Business of the House (2 December)
Debate between Christopher Chope and Peter Bone(10 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
It is good to have a reasonable slot in which to expand on the remarks that I was making just before 10 o’clock last night, and it is good to see that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is on the Front Bench and in a position to explain a bit of the background to the motion.
Mr Chope
Indeed: all the background.
The purpose of the motion is to enable the House to sit until as late as 11.30 pm on Monday, or even later, in order to consider two motions, one of which proposes to amend Standing Orders. I wanted to know why the Leader of the House had decided that the business should be debated so late on Monday, after a Second Reading debate on the important Mesothelioma Bill. Why could it not be debated at some other time? I believe that the motion proposing amendments to Standing Orders has been on the Order Paper for a long time, and I understand from contacts that I have had with my own Whip that the Government are concerned about the possibility that the House will divide at 10 pm on Monday. The business is highly contentious, which is why Members have been told that they will not be allowed to be “slipped”, or that slips that had been granted to them have been withdrawn. That suggests the Government regard it as highly contentious. If they do, it is all the more reason it should be given a primetime slot, rather than pushed towards midnight on Monday.
On a more serious point, the motion restricts the amount of time during which the two issues can be debated. It states that
“the Questions necessary to dispose of the proceeding on the Motion…relating to select committee statements and the Motion in the name of”
the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, including on amendments, shall be put
“not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of those proceedings”.
That means that a maximum of three quarters of an hour is being given to each subject, including for the discussion of amendments and for votes on the first motion before the second motion is debated.
I am speaking now on the last item of business on a Tuesday afternoon before the Adjournment debate. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid), whose Adjournment debate it is, could therefore have an extended debate on the defence police and fire pensions review until 7.30 pm. I cannot understand why the business on 2 December is being so dealt with and why effectively we have to suspend Standing Orders and move this business motion. I am not normally of a suspicious disposition, but this raises various questions.
Mr Chope
I would be happy, as I am sure my hon. Friend would be too, to debate these issues until 1, 2 or 3 o’clock on Tuesday morning, should the need arise. That is why, as I said, the more serious of my concerns is the time limit rather than the timing. Obviously, he and I will participate in the debate at whatever time is set down, but we need to think about how easily people outside can follow our proceedings.
Mr Chope
That is a gross exaggeration of my position. I was suggesting to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) that we should sit until we concluded the business, but that one advantage of having debates earlier—during primetime, as the Government would put it—is that they would be more likely to attract more interest from people scrutinising our affairs, who would not have to look at the historical record, but could watch it as it was happening.
Energy Bill (Carry-Over Extension)
Debate between Christopher Chope and Peter Bone
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
As someone who voted against the Bill on Third Reading, I will not oppose the time extension. The later the Bill is put on the statute book—if it is put on the statute book—the more grateful I will be. It is significant that on Second Reading in the other place, my noble Friend Lord Lawson made one of the finest speeches in any debate in recent times. He was absolutely dismissive of much of the content of the Bill.
This evening’s short debate presents me with the opportunity to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister what, if anything, will be done to respond to Japan’s recently announced initiative to abandon its climate change targets? That follows the decision by the Australian Government and, earlier, by the Canadians. What does my right hon. Friend think are the implications for the assumed international consensus? Has it been altered by those recent decisions? Where will that leave us if we are justifying imposing significant increases in the price of electricity for consumers on the basis that we are setting an example and leading the world in our opposition to global warming and in our determination to reduce carbon emissions? That leadership does not seem to have resulted in anything significant. Indeed, it seems to be going in the opposite direction.
I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend gave some indication of how the Government will respond to what has happened in Japan. Japan is where the Kyoto agreement was negotiated. The consequence of the Japanese redefinition of its targets will probably be more carbon dioxide emissions, and we will not be able do anything about that. If we turned off all the lights, closed down all our heating systems and did not use any energy at all, we would still not be able to counter the consequences of the recent Japanese decision. Does that not show that, far from being able to lead the world, the political climate in the rest of the world is changing and we are slow to react to that?
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I assume the thrust of my hon. Friend’s argument is that an extension will allow more time for that to be debated.
Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords]
Debate between Christopher Chope and Peter Bone(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Chope
I support new clause 2. In most people’s eyes the Bill was designed essentially to protect the UK supplier, particularly of fresh produce, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) said. What the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) has just delivered is a scaremongering speech designed to undermine British suppliers of fresh meat and produce. That is extremely regrettable.
Last night I attended a speech given by the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon). His speech was entitled, “Deregulation for Growth”. I must admit to being slightly confused about what I have heard so far during this debate, because it seems to be about regulation. How, I ask the Minister, will the Bill be consistent with the Government’s growth agenda? Perhaps she will tell us when she responds.
The Minister last night said that there was a two-for-one principle—that for every £1 of additional burden imposed through regulation, £2 of savings of regulation had to be found. That brings me to new clauses 4 and 5, which are designed to highlight the fact that the Bill as drafted will embody the law of unintended consequences writ large. It will potentially benefit suppliers not only from elsewhere in Europe, but from right across the globe, when most people who support the Bill think they are doing so in order to help the farmer down the road in the United Kingdom. That is far from the case. What will happen is that the Bill will enable suppliers from overseas to exploit our system, at a time when our own suppliers and producers are not able to access overseas markets on an equivalent basis.
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend anticipates the argument that I am going to put. I was in discussion about whether an amendment referring only to “outside the United Kingdom” would be in order and selectable. On advice—obviously, I am responsible for deciding whether to act on advice—I decided that my new clause was much more likely to be selected if, instead of referring to the United Kingdom, I referred to the European Union. That is because of single market and European Union rules. Obviously, I wanted to ensure as far as possible that my new clause would be selectable, but my hon. Friend makes a good point. He is saying that the whole public debate is about why cannot we buy British—buy UK food and thereby avoid the risk associated—[Interruption.]
Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 3)
Debate between Christopher Chope and Peter Bone(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend is right. I am not aware of anybody on the Committee feeling that the Bill was too strong and should be weakened; the only people there either supported it or wanted it to be strengthened. That shows how unrepresentative the Committee was. We now have three groups of amendments and only three hours in which to debate them, after deducting such time as we will spend on considering this programme motion.
Mr Chope
Thereby hangs a subject for a separate debate. The coalition agreement contained a commitment to have a House business Committee by the third year of this Parliament. We now know that that is being interpreted as meaning the end of December 2013, which is rather an extension of the use of the English language. However, that may be the subject of another debate on another occasion. As my hon. Friend suggests, this shows, in essence, that Front Benchers are not to be trusted on these issues, and until they prove their point and we are satisfied, we will be suspicious.
Mr Bone
An outrageous slur has been made on my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who has made it clear that he wants more time for debate. The simple answer is that when the House divides on this programme motion and we defeat it, the previous programme, which gave us a whole day for debate, will be in place. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) should apologise to my hon. Friend.
