argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
EU Withdrawal Joint Committee: Oversight — House of Commons, 2019-03-20
Topic: Mixed Topics
Owen William Paterson (Conservative, Centre-right): I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) on applying for this urgent question and I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting it. Ever since the very first Parliaments in Shropshire, the primary function of this House has been to control the manner in which money is levied from taxpayers and the way in which it is spent. I was astounded when I turned up on day one in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, where I had the honour of being Secretary of State, to discover the level of disallowance—that is an EU expression for "fine". For example, Amyas Morse, the Comptroller and Auditor General, said of the 2016 accounts that "the total value of cumulative disallowance penalties incurred under CAP 2007-13 is £661 million", which amounts to more than £90 million a year. I therefore view with some horror article 171, which states: "The Joint Committee shall, no later than by the end of the transition period, establish…an arbitration panel." Article 178 states that the arbitration panel "may impose a lump sum or penalty payment to be paid to the complainant." What are the limits on the size of those payments? If the House of Commons objects, what can it do?
EU Withdrawal Joint Committee: Oversight — House of Commons, 2019-03-20
Topic: Mixed Topics
Kwasi Alfred Addo Kwarteng (Conservative, Centre-right): Thank you. I stress that we have been very successful in restricting payments when we needed to. There is no reason to suppose that the Committee will impose swingeing penalties that we will be forced to pay without our consent.
EU Withdrawal Joint Committee: Oversight — House of Commons, 2019-03-20
Topic: Other
Steven John Baker (Conservative, Centre-right): Further to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), and since we are treating of matters that are both controversial and complex, may I invite my hon. Friend to commit today—since he must, if he is going to do it—to lay letters and other papers in the House of Commons Library by the rise of the House tomorrow, setting out what the Government know the Committee shall be able to do and shall not be able to do, and the authority for that statement, so that we can all be perfectly clear on the scope and authority of the Committee, and the Government’s view?
EU Withdrawal Joint Committee: Oversight — House of Commons, 2019-03-20
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): There is nothing disorderly, but I must say that I am saddened to see the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) holding, until he just put it away in his pocket, his mobile telephone. I have long been conscious that the hon. Member possesses, and indeed uses, such a mobile phone. However, it does conflict very, very, very heavily with my image of the hon. Gentleman as the embodiment of tradition and as someone who thinks that the 17th century is indecently recent.
EU Withdrawal Joint Committee: Oversight — House of Commons, 2019-03-20
Topic: Other
Andrew James Bridgen (Conservative, Centre-right): May I press my hon. Friend the Minister further on his earlier answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith)? The Joint Committee will make legal decisions in unforeseen circumstances. [Interruption.] Can he confirm that the Joint Committee will itself decide what circumstances are unforeseen? [Interruption.]
EU Withdrawal Joint Committee: Oversight — House of Commons, 2019-03-20
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): I am sure that the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) will regard it as the encomium of all encomiums to have tribute paid to him by the junior Minister; he may well feel so uplifted by the tribute that he wishes to have it framed. However, I say gently to the Minister that his tribute suffers from one notable disadvantage: despite its generosity, it offered no answer to the question.
EU Withdrawal Joint Committee: Oversight — House of Commons, 2019-03-20
Topic: Mixed Topics
Laurence Anthony Robertson (Conservative, Centre-right): The Minister has referred several times to the devolved Administrations, but he will be aware that the Northern Ireland Assembly has not sat for over two years, so how does he think the Joint Committee will take note of the thoughts coming from the Province on what is, of course, one of the big issues of the whole agreement?
EU Withdrawal Joint Committee: Oversight — House of Commons, 2019-03-20
Topic: Mixed Topics
Marcus John Hudson Fysh (Conservative, Centre-right): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and very well done for granting this urgent question. I have been really concerned about this matter for a long time I want to talk about the mutual consent provision in article 166. Effectively, in certain circumstances, it gives the EU a hard veto over what the decisions are. The Minister said that no negotiation was planned, but we know that the customs procedure embedded in the plans for a backstop, should we be unable to agree a subsequent agreement, is admitted by the UK Government and the EU to be unworkable in its current form, is non-compliant with the Union customs code and is incomplete with respect to matters such as what happens to VAT at our borders or what happens with the export declarations. The customs procedure itself specifies that unilateral measures can be taken by the EU, should it not be satisfied with that procedure. The whole point is that these matters, and the rectification of these matters, are fundamental to the collection of taxes at our borders. There is no way in the world that we as a House should ever contemplate giving the EU power over how they are changed, as this provision does.
