argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
European Union Referendum Bill — House of Commons, 2015-12-08
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Lords amendment 6, and amendment (a) thereto Lords amendments 2 to 4 and 7 to 12 Lords amendment 13, and amendment (a) thereto Lords amendments 14 to 46.
European Union Referendum Bill — House of Commons, 2015-12-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
Damian Howard Green (Conservative, Centre-right): I want to give the right hon. Gentleman another chance to plug his pamphlet. In it, he sets out the various options that would be available to this country. In the context of the Government providing information, this is quite a difficult ask. It is inevitably hypothetical; nobody can know what the divorce settlement would be. The Government would certainly not know. What the amendments are effectively asking the Government to do is to stick a finger in the air and see which way the wind is blowing. It is quite difficult to call that "information".
European Union Referendum Bill — House of Commons, 2015-12-08
Topic: Other
Anne Margaret Main (Conservative, Centre-right): My right hon. Friend is making a powerful point. On the basis of what he has said, the debate will be about how "arrangements" will be defined in the report, and, indeed, that could potentially be open to challenge.
European Union Referendum Bill — House of Commons, 2015-12-08
Topic: Other
Anne Margaret Main (Conservative, Centre-right): Is my hon. Friend clear about what is meant by the Government’s response? Does it refer to a response achieved through collective responsibility? What would happen if there were dissenting members of the Government who did not agree with that response?
European Union Referendum Bill — House of Commons, 2015-12-08
Topic: Civil Rights
Alan Mak (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend makes a fantastic point. I certainly agree that there are a number of alternatives. I look forward to referendum debates in the media, in this House and in many other forums I wish to return now to the central role of the Electoral Commission. My view is that the Electoral Commission should not be drawn into playing any sort of quasi-judicial or quasi-campaigning role. It should play a central role in the good functioning and administration of the referendum. We should always be mindful of the commission’s own views, which have been set out in a letter that has been distributed to Members across the House, and to which we should pay heed I am also heartened about the vibrancy of our democracy. Even though we are still in the early stages of our debate, it has already produced a number of campaigning groups. I am very pleased to see some senior Members from across the House participating in today’s debate. The campaign groups that have been set up include: Vote Leave, Take Control; Leave.EU; and Conservatives for Britain, which has been skilfully organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker). I can see my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) who have played leading roles in the campaign. On the Opposition benches, we have Labour in for Britain, which is led by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson); and Britain Stronger in Europe, for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) plays a leading role. Even before the referendum gets under way, there is a vibrancy of debate across the House and also in the country, which is very positive.
European Union Referendum Bill — House of Commons, 2015-12-08
Topic: Other
Alan Mak (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank my hon. Friend for his characteristically cogent intervention. He is right that, beyond the walls of this place, men and women, families and businesses and community organisations play their day-to-day role, focus on other priorities and are not necessarily concentrating on the EU referendum or those issues on which this House concentrates.
European Union Referendum Bill — House of Commons, 2015-12-08
Topic: Other
Alan Mak (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I was just finishing my response to my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare). I hope that through debates in this House we shall be able to take a lead on the issues. I welcome emails from people on all sides of the argument.
European Union Referendum Bill — House of Commons, 2015-12-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
John Alan Redwood (Conservative, Centre-right): Surely the point that the British people fully understand, which is why they now wish to leave the EU, is that concerns about migration, jobs, taxation, the £10 billion that we have to pay to the rest of the EU, which we cannot have as tax cuts or extra spending, and our inability to form our own welfare laws are vital concerns, and they are all European issues.
European Union Referendum Bill — House of Commons, 2015-12-08
Topic: Other
Alan Mak (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank my right hon. Friend for his characteristically passionate intervention. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset, those issues are certainly important, and I welcome more emails over the next year or so—maybe that is not necessarily the best message for my constituents in Havant! I know that hon. Members across the House will be receiving representations from their constituents arguing on all sides of the debate, whether in letters, emails or petitions. That is an important part of our increasingly vibrant democracy.
European Union Referendum Bill — House of Commons, 2015-12-08
Topic: Other
William Nigel Paul Cash (Conservative, Centre-right): Before I declare whether I am going to withdraw my amendment, I have asked my right hon. Friend several times to make it absolutely clear, on behalf of the Government, that when they give information under Lords amendments 5 and 6 they will do so with due accuracy and impartiality. Is he going to do that or not?
European Union Referendum Bill — House of Commons, 2015-12-08
Topic: Other
William Nigel Paul Cash (Conservative, Centre-right): I simply say that in the light of the clear assurance that there will be due impartiality and accuracy, I will not press my amendments to Lords amendments 5, 6 and 13. I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment (a) to Lords amendment 5 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Lords amendment 5 agreed to.