Business of the House (26 February)
Debate between Christopher Chope and Peter Bone(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I hesitate to call the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House disingenuous, but that is probably the only proper description of what he has just enunciated. Standing Order No. 20 provides that private business should be given three hours between the hours of 4 o’clock and 7 o’clock. The Leader of the House has all the rest of the parliamentary timetable to play with as he wishes, so surely he should respect the right of people who put private business before the House to do so with some certainty as to when that business will begin and conclude. That is the whole purpose of Standing Order No. 20.
If there was no Standing Order, we would be treating private and public business in exactly the same way. As Members know, I take a keen interest in private business, and I think it is important that we do not tear up our Standing Orders on an ad hoc basis. It is almost invariably the case that the Leader of the House tables a motion to try to vary the convention under Standing Order No. 20 that private business should be dealt with for a specified three-hour period.
If I was speaking on behalf of the promoter of a private Bill, I should wish to have certainty; it is unwhipped business, so to ensure that it can proceed it is important that the Member in charge of the Bill can tell colleagues to come along to the debate because at 7 o’clock there may be a vote. Instead of that situation being crystal clear for everybody, tonight’s proposal will mean that nobody will be quite sure when business on the City of London (Various Powers) Bill will be concluded, assuming that it extends for a three-hour period.
In my submission, the City of London (Various Powers) Bill is very important. Obviously, this debate is designed to ensure that we have three hours between 4 o’clock and 7 o’clock tomorrow afternoon dedicated to dealing with the Bill. In paragraph 7 of the statement by its promoters, they state that progress on the Bill, which was introduced in Parliament in November 2010,
“was delayed as the Promoter sought to address Government concerns as to the compatibility of certain of the Bill’s provisions with the EU Services Directive. The Promoter obtained an opinion of leading Counsel supporting the inclusion of the provisions and passed this to BIS in February 2012. BIS, having reserved its position to the Second House while it considered the issue…has now indicated that it has not altered its original view”.
The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills therefore does not agree with the opinion of leading counsel obtained by the promoters of the Bill. Those of us who discussed the last set of private Bills will recall that the EU services directive is a very controversial measure. [Interruption.]
I shall not talk more about the Bill now; I simply emphasise that it is significant and should be of interest to a wider group of parliamentarians, particularly those concerned about the implications of the implementation of the EU services directive. [Interruption.]
Mr Bone
Will my hon. Friend make it clear to the House that one reason why we are having this short debate—and possibly a Division—is to stop us debating important private business between the hours of 7 pm and 10 pm tomorrow night? What we are doing tonight is trying to prevent the House from sitting late tomorrow.
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely right. If there are hon. Members present who would rather I was not speaking, I would point out to them that it was open to them to vote against the 10 o’clock motion. Indeed, I am rather surprised that they did not do so, if they wanted to get home promptly.
Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill
Debate between Christopher Chope and Peter Bone(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann). His very last point was that we should never vote for something that we know is a bad Bill. What a statement for Parliament and parliamentarians!
Today is a sad day for me. I think it is my saddest day as a Member of the House when my party brings in a Bill to which I am fundamentally opposed. I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but I am sad that my party has introduced the Bill without any democratic mandate. I am not going to address the issue whether gay marriage is right or wrong, as Members on both sides of the House are making those arguments very well. I shall deal specifically with the democratic deficit. That is what Parliament should be concerned about tonight.
I have listened to many of the short speeches that have been made in the debate. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) started to make some interesting points, but the time limit stopped her developing her argument. The first democratic deficit which I draw to the attention of the House is the fact that we have only one day for this Second Reading debate, so that Members are reduced to speaking for four minutes, and many will not get in. It would have been much better if we had had the debate over two days. I hope that towards the end of the debate, the Leader of the House will rise and suggest that the debate be adjourned, and that we have another day so that all Members can contribute on such an important matter.
Canterbury City Council Bill
Debate between Christopher Chope and Peter Bone(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I urge my hon. Friend not to do down the communist route of centrally dictating things, because these are individual Bills. It would not be beyond the wit of man to have little signs, as we do with conservation areas, for instance. That would be useful. Will the promoters of the Bill accept these amendments?
Mr Chope
I thank my hon. Friend for supporting these amendments. I have yet to hear officially, although in introducing their lordships’ amendments and mine at the beginning of the debate—I know my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough was not in his place at that time—our hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey implied en passant that he did not want to accept any of these amendments. Perhaps in the light of the ensuing debate, he will change his mind.
Mr Chope
I would have hoped that we could trust councils to provide adequate training. The purpose of my amendment is to try to ensure that that happens. If the training is not adequate, it will be open to somebody to make a complaint to the council or the councillors; ultimately, it could be used as a defence to a fixed penalty notice or something like that—although I would not want to speculate on that. The test is that the officers must be properly trained: that is what the provisions would require—rather than that the council thought the training was adequate. I hope it would not be necessary to set up a new bureaucracy—an appeals panel or something like that—to deal with the situation, as we are already overburdened with bureaucracy and officialdom in this country, and we do not want even more of it.
My amendment (g) to Lords amendment C27 proposes the deletion of subsection (2), which makes training provided by the council mandatory. It states:
“The council shall make the training referred to in subsection (1) available also to constables and community support officers empowered by section 5(1) to give a fixed penalty notice.”
That is redundant, because constables and community support officers receive training that enables them to perform this function outside the ambit of any particular local Act relating to pedlars, and it is therefore unnecessary to require the council to become involved in training them. Obviously, if the chief constable asks the local council whether it will provide training for constables and community support officers, the council will probably be happy to oblige and to explain the procedure.
Mr Chope
I think that it would be the chief constable in this instance. My understanding is that police and crime commissioners are there to decide whether to hire and fire, and to set out the budget for the police authorities, whereas operational issues are dealt with by the chief constables. I would regard the question of whether constables or community support officers on the beat are capable or knowledgeable enough to introduce or apply a fixed penalty notice regime as an operational issue.
Mr Bone
I would understand my hon. Friend’s logic if this were national legislation, but given that it is local legislation, by virtue of being a private Bill, surely it should be up to the police and crime commissioner to decide whether he wants to get involved with this nonsense at all.
Mr Chope
I take my hon. Friend’s point, but I trust that police and crime commissioners have bigger fish to fry.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey will support my amendments. As was made clear earlier, they also apply to the other Bills with which we are dealing today. We are not picking on Canterbury in particular, but it is the first Bill on the Order Paper.
Mr Bone
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way—he is being exceptionally generous. In his desire to rush through his speech so that we can complete the business today, he has not admitted the fact that any obstruction of the highway is a police matter, and that they can deal with it. The measure is therefore superfluous.
