argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Undercover Policing — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Law and Crime
Michael Penning (Conservative, Centre-right): In my last answer at the Dispatch Box as Policing Minister in this Parliament, I will say at the outset that there are members of the police, from top to bottom, who have fundamentally let down the people of this country. They are a tiny minority, however, and we should have confidence in our police. If we continue to tar them all with the same brush, the confidence of the police themselves will suffer, and we and the Lord Chief Justice will do everything possible in this inquiry to ensure we have that confidence. However, we cannot continue to run them down.
Penrose Inquiry — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Social Welfare
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): The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that this is an ongoing tragedy, and that, as I said in my statement, many people’s lives have been devastated and continue to be severely affected. I pay tribute to her and to other members of the all-party group, including my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who cannot be present today but who has spoken to me in the last couple of days, since the publication of the report. Indeed, I pay tribute to all the Members who have represented their constituents so ably and passionately over many years As the hon. Lady said, the next Parliament will return to this issue. I was very open with Members during the Back-Bench debate on 15 January, and the hon. Lady knows that I am frustrated by the fact that we were not able to do more in the current Parliament. It is a matter of record from that debate that I spoke with Scottish Government Ministers in spring 2014 in anticipation that we would have an earlier report from the inquiry and that we might be able to move forward In response to the specific points the hon. Lady raised, let me reiterate something I said in my initial remarks: the one-off amount of up to £25 million is to support any transitional arrangements to a different system of financial assistance. That is intended to provide assurances to those affected by these devastating events that we have heard their concerns.
Penrose Inquiry — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Government Operations
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): This inquiry was commissioned by a Scottish Minister—I believe it was the current First Minister—in 2008. It is a matter for the Scottish Government to comment on the length of time taken by Lord Penrose and the expense. The money announced in yesterday’s written ministerial statement was, as we said it would be, part of an interim response—it is interim because this very long report comes right at the end of this Parliament. I am sure that the next Parliament and the next Government will want to return to this and give a more substantive response to the findings of this very thorough inquiry.
Penrose Inquiry — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Government Operations
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): As I have said, those are matters for the next Government to consider. Compensation was not in the terms of reference of the Penrose inquiry, but it was important, given the extent of the inquiry, that we waited for it to report. Unfortunately, it has reported too late for us to be able to make substantial progress in this Parliament, but I am quite certain that the next Government, held to account by the next Parliament, will return to these matters as a priority.
Penrose Inquiry — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Social Welfare
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 think the Prime Minister was clear yesterday when he told the House that returning to this important matter and these tragic events was a priority. The reason we say it is an interim response is that the Prime Minister and this Government feel that a more substantive response will need to be given in the next Parliament. Of course my feeling is that we need to return to this important subject and respond more substantively across a wide range of issues. I am well aware of the high concern among sufferers about the way in which the current financial assistance schemes work, and they will need to be considered in a great deal more detail.
Today’s Business of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Government Operations
William Hague (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Lady quotes the Procedure Committee, which said in 2011: "We recommend that the House be invited to decide whether on the first day of a new Parliament, where the Presiding Member’s decision on the question that a former Speaker take the Chair is challenged, the question should be decided by secret ballot or by open division." The Committee asked for an opportunity for the House to decide, so Opposition Members cannot consistently complain that that has not been debated and that now it is going to be debated. The debate is not "tucked away". It cannot possibly be described as being "tucked away" when there are hundreds of Members here on both sides of the House entirely able to make a decision, and they should be able to do so of their own volition on a free vote. They should be able to do so, and I hope Opposition Members will be able to have a free vote on this question.
Today’s Business of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Government Operations
Gregory Barker (Conservative, Centre-right): May I ask the Leader of the House for clarity in this debate? Following the progressive reforms that there have been, how many elected House positions are decided by secret ballot and how many simply on an open Division?
Today’s Business of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Government Operations
William Hague (Conservative, Centre-right): The great majority of our positions are now elected by secret ballot, and that has been warmly welcomed across the House. It applies to the Chairs of Select Committees; only two weeks ago, we agreed the election of the Standards Committee Chair by secret ballot, with the support of the Opposition on that occasion. That has increasingly become our standard procedure, and the public would be surprised to hear that it was anything other than our standard procedure.