No-deal EU Exit Preparations — House of Commons, 2019-03-20
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): Well, the hon. Lady graced the Front Bench with considerable distinction and it is some time since she has sat on the Back Benches. It is entirely understandable that she did not know the procedure, but there is no scope for intervention when the Minister is delivering his mercifully brief oration.
No-deal EU Exit Preparations — House of Commons, 2019-03-20
Topic: Mixed Topics
Christopher Heaton-Harris (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very sensible question The continued safety and security of both UK and EU citizens remains our top priority. In a no-deal scenario, the UK would lose access to the mechanisms that we currently use to co-operate with EU member states on security and law enforcement. The Home Office is working intensively with operational partners to put no-deal plans into action, and to ensure that the UK is ready to "transition" our co-operation with our European partners and make best use of the alternative channels with EU member states should that be required. We are preparing to move co-operation to alternative non-EU mechanisms should that be required, and our contingency plans are largely tried and tested mechanisms which we already use for co-operating with many non-EU countries, including making more use of Interpol and Council of Europe conventions. They are not like-for-like replacements, but they would not result in a reduction in mutual capability.
No-deal EU Exit Preparations — House of Commons, 2019-03-20
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): Order. I think that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) is concerned, but the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) is back in the Chamber. I do not think that I need to dwell on the matter. Suffice it to say that there can, in extremis, be a reason why someone has—very, very, very briefly—to leave the Chamber. When the call of nature sounds, that person cannot pretend to be deaf. I do not say that in a pejorative spirit; I simply mean that one cannot pretend not to be aware of the immediate requirement.
No-deal EU Exit Preparations — House of Commons, 2019-03-20
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): I was trying to signal as much in a somewhat more tactful and seemly manner, but the hon. Gentleman has now blurted out the truth, and the nation is aware of what was his requirement. As he has now returned to the Chamber, he can beetle back to his seat and listen to the remainder of the exchanges.
No-deal EU Exit Preparations — House of Commons, 2019-03-20
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Christopher Heaton-Harris (Conservative, Centre-right): I have to say that I did not know they had done so, but I do know that there are ongoing engagements throughout the Government with business representatives and organisations, some of which I myself have attended very recently.
No-deal EU Exit Preparations — House of Commons, 2019-03-20
Topic: Immigration
Christopher Heaton-Harris (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend rightly raises concerns for her constituents. Extensive work to prepare for a no-deal scenario has been under way across Government for two years and we are taking steps to ensure that the border continues to operate as effectively as possible from the day we leave. We have three objectives for the UK border to be delivered on day one and beyond: maintaining security; facilitating the flow of goods and people; and revenue protection. We will prioritise flow at the border, which means any increase in the number of checks will be kept to a minimum by conducting only essential checks, which will help to reduce friction at locations like Kent.
No-deal EU Exit Preparations — House of Commons, 2019-03-20
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Christopher Heaton-Harris (Conservative, Centre-right): It does rather depend on what aspect of people’s lives will be affected, so there is a huge range of information both online and now available in advertising as well, where people will be able to see what will happen in circumstances such as if they were concerned about taking their pets abroad or about their holiday. That is all available online.
No-deal EU Exit Preparations — House of Commons, 2019-03-20
Topic: Civil Rights
Christopher Heaton-Harris (Conservative, Centre-right): I welcome, as the Prime Minister does, all conversations about how the meaningful vote can be passed by this House. However, last week, the House voted by some big number—more than a majority of the number of MPs in this House—to reject a people’s vote.
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2019-03-20
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. When he seeks my advice, my response to him is to say—as I indicated to the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) yesterday —that a Saturday sitting, or indeed a Sunday sitting, would be perfectly possible. It would, however, be possible only if there were a resolution of the House to that effect. Indeed, any change to the thus far set out—and therefore by Members anticipated—sittings would require a resolution of the House. If the right hon. Gentleman reflects on the point that I have made, he will be keenly conscious that such a resolution could, potentially, be put to the House either tomorrow or indeed on Friday, as this Friday is a sitting day. I am not seeking to engender an expectation, and I have no indication at all that the Government are thinking in these terms or that they would necessarily be sympathetic to the right hon. Gentleman’s request, but this would be perfectly possible in procedural terms. My advice is that he should await a reply to his letter.