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Such measures are quite often a matter of interpretation. The trained police officer is in a far better position to interpret the law than a council that is prejudiced against the interests of pedlars. To reinforce the point about prejudice, the noble Lord Strasburger said on Third Reading that:
“It was alleged that pedlars create a situation that attracts pickpockets, but…no evidence was offered. It was also said that pedlars cause obstruction of the highway. Little evidence for this allegation was offered apart from a small number of cases where wide and expanding trolleys had been used…The witnesses who spoke for the local authorities were somewhat unconvincing. We heard evidence from pedlars that many council officers and the police are ignorant about the 1871 Act, and we also heard much evidence of a bullying culture on the part of council officials towards honest and hard-working pedlars.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 December 2012; Vol. 741, c. 451-52.]
That is why we need to be alert to the precise wording of the Lords amendments. We need to ensure that the intention is to establish a level playing field for pedlars and street traders, and to ensure that pedlars cannot be undermined by over-zealous or prejudiced council officials. For those reasons, Lords amendment C9 would be much improved by amendments (a) to (h), which I have tabled.
Amendment (h) would remove subsection (8), which states that:
“The provisions of sub-paragraph…(2)…of Schedule 4 to the 1982 Act shall apply to a resolution under this section as they apply to a resolution under that paragraph but as if…for ‘street’ there were substituted ‘area’”.
That completely undermines the concept of pedlars’ freedom to go from house to house and sell their wares on the public highway by trading from street to street.
The Lords amendments grouped under the heading “Pedlars and street trading” are a significant improvement.
Mr Chope
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that to the attention of the House, because it takes us back to our discussions on clause 4 in the previous Parliament. It was in the context of the provision of services that the issue of the services directive was raised. That was why, as I recall, we were arguing that the provision of services should not be covered under these particular local Acts. There seems to be a recognition that clause 4 is outlawed by the services directive. What I do not understand—I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about this—is why the directive also applies to pedlars who are dealing not in services, but goods. How does the directive apply to the sale of goods by pedlars? That is causing concern among the pedlar fraternity.
There may be as many as 4,000 pedlars in this country, so the implications are significant. They are concerned that if the legislation, which sets out a separate regime for pedlars and has been established for well over 100 years, is torn up and repealed, it may be that the significant status and freedom that pedlars have hitherto enjoyed—of being able to obtain a certificate and, as long as they are of good character, trade from door to door, place to place and town to town—will be removed from them.
As was said in their lordships’ House, pedlary goes back long before the time of Shakespeare to the time of Chaucer, if not before. Therefore, to tear up the 1871 Act, as the Government seem to be proposing in their consultation paper, would be damaging to the interests of pedlars.
Mr Bone
Perhaps my hon. Friend can explain something to me before he concludes his opening remarks on this group of amendments. It is Government policy to encourage micro-businesses, and pedlars are small business men at the very smallest level. Therefore, it appears to me that these councils are going against Government policy.
Mr Chope
That may well be so. If councils are going against Government policy, one would expect the Government to say to their supporters in the Chamber that they wish them to vote on the amendments in a particular way.
Sadly, my hon. Friend the Minister is temporarily not in his place, but I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) in his place instead. I am sure he will make a careful note of what I am about to say. Under the heading, “Chapter 1 - Proposal to repeal the Pedlars Acts 1871 and 1881 (Part 2 of the draft Regulations at Annex A)”, the Government’s consultation paper, which is still out for consultation, reads:
“Below we detail our proposals (reflected in the proposed draft Regulations set out at Annex A) to repeal the Pedlars Acts 1871 and 1881 in relation to the whole of the UK.”
That is not a discussion of the possibility of repealing the Acts, but a specific proposal to repeal the Acts in toto. The proposal might still be out to consultation, but the Government have effectively made up their mind to repeal the Acts.
For reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and others explained, the Government have been diffident about declaring their hand in relation to the provisions in the Bills when they have had the opportunity to do so. One of the difficulties when considering Lords amendments is finding out why they were proposed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) just pointed out, removing clause 4 from this Bill and equivalent provisions in the other Bills was not referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey. It was taken as a given, despite its having significant implications.
Neither was there proper explanation of why, if they thought that removing clause 4 would satisfy the services directive, the Government now say that to satisfy it we would effectively have to repeal clause 5 in toto and not replace it with any other provision relating to pedlars.
Mr Chope
If that is correct, I am grateful to my hon. Friend; I cannot understand why we do not use yards and feet rather than refer to 0.88 metres. We always say when we come to this place that we always learn something. That is certainly something I have learned today, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for it.
Let me reach a summation on these particular issues. I have seen some movement on the part of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey, and I hope he will ensure that we have time to listen to the Minister’s response, as it is very important for the Minister to send out some clear messages to pedlars, many of whom are very worried by the proposed changes to the legislation and are confused by the attitude of the Government, particularly towards amendment C9 when looked at alongside the Government’s consultation paper.
I fear that an atmosphere is developing in which the Bill’s promoters think, “Well, it has taken us so long, so rather than try to improve it further, we might as well try to drive it home as quickly as we can and curtail debate as much as possible”, which obviously has the effect of creating a reaction. We know that the House’s procedures have resulted in a considerable curtailing of the rights of Members to speak in some debates. Fortunately, in private business, we still have the right to try to insist on getting the promoters of Bills to listen to our arguments.
I think that that is what we are looking for on this occasion. We are asking the promoters to reflect on the arguments that we have presented, and to consider tabling their own amendments to the Lords amendments. One of the virtues of a debate organised in this way is that, in this instance, we have so far discussed and voted on only Lords amendments C3, C4 and C5, which means that the promoters still have an opportunity to table their own amendments to those on which we have not yet voted.
Mr Bone
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s full explanation of the position. As I understand it, the benefit of the procedure that we are using today will result, eventually, in a better Act of Parliament. By allowing the promoters to reflect on the arguments and then come up with amendments that may even improve on those tabled by my hon. Friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) and me, we are likely to end up with a much better Bill. Would it not be great if the Government followed the example set by private business and dropped programme motions? Then this could happen week in, week out when we debated Government business.
Mr Chope
I think that there is a strong case for asking the Procedure Committee to look into the possibility of applying the principles relating to private business to public business. What has happened today demonstrates the virtues of being able to engage in what might be described as an iterative process, during which we discuss the issues, and the promoters have a chance to reflect on the points that have been made—over weeks, months or years—and to respond to them accordingly.
I do not need to speak any longer on this group of amendments—[Hon. Members: “Shame!”] I know that—
Business of the House (11 July)
Debate between Christopher Chope and Peter Bone(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Chope
I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. His speech today made the case that the Government should think again, withdraw the Bill and make a fresh start.
The business before us relates to our discussions on Wednesday, and I want to make sure that Members who might wish to debate Wednesday’s business on the sitting hours of the House recognise that if they support this motion, they will be limiting the time for discussion to two hours. If they want to do that, that is fine, but I think it is right and proper that Members should have the opportunity to consider whether they wish to limit that debate to two hours.
My other point is that it has been a long-standing tradition and convention in this House that a specific period of time is set aside for the consideration of private business: three hours, between 4 pm and 7 pm on a Wednesday or between 7 pm and 10 pm on a Tuesday. Nowadays, however, the Government almost invariably seek to introduce a motion undermining that principle. The consequence is that Members are left in doubt as to what the order of business will be and, if they are concerned about private business, whether they will have their special three-hour slot allocated to them, or whether it will be interfered with by the business managers. There are some important principles at stake, therefore.