Serious and Organised Crime: Prüm Convention — House of Commons, 2015-12-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
Steven John Baker (Conservative, Centre-right): My right hon. Friend makes a very strong case for this technical function, but I am concerned that the threats we face extend far beyond Europe and the European Union. Will she say more about why it is so difficult to get Interpol and its member countries to adopt a similar system?
Serious and Organised Crime: Prüm Convention — House of Commons, 2015-12-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
Mark Andrew Pritchard (Conservative, Centre-right): Ideally, we would want Interpol to come to a similar agreement on the sharing of information through an automated system. The fact that Interpol is not in that position today does not mean that we cannot take action now with our European partners and share the information in an automated fashion. Given the tragic events in France, is this not a time for further collaboration and co-operation with our European partners, rather than retrenching into our own silo?
Serious and Organised Crime: Prüm Convention — House of Commons, 2015-12-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
Theresa Mary May (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend makes an important point about the interplay between Prüm in the European Union and Interpol, and he is right that now is the very time when we need to work more in collaboration with our partners to ensure that we share the data that are necessary to keep us safe.
Serious and Organised Crime: Prüm Convention — House of Commons, 2015-12-08
Topic: Immigration
Christopher Robert Chope (Conservative, Centre-right): I am as keen as anybody to ensure that our streets are safe. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that these powers could be exercised by our immigration authorities at the point of entry in relation to anybody seeking to enter this country, whether they be an EU or non-EU citizen?
Serious and Organised Crime: Prüm Convention — House of Commons, 2015-12-08
Topic: Immigration
Theresa Mary May (Conservative, Centre-right): There are separate arrangements of course. One reason we opted back into SIS II was to give our immigration officials the opportunity to deal with these issues as people crossed the border. As I said, it is possible to check the EU database for the fingerprints of asylum seekers and others detained crossing the EU’s borders illegally. I welcome my hon. Friend fully supporting our being able to take measures to tackle criminals and identify those who should be brought to justice, and I look forward to his joining me in the Lobby to support our entry into Prüm While it is incumbent on us to give the police the tools they need, it is also incumbent on us to balance that against any civil liberties worries that some may have. The Government have not made this decision without looking hard at how to protect British citizens. I was proud to be a member of the Government who abolished identity cards, stopped the indefinite retention of DNA profiles and fingerprints of those arrested and not convicted of offences and reformed stop and search. Where there have been genuine concerns, I have listened The first concern I have heard about this system is that innocent Britons could get caught up in overseas investigations. I believe this should be about catching criminals, so we will ensure that only the DNA profiles and fingerprints of those convicted of a crime can be searched against. We will write that into legislation. Innocent Britons will have nothing to fear. Secondly, I know there has been concern that some countries use lower scientific standards than the UK does when assessing DNA, as I mentioned earlier, and that this could lead to false positives in matches. That is why we will legislate to ensure that UK scientific standards apply before any personal data can be provided. As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), this means there will be a less than one in a billion chance of the match not being a true one. We accept these standards domestically, and I will ensure that we apply them internationally. To suggest we go beyond that, however, would be to harm our ability to solve crimes.
Serious and Organised Crime: Prüm Convention — House of Commons, 2015-12-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
Theresa Mary May (Conservative, Centre-right): Yes. How we deal with the data on the databases held here is a national matter. The European Court of Justice does have some jurisdiction—my hon. Friend is right about that in respect of some matters—but its jurisdiction is over the "hit/no hit process" or mechanism. Beyond that, how we hold the material on the database is a matter for national decision.
Serious and Organised Crime: Prüm Convention — House of Commons, 2015-12-08
Topic: Civil Rights
Steven John Baker (Conservative, Centre-right): I understand that this will bring the whole of our arrangements under the charter of fundamental rights, so the manner in which we retain DNA will be subject to European standards rather than the standards set by this House.
Serious and Organised Crime: Prüm Convention — House of Commons, 2015-12-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
Theresa Mary May (Conservative, Centre-right): No. I have to explain to my hon. Friend that we are able to determine the database, and that how we hold that database and the information that is held on it are matters for national decision. Articles 2(1) and (3) of the principal Prüm decision say that we need to inform the general secretariat about which profiles will be made available for searching under Prüm, while article 5 makes it clear that the follow-up process to a hit is subject to national law, not EU law.