Today’s Business of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Government Operations
William Hague (Conservative, Centre-right): This Parliament has seen the greatest transfer of the parliamentary timetable from outside the Government’s control of any Parliament of modern times, with the establishment of the Backbench Business Committee as well as maintaining Opposition days. There has been historic reform, and I am sure that that trend will continue in the future. This Parliament has also seen the election of Select Committee Chairs by secret ballot, and that is now an important principle in this House. What we are discussing today is in line with that.
Today’s Business of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Government Operations
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): I started with the presumption that I would vote in favour of a secret ballot for the Speaker. However, this is a constitutional matter of some importance that also goes to the heart of the relationship between the Executive and this Parliament, and as such, it should have been heard on a prime-time day, with the whole House here, with plenty of time. Instead, if the House votes for this today, people will get the impression that what should have been a constitutional matter has been allowed to become an ad hominem matter, and a rather mean-spirited one at that, and that in future this House will tolerate the Executive taking action against an uncomfortable and difficult Speaker.
Today’s Business of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Government Operations
Peter James Bottomley (Conservative, Centre-right): My right hon. Friend read out the words on page 11 of the report. May I take some words from the earlier report? It suggests that an "open division for deciding the question can be seen as a deterrent to the House expressing its views honestly", wherein it is bound by the seven principles of public life to be honest. That seems to be a plus for the motion. It says: "A secret ballot…may…seem unnecessarily unwieldy." That seems a bit odd. Its reference to "a more frequent turnover of Speakers" makes me question whether you, Sir, have been asked whether you have a personal objection to the House considering this and whether you mind what decision we come to.
Today’s Business of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Government Operations
William Hague (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman goes a little wide of the question. The obvious retort is that it is still possible to buy a party, which is what trade unions do with the Labour party. That is what really needs reform in our political system.
Procedure of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Government Operations
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): With this it will be convenient to debate the following: Motion on pay for Petitions Committee Chair— That the Resolution of the House of 19 March 2013, relating to Positions for which additional salaries are payable for the purposes of Section 4A(2) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, be amended by inserting after "the Liaison Committee", "the Petitions Committee," Motion on elections for positions in the House— That this House notes the recommendation of the Procedure Committee in its Fifth Report of Session 2010-12, 2010 Elections for positions in the House, that the House should be invited to decide between a secret ballot or open division where the question at the start of a new Parliament that a former Speaker take the Chair is challenged, and accordingly makes the following change to Standing Orders, with effect from the beginning of the new Parliament: Standing Order 1A (Re-election of former Speaker) Line 11, at end insert— "(1A) If that question is contested, it shall be determined by secret ballot, to take place on the same day under arrangements made by the Member presiding, who shall announce the result of the ballot to the House as soon as is practicable." Motion on Deputy Speakers— That, at the start of the 2015 Parliament, the Speaker may nominate no more than three Members as Deputy Speakers to serve until the House has elected Deputy Speakers in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No. 2A; and that the Members so nominated shall exercise all the powers vested in the Chairman of Ways and Means as Deputy Speaker.
Procedure of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Government Operations
William Hague (Conservative, Centre-right): We have already anticipated some of this debate during the urgent question, but I rise to speak to the motions standing in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House The motions facilitate making decisions on areas which, to have any meaningful usefulness, need to be decided before the early days of the next Parliament. They include matters raised in the Procedure Committee’s latest report "Matters for the Procedure Committee in the 2015 Parliament", published last week. The report specifically called for a decision of the House before the end of this Parliament on the issue of extending the trial of new arrangements for programming legislation. Let me deal with that motion first The House agreed on 8 May last year to the trial of new arrangements with regard to programming legislation, following the Procedure Committee report on the same subject, published in December 2013. The arrangements included bringing forward the deadline for tabling amendments, new clauses and schedules from two days to three days before the day on which the debate takes place. The Procedure Committee agreed to review the operation of the arrangements at the end of the current Session. That review, aided by a memorandum produced by the Public Bill Office, is summarised in last week’s Procedure Committee report. The report noted that the trial had not produced very much evidence on the impact of the change, and therefore recommended that the trial should be continued in the first Session of the next Parliament. The Procedure Committee also recommended that the deadline be extended to cover amendments in Committee of the whole House for all Bills, and on Report for unprogrammed bills.