What I am saying is: when it comes to discussing these issues on Wednesday why can we not say that between 4 pm and 7 pm, if it takes that long, we should be able to discuss the private business, as set down under Standing Order No. 20? Why do we need to say that the business of the House starting with the September sittings motion and followed by the debate on VAT on ambulance services should be able to force the private business much later on in the agenda, perhaps until 11 pm or later?
The consequence of that is that some hon. Members will stay behind because they are told that, although it is private business, it is very important and the Government want them to be here. They feel that they have to hang on in there late because the Government have told them to do so. The Government then blame me or somebody else; they say, “The reason you are staying late is that the hon. Member for Christchurch has required that you should stay late by talking this business long.” All I am saying is that we have a three-hour slot on Wednesday, so can we not keep that for private business?
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
My hon. Friend is being very unfair to the Government. The suggestion that this Government would try to whip private business is absolutely outrageous; they would not require Members to stay behind.
Mr Chope
Of course my hon. Friend is right to say that ultimately it is for hon. Members to decide whether they are willing to be whipped by the Government into supporting or opposing private business and whether we should allow some things in this House—private business—to be decided by Members on an individual basis, using their own judgment. So be it.
I can recall strongly opposing a private Bill that would have resulted in a substantial destruction of the amenities and environment in Southampton. I was grateful that a lot of then Government Members, including the then Home Secretary, supported me in the Lobby against the Bill; he wondered afterwards what he had been voting for, but I explained that it was in a really good cause.
I admit that there are precedents, but why should we want to oppose having a proper discussion of why we should be carrying on with certain private legislation that has been hanging around in this House for not just one or two years, but for two Sessions or more—for two Parliaments or more? I believe that one of the motions we will be debating on Wednesday goes back to 2007, when it was first introduced in the House.
I need elaborate my remarks no further. All I need to say is that, having raised this debate, it is right and proper that the Deputy Leader of the House should try to make a better job of responding to this debate than he did to the previous one.
London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]
Debate between Christopher Chope and Peter Bone(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Chope
Everybody seems to be rather reluctant to engage in this Third Reading debate—admittedly, we probably have only two minutes for it. By the time we are able to debate Third Reading properly, I hope that the promoters will have ensured that the Bill is reprinted, because a large number of amendments have been made to the Bill in this House.
Mr Chope
I think that may well be so. Indeed, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because in the course of this Bill’s progress the promoters have accepted a lot of the ideas and criticism put forward by me and my parliamentary colleagues. That vindicates the whole process of giving such Bills detailed scrutiny.
Mr Chope
That was an unnecessarily impertinent and provocative intervention by my hon. Friend.
As we were deprived of a speech from the Minister on the last group of amendments on Report and because the Government abstained from the vote on clause 9, everybody is gagging to hear from the Minister what the Government’s approach is to the full contents of the Bill, now that it has been amended. When we reflect on what has happened this evening, we will inevitably regret that we did not hear from the Minister, who has been sitting in his place for the best part of three hours and who, from my recollection, has not uttered a word.
Mr Bone
One of the advantages in the House is that after Report, Members such as me who did not have a chance to speak have a chance to speak on Third Reading. There are so many more Members who are now interested in the Bill that I am sure they will turn up when we next debate the Bill on Third Reading.
Mr Chope
Again, my hon. Friend makes a good point. I hope that he will be able to make a significant contribution to the Third Reading of this Bill.
I give notice that although the Bill is significantly amended compared with what it was at the outset, in my view it still contains a lot that is pernicious and detrimental to the freedom of the citizens of this country. Visitors to London will be taken by surprise when they find themselves on the wrong side of the law. One of the Bill’s biggest problems is that it legislates partially for a particular area of the country. If there is a mischief, that mischief applies across the whole of the country and should be dealt with in a public Bill, if necessary on the basis of enabling legislation so that local authorities could opt in—
Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund
Debate between Christopher Chope and Peter Bone(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Bone
I listened very carefully to the hon. Lady. If this motion goes through, the Government will quite rightly be able to say that the official Opposition support the wording because they voted for it in the House of Commons. That may well be her position—I am happy to accept that—but this is not the right place to be debating this issue.
House of Commons Disqualification (Amendment) Bill
Debate between Christopher Chope and Peter Bone(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Bone
My hon. Friend is quite right. I think it was the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), when he was Leader of the House in the previous Parliament, who said that there had never been a piece of legislation that had gone through the House and received proper scrutiny that had not become a better Bill as a result of that scrutiny. The thinking of the Whips—that pushing stuff through without proper scrutiny achieves the best for the Executive—is the wrong way round, because that actually results in completely the opposite.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I strongly support my hon. Friend’s Bill, but does it deal with the problem of the Committee of Selection? That Committee is dominated by the Whips and it effectively prevents honest Back Benchers with an independent mind from serving on many Public Bill Committees.
Mr Bone
My hon. Friend hits on an important point. One of the problems in this Parliament is that someone who does not agree with the line of the Executive or the shadow Executive cannot get on to such Committees. That happens because Whips nominate the membership of Committees, but a side benefit of my Bill would be that that would end, because there would be no Whips.
Unlike in many other countries, the Executive live within Parliament, rather than outside it. They propose from within Parliament, and sit, live and breathe within it. Over the years, people have therefore sought election to Parliament not to become Members of Parliament, but to become Ministers. They want to be either a Minister in government, or a shadow Minister in opposition. In the vast majority of cases, people who are elected to the House of Commons want to be a Member of Parliament not for its own end, but as a method to become a Minister. That gives enormous control to Government and Opposition Whips. If someone proposes to exercise their judgment against what the Whips want, they will rapidly be given the threat that their career will be over and they will never become a Minister—I think that I have probably qualified for that advice.
Mr Chope
Before my hon. Friend finishes, let me say that I am absolutely delighted with his speech. I am sure that my decision not to go any further with the National Health Service Redress (Amendment) Bill was a wise one, because otherwise we would have been deprived of his contribution. Does he think that his Bill could be summed up as a deregulatory Bill, replacing regulation with self-regulation?
Mr Bone
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and as usual he is at one with the Prime Minister in wanting deregulation.
Let me finish by quoting the words of a man who has the best interests of our democracy and our country at heart. This man said:
“We will give the House of Commons more control over its own timetable so there is proper time for scrutiny and debate. We will make MPs more independent, with more free votes so that they can vote as they wish and not as they’re told to.”
Those are words of our new Prime Minister, uttered in 2009 in his powerful speech about rebuilding the connection between Parliament and the people. He has already done much by giving us the Backbench Business Committee, ensuring the election of Select Committee Chairmen and promising to set up a business of the House committee by 2013. I am moving the Second Reading of this Bill today to help the Prime Minister achieve his aims.
