argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Trading Relationships with Europe — House of Commons, 2015-03-10
Topic: International Affairs
Richard Michael John Ogilvie Graham (Conservative, Centre-right): Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that many Conservative Members could agree with everything he has said so far, and also recognise that the opportunity in the renegotiation with Europe is to improve Europe for the whole of Europe, not just for Britain, so that this great continent goes forward progressively?
Trading Relationships with Europe — House of Commons, 2015-03-10
Topic: International Affairs
Richard Michael John Ogilvie Graham (Conservative, Centre-right): My right hon. Friend is making a series of extremely valid points about our role in Europe today. Does he not think it symbolic that, just at the moment when this country will have created more jobs than all the rest of Europe put together, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath believes that, somehow, ours is the party that advocates leaving Europe and is no longer at the level of competing with Europe? Surely we are in a position to lead it forward into a much better era of growth.
Trading Relationships with Europe — House of Commons, 2015-03-10
Topic: International Affairs
Matthew John David Hancock (Conservative, Centre-right): Our country has been and is being turned around, but it will prosper whatever the institutional arrangements of our relationship with Europe. We are a brilliant country with the most enterprising and innovative people in the world, and it ill behoves anyone, least of all the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, to compare Britain’s future to a brutal dictatorship such as North Korea. For him to compare Britain to North Korea shows a perverted sense of reality. Indeed, he loses heads and hearts when he makes such a comparison There is nothing God-given about the prosperity of our nation or our continent, but with the right policies there is nothing to stop us becoming the most successful major nation upon earth. That cannot be done, however, without reform Those who argue against a referendum make the following case. They speak of the risk to investment, which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned. However, since my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced our policy of a referendum before the end of 2017, investment to the UK has increased by 14%. We have attracted the most inward investment since records began in the 1980s and business investment has risen by 6.8%. They speak of the dangers of uncertainty, but this referendum does not bring uncertainty. That uncertainty already exists, because we live in a democracy with an unhappy relationship between the British people and the European institutions. Many of us have never even had the chance to vote on the question. The uncertainty is there because in the past politicians repeatedly signed over yet more powers to the EU and repeatedly refused to ask the British people for their consent Just as we were left in 2010 on the verge of bankruptcy, so our credit with the British people on the issue of Europe had run out; and just as we on this side of the House are turning around our nation’s economy, so we plan by this renegotiation and referendum to restore trust in our relationship with Europe by putting the final decision to the British public, whom we are here to serve. The referendum does not create uncertainty; it will resolve it and give the British people the say that they have been for so long denied The right hon. Gentleman speaks of jobs, but there are record numbers of jobs, and unemployment has been coming down at a record pace. He speaks of British influence in Europe, but our influence is strengthened, not weakened, by taking a clear-eyed view of the British national interest. I ask this: where was the influence in Europe in the past when red lines were printed in such faint ink that they were stepped over again and again, when rebates were surrendered and powers handed over with so little in return?
Trading Relationships with Europe — House of Commons, 2015-03-10
Topic: International Affairs
Matthew John David Hancock (Conservative, Centre-right): I will tell the hon. Gentleman what we do with red lines. Shortly after his election in 2010, the current Prime Minister threatened to veto a proposal that would have damaged Britain, and our European partners were so used to those threats being made and then abandoned by previous Prime Ministers that they did not believe he was serious. But he was serious and he vetoed the proposal. Now when Britain speaks about the need for reform, we are listened to. That is leadership in Europe: no longer on the hook for eurozone bailouts; no longer increasing the regulatory burden but reducing it; and the European budget no longer rising but being cut. That is our policy. Let me be clear about our policy in the next Parliament: it is not the narrow vision that sees Europe as the centre of the universe at a time when we export more to the rest of the world than to the EU for the first time in my lifetime, but a patriotic, outward-looking vision of reform and a referendum.