Serious and Organised Crime: Prüm Convention — House of Commons, 2015-12-08
Topic: Civil Rights
Christopher Heaton-Harris (Conservative, Centre-right): The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have huge respect for him, but I want to tease something out a tiny bit further. He said that security trumps civil liberties. Does he believe that security trumps the protection of our common law system?
Serious and Organised Crime: Prüm Convention — House of Commons, 2015-12-08
Topic: Immigration
Theresa Mary May (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful for the opportunity to do that, and I apologise to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) if I slightly misunderstood his question. It would be my expectation that an EAW would require more evidence. We have put a number of safeguards into the way in which EAWs are operated, to ensure that we do not see people erroneously being extradited from the UK, and I would expect there would be more evidence as the basis for issuing an EAW. And those normal EAW processes will apply even when there has been a Prüm hit.
Serious and Organised Crime: Prüm Convention — House of Commons, 2015-12-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
William Nigel Paul Cash (Conservative, Centre-right): It does not. The reasons why that terrible carnage took place have a great deal to do with insecurity and instability as a result of the failures of border controls and the manner in which people made their way to Paris. We do not have time to go into all those matters, and they are not the subject of this debate, but I question whether national security for United Kingdom citizens, which is our prime concern, will be advanced by surrendering these powers to the European Court of Justice The Government concede that accepting the Court’s jurisdiction is not risk-free. They should have explained what practical impact they expected the extension of the Court’s jurisdiction in relation to the UK to have, and they have not done so Thirdly, the Government say that they intend to put into place extra safeguards to ensure that Prüm would operate in a way that "respects fully the civil liberties of British citizens." Liberty gave evidence to the House of Lords on a number of matters in this respect In the report of the European Scrutiny Committee that was published the other day, we make it clear that there is an important balance to strike between law enforcement co-operation, especially when it involves the exchange of personal data, and the need to protect individuals against the risk of false incrimination and unwarranted interference with their right to privacy. The Government’s business and implementation case can provide only anecdotal evidence of cases in which Prüm has been instrumental in advancing an investigation or securing a conviction. The paucity of evidence that we have been given on the value and impact of Prüm in respect of law enforcement makes it difficult to measure its added value and to ensure that an appropriate balance is being struck. We find that lack of transparency and accountability troubling.
Serious and Organised Crime: Prüm Convention — House of Commons, 2015-12-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
Anne Margaret Main (Conservative, Centre-right): Speaking as one of the forces of darkness referred to earlier, I abhor giving more power to any other body, but I accept my right hon. Friend’s argument about the international element; it is not just about the European element. In that case, I support the sharing of data, because it makes our streets safer. What I object to is that it is framed in this European way, but we are where we are, unfortunately.
Serious and Organised Crime: Prüm Convention — House of Commons, 2015-12-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
Damian Howard Green (Conservative, Centre-right): I can only say to my hon. Friend that it would be absurd to let the best be the enemy of the good. It would be wonderful if 185 states all had the technical capacity and ability to exchange information in this way, but they do not. In fact, I think only 21 of the current member states of the European Union can actually do this. I know that this is not true of my hon. Friend, but I sense that other hon. Friends want to use that as a reason not to sign up to the proposal, but that is nonsense, because it would continue to leave our streets not as well protected as we would all wish them to be.
Serious and Organised Crime: Prüm Convention — House of Commons, 2015-12-08
Topic: Civil Rights
Damian Howard Green (Conservative, Centre-right): My right hon. Friend knows that. The idea that everything that the European Court of Justice does is bad or somehow goes against civil liberties and freedoms is simply wrong, as I am sure he would acknowledge.
Serious and Organised Crime: Prüm Convention — House of Commons, 2015-12-08
Topic: Other
Damian Howard Green (Conservative, Centre-right): I am deeply grateful to my right hon. Friend. I hope that that reassures those who have doubts on that score It has become fashionable in this House in recent days to quote dead communist dictators.
Electoral Register — House of Commons, 2015-10-21
Topic: Civil Rights
John David Penrose (Conservative, Centre-right): Since June 2014, more than 11 million people have applied to register to vote, three quarters of whom used the ultra-convenient online system, which takes less time than boiling an egg. At the general election, there were 400,000 more entries on the register than before, and thanks to individual electoral registration, 96 out of every 100 have been confirmed as genuine. We are now focusing on the remaining four in every 100 and, by December, electoral registration officers will have attempted to contact each of them nine times over 18 months. Any who are genuine voters will be confirmed on the register, and the remaining inaccurate entries—people who have moved away, died or registered fraudulently—will be removed.