Finance Bill
Debate between Christopher Chope and Peter Bone(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Chope
I certainly support the national health service, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman understands my point. My point is that even in very socialistic countries, such as Sweden, the other Scandinavian countries and others in Europe—quite apart from the United States—the proportion of total health spending that comes from the private sector is much higher than it is in this country. I think that it would be much better if a higher proportion of our total health spending came from the private sector and from individuals and companies.
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I think, and some of the research suggests, that when people contribute directly to the cost of their health care they take a greater interest in outcomes and hold the health service to account to a greater extent than when they can be told, “It’s all free, so what do you expect?” We talk about the health service being free at the point of delivery, which of course it is, but I want a health service that is available at the point of need, and the two things are very different. That is the gap that exists at the moment. A little more private sector resource, which would relieve some of the burden on the taxpayer or complement taxpayer resources, would be a good thing.
Employment Opportunities Bill
Debate between Christopher Chope and Peter Bone
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I do not know, because I have not inquired, how many hon. Friends of the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Tony Lloyd) employ people as interns for well below what my hon. Friend and the Mayor of London would describe as the London living wage, but perhaps we will hear about that in due course.
I do not want this Bill to go forward without some focus on clause 1, because under current law we deny those foreigners seeking refugee status the right to work in this country.
Clause 2 deals with the problems that the current law restricts British citizens from selling their labour at a price of their own choosing; discriminates against those who are young, inexperienced or seeking on-the-job training; prevents people from agreeing to cut their wages to save their jobs; and imposes nationally uniform rules on the labour market, ignoring regional and local variations. All those shortcomings are tackled in the Bill, which effectively recognises the right to work.
The context for that can be found in article 23(1) of the universal declaration of human rights:
“Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.”
Article 6 of the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights, to which the UK is a party, states:
“The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right to work, which includes the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work which he freely chooses or accepts, and will take appropriate steps to safeguard this right.”
I think it will come as a shock to many Members to know that currently many people are not given the right to work enshrined in those important United Nations articles. The Bill is designed to address that problem.
To make it clear to the hon. Member for Manchester Central that I have read my own Bill, I have noticed that there is a typographical error in clause 1. As a consequence, it would enable only foreigners who are in detention to work, rather than the reverse, which was the intention. I put that firmly on the record and apologise to the House. I will address my remarks to clause 1 as it should be, rather than as it is.
Clause 1 refers directly to those unlucky enough to be seeking asylum in this country as a result of persecution, and obviously to their families. Why are we depriving people who are seeking asylum of the ability to earn money while in this country, so that they can make ends meet and not be wholly dependent on the state? The shock of seeking refugee status should not be exacerbated by the humiliation of not being able to take employment and contribute to the society that is acting as their host while their application is considered.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Speaking as the chairman of the all-party group on human trafficking, one problem for victims who have been trafficked into this country is that if they are rescued by the police and start to recover, they are not allowed to work because they are treated as asylum seekers.
Mr Chope
I am delighted to learn that that was a useful intervention, and I am glad that I gave way. When I gave the example of my constituents, I had a Zimbabwean in such a position in mind.
Obviously, in putting forward a proposal such as clause 1, one needs a statistical basis to show how many people would be affected. It seems as though all the statistics produced by the Home Office in this regard are completely unreliable. The Daily Telegraph reported on 26 April that 25,345 new asylum cases submitted since 2008 still awaited a conclusion. The Home Affairs Committee reported on 24 May that the independent chief inspector of the UK Border Agency agreed that there was a new backlog, but did not know its extent. He advised that he might find out what the extent of it was in due course. We know that the Government were going to achieve the target of completing 90% of asylum cases within six months by December 2011. My understanding is that that target has been abandoned in favour of what is described as a “basket” of 11 alternative indicators. The National Audit Office report of 15 March indicates that up to 181,000 people might have overstayed their work, student or family reunion visas in the past four years. We also know that migrants are arriving in this country at a rate of between 500,000 and 600,000 a year. That is more than 10,000 a week.
There is a problem here. I think that the most deserving people who come in as migrants are genuine asylum seekers and refugees. However, the UK Border Agency makes it quite clear on its website, under the heading “Employment”, that asylum seekers are not allowed to work:
“You will not normally be allowed to work while we consider your asylum application, except in very limited circumstances.”
It continues:
“Currently, most new asylum applications receive a decision within 30 days.”
That is what the website says, but it is not borne out by the statistics to which I have referred. So what actually happens? Instead of allowing asylum seekers to obtain employment, we, as national taxpayers, give them support. We provide them with cash, housing, access to the health service and access to our schools when children are involved. We are paying out a lot of extra money to support people while denying them the opportunity to support themselves.
Does that make sense? In my book, it does not make any sense whatever. I therefore hope that the Government will look carefully at my proposition.
We know that in Sweden, for example, asylum seekers are given the right to work. We can contrast the situation there with that in Greece, about which I have recently received a lot of evidence in my capacity as this year’s chairman of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. The situation in Greece is desperate, because the Greek authorities will not allow the tens of thousands of asylum seekers in the country to work. As a result they cannot get their cases dealt with quickly, and some have been waiting there for many years. Now there is a outbreak of lawlessness, including murder and a lot of robberies, in Athens and surrounding areas, committed by desperate asylum seekers who do not have the means or ability to lawfully seek jobs. They are locked into Greece because they cannot get into any other country. They cannot go back to Turkey, through which most of them arrived. The situation for asylum seekers there is chaotic and desperate. I do not want to see that replicated in this country.
Mr Bone
The problem in this country, at least from my experience in Wellingborough, is that although people are trying to deal quickly with new asylum cases, the backlog includes people who have been here for years and years. Their cases are not being decided because of the concentration on new applicants. That means that they have to live on benefits for years, when they want to go out and work. Often, they have married and had a family. That situation cannot be right.
Mr Chope
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for intervening, and I will return shortly to the figures I have now been able to find as a result of his intervention. On the training wage, I am disappointed by his intervention because it shows that he is trying to be pedantic. He is not sure whether under the contract of employment entered into voluntarily between the employer and the trainee—for want of a better expression—the training would be of a sufficient quality. However, that would be a matter between the person being trained and the employer. If that is the hon. Gentleman's only objection, I would be happy to see what could be done in Committee, but I suspect that his objection is much more fundamental, because he is on the side of producer interests backed up by the trade unions. He is not really interested in having a genuine training wage, which is what I suggest we should promote through the Bill. I do not want to appear too sceptical or cynical about what his interventions are really motivated by.
According to statistics from the House of Commons Library, in my constituency in April 2011, there were 205 jobseeker’s allowance claimants under the age of 24, which was an increase of 2.5% over the year. For those between 25 and 49, there was a reduction of 375, which was a 22.7% reduction, and for those aged 50 and over, the numbers were 150 and a 30% reduction. Those figures speak for themselves—they show that we have a real problem. While the numbers of people receiving jobseeker’s allowance in the older age groups are declining—certainly in my constituency—the same is far from true for those in the younger age range. A rational body deciding on policy would say, “There’s a problem here. We have to try and address it.” I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us when he winds up the debate what the Government are going to do to get more young people trained and back into work, if they are not going to adopt my suggestion in clause 3.
