argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Undercover Policing — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
Michael Penning (Conservative, Centre-right): I think that is exactly the approach that Lord Pitchford will take. If Speaker’s Counsel and the Clerks have concerns, they will certainly submit them, and, if they are asked, there will be full communication between them.
Undercover Policing — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
Michael Penning (Conservative, Centre-right): That is exactly why the inquiry is being put in place—[Interruption.] Labour Members say "Pathetic" from a sedentary position, but at least the Government are doing something, unlike the previous Government. I am trying to take a sensible tone on this. I have every sympathy with Members of the House, including those who have left it, and that is why the inquiry is being held.
Undercover Policing — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): The House is grateful to the Minister for attending to these questions and he is discharging his responsibilities. I think there is a feeling in the House that it is a tad unfortunate that the Home Secretary is not able to be at the Dispatch Box, but the Minister is doing his duty as he thinks fit and we acknowledge that.
Undercover Policing — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Mixed Topics
Michael Penning (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman raises a valid point. Members of Parliament can stand in this House and ask a question, but many other victims cannot and that is why the inquiry is in place. I will do everything I can to ensure that as much information as possible is passed to current and past Members of Parliament, but I cannot give a guarantee—no Minister of any persuasion can. Such questions need to be asked of previous Labour Home Secretaries, and I will do everything I can to ensure that the answers come forward.
Undercover Policing — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Mixed Topics
Michael Penning (Conservative, Centre-right): The Home Secretary, the Prime Minister and I will want everybody who gives evidence as whistleblowers to have immunity. We need to get to the truth, and that is something I am committed to doing from this Dispatch Box—I am sure that I have the authority of the others to say so.
Undercover Policing — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
Michael Penning (Conservative, Centre-right): To be fair, I answered a specific question on a specific point. The hon. Gentleman’s question does not come under my portfolio, but I will look into it and find out. He raises a valid point and I will write to him.
Undercover Policing — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I am not aware of those matters beyond what he has just said. Suffice it to say that I am in the Chair, and I am intending to remain in the Chair [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."]—today and, I hope, subsequently. I hope the hon. Gentleman, whom I greatly esteem, will not doubt my competence or fairness in chairing such proceedings of the House as take place today. I am not going anywhere.
Penrose Inquiry — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement on the publication of the Penrose inquiry and its implications for the United Kingdom Government.
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): Order. I remind the House that there is a further urgent question that has to be taken and I am keen to proceed in an efficient way. So we will hear from colleagues, but as briefly as possible, and then we must move on.
Penrose Inquiry — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement on the publication of the Penrose inquiry and its implications for the United Kingdom Government.
Jane Ellison (Conservative, Centre-right): All relevant matters will need to be considered by the next Government. By the time the next Government are formed, and the next Parliament is assembled, Members will have had more chance to look at Lord Penrose’s detailed narrative of these tragic events.
Penrose Inquiry — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement on the publication of the Penrose inquiry and its implications for the United Kingdom Government.
Jane Ellison (Conservative, Centre-right): Yesterday’s written ministerial statement was just what I said it would be in the Backbench business debate on 15 January: an interim response to a very long and detailed report. All matters will have to be considered in a substantive response by the next Government.
Penrose Inquiry — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement on the publication of the Penrose inquiry and its implications for the United Kingdom Government.
Jane Ellison (Conservative, Centre-right): I will certainly look at that matter, but I fear that I may not have time to put a response in the public domain. I can give an assurance to the Select Committee that were I to be in office in the next Parliament I would be happy to respond to that in detail. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have had detailed exchanges on such matters over the past year.
Today’s Business of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Mixed Topics
William Hague (Conservative, Centre-right): The reason for the additional business is to allow the House to reach a decision on procedural matters that relate to the opening days of business in a new Parliament and therefore merit a decision now. In each case, I have received representations either from the Procedure Committee or from Members around the House—[Interruption.] Including Members on the Opposition Benches. They would like to see these issues decided. Three factors prompted the Government to table these motions yesterday. One is the absence of Lords amendments to be considered, as provided for in the original business, freeing up parliamentary time today—[Interruption.] It has freed up parliamentary time today. If Opposition Members do not believe that there was ever going to be any Lords amendments, they have great insight into what the House of Lords would decide The second factor is last week’s Procedure Committee report, specifically requesting that one of the four issues, concerning the programming of Bills, be dealt with before Dissolution. The third is the view of Government business managers that if we were to do that, the other three outstanding matters relating to the beginning of a new Parliament should, if at all possible, be decided at the same time Tabling motions at short notice is not unusual in the closing days of a Parliament and is specifically provided for in the motion agreed on Tuesday—agreed by the Opposition.
