argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Afghanistan Policy — House of Commons, 2021-09-13
Topic: Government Operations
Victoria Atkins (Conservative, Centre-right): I simply disagree with the hon. Gentleman about his assessment of the Government’s position. I have tried to update the House today on our schemes. I have announced the funding now available for councils, which will be a significant step forward.
Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill (Instruction) — House of Commons, 2021-09-13
Topic: Government Operations
Chloe Rebecca Smith (Conservative, Centre-right): How wonderful to be pre-empted on a core remark that I was going to make anyway. What I ought to say first, however, is that while there is some similarity between the concepts of Prorogation and Dissolution—as the Clerks have observed in calling them "cognate matters"—in that they are both prerogative acts affecting the sitting of Parliament, they are, beyond that, quite distinct. Dissolution is the end of a Parliament before a general election, providing an opportunity for the electorate to exercise its judgment on the Government of the day. Prorogation is simply the formal ending of a parliamentary Session. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee wrote to me recently saying that there was "no read across from prorogation and dissolution", and I agree with that The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 expressly did not affect the prerogative power to prorogue Parliament. Our Bill to repeal that Act, which is what we are considering today in Committee, therefore does not touch on matters of Prorogation. To do that would significantly widen the scope of the Bill beyond the manifesto commitments of this side of the House and those of the other side of the House, who were clear in their manifesto that they wished to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. It would even go beyond the short title of this Bill. Therefore, it is inappropriate to put such measures in the Bill.
Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill (Instruction) — House of Commons, 2021-09-13
Topic: Government Operations
Chloe Rebecca Smith (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that thoughtful point, but I think he is incorrect. In my view, clause 3 does not do that. The intention of the clause is much more specifically related to Dissolution decisions, and it is my entire argument here from the Dispatch Box that we are dealing today with Dissolution, not with Prorogation, and that the two should be kept quite separate.
Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill (Instruction) — House of Commons, 2021-09-13
Topic: Government Operations
Chloe Rebecca Smith (Conservative, Centre-right): Because clause 3 is careful, as the explanatory notes set out, to absorb recent case law, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would want us to do. I know that the hon. Member for Rhondda thinks that that is important, because he has given us a tour de force of the history in this area. The point still stands, none the less, that clause 3 is about Dissolution, having had regard to relevant case law. That does not make it about Prorogation, as much as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) might wish it to. It is not about Prorogation I ought to take this moment to reflect on what we are actually voting on today. The hon. Member for Rhondda has suggested that there might almost be a trap here. I hesitate to suggest that he is laying a trap for Government Members to vote on. That would hardly be in his character, I am sure. However, a few suggestions have been made in the Chamber this afternoon that, if Government Members were to vote against his motion right here, right now, we would be saying that Prorogation was in fact justiciable. I think I can answer that one fairly clearly in saying that we are voting on an instruction to this Committee here today that we should have leave to make provision relating to the Prorogation of Parliament. I am really doing nothing more there than reading from the Order Paper, so we can be quite clear what today’s vote consists of.
Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill (Instruction) — House of Commons, 2021-09-13
Topic: Government Operations
Chloe Rebecca Smith (Conservative, Centre-right): The point is that we have an opportunity to clear the air in regard to legislation that is highly prescriptive and has not worked. That is the aim of today; it is not to extend at relatively short notice into a very large subject for debate, for which the ground has not been properly prepared by the hon. Member for Rhondda, although I admire his spirit in trying to do so. Instead, we ought to be able to move past this instruction to change the scope of the Bill and conduct our work through Committee, thus discharging at least two manifesto commitments from either side of the House and returning our constitutional arrangements to a form of stability that works.
Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill — House of Commons, 2021-09-13
Topic: Government Operations
Eleanor Fulton Laing (Conservative, Centre-right): With this it will be convenient to consider the following: Clauses 2 and 3 stand part Amendment 2, in clause 4, page 2, line 3, leave out "it first met" and insert "of the most recent general election" The intention of this amendment is to require that the last date for a general election is five years after the previous general election. Clauses 4, 5 and 6 stand part New clause 1—Election timetable not to disregard Saturdays and Sundays and bank holidays— ‘(1) Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 is amended as follows (2) In rule 2 (1), omit sub-paragraphs (a) and (b)." The purpose of this new clause is to reduce the time between dissolution and the next meeting of Parliament, by including weekends and bank holidays within the parliamentary general election timetable. New clause 2—Early parliamentary general elections— ‘(1) An early parliamentary general election may take place sooner than the automatic dissolution under section 4 of this Act only in accordance with this section (2) An early parliamentary general election is to take place only if the House of Commons passes a motion in the form set out in subsection (3) (3) The form of motion for the purposes of subsection (2) is— (none) "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election." (4) Subsection (5) applies for the purposes of the Timetable in rule 1 in Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 (5) If a parliamentary general election is to take place as provided for by subsection (2), the polling day for the election is to be the day appointed by Her Majesty by proclamation on the recommendation of the Prime Minister which must be no later than 30 days after the date on which the House of Commons has passed the motion in the form set out in subsection (3)." The intention of this new clause is to make dissolution subject to a vote of the House of Commons. New clause 5—Calling of Parliament— ‘(1) The date for the first meeting of a new Parliament must be specified in any proclamation for the dissolution of a Parliament (2) The date specified in accordance with subsection (1) may not be later than the 14th day after polling day." The intention of this new clause is to require Parliament to meet, and a newly elected Commons to sit to elect a Speaker, within two weeks of a general election. Amendment 3, in the Schedule, page 4, line 22, leave out "19th" and insert "12th" The intention of this amendment is to shorten the period between dissolution of one Parliament and the first meeting of the next Parliament by reducing the general election campaign from 25 days to 18. Amendment 4, page 7, line 15, after "subsection (2)" insert "and" This is a drafting amendment consequential on Amendment 5. Amendment 5, page 7, line 17, leave out from "(ii)" to end of line 19 and insert "omit paragraph (b)" This amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State could not make regulations to combine a UK General Election and an extraordinary general election to the Senedd. Schedule stand part.
Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill — House of Commons, 2021-09-13
Topic: Government Operations
Chloe Rebecca Smith (Conservative, Centre-right): Thank you very much indeed, Dame Eleanor. I shall endeavour to do that, and I hope you will bear with me while I ensure that I cover all that material Let me begin at the beginning, with clause 1. There is consensus throughout the House that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 has proven to be not fit for purpose and has been damaging to effective and accountable government. The experience of 2019 in particular showed us that the Act was flawed and ran counter to core constitutional principles, and was therefore damaging to the flexible functioning of our constitution. It was unique legislation and it did not work. We saw how, in 2017, a Government who commanded a majority in the House of Commons were able to call an early general election with ease, irrespective of the Act’s intentions The events of 2019 then demonstrated how the 2011 Act could obstruct democracy by making it harder to hold a necessary election. The Act’s prescriptive constraints, such as the threshold of a supermajority requirement for a general election and the statutory motions of no confidence, created an untenable situation in which the Government could neither pass vital legislation through Parliament nor call a new election. The result was parliamentary paralysis at a critical time for our Government. The introduction of bespoke primary legislation that circumvented the Act and let us hold a general election in 2019 was the final indictment of the Act The Bill therefore repeals the 2011 Act and returns us to the tried and tested system whereby Parliament will automatically dissolve after five years, if it has not been dissolved earlier by the sovereign exercising that prerogative power at the request of the Prime Minister. The key argument is that in doing so it will help to deliver increased legal, constitutional and political certainty around the process for the dissolving of Parliament. Clause 1 repeals the 2011 Act and in doing so delivers, as I have already mentioned, on both a Government manifesto commitment and a Labour manifesto commitment to do so. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee Clause 2 makes express provision to revive the prerogative powers that relate to the dissolution of Parliament and the calling of a new Parliament. That means that Parliament will, once more, be dissolved by the sovereign at the request of the Prime Minister. By doing this, the clause delivers on the Bill’s purpose, which is to reset the clock back to the pre-2011 position with as much clarity as possible. The clause is clear in its intention and in its effect. As the Joint Committee on the Fixed-term Parliaments Act put it, the drafting of clause 2 is "sufficiently clear to give effect to the Government’s intention of returning to the constitutional position" that existed prior to the passing of the 2011 Act.
Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill — House of Commons, 2021-09-13
Topic: Government Operations
Chloe Rebecca Smith (Conservative, Centre-right): Of course the Government and I acknowledge the existence of those principles; they are a historical fact in and of themselves. I refer my right hon. and learned Friend to the fact that we have said consistently throughout the Bill’s preparation and progress so far that we believe that now is the time for the underpinning conventions of the prerogative power to be debated and, indeed, restated. The Government have contributed to that by publishing some Dissolution principles at the beginning of the Bill’s journey. We think those principles form part of a dialogue that continues not only between the Government and Parliament but with the wider public as well. I hope that the work of this Committee today and the work in the other place will together form part of the continuation of that historical tradition of there being an understanding of the conventions that underpin the prerogative.
Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill — House of Commons, 2021-09-13
Topic: Government Operations
Robert Goodwill (Conservative, Centre-right): Does not the fact that the Prime Minister requests that the monarch take steps so that an election can happen show an understanding of the Lascelles principles? Indeed, there could be other circumstances, yet unforeseen, in which a request is refused.
Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill — House of Commons, 2021-09-13
Topic: Law and Crime
Chloe Rebecca Smith (Conservative, Centre-right): This is a good opportunity for me to be absolutely clear about the reference to the word "purported" in this clause. This has been included to take account of previous judicial decisions—in particular the cases of Anisminic Ltd v. the Foreign Compensation Commission 1969, and Privacy International v. the Investigatory Powers Tribunal 2019. In the latter, the expectation was expressed that the drafting legislation would have regard to the case law and ensure that the drafting made it clear if "purported" decisions—that is decisions that would be considered by a court to be invalid—were intended to be outside the jurisdiction of the courts. What clause 3 does is present an opportunity to Parliament to be absolutely clear on whether it thinks that such things should be outside the jurisdiction of the courts. It is the Government’s position and presentation that they ought to be, and I hope that hon. Members will join me in that.
Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill — House of Commons, 2021-09-13
Topic: Government Operations
Chloe Rebecca Smith (Conservative, Centre-right): I am proposing that the House understands the use of the phrase "purported", which, clearly, the right hon. Gentleman does—I have no dispute with him on that point—and that hon. Members join us in acknowledging that it is right to be aware of the case law and to respond to it. The decision in front of us is whether purported decisions relating to this area should or should not be included in clause 3. It is our contention that they should be, because we believe that the entire area of dissolution and the calling of Parliament is intended to be outside the jurisdiction of the courts. That is a perfectly legitimate question to put to Parliament. It is for us here in this Chamber to decide on that, and the reason for doing so would be that we think that such decisions are political rather that judicial in their nature. Fundamentally, the check on the exercise of power is for the electorate to decide on rather than the courts. Therefore, as I have said, the function of clause 3 is to set that out very clearly. I will now move on to clause 4, which deals with five-year maximum terms The purpose here is to ensure that a Parliament lasts no longer than five years. We do that by providing that Parliament will automatically dissolve five years after it has first met. In doing so, the clause returns us to the general position before the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill was enacted. We are confident that five years is the appropriate length for the maximum parliamentary term. Our Parliaments have seldom lasted a full five years, and, in practice, they have often been dissolved sooner. In fact, we can see that parliamentary terms have very often developed their own rhythm. For example, from the history books, we can see that a strong Government seeking a fresh mandate might seek a Dissolution after four years. Anything less than four years is usually a sign of some political crisis or emergency. Often, Parliaments are dissolved out of political necessity rather than choice, to put a policy or political question to the electorate or to resolve a political crisis.
Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill — House of Commons, 2021-09-13
Topic: Government Operations
Aaron Stuart Bell (Conservative, Centre-right): If a Prime Minister were to request a Dissolution that was proper but was perceived to be for political advantage and was premature, would not the remedy be in the hands and judgment of the electorate?
Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill — House of Commons, 2021-09-13
Topic: Government Operations
Chloe Rebecca Smith (Conservative, Centre-right): Yes, that is precisely the point, and that underlies a number of our considerations. In the place of a prescriptive statutory scheme, we can place our trust instead in the ability of people to choose against the behaviour that they observe from parties in Parliament Let me turn to new clause 5, which is also in the name of the hon. Member for Rhondda. It would require the House to start sitting 14 days after a general election. Although I agree that Parliament should meet as soon as possible after polling day, it is not necessary to codify that in legislation. Fundamentally, this is a similar type of argument. It is difficult to reconcile more extensive codification with the scheme of the Bill, and I shall set out the reasons why First, we think it is unnecessary to allow for such a 14-day period. Before and under the 2011 Act, the date of the first meeting of Parliament was set by the sovereign on the advice of the Prime Minister. In practice, Parliament has met within one to two weeks of a general election on all but two occasions since 1950. There are compelling practical reasons for a new Government to call a new Parliament as soon as possible. As I put it earlier, no Government can manage without supply. As the Joint Committee put it, "without…the authorisation of the Commons to spend money…a modern administration could manage months at best" Ultimately, having won an election, any new Government would want to assemble Parliament to pass their Queen’s Speech at the earlier opportunity, and be able to move on to legislation and supply.
Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill — House of Commons, 2021-09-13
Topic: Government Operations
Chloe Rebecca Smith (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman makes precisely the point that goes to the new clause, which is that a Government would, I would have thought, want to assemble faster than 14 days, but there can be occasions when more than 14 days may be needed. Therefore, both these arguments point to flexibility, and that is my principal concern about the new clause.
Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill — House of Commons, 2021-09-13
Topic: Government Operations
Maria Frances Lewis Miller (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend is of course making an excellent speech. The intent behind the new clause, which I will explain more fully when I go through it in detail, is to do exactly what she was calling for earlier, which is to have a clearer and more easily understood scheme. At the moment, it is not clear and not easy to understand, because it states that election periods are 25 days when they may not be: the last election was 36 days. We need more transparency, and that is part of what the new clause is calling for.
Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill — House of Commons, 2021-09-13
Topic: Government Operations
Chloe Rebecca Smith (Conservative, Centre-right): Absolutely. This is a good opportunity to remind ourselves that we have not necessarily observed a 25 working day timetable. For example, the 2017 election, known to have been rather a long one, was considerably longer than that minimum statutory period. It is important, as my right hon. Friend says, to be as clear as possible on this point.
Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill — House of Commons, 2021-09-13
Topic: Government Operations
Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative, Centre-right): Does my hon. Friend feel that the debate on this presents the opportunity for a further piece of work on the period from when a Prime Minister dissolves Parliament to when the 25 days should start? I appreciate that this Bill is not really the appropriate moment for that, but does she agree that there should be further study and work to decide whether the timeframe should be tidied up more before we get to the 25 days?
Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill — House of Commons, 2021-09-13
Topic: Government Operations
Chloe Rebecca Smith (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Some of what he refers to is not necessarily within a statutory scheme but within, for example, the processes of this House, but he makes a valuable point. We do need to look at the evidence in this area; that will clearly help us. There is already some written work that I would commend to right hon. and hon. Members. They could look at the most recent report of the Association of Electoral Administrators, which said, in July, that less time would be significantly problematic and that there was only so much that could be done at once. It made the point again in written evidence to the Joint Committee, saying that "it would be catastrophic for everyone involved…if the statutory election period were to be shortened…It would create a significant risk of the election failing and not being delivered and increase the risk of disenfranchising potential electors".
Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill — House of Commons, 2021-09-13
Topic: Government Operations
Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative, Centre-right): Just for clarification on those comments, are the electoral services referring to the 25 working days, not a period leading up to that, and saying that they are confident that they can always achieve their work in the short campaign as defined, not relying on any period of time before the short campaign starts?
Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill — House of Commons, 2021-09-13
Topic: Government Operations
Chloe Rebecca Smith (Conservative, Centre-right): I believe that to be the case, although of course I would not wish to speak for the AEA. I really do commend its report to the Committee to enable it to see in much more detail the challenges that there are in delivering elections within the timetable that currently exists. To answer my right hon. Friend’s question, broadly yes—that set of comments is referring to the statutory timetable rather than any time before it.
Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill — House of Commons, 2021-09-13
Topic: Government Operations
Craig Whittaker (Conservative, Centre-right): I want to take my hon. Friend back to the point about 2013 and why the period became 25 working days. She mentioned postal votes and electronic registration, but surely the clue is in the title: electronic registration. Anything done electronically is supposed to be much quicker and clearer. Does the legislation also take into account future ways of voting, particularly for overseas voters who may want eventually to do it electronically?
Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill — House of Commons, 2021-09-13
Topic: Government Operations
Aaron Stuart Bell (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend said a moment ago that she could not speak exactly for the AEA, but she will know from the open letter that it wrote to her that it wants even more time. It is proposing an extended 30-day timetable to "increase capacity, introduce resilience and ensure electors are put first." That is all very well, but the point of an election is not to have the most perfect election imaginable, but to get the right result efficiently, so that everyone can cast their vote, but the country can be allowed to move on and resolve whatever tensions led to the election. The ever lengthening timetable is not in the national interest, let alone the interest of individual electors or individual candidates.