Mr Bone
Before my hon. Friend moves on, may I use the word “scandal” about the situation with interns? People come to me asking to be interns—people with university degrees—but I cannot pay them anything because of rules set by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, which means effectively that the only people whom I take on as interns are people from wealthy backgrounds. That cannot help social mobility and is wrong. IPSA needs to reconsider that specific point.
Mr Chope
I am sure that the powers that be in IPSA will be listening to every word my hon. Friend says. I agree with him. This, again, is one of the problems with having centralised bureaucracy intervening in the marketplace. Perhaps if clause 3 was on the statute book, it would provide a complete answer to the problem he has identified.
I was talking to a colleague yesterday who said that his son, a recent university graduate, was out of work. At the moment, about 20% of graduates are unemployed. That does not mean that they are unemployable—most of them want to get a leg up into the workplace, but at the moment they are being deprived of that. I had a case in my constituency of a graduate, aged about 24 or 25, who said that he would be happy to work for the so-called apprenticeships minimum wage—it will be £2.60 from October—but he is not allowed to do so because it applies only to people aged 18 or 19. That, too, is a real issue.
I promised earlier that I would refer to Mr David Frost of the British Chambers of Commerce, who said:
“The change to the national minimum wage rate is the wrong increase at the wrong time and will risk pricing young people out of work when youth unemployment is at a record high”.
As I pointed out earlier, if he thinks that a 6p an hour increase in the minimum wage for young people will break the bank, would not completely removing the constraints of the national minimum wage from young people undertaking training have an even greater impact? That is not always the case, but I do not go as far as Eamonn Butler from the Adam Smith Institute, a good friend of mine, who on 17 February called for the minimum wage for young people to be totally scrapped. He set out some cogent arguments and said that the minimum wage
“prices them out of jobs, so does them no good at all. For them, low-paid work is a way of building up some human capital that will make it easier to find a better job. But we stop them even getting that work at all—and all in the name of protecting workers.”
I very much agree with those sentiments.
The last part of my Bill deals with the need to ensure flexibility in the labour market in different parts of the country and sets out a method by which the Low Pay Commission will be required to address those problems.
I hope that this Bill will command the support of the House. However, I hope also that it will trigger a much more serious debate than we have had so far across the Chamber, among my political party, the coalition Government and the Opposition, because this issue is far too serious to be the subject of yah-boo politics—“Are you in favour of the minimum wage or are you against it?” We need to examine the issues in a rational, non-prejudiced and hard-headed way, so that we can get more people back into jobs and enable our economy to prosper.
Mr Bone
I hope that my hon. Friend is not missing the point. The shadow Minister—the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas)—has been really helpful, because clearly the Opposition are fully behind the Bill and want to have a Division to help us. My hon. Friend should please not miss that point.
Prayers
Debate between Christopher Chope and Peter BoneThis information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I beg to move, That the House sit in private.
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163), and negatived.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We see today in the newspapers that the Government are announcing new measures on public sector pensions. It is in the media and we have seen the Chief Secretary to the Treasury being interviewed about it, but unfortunately there has been no notification on the Annunciator or the Order Paper that an oral statement will be made at 11 o’clock. Is that an error, and in fact a statement will be made?
United Kingdom Parliamentary Sovereignty Bill
Debate between Christopher Chope and Peter Bone(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend asks why use the word “reaffirmed” rather than “exists”. I have chosen that particular word, but other words could be substituted for it. I am not saying that it is the only word that could be used in clause 1 to convey the meaning that I wish to get across. I think it is a good word, and unless and until somebody comes up with an amendment that they think is better, I would like to keep it in the Bill. If my hon. Friend would like to join me in considering the Bill in Committee in due course, I am sure he will have the chance to move amendments and speak to them to explain why he thinks his choice of words is better than the words in the Bill.
May I take the House back briefly to the “Invitation to Join the Government of Britain”, which was the title given to the Conservative party manifesto at the last general election? On page 114, under the subtitle “Promote our national interest—an open and democratic Europe”, it is stated:
“The steady and unaccountable intrusion of the European Union into almost every aspect of our lives has gone too far. A Conservative government will negotiate for three specific guarantees—on the Charter of Fundamental Rights, on criminal justice, and on social and employment legislation—with our European partners to return powers that we believe should reside with the UK, not the EU. We seek a mandate to negotiate the return of these powers from the EU to the UK.”
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I understand that the Ministry of Defence has had to pulp several books because it does not like them. Is it correct that Conservative central office has tried to pulp all the previous manifestos?
Mr Chope
I do not know, but I think my hon. Friend is perhaps a bit harsh. I hope that all Conservatives in this Parliament, who were elected on that manifesto, are trying their hardest to ensure that its words are implemented. My hon. Friend is in the forefront of trying to achieve that objective.
We were also promised in an informal meeting of the Conservative parliamentary party that there were red lines around our policy on Europe in the coalition agreement. We therefore believed that the words that I have just read out would not only remain part of the Conservative party manifesto but be inherent in the coalition manifesto.
I do not want to go back over the European Union Bill because we had long discussions about it, but recent events have brought home to me the fact that the gradual erosion of our sovereignty remains a live issue. We had a debate on Wednesday evening, which is, in a sense, unfinished business, because the Division is deferred to next Wednesday, about the fact that the Government have decided to use section 6 of the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008 so that the Prime Minister can agree to amend article 136 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union next weekend to establish a permanent stability mechanism for the euro.
The hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) made one of the most interesting interventions in that short debate when he asked:
“Would it not be more appropriate for an intergovernmental agreement to be reached among the member states of the eurozone, rather than have some change to the treaty on the functioning of the European Union?”
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe replied:
“It would have been possible for the member states of the eurozone to have come to such an intergovernmental agreement, but they chose not to do so.”
Surely if member states want to set up intergovernmental arrangements centred around the euro and the eurozone, they should be allowed to do so. There is no reason for the Government, controlled by Parliament, to be dragged into that process. It then became apparent that Parliament was being asked to give the Government authority to negotiate away some of our powers because it was thought sensible for us to be party to an unnecessary treaty amendment. If it is not necessary, why are we doing it? How is that consistent with what was said in our manifesto?
Later in the debate, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe said:
“Should there be any suggestion of amending the draft decision at the European Council—there is no such suggestion from any quarter at present—”.—[Official Report, 16 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 422-24.]
However, as I said, I was in Brussels for three days at the beginning of this week and I picked up a copy of European Voice, a newspaper that circulates there. An article on page seven, under the headline “MEPs confident of getting say on bail-out mechanism”, states:
“MEPs expressed optimism on…8 March that EU member states will accept their demands to link a permanent bail-out mechanism for the eurozone more closely to the EU institutions.”