Today’s Business of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
William Hague (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, as always, for his remarks. I do not mind any amount of personal abuse, because he cannot compete with the abuse I have received in previous years in the House; it is water off the back of this particular duck as I leave the House today. I make no apology for asking the House, on a day when the public are entitled to expect large numbers of Members to be here, to make a decision on its procedures for the day it returns after the general election. That is what Members should be able to do; that is what the public would expect us to do. I have received representations from Opposition Members who will not speak or ask questions today for fear of their formidable Chief Whip—I could say who they are but will not—and they are entitled to have matters debated, just as everyone else in this House is.
Today’s Business of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
Peter William Bone (Conservative, Centre-right): I would not put it quite the way the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) did, but the gist of what he said is correct. This House should not be asked without proper notice to decide on such an important thing. I think that the Leader of the House will live to regret this—[Interruption.]
Today’s Business of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
Peter William Bone (Conservative, Centre-right): This is a bad day for Parliament. Of course, if we had a business of the House committee, which the Leader of the House could have introduced today in this rash of measures, we would not be in this position.
Today’s Business of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
William Hague (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend has been a long-standing champion of a business of the House committee, as I am sure he will be in the next Parliament, but that is when that will have to be decided. What we are proposing to bring to the House today are those issues that would affect the opening days of a new Parliament, which obviously cannot be decided with any usefulness or meaning any later than today.
Today’s Business of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
William Hague (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend is right about the first of the motions, which implements the recommendation of the Procedure Committee, but on his second point the public would expect this House on its last day to be able to decide on any important question and to be here in order to do so. Indeed, hon. Members are here in order to do so.
Today’s Business of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
William Hague (Conservative, Centre-right): I have not spoken to Mr Speaker. I do not accept that. I do not think that the institution of a secret ballot that frees all Members from pressure from Whips on either side or from the Chair is an underhand thing to bring about. As I will explain in the debate, I think that would be an improvement in our procedures and would help Members on both sides of the House.
Today’s Business of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
William Hague (Conservative, Centre-right): I think it is appropriate to decide the matter in this Parliament; that is what we are disagreeing about. All the motions that I am bringing forward are matters that, if not decided today, could not take effect in the next Parliament. That is their distinguishing characteristic.
Today’s Business of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
Julian Murray Lewis (Conservative, Centre-right): A case can be made for an open ballot and for a secret ballot; what there is no case for at all is the staging of a debate at the eleventh hour of the last day, when people have been sent away to get on with campaigning and when people on my side—[Interruption.] I should be grateful if my colleagues allowed me to speak. People on my side of the House were due to be campaigning for my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), a Minister in a critical marginal seat, but were unaccountably told that that had been postponed. Now I know the reason why Will the Leader of the House answer me one question? When the notice was put around at 5.45 last evening saying that this would be a matter of debating the Procedure Committee’s reports and recommendations, why was it that the first that the Chair of the Procedure Committee heard of that was when I spoke to him at 6.30? Why was it concealed from the Chair of the Procedure Committee?
Today’s Business of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
William Hague (Conservative, Centre-right): I assure my right hon. Friend that all these issues arise, one way or another, from reports of the Procedure Committee. Last week’s Procedure Committee report called for one of these motions to be brought forward before Dissolution, and in 2011 the Procedure Committee recommended that this debate take place.
Today’s Business of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Mixed Topics
William Hague (Conservative, Centre-right): I have already explained why there was a change in the business. However, the right hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that it is very important that people should have confidence that any future election, in this House or elsewhere, is fair. I have no doubt that when we come to the debate, that will be the case that Members wish to make in favour of a secret ballot in the particular election that we are discussing We would not ask voters to go to the polls on 7 May in anything other than a secret ballot, and there are long-established historical reasons for that. There has to be an opportunity for Members to put the case for a secret ballot in elections in this House.