Trading Relationships with Europe — House of Commons, 2015-03-10
Topic: International Affairs
Matthew John David Hancock (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It makes clear, does it not, the choice for the British people for the first time in a generation. We on the Government side reject the pessimism that says we can have influence in Europe only by subordinating our goals. Instead, we have influence through the steadfast pursuit of our national interest. We must drive those reforms that are in Britain’s national interest, and in the interests of every member state; a long-term plan for Europe, with free enterprise at its heart, so that the whole continent can rise, compete and thrive in the 21st century. We will stand up for businesses on red tape, for exporters on free trade and for industry on the free movement of capital, and we will restore fairness to the free movement of people, for work rather than benefits. Before the end of 2017 we will put that reformed Europe to the British people in a referendum so that they may decide our future. That is the policy our country needs: reform, vigorous debate and then a vote to settle the matter, putting our trust in the decision of the British people As the right hon. Gentleman bows out from this House, and with the best wishes of the House to him and his family, it is that better future that we must surely follow the path to, so that Britain once again can be among the most prosperous nations upon earth Question put and agreed to.
Mutuals’ Deferred Shares Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-03-06
Topic: International Affairs
Jonathan Peter Evans (Conservative, Centre-right): I am much aware of that. My right hon. Friend and I have spoken about this matter and I know that that is his motivation I do not know whether this will help my right hon. Friend’s career—he and I are both leaving the House, so perhaps it does not matter—but we are good Europeans. We have always understood that it is in our country’s interests to engage positively with Europe, so I am pleased by his references to the European landscape. Most of my colleagues are aware that, having served in the House in the 1990s, I then spent a decade in the European Parliament as an MEP and for some of that time I was leader of the Conservatives in the European Parliament. The two aspects he has drawn to the House’s attention—the potential European mutuals statute and the debate about the European solvency rules—are matters that I have spent pretty much a decade of my life arguing about Given that my right hon. Friend drew attention to the European mutuals statute and quoted the original 1992 provisions and the 1993 revision, it might be worth pointing out that the important word, which he mentioned, was "draft". The draft was produced, but there was then a long period of decided inactivity. In fact, those of us elected to the European Parliament first in 1999 had to engage in a major effort to get the issue of the European mutuals statute on to the European agenda. Given that, although my right hon. Friend referred to the restriction on voting rights in clause 2—which, he rightly said, might be inconsistent with a report produced more than 20 years ago—it is important to see that report in its context.
House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-03-06
Topic: Government Operations
Eleanor Fulton Laing (Conservative, Centre-right): I remind the House that with this we are discussing the following: Amendment 2, page 1, line 7, leave out subsection (2) Amendment 7, page 1, line 17, at beginning insert "in relation either to an expulsion or to a suspension" This is linked to the amendment below which prevents retrospective judgement of behaviour leading to a final expulsion of a member of the House of Lords. Amendment 6, page 1, line 17, after "Act", insert "and any Standing Orders made under subsection (1)" Amendment 19, page 1, line 17, after "Act" insert "and any Standing Orders made under this section" Amendment 8, page 1, line 18, leave out paragraph (b) This removes all reference to previous conduct that was not public knowledge. Amendment 9, page 1, line 18, at beginning insert "in relation only to a suspension" This removes the power of expulsion in respect of previous conduct that was not public knowledge. Amendment 10, page 1, line 18, leave out from "Act" to end of line 19 and insert "but since 1 January 2015" This limits the application of the Bill’s sanctions to previous conduct that was not public knowledge to just the current year. Amendment 11, page 1, line 18, leave out from "Act" to end of line 19 and insert "but since 1 January 2000" This limits the application of the Bill’s sanctions to previous conduct that was not public knowledge in the past 15 years only. Amendment 12, page 1, line 18, leave out from "Act" to end of line 19 and insert "but since 1 January 1985" This limits the application of the Bill’s sanctions to previous conduct that was not public knowledge in the past 30 years only. Amendment 13, page 1, line 19, after "knowledge", insert "in the United Kingdom" This limits the scope of public knowledge of previous conduct to what was not known in this country. Amendment 14, page 1, line 19, at end insert— ‘(4A) A resolution under subsection 4(b) may not relate to expulsion" This is an alternative approach to removing the power of expulsion in respect of previous conduct that was not public knowledge. Amendment 15, page 1, line 19, at end insert— ‘(4A) Standing Orders of the House of Lords set out guidance on what constitutes public knowledge under subsection 4(b)". This allows for some certainty as to what might constitute public knowledge of previous conduct. Amendment 20, page 1, line 19, at end add— ‘(5) nothing in this section shall authorise the expulsion or suspension of members of the House of Lords on the grounds of age, health or length of service" Amendment 3, in clause 2, page 2, line 2, leave out "Expulsion and" Amendment 4, page 2, line 4, leave out clause 3 Amendment 5, in clause 4, page 2, line 9, leave out "Expulsion and" Amendment 16, line 1, leave out "expel or".
