very comprehensive.
European Union Referendum Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-16
Topic: International Affairs
Michael Jon Wood (Conservative, Centre-right): Does my hon. Friend share my concerns that the provisions of section 125 would allow the European Commission to make statements and publish material affecting a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU, but would prevent British Ministers or Departments from publishing material to correct or counter such a publication?
European Union Referendum Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-16
Topic: Government Operations
William Nigel Paul Cash (Conservative, Centre-right): Very simply, any suggestion that the European Commission or the EU should be involved in this process is the subject of another amendment I have tabled, and nor should they be allowed to make any provision by way of financing. We can debate that later On whether contradiction might be created in respect of the position of Government Ministers in this country, my flow has been slightly diverted by my hon. Friend’s perfectly understandable intervention, but the fact is that Ministers and the civil service are in a position under the purdah rules such that they would not be able to use the machinery of government. In relation to the EU, which I know a little bit about, the machinery of government is extensive, but there are methods that could be applied, with a sensible degree of amendment, to ensure that the restrictions on the matters to which I have referred are complied with, because this is what we are talking about; it is not some generalised assumption that Ministers are going to wander on to completely different paths Section 125 lists the material I have already referred to— "general information about a referendum…any of the issues raised by any question…any arguments for or against any particular answer to any such question" and questions "designed to designed to encourage voting",— and it states that none of that material "shall be published during the relevant period by or on behalf of— (a) any Minister of the Crown, government department or local authority" It could not be clearer; it could not be more sensible, more sound or more comprehensive.
European Union Referendum Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-16
Topic: Government Operations
John Alan Redwood (Conservative, Centre-right): Would my hon. Friend like to confirm that it is a principle of fairness in all British elections and referendums that individuals—Ministers as well—participate on whichever side they wish under a single campaign, for yes or for no, which has proper controls over expenditure and publications? Does he also acknowledge that there cannot be a third category of intervention by the Government, because that would break the normal rules of campaign funding and control?
European Union Referendum Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-16
Topic: Government Operations
Bernard Christison Jenkin (Conservative, Centre-right): The Government argue—I think we have to accept their argument—that these detailed and broad restrictions are too prescriptive and that they would not be able to carry on with the normal course of government, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) has explained. Does my hon. Friend not agree that there would be too much interference in the normal conduct of government?
European Union Referendum Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-16
Topic: International Affairs
David Nuttall (Conservative, Centre-right): I am listening closely to the hon. Gentleman, but is not the logic of his argument that, with 27 other countries in the European Union, there would never be a good time to have a referendum on our membership of the European Union?
European Union Referendum Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-16
Topic: Government Operations
Kenneth Clarke (Conservative, Centre-right): Which is why I believe that the parliamentary system of democracy is so very good. A representative body of people elected from time to time have continuous responsibility for step-by-step decisions, and eventually they have to face the consequences of their decisions and can be removed. But we are already going wide of the amendments.
European Union Referendum Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-16
Topic: International Affairs
Kenneth Clarke (Conservative, Centre-right): Let me make a little more progress. I hope that my hon. Friend’s constraint will stop him leaping up too frequently; I will give way in due course I do not believe that there is any bad faith anywhere. Everyone wants those who campaign and the public to feel that the referendum has been conducted with absolute fairness. I am surprised, therefore, that, in these opening days of the European referendum process, so much passion is being excited by procedural issues. I will not describe them as footnotes, but, although they are important, none of them will make the faintest difference to the result on the day of the referendum. If we asked most of our masters—the public—whether purdah was followed properly during the campaign, they would not have the first idea what we were talking about. So my first plea is for a sense of proportion My plea to my right hon. Friend the Minister—I do not think I need to make it because I have seen the letter, which did not get to me either; I have just been shown it—is to live up to his undertakings. It is right to bend over backwards to reassure my right hon. and hon. Friends that there is no conspiracy, that they must not leap into paranoia, and that the intention is to hold a referendum in which the British public will be able to reach a view on balanced presentations. It seems to me that Ministers have started doing this straight away. I got the impression from the Second Reading debate that my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench were as surprised as I was at the sudden excitement about the rules in what should have been a fairly routine Bill paving the way for the referendum
European Union Referendum Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-16
Topic: Government Operations
Kenneth Clarke (Conservative, Centre-right): I will give way in a moment The Prime Minister has announced that he will suspend the rules of collective responsibility and that members of the Government will be able to campaign on whichever side they choose. We now have the letter giving an undertaking that the Government will depart from section 129. People seem to think that there is something magic about 5 May 2016, so we will not hold the referendum on that date. I have sympathy with Ministers; they are being derided. The moment they make concessions to all these impassioned pleas, they suffer the fate of all Ministers and are immediately accused of a humiliating U-turn and held up for ridicule Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends and perhaps others in the Scottish National party are difficult to calm down and reassure. I ask them to accept, as I accept, that every effort is being and should be made to satisfy fears about the propriety of the campaigning period.
European Union Referendum Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-16
Topic: Government Operations
William Nigel Paul Cash (Conservative, Centre-right): My right hon. and learned Friend’s rather Hush Puppy approach—saying that there is really nothing much that we need worry about, and that Parliament is far better at doing this than the people—seems somewhat dangerous and disrespectful of the voters. We have had a lot of referendums over the years. He says that purdah would not make a difference anyway. Does he think that the Electoral Commission is wrong when it says that disapplying section 125 of the 2000 Act would enable the Government to spend unlimited sums of money?
European Union Referendum Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-16
Topic: International Affairs
Kenneth Clarke (Conservative, Centre-right): I once gave evidence to an inquiry chaired by Sir Nigel Wicks into the workings of the Electoral Commission, and my recommendation was that it should be abolished as a useless quango, but that is a wider issue Of course we have had referendums, but my hon. Friend has never accepted the result of any referendum if he disagreed with it—for the sound reason, for which I respect him, that he has strong personal principles and convictions. I took part in the referendum 40 years ago. No serious Member of Parliament on either side of the argument changed their beliefs one jot the day after the result of the poll was announced. Tony Benn, who was personally responsible for floating this innovation in British politics, was one of the first to start demanding that we left the European Community within a few weeks of the announcement of the result. The Labour party was committed to leaving the EU by the time we got to the 1983 election, having shed a high proportion of its members to the Social Democratic party. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone and I agree that we must not repeat the mistakes of the past.