Today’s Business of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
Jacob William Rees-Mogg (Conservative, Centre-right): My right hon. Friend is one of the most revered and admired figures within the Conservative party. He is a figure who has made his reputation by being a great parliamentarian. Throughout the years when he was leader, we were all cheered by his success at the Dispatch Box against Mr Blair. Does he therefore appreciate the deep sadness that many of us feel that his career should end with his name being put to a bit of parliamentary jiggery-pokery that has come about, representing grudges that some people have against Mr Speaker, and that this is deeply unfortunate?
Today’s Business of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
William Hague (Conservative, Centre-right): I obviously disagree with the idea that it has come about from any grudges. Hon. Members on both sides of this House have asked for this debate to be held, and they are entitled to have a debate held. It is part of the job of the Leader of the House to do what is in the best interests of the House. I believe that the House resolving these issues before the end of the Parliament is in the interests of the House of Commons.
Today’s Business of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
William Hague (Conservative, Centre-right): It is for the House to decide on the merits of this. I do not think my right hon. Friend can argue that we are in anything other than prime time at the moment, since the House is well attended and this debate is receiving a great deal of attention. It is for the House to decide on the merits of the motions. If the motion on a secret ballot is carried, it will be for the House to make its own decisions in the future.
Today’s Business of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
William Hague (Conservative, Centre-right): I think it is for me, rather than you, Mr Speaker, to answer that, since the questions are to me. My hon. Friend correctly quotes other passages of the report. Those are indeed issues that can be discussed in the debate that we are about to hold, and in the considerations in favour of a secret ballot on these occasions.
Today’s Business of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Civil Rights
William Hague (Conservative, Centre-right): I think that was a bit of mock outrage from the hon. Gentleman, if I may say so. The question of whether a vote in Parliament should be held by secret ballot cannot possibly be an attack on parliamentary democracy. It would, of course, in the view of those in favour of it, be an affirmation of parliamentary democracy. I can understand some of the comments made by Opposition Members, but I think the hon. Gentleman is getting a little too excessively outraged on this occasion.
Today’s Business of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Mixed Topics
Edward Julian Egerton Leigh (Conservative, Centre-right): The office of Speaker is centuries old and it is absolutely essential for all of us and our democracy that it is seen to be above party politics. Therefore, I appeal for calm. We may or may not like Mr Speaker, and there may or may not be a case for a secret ballot. We all accept that. However, in order that we are not accused of making this about a particular individual, should we not do this on a consensual basis and come to an agreement when Mr Speaker has announced his retirement? There would then be no question that this is about the present Speaker, but about the House of Commons we love.
Today’s Business of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
Philip Andrew Davies (Conservative, Centre-right): The Leader of the House knows that there is no greater admirer of him than me, but even if I agreed with the motion—as it happens, I do not—it is unjustifiable to keep it secret until the last minute and to have just one hour to debate it. The tactic of keeping the parliamentary party here for a meeting so that as many people would be here as possible in the hope that the Opposition parties would have left so the motion could be sneaked through at the last minute is the kind of student union politics that has the fingerprints of the Whip’s Office all over it. I think the Leader of the House will regret that the greatest parliamentarian of his generation has gone along with that kind of tactic.
Today’s Business of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
William Hague (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend continues his fruitful relationship with the Whip’s Office with that remark, which we all understand. He has views about the motion and he will be able to express them. Members should be able to vote freely on this question, which they certainly can do on this side of the House.
Today’s Business of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
Jacob William Rees-Mogg (Conservative, Centre-right): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. What the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) has just said about the Prime Minister—calling him "vindictive" etc.—cannot be within the bounds of parliamentary discourse. I really object most strongly. [Interruption.]
Today’s Business of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): Order. May I just respond to the hon. Gentleman as follows? My strong sense, and I do take advice on these matters, is that what has been said is a matter of taste—[Interruption.] Order. If I felt the need of the advice of the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley),I would seek it, but I am seeking to respond to the point of order. It is a matter of taste; it is not language that I would use, and it is certainly not language that the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) would use. I have responded to him, and I think that we should leave it there.