Parliament (Amendment) Bill
Debate between Christopher Chope and Peter Bone(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Chope
I hope to be able to do that as well. My hon. Friend will not have failed to notice that my Bill would come into force on 1 May 2015, so it is forward looking, like much of the material that I bring before the House. I do not think that his is an adequate objection to the Bill. I hope that the measures in clause 1 will be in the draft Bill that the Government talk about bringing forward; I would have thought it unconscionable for the Government to propose that the other place have more than 600 Members. I hope that, on reflection, my hon. Friend will be prepared to accept clause 1.
Clause 2 deals with the number of Ministers in the House of Commons. Under the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, the maximum number is 95. As has been accepted by the Government—this point is supported strongly on both sides of the Chamber and in the other place—if we reduce the number of members of the legislature, we should also reduce the number of members of the Executive; otherwise, the balance between the Executive and the legislature gets out of kilter. Indeed, that was a recommendation of the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform, of which I am privileged to be a member, in our report last October. We said:
“It is self-evident that a reduction in the number of Members of Parliament will increase the dominance of the Executive over Parliament if the number of Ministers sitting and voting in the House is not correspondingly reduced. This is a matter of constitutional importance that goes to the heart of the relationship between the Executive and the House.”
This very day the Government have responded to the Committee’s recommendations. Cmd 7997 states:
“The Government remains committed to strengthening Parliament in relation to the Executive…We have been clear that we accept the principle that there is a link between the legislature and the size of the executive.”
So we are making progress.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a sound argument, which I totally support. May I draw his attention to the business listed for Wednesday 7 September 2011? It includes the Second Reading of my House of Commons Disqualification (Amendment) Bill, which would remove a number of Ministers at a stroke, and they happen to be in the Whips Office.
Mr Chope
I had the privilege of listening to my hon. Friend when he made a very powerful speech introducing that Bill under the ten-minute rule. Nothing in my Bill cuts across or undermines anything in his Bill, which I hope will make swift progress when it comes before the House.
The Government’s argument against clause 2 of my Bill is given in paragraph 91 of today’s Command Paper:
“There is no immediate need to resolve this issue, since the provisions relating to a reduced number of MPs will not take effect until 2015. The Government therefore intends to reflect on the arguments made during the passage of this Bill”—
the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill—
“and set out its plans once there is greater clarity on the composition of the second Chamber, including how many Ministers could be drawn from there.”
It seems as though the Government are moving in the same direction, but clause 2 of my Bill would be a bit more of a nudge in that direction. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to confirm that the matter will be resolved during this Parliament. I certainly remain concerned about that.
Mr Bone
Is not one danger of having a smaller number of MPs to scrutinise the Government while also having an ever-increasing Executive that there will be more and more demand from people to split the powers and take the Executive out of the House of Commons? That would be a wrong move, but it is a danger because of the direction in which the Government are heading.
Mr Chope
As so often, my hon. Friend is probably on to a good point; one can almost read between the lines of the Command Paper to which I referred, which seems to suggest that the Government might increase the number of Ministers in the other place as a quid pro quo.
We need to put limits on the number of Ministers in this House. I suggest 80. At present, the maximum is 95. If we can have a leaner civil service and public sector, we can also have a leaner Government in terms of the number of Members who hold ministerial office, so I commend clause 2 to the House.
Clause 3 deals with Parliamentary Private Secretaries. At present, there is no limit on their number. Bearing in mind that they are used as lobby fodder, have responsibilities to their Ministers and are appointed by the Prime Minister and that if they step out of line by so much as supporting one of my Bills on a Friday their career as a PPS is at an end, we should give them recognition in statute and limit their number. I suggest that
“no more than 25 persons being the holders of the office of Parliamentary Private Secretary shall be entitled to sit and vote in the House of Commons at any one time.”
That would be roughly one PPS to each Secretary of State, which would be more than ample.
The provision would not stop the Government doing what they do at the moment, which is to appoint people who are not given the title of Parliamentary Private Secretary; they are advisers, deputy chairmen or vice-chairmen of the party or they have a special responsibility in this or that Department—all part of the patronage system. The Bill would not stop that, but it would at least prevent the number of Parliamentary Private Secretaries from increasing as it is at the moment. A side-effect of my proposal is that we would have to put on the public record who the Parliamentary Private Secretaries are and where they are; at the moment, that information is not easily available.
Clause 4 deals with ministerial office in the other place, to try to ensure that we do not end up with a bloated Executive there after any reforms that may be introduced. Although the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, tells us that there will be a draft Bill, who would be so bold as to put their money on its being enacted before the next general election? I suspect the odds might be similar to those on Ireland beating England at cricket the other day.
Clause 4 is important because the provision that states that
“Not more than 10% of those persons who are entitled to sit and vote in the House of Lords at any one time shall be the holders of Ministerial offices”
will apply even if there has been no reform of the other place before the next general election. I thought 10% was a generous quota; if there were 600 Members, there would be a maximum of 60 Ministers in the other place.
Of course, there is no point in limiting the number of Ministers if we cannot also limit the number of Parliamentary Private Secretaries in the other place, so clause 5 would provide that not more than 3% of those
“who are entitled to sit and vote in the House of Lords at any one time shall be holders of the office of Parliamentary Private Secretary.”
This is a short, straightforward, easily understood and transparent piece of legislation.
Mr Bone
I think my hon. Friend is about to reach a conclusion. Before he does so, will he tell us whether he has had a letter of support for the Bill from the Prime Minister? The measure is entirely in line with the Prime Minister’s very powerful speech of 26 May 2009—“Fixing broken politics” .
Mr Chope
I have not got a copy, but I am sure that if we give the Minister a chance to speak he will quote from the Prime Minister’s letter of support. I am sure that the Prime Minister is on our side. We are members of the legislature; he is, for the time being, the leader of the Executive, but he recognises the importance of the legislature having a bigger role in holding the Executive to account, and the Bill is designed to achieve that.
Loans to Ireland Bill
Debate between Christopher Chope and Peter Bone(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Chope
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations.
None of my constituents, particularly those in the business community, understand how or why we can justify increasing our national debt to help Ireland. The line is that the Irish are friends in need, but I remind the House that there is a strong argument to suggest that the Irish Government exacerbated the original banking crisis. When we had problems with Bradford & Bingley and Northern Rock, and our Government limited the deposit guarantee to £50,000, the Irish increased their guarantee to all deposits. That helped the run on Bradford & Bingley and Northern Rock accounts, thereby developing our banking crisis. We did not get much help from the Irish when we were in need in that situation.
We must also not lose sight of the fact that the Irish people have received enormous sums of British taxpayers’ money through our membership of the EU. We make big net contributions to the EU, and a lot of that money was subsequently pushed into Ireland, enabling the Irish people to sustain for a time a much higher standard of living.
Mr Chope
I am sure that my hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are contributing to Ireland through our EU membership, so the Irish people should be very grateful.