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2019-03-20
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): The right hon. Lady’s point of order contains a twin, or at any rate double, hypothesis, and we shall have to wait to see. As I always say, invoking the late Willie Whitelaw, it is best across bridges only when we come to them. Her use, and some would say abuse, of the point of order procedure displays a notable, though not altogether uncharacteristic, cheekiness—a fact of which she is well aware—but she is nothing if not dexterous in her use of available procedures.
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2019-03-20
Topic: Mixed Topics
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): That is a very sensible point. Planning will be under way lest that scenario should arise, and not least out of consideration for the staff who serve us so loyally and so well, it is essential that that is so. They have already in recent times been very gravely inconvenienced as a result of our deliberations. That is the way it is, and they very graciously accept it, but we should not take their loyalty for granted. They must be treated with respect.
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2019-03-20
Topic: Other
Mark Gino Francois (Conservative, Centre-right): Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. To save the House and the country money, if we leave at 11 pm on 29 March—we are at D minus 9—I will have no need or requirement for grief counselling, but I might have a whacking hangover on the morning of 30 March.
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2019-03-20
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): Well, it is not for me to endorse or, indeed, to repudiate the right hon. Gentleman’s suggestion. The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) is clearly a much sought after individual. I have always regarded her as important, and I know she has a very full diary—no doubt there are many competing claims upon her time and, as I say, her attendance is required by noted celebrities within the Government. My advice to her is very simple: trust your instincts and, very simply, to thine own self be true If there are no further points of order, I will in a moment call Keir Starmer to make an application for leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration under the terms of Standing Order No. 24. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has up to three minutes in which to make such an application.
Article 50 Extension — House of Commons, 2019-03-20
Topic: Other
Dominic Charles Roberts Grieve (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. Just going back on his point—and he may agree with this—it is apparent that the remarks of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster were made not just out of the air, but in order to explain and justify the Government’s wording of that motion, which came in for a considerable amount of criticism as appearing to be opaque. He may agree with me that the words uttered at the Dispatch Box could be taken authoritatively as the Government’s assurance about what they intended to do.
Article 50 Extension — House of Commons, 2019-03-20
Topic: Other
Mark Andrew Pritchard (Conservative, Centre-right): The emphasis on the word "short" is subjective, because for many people short is long and long is short—[Interruption.] It is by definition subjective. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman is comparing one statement of "short" with another statement of "long", but the matter is purely subjective even in that case.
Article 50 Extension — House of Commons, 2019-03-20
Topic: Other
Stephen Paul Barclay (Conservative, Centre-right): It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). He started his remarks by saying that the Prime Minister should be here to answer his SO24 debate, but then, slightly oddly, went immediately on to note that the Prime Minister had been here for just under an hour answering questions on the extension, in particular. Whether that, taken with two urgent questions to my Department this afternoon, an SO24 debate and much of Prime Minister’s questions also being taken up on these matters, constitutes International Day of Happiness, as the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) mentioned, I leave it to others to determine.
Article 50 Extension — House of Commons, 2019-03-20
Topic: Other
Stephen Paul Barclay (Conservative, Centre-right): It is always good to take wisdom from all sources. My understanding is that the letter was placed in the House of Commons Library. On the precise timing of that, given the length of time that Prime Minister’s questions ran, I think it was probably in the Library while she was still answering questions.
Article 50 Extension — House of Commons, 2019-03-20
Topic: Other
Stephen Paul Barclay (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Lady is correct that the House has spent a lot of time talking. What the House has not done is spent a lot of time deciding, and what we have seen is what the House is against.
Article 50 Extension — House of Commons, 2019-03-20
Topic: Civil Rights
Stephen Paul Barclay (Conservative, Centre-right): The right hon. Gentleman talks about respecting votes and whether the House has had an opportunity to vote on issues. His party wants a second referendum—a people’s vote—yet we had a vote on that issue last Thursday. Indeed, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras did not vote for a people’s vote. If the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) is going to practise what he preaches, I say with respect that we had a vote on the people’s vote last Thursday, and the House spoke on that.
Article 50 Extension — House of Commons, 2019-03-20
Topic: Other
Stephen Paul Barclay (Conservative, Centre-right): I think the hon. Gentleman is wilfully misrepresenting the way the amendable motion played last Thursday—the fact that amendments were defeated—and we have given a further commitment to an amendable motion on 25 March. Perhaps his frustration is displaced from his frustration with his own Front Bench, because what we have not had from the Leader of the Opposition is clarity about when a second referendum will be put.