Procedure of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Government Operations
William Hague (Conservative, Centre-right): I think that would be too much of a revolutionary change, but the particular change I am talking about was recommended before the end of the Parliament by the Procedure Committee The second issue, which I shall cover briefly, concerns the pay of the Petitions Committee Chair. On 24 February the House agreed the Standing Order changes necessary for the Petitions Committee, recommended by the Procedure Committee as part of a collaborative e-petition system to be established at the start of the next Parliament. It considered issues relating to the Chair of the new Committee. The motion before us adds the post of Chair of the Petitions Committee to the list of Select Committees that attract an additional salary. That principle is a matter for the House to decide, but in the light of the expected responsibility and work load of the Committee, I believe that a valid case has been made, and I hope the House will support it The final motion, which comes after the issue of the secret ballot, follows up one of the final acts of the Procedure Committee in this Parliament, which was to publish a report recommending a revision of the Standing Orders of this House. I shall respond immediately to one of the recommendations and bring forward a motion that facilitates the nomination by you, Mr Speaker, of three Members of the House to serve as Deputy Speakers at the start of the next Parliament and in advance of elections to those posts under Standing Order No. 2A. I hope that the next Parliament will get an early opportunity to consider the report of the Procedure Committee on Standing Order revisions in full, and that the motion to nominate Deputy Speakers at the start of a Parliament, as I have described, will be incorporated in the Standing Orders of this House on a permanent basis.
Procedure of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Government Operations
Michael Louis David Fabricant (Conservative, Centre-right): Will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to Mr Speaker who, on 20 July 2000 and again on 23 April 2009, advocated the need for secret ballots to stop Government Whips "browbeating" honourable Members as to the way they might vote?
Procedure of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Government Operations
William Hague (Conservative, Centre-right): That is an important consideration and it brings me to the fourth motion, on whether there should be a secret ballot or an open Division in a contested re-election of a former Speaker. In its latest report the Procedure Committee reminds us that the issue has not yet been addressed, and I believe—we discussed this during the urgent question—that it is in the interests of the House for the matter to be resolved before the start of a new Parliament. The Committee recommended in 2011 that the House be given the opportunity to determine whether, on the first day of a new Parliament if the decision on a former Speaker is challenged, the question should be decided by secret ballot or open Division. There are arguments both ways.
Procedure of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Government Operations
William Hague (Conservative, Centre-right): That is absolutely true. All that we are discussing is whether that would be followed by an open Division or a secret ballot. My hon. Friend will be aware that we have already changed the procedure for the election of a new Speaker, so that that is by secret ballot. Indeed, most of the elections to offices in this House have been changed on that basis, and what remains—I will quickly cover the arguments now—is in my view an anomalous situation where an open Division remains in one part of those procedures.
Procedure of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Government Operations
William Hague (Conservative, Centre-right): I think it would be a minority view on both sides of the House that all elections should be by open Division or open voting. The right hon. Gentleman can make a case for that, but it is a minority case. Indeed, the Liaison Committee has said that the election of Chairs by the whole House gives those chosen a greater degree of authority in their role in the House, their relationship with Ministers and their standing in the wider community. The Standards Committee, which he chairs very capably, said: "We recommend that the Chair of the Committee be elected by all MPs"— which means in a secret ballot— "as we believe this would enhance the confidence of the House in the Committee", so his Committee has made the case, as he will have to admit, for election by secret ballot.
Procedure of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Education
Graham Charles Stuart (Conservative, Centre-right): I was elected Chair of the Education Committee under the new procedure in this Parliament by secret ballot of the whole House. If it had been up to the party Whips, I doubt I would ever have taken that position. How can a secret ballot be anything other than a protection of the voice of people in this Chamber so that they can speak up? For the Opposition to suggest otherwise can only be for partisan purposes.