House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-03-06
Topic: Government Operations
George Young (Conservative, Centre-right): I do not think that the amendment is necessary. Some of the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch do not arise. He was worried that the code of conduct could be changed and then find someone guilty, but that cannot happen under the existing code. Moreover, when we went around this course before, the Standing Orders were changed soon afterwards. The key thing, however, is that peers already know what is right and what is wrong under the code of conduct. We are not changing the code of conduct; all we are changing is the penalties. I do not see how the scenario my hon. Friend outlined could arise, because the question of conduct is wholly unchanged by the Bill and, indeed, by his amendment. We are just giving the other House some additional sanctions, which it wants in order to deal with conduct and extend the period of suspension beyond the lifetime of a Parliament. My hon. Friend conceded that that was logical. We are also giving it the ultimate power of expulsion for behaviour that is beyond the pale. Again, that cannot be applied retrospectively under clause 4.
House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-03-06
Topic: Law and Crime
Philip Andrew Davies (Conservative, Centre-right): My right hon. Friend seems to be glossing over the retrospective nature of the punishments, which is also covered by this group of amendments. If somebody committed murder and we brought back the death penalty, I am sure my right hon. Friend would agree that they should not face the death penalty because at the time they committed the murder the death penalty was not in place. His Bill, however, seeks retrospectively to change the punishments for breaching the code of conduct and he appears to be glossing over that.
House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-03-06
Topic: Government Operations
George Young (Conservative, Centre-right): Clause 1(4) states: "A resolution passed by virtue of subsection (1) must state that, in the opinion of the House of Lords, the conduct giving rise to the resolution…occurred after the coming into force of this Act, or…occurred before the coming into force of this Act and was not public knowledge before that time." The Bill does not allow for double jeopardy. Any previous investigation into an alleged breach would, of course, have resulted in the behaviour becoming public knowledge, as it would have been reported by the committee at the time of the original investigation. Given those assurances, I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will agree that his amendments are not necessary.
House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-03-06
Topic: Government Operations
Jo Johnson (Conservative, Centre-right): It is a pleasure to be here today in support of my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young) putting this important Bill on the statute book, particularly given that my present, inward-facing role in the policy unit does not afford me too many opportunities of this nature As there was a thorough debate on this group of amendments last week, I shall keep my comments brief. The amendments would strike at the heart of the Bill, which is intended to give the House of Lords the power to deal with conduct that takes place before the Bill is passed. Amendments 1 to 5 and 16 would remove all references to expulsion from the Bill, thereby completely removing the power to expel a peer. As I said, that would strike at the very heart of the Bill, which is intended to give the Lords similar powers of discipline to those we enjoy here in the House of Commons.
House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-03-06
Topic: Law and Crime
Jo Johnson (Conservative, Centre-right): The application of the power is wisely, in the Government’s opinion, left to the judgment and discretion of the House of Lords. Amendments 13 and 15 would require "public knowledge" to be further defined. The Government consider that that would be likely to lead to more difficulties than leaving it in broad terms. The Bill allows for "the opinion of the House of Lords" to be given so that each case may be taken on its own merits, rather than attempting to fix the phrase "public knowledge" as a legal concept.
House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-03-06
Topic: Law and Crime
Peter William Bone (Conservative, Centre-right): There is just one point that I am trying to grasp. If somebody committed misconduct in the past, but it was not in the public realm, the sanction against them under the Bill—that is, the possibility of expulsion—would be different from the sanction they would have faced if the conduct had been known about at the time. That does seem to be retrospective.