Today’s Business of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Civil Rights
Alexander Jesse Norman (Conservative, Centre-right): Progressives everywhere will surely welcome the possibility of a secret ballot throughout a Parliament, but is it not the case that this motion could not have been brought forward earlier without precisely a constraint on the potential freedom of Members to vote as they see fit?
Today’s Business of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Mixed Topics
William Hague (Conservative, Centre-right): I agree with my hon. Friend that it can been seen in that light: the institution of a secret ballot would be an important strengthening—I will come on to this during the debate—of our parliamentary democracy. I noted earlier that there are Members, particularly Opposition Members, who feel constrained in expressing their views on this question, and indeed, have stayed silent during these exchanges. That is their right, but they do have a fear of expressing their views on this issue, as is very clear from this discussion.
Today’s Business of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
Matthew James Offord (Conservative, Centre-right): There seems to be an assumption among some Members that Thursday is some kind of day off, but those of us who attend every Thursday see it as a day of work. Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Government are entitled to table whatever business they like in their own time?
Today’s Business of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
Christopher Robert Chope (Conservative, Centre-right): Does my right hon. Friend remember that he and I were the only participants in the debate on the business motion on Tuesday? Will he explain why he did not take that opportunity to say that he would bring forward changes to Standing Orders, bearing in mind that, in the absence of a written constitution, our Standing Orders are effectively our freedom and democracy—our unwritten constitution. The proposals before the House today would effectively change that constitution without proper notice. Why is my right hon. Friend going along with that?
Today’s Business of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
William Hague (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend and I did indeed debate that issue on Tuesday. As I have explained, the decision to table the motions was taken on Wednesday, so I would not have been able to explain it to him on Tuesday afternoon.
Today’s Business of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
William Hague (Conservative, Centre-right): The House will be able to make its decision. Let me say that, despite what the hon. Gentleman said, I still regard him as one of the best of a bad bunch, and that will remain my opinion of him.
Today’s Business of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
Conor Burns (Conservative, Centre-right): My right hon. Friend has written eloquent books about the history of our country and about great parliamentarians. He grew up, as I did, with a great reverence for this institution of Parliament. Regardless of the merits of the motion on which we will vote, does he agree that on this, the last day of this Parliament, it is sad that the tone and atmosphere in the Chamber has been so partisan and so bitter?
Today’s Business of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
William Hague (Conservative, Centre-right): Yes, we often have cause to regret that, but it is also necessary—as all students of parliamentary history know—to be able to decide important issues freely and without favour, and that is the subject of our debate later.
Procedure of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Mixed Topics
William Hague (Conservative, Centre-right): I beg to move That this House takes note of paragraphs 21 to 28 of the Seventh Report of the Procedure Committee, Matters for the Procedure Committee in the 2015 Parliament, HC 1121, concerning the trial of a three day deadline for the tabling of amendments and new clauses/schedules at report stage of all programmed bills; and approves the Committee’s recommendation in paragraph 28 that the trial should be extended for the duration of the first session of the 2015 Parliament, and extended to amendments and new clauses/schedules in Committee of the whole House of all bills and at report stage of un-programmed bills.
Procedure of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Mixed Topics
William Hague (Conservative, Centre-right): We have generally had a great number of days for Report, and we worked closely with the Opposition on that in the last Parliament. We are implementing the recommendations of the Procedure Committee—the part that the Committee recommended should be implemented before the end of the Parliament, which is today. That does not exclude further changes in the new Parliament, but if the motion is agreed to we will implement the urgent recommendation of the Procedure Committee. The Committee also recommended that the deadline be extended to cover amendments in Committee of the whole House for all Bills, and at Report for unprogrammed Bills. Those are further improvements to the procedures.
Procedure of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
David Nuttall (Conservative, Centre-right): I understand that the delay in tabling these matters was that the Government needed to see whether any Lords amendments would be sent to the House today. What would have happened to this amendment to our Standing Orders if Lords amendments had been sent to this House? Would it have been held over until the next Parliament?