Article 50 Extension — House of Commons, 2019-03-20
Topic: Other
Stephen Paul Barclay (Conservative, Centre-right): My right hon. Friend is right in that the suggestion that this House has not had sufficient time—that was one of the points made earlier—self-evidently does not reflect the extensive debates we have held. The idea that the House has not had the opportunity to express its will, when it has done so repeatedly on the issues, including last Thursday, is simply not credible.
Article 50 Extension — House of Commons, 2019-03-20
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Stephen Paul Barclay (Conservative, Centre-right): What is remarkable about that intervention is that chambers of commerce up and down the country have been saying, "Back the Prime Minister’s deal" because they want the certainty that it offers. I am therefore grateful to the hon. Lady for drawing the House’s attention to the voice of business. It is not a voice that usually gets much of a hearing on the Opposition Benches. I note that the hon. Lady ducked the challenge. I have still not heard anyone on the Opposition Front Bench tell us how long an extension they seek.
Article 50 Extension — House of Commons, 2019-03-20
Topic: Other
Stephen Paul Barclay (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman has not even persuaded Labour Front Benchers of his position. He says that he wants a nine-month extension, yet we have no clarity from the Labour Front Bench. He also says that he wants time for a second referendum, but I have yet to hear clarity about the question. Would there be two questions or three? Would "remain" and "leave" be on the ballot paper?
Article 50 Extension — House of Commons, 2019-03-20
Topic: Other
Stephen Paul Barclay (Conservative, Centre-right): I have given way to the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) once and I think the Father of the House wants to intervene, so I will obviously let my right hon. and learned Friend intervene in a moment. However, even the question for a second referendum, as well as the length of time it would take, is unclear, and the hon. Gentleman cannot persuade Labour Front Benchers of his policy.
Article 50 Extension — House of Commons, 2019-03-20
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): Order. We will hear from the Secretary of State in a moment, but my understanding was that he had specified a meaningful vote on Monday. I thought that he used the words "meaningful vote", but I may be incorrect; if so, he can clarify that. [Interruption.] Order. It is certainly the case that there is due to be a motion, pursuant to earlier resolutions of the House, and that it is due by Monday; I believe that it is listed in the remaining orders. My expectation is that there will be such a motion on Monday. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could helpfully clarify to the House precisely what the Government intend for Monday—assuming that they know—and what they do not intend.
Article 50 Extension — House of Commons, 2019-03-20
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): It would be difficult to get it immediately, although those who take down verbatim what is said in this House work extremely skilfully and conscientiously, so it is reasonable to expect that what was said will wing its way to the Chair before very long. Moreover, if the Secretary of State in any sense misspoke, it is open to him to clarify what he meant.
Article 50 Extension — House of Commons, 2019-03-20
Topic: Other
Stephen Paul Barclay (Conservative, Centre-right): If I did misspeak, of course I will apologise to the House and seek to clarify the record. I think the point being made was about a meaningful vote—sorry, I have just done it again; it was about an amendable motion. That was the point, and I think the shadow Secretary of State accepts it: we were referring to an amendable motion.
Article 50 Extension — House of Commons, 2019-03-20
Topic: Other
Stephen Paul Barclay (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman’s interventions are always very reasonable. I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify on the record that I was referring to the amendable motion. On the substance of his point, we will come back on Monday and set out at the Dispatch Box exactly how we will honour the commitment that was given by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
Article 50 Extension — House of Commons, 2019-03-20
Topic: Mixed Topics
Michael Jon Wood (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman is misinformed. Last week, the House voted down a proposal for a second referendum by 249 votes, which was a crushing defeat for the amendment and demonstrated that there was no support for a second referendum in the House.
Article 50 Extension — House of Commons, 2019-03-20
Topic: Mixed Topics
Samuel Phillip Gyimah (Conservative, Centre-right): Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the whole language of blame and of trying to assign blame is incredibly juvenile, given what is at stake for the country? We should be talking about what is in the national interest. As the Father of the House argued earlier, we are at an impasse. The Prime Minister’s deal has been rejected heavily twice by this House for a reason. If we want to make progress, we need to be able to discuss the alternatives in a structured and coherent way with the Government’s full support. That is what this House is crying out for, and that is what this Government should support if we are to make progress.