House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-03-06
Topic: Government Operations
Jo Johnson (Conservative, Centre-right): There is a limited ground there Without primary legislation, the House of Lords cannot override the right of individual peers to receive a writ of summons. That would encroach on the Lords position as a self-regulating Chamber and could have other unintended consequences for parliamentary privilege, in that the courts could be asked to judge on the exercise of the powers To answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), the Government support the retrospective application of both the Bill’s sanctions because the House of Lords already has the power to sanction a Member who is found guilty of misconduct as part of its inherent power to preserve honour and decency. Therefore, a peer who engaged in misconduct before the Bill came into force would have known that their actions had consequences. Although the power currently extends only to the ability to suspend a peer, it would seem extremely odd if the Bill allowed more serious past conduct to go unpunished or to be sanctioned less severely than it could be under the Bill. The public will expect misconduct that comes to light after the Bill comes into force to be dealt with, particularly the most serious misconduct On the final point that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch raised, given that there is considerable support for the Bill in the House of Lords, it can be expected that the Standing Orders that will give effect to the provisions will be passed swiftly after the Act comes into force. It therefore makes little practical difference whether the powers are dated from the coming into force of the Act or the coming into force of the Standing Orders. The Government therefore do not support any of the amendments in the group.
House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-03-06
Topic: Government Operations
George Young (Conservative, Centre-right): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time I express my gratitude to all those who recently took part in the Division, ensuring that the Bill reaches this important and final stage. I am grateful to a number of people who have assisted me in the preparation of the Bill. The Leader of the House of Lords and her staff have been enormously helpful. Baroness Hayman has also briefed me on it. They managed to get it through the House of Lords with more ease than I have managed to get it through the Commons, which is a tribute to their skill, and an acknowledgement of the relative lack of skill when the Bill reached my hands here I am grateful to the three Cabinet Office Ministers who have taken part in our proceedings—my hon. Friend the Minister for the Constitution did the Public Bill Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister for Civil Society was here last Friday, and the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson) graces the Front Bench today. I am grateful to the Cabinet Office for the support that it and its Ministers have given to the Bill. Likewise, the Opposition have had a number of different players on the stage—the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) was on the Public Bill Committee, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) was here last Friday, and the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) is on the Opposition Front Bench today The Bill was not controversial when it went through the upper House, which is the House to which it applies. Peers’ conduct in the course of the parliamentary duties is governed by a code of conduct. That is binding upon Members. Breaches of the code are investigated by an independent House of Lords Commissioner for Standards, who reports his findings and any recommended sanctions to the Committee for Privileges and Conduct, which hears any appeal. It then goes to the House The problem is that sanctions are currently limited in two key ways: a peer cannot be expelled except when he or she has been sentenced or imprisoned for more than a year; and a peer cannot be suspended beyond the end of a Parliament, no matter how brief that period might be. There was no dissent on the second barrel of the gun in the legislation The debate has been on the power of expulsion. The House of Commons has the power of expulsion. We use it rarely, but it is there. We can also be expelled by the electorate.
House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-03-06
Topic: Law and Crime
George Young (Conservative, Centre-right): It was last used in December 1954—Captain Peter Baker. I speak from memory and stand to be corrected, but the power is there. I hope the House of Lords does not have to use its power, but it is there as a possible sanction and an expression of the powers it is prepared to use if behaviour becomes wholly unacceptable The Bill is drafted to ensure that the powers apply only in respect of conduct that comes to light after the Bill’s passing. There is no power to impose an additional sanction on misbehaviour that has already been considered and sanctioned under the current regime As I have said, the Bill was universally supported in the Lords. Peers from all parties and groups expressed their strong hope that the Bill would pass the Commons during this Parliament—it received an unopposed Second Reading on 23 January in the Commons. It has been extensively considered on the Floor of the House and upstairs. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) for ensuring that all aspects of the Bill were properly considered. I hope I have given him the assurances he has sought. I am sorry that I did not do that on the last occasion, when we had a Division The Bill is an important piece of legislation and I very much hope it reaches the statute book without too much further delay.