Electoral Register — House of Commons, 2015-10-21
Topic: Civil Rights
John David Penrose (Conservative, Centre-right): I agree strongly with my hon. Friend. The underlying point behind individual electoral registration is that it requires genuine proof of identity, which the old system did not. The need to provide information such as date of birth and national insurance number ensures that the opportunity for fraudulent registration is greatly reduced.
Electoral Register — House of Commons, 2015-10-21
Topic: Civil Rights
Christopher John Pincher (Conservative, Centre-right): I am reassured to hear that 96 out of every 100 voters have been proved to be genuine since the roll-out of individual electoral registration, but will the Minister tell me what further action is being taken to target the four in every 100 who appear not to be genuine?
Electoral Register — House of Commons, 2015-10-21
Topic: Civil Rights
John David Penrose (Conservative, Centre-right): This is an important issue. We have made up to £3 million available to local authorities to pursue the remaining four in every 100. By the end of this year, all those people will have been contacted up to nine times, either by phone, email or letter, or by someone knocking on their door, in order to confirm that they are genuine voters with a pulse, in which case they will have been confirmed on the register. We want to ensure that we do not inadvertently disfranchise them. Anyone who is left over will almost certainly be a ghost voter—a ghost in the machine; a data error—and can therefore be safely removed.
Electoral Register — House of Commons, 2015-10-21
Topic: Civil Rights
Questions: Would the Minister acknowledge that a disproportionately high number of those falling off the electoral roll are young people such as the students attending the Ealing, Hammersmith and West London College and the University of West London in my constituency? Can he not see that this is the biggest electoral disfranchisement in our history?
John David Penrose (Conservative, Centre-right): No, I would not acknowledge that, because if they are genuine people on the register, we will find them and confirm them as genuine. No genuine voters will be disfranchised by this move. The hon. Lady is absolutely right, however, to say that there are significant groups of under-represented people who are not on the register at all and therefore cannot be disfranchised by being removed from it. This is a fundamental issue for the health of our democracy, and we must go out and find those people. We need to have proper registration drives to get them on to the register in the first place.
Electoral Register — House of Commons, 2015-10-21
Topic: Civil Rights
Questions: Would the Minister acknowledge that a disproportionately high number of those falling off the electoral roll are young people such as the students attending the Ealing, Hammersmith and West London College and the University of West London in my constituency? Can he not see that this is the biggest electoral disfranchisement in our history?
John David Penrose (Conservative, Centre-right): At the moment, the proof of ID when registering includes information such as a date of birth and a national insurance number. Photographic ID is not required, although I believe that the situation in Northern Ireland might be slightly stricter and that there are tighter rules there, given the history of the Province. Of course, individual electoral registration was introduced in Northern Ireland many years ago and it has been extremely successful. There was no transitional period at all there; it all happened in one day and the system moved across to IER very swiftly.
Government Transparency — House of Commons, 2015-10-21
Topic: Civil Rights
Matthew John David Hancock (Conservative, Centre-right): First, may I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post and congratulate him on his resounding victory in the deputy leadership election? On this question, I also welcome his tone. I am a great supporter of the Act, but 10 years after its introduction it is reasonable to see how it is operating and to make sure, as the Justice Committee said in the last Parliament, that there is a "safe space" for policymaking, so that people can be confident about giving frank advice to powerful people safe in the knowledge that that will remain private. It is about how this operates; it is not about the principle of having freedom of information in the first place.
Government Transparency — House of Commons, 2015-10-21
Topic: Other
Matthew John David Hancock (Conservative, Centre-right): I am afraid I am going to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, because I do not know when those meetings were or how many there were—but I do know that by the sounds of it there were many meetings.
Government Digital Service — House of Commons, 2015-10-21
Topic: Mixed Topics
Matthew John David Hancock (Conservative, Centre-right): No, we increased the funding to the GDS in the latest Budget, and the rate of turnover in the GDS is lower than in the Cabinet Office as a whole. The GDS has been brilliant. It continues to be brilliant whether we are talking about the platforms for registering to vote, which now takes less time than boiling an egg, finding an apprenticeship, or even registering for Lloyds shares earlier this month.
UK Elections: Voting Prohibition — House of Commons, 2015-10-21
Topic: Civil Rights
Questions: What steps his Department is taking to remove the prohibition on UK citizens voting in UK elections after they have been abroad for 15 years.
John David Penrose (Conservative, Centre-right): As my hon. Friend’s question suggests, British citizens living abroad lose the right to vote after 15 years. As British expatriates include people who have fought in our armed forces as well as people drawing British pensions or working for international companies around the world, we think that this limit is arbitrary and wrong. Removing it was in our election manifesto and I hope to lay proposals to make it happen before the House in due course.