Procedure of the House — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Government Operations
Zac Goldsmith (Conservative, Centre-right): I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), who delivered an extraordinarily moving and powerful speech, and I would like to put on the record my unbounded admiration for my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), who knows the high regard in which I hold him on a range of important issues. I am disappointed, however, that his last act appears, on the surface at the very least, to be underhand. I have to ask myself, "What is the point of having a Procedure Committee, when it is completely ignored on an issue of procedure?" For my part, I am conflicted. I can see very strong arguments in favour of the motion, but I want to hear those arguments, and I want to hear them from members of the Committee, who have looked into this issue at great length. With just a few hours’ notice and just one hour of cramped debate, that simply will not be possible. So we have what looks like an ambush and the sense that we are not resolving a procedural issue of Parliament, but punishing the incumbent For the record, I fully understand the Government’s impulse. As a Back Bencher trying to hold the Government to account over the past four and a half years, the incumbent has made my job much easier. He is a reformer and a champion of Parliament. If a new Government form after 7 May, I suspect they will find the Speaker just as awkward as this Government have done, and that is as it should be. So Mr Speaker, in opposing the motion, I am opposing not the motion but the manner in which it has been brought to the House. I hope it will be returned after the election.
Valedictory Debate — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: International Affairs
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his extremely kind personal remarks. He was a superb Chair of the International Development Committee, as, to be fair, was the right hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) before him. It was a pleasure to serve under his chairmanship, and I wish him well.
Valedictory Debate — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Government Operations
John Paul Stanley (Conservative, Centre-right): Mr Speaker, I understood that your latitude applied only to the opening speakers, not to those of us speaking subsequently, but I await your guidance I would tell my hon. Friend that under the so-called Henry VIII powers, Ministers now have an order-making power, which is defined as "a delegated power which enables a Minister, by delegated legislation, to amend, modify or repeal an Act of Parliament" I suggest to the House that that is a very disturbing example of the far too wide use of secondary legislation.
Valedictory Debate — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Government Operations
John Paul Stanley (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I am anxious not to be responsible for cutting anybody out of this debate I want to turn to my next very important point. I will not repeat what I said on 6 March in the debate on the private Member’s Bill, introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan), to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. For me, there is a fundamental issue of principle, which I hope those elsewhere in the House might share. If the Government of the day lose a vote of confidence in this House—if only by one vote—the right to decide the future of the Government should lie absolutely with the people of this country, not with political leaders cobbling together a deal behind closed doors.
Message to Attend the Lords Commissioners — House of Commons, 2015-03-26
Topic: Government Operations
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): I have to acquaint the House that the House has been to the House of Peers where a Commission under the Great Seal was read, authorising the Royal Assent to the following Acts: Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2015 Finance Act 2015 International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015 Mutuals’ Deferred Shares Act 2015 House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015 Consumer Rights Act 2015 Specialist Printing Equipment and Materials (Offences) Act 2015 Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Act 2015 Deregulation Act 2015 Corporation Tax (Northern Ireland) Act 2015 Local Government (Review of Decisions) Act 2015 Control of Horses Act 2015 House of Commons Commission Act 2015 Recall of MPs Act 2015 Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 Local Government (Religious etc. Observances) Act 2015 Health and Social Care (Safety and Quality) Act 2015 Health Service Commissioner for England (Complaint Handling) Act 2015 Modern Slavery Act 2015
Uncollected Tax — House of Commons, 2015-01-27
Topic: Macroeconomics
David Michael Gauke (Conservative, Centre-right): The reality is that the tax gap for 2012-13 was lower than in any year under the previous Labour Government. As for the yield—the money that is brought in by HMRC as a consequence of its activity—that has gone up by £9 billion since 2010-11, and is forecast to be £26 billion this year. That is a very good record.
Uncollected Tax — House of Commons, 2015-01-27
Topic: Macroeconomics
David Michael Gauke (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend is absolutely right to make that point, and there has been an increase—[Interruption.] It is a point that bears repeating. Members really should take in the fact that, under this Government, we have seen a significant increase in HMRC’s yield. HMRC is more effective than ever in dealing with tax evasion and tax avoidance.