When, on behalf of my constituents, I weigh up whether we can be pleased with how Ireland conducts its affairs, I must express renewed disappointment that Ireland caved in on the Lisbon treaty, with the consequence that this country has been landed with it.
London Local Authorities Bill [Lords] (By Order)
Debate between Christopher Chope and Peter Bone(14 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Bone
Will my hon. Friend clarify for the House that what we are doing today—deciding whether to give the Bill its Second Reading—is about the principle of the Bill? Also, is it not unusual to have so many different things in private business? I have spent hours considering private business, but it is normally about a specific, single thing for a specific area. This seems to be a very wide-ranging Bill.
Mr Chope
I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a very wide-ranging Bill. The fact that it is the 10th such Bill to emanate from London local authorities in a reasonably short space of time shows that London local authorities are pushing at what are reasonable bounds on the powers that they should be taking in legislation. They keep trying to extend those bounds, taking more powers for themselves; indeed, there are powers in the Bill that I think go too far. The consequence of what my hon. Friend has described so pertinently—the fact that the Bill contains a large number of contentious clauses—is that unless its promoters listen to reason and allow it to be amended, it will find it jolly difficult to make fast progress through the House. Even it were to sail through the Opposed Private Bill Committee, it would encounter the same kind of difficulties on Report that the pedlars Bills were up against during the last Parliament.
Significantly, my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green did not refer to the pedlary and street trading provisions in this Bill, but the Bill contains powers to seize commercial goods on the ground not of reasonable belief but of reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed. We brought in the reasonable suspicion test, reluctantly, under anti-terrorism legislation. It is draconian in the extreme to seize people’s goods or interfere with their liberty on the ground of reasonable suspicion that they might have committed an offence. Because of the strength of that argument, amendments replacing the term “reasonable suspicion” with “reasonable belief” were accepted by the promoters of the Bournemouth Borough Council Act 2010 and the Manchester City Council Act 2010—two pedlars Bills that reached the end of their proceedings during the last Parliament. The fact that no such amendments have been offered by the promoters of this Bill represents a pretty bad prospect for the Bill, because it suggests a certain intransigence and resistance on the part of the promoters to listen to reason. It might also suggest that they want to give themselves extremely wide powers to seize goods. I believe that such powers go far beyond what is reasonable.
Mr Chope
The hon. Gentleman’s intervention is timely, as I was just going to refer to Scores on the Doors, which has been described as a national food hygiene rating scheme. I downloaded material on it from the internet earlier today, which made it clear that Scores on the Doors is a commercial organisation, describing itself as
“the No. 1 national food hygiene rating scheme”,
enabling official local authority hygiene ratings for food businesses to be found.
Scores on the Doors is the largest such scheme in the world, but it does not cover all local authorities. According to the internet site, there are 124 contributing councils, but interestingly not all the London councils are included in that number. It does not include the London borough of Wandsworth, which I had the privilege to lead some years ago. I am immediately alerted to the fact that even the Scores on the Doors scheme is not universally accepted by London boroughs, let alone by councils more widely across the country.
Someone wishing to search for one of the premises listed on the internet will find that there are 145,931 of them. That is the number of premises that will be affected by legislation second-guessing the Food Standards Agency and introducing a national requirement, subject to criminal penalties for non-compliance. I looked for a reference to a restaurant in my area, but to gain further access to the website I had to accept a general disclaimer. The disclaimer is quite interesting, because it shows that even Scores on the Doors is by no means a panacea:
“The information on the food premises listed here is held by us on behalf of our member local authorities. By accepting this disclaimer, you are submitting a request… to the relevant local authority for the disclosure of summary inspection reports under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.”
It also states:
“The information… has been gathered by authorised Environmental Health Officers”.
However, it goes on to say:
“The hygiene rating given to premises on this web site has been based on the latest Primary Inspection carried out and as such represents the situation as found by the officer on the day of that inspection. Therefore the score may not be representative of the overall, long-term food hygiene standards of the business and should not be relied upon as a guide to food safety or food quality.”
Yet the London boroughs are seeking not only to encourage but to require premises to put up signs which are meaningless. If they do not do so, they will be subject to penalties up to scale 3. If they deface the signs—perhaps by adding material from the internet, such as the extract that I have just read out—they may be subject to a penalty on scale 5.
The situation is ludicrous. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green did not have a chance to go into more detail, because if he had done so even more people would be saying that the Bill goes far too far, and that it would be best to make a fresh start.
Mr Bone
In my constituency, many restaurants enter the scheme voluntarily, which is fine. However, the rating is a snapshot of a single day, and it can cause great concern to people who are given a bad rating one day and cannot get it altered the next day. It is quite proper for restaurants to have a right to opt into the scheme, but it seems wholly wrong to compel them to enter it.
Mr Chope
I entirely agree. The disclaimer states:
“Food premises may only be inspected every 6-36 months as specified in the Food Standards Agency Code of Practice.”
There is the potential for an enormous amount of damage to be caused to the reputation of commercial businesses that will have to stick on their doors something that is unrepresentative of the true position.
Finance Bill
Debate between Christopher Chope and Peter Bone(14 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Chope
The amendments aim to tease out from the coalition Government and, in particular, the Exchequer Secretary, who is responding to this debate, what the Government’s attitude is towards people who do the right thing and try to relieve the burden on the public sector and the national taxpayer. Although it would be wrong to suggest that the inspiration for the amendments came from the Secretary of State for Transport, he was on to an important principle recently when he said that if a pensioner has a bus pass but can afford to pay their fare, they should not use the pass but pay the fare themselves and thereby relieve the local taxpayer of the costs consequent upon the use of that subsidised bus pass. It is a subsidy of general application—it goes to people irrespective of their means and ability to pay.
We know that quite a lot of people choose to buy medical and personal health care in the private sector without burdening the state and the taxpayer. If those people choose to do that through personal health insurance, this Budget will increase the financial penalty on them. In other words, it will be a disincentive to people taking responsibility for their own personal health care through personal health insurance. Many years ago, it was the policy of the then Conservative Government that those who subscribed to personal health care insurance should have their subscriptions tax deductible. That was based on the worthy principle that, if we did that, we would encourage more people to take responsibility for their own health care. We have moved a long way from that now.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, and I am grateful to him for giving way. Does he support the Government’s aim of coming up with suggestions that will reduce the charge to the taxpayer? Obviously, if more people take private medical insurance, there is less of a burden on the state and it is a win-win situation for the Government.
Mr Chope
Almost every contribution I make in the House is designed to try to help the Government and often to try to get better value for money for taxpayers.
If we were under any illusions about how important and critical the situation is in relation to health care, we should bear in mind that yesterday, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) about the NHS White Paper, the Prime Minister said that
“when we look at the NHS, we know that there are expensive drugs coming down the track, expensive treatments and an ageing population, and more children born with disabilities and living for longer. There are cost pressures on our NHS that mean that even small real-terms increases will be an heroic thing to achieve.”—[Official Report, 14 July 2010; Vol. 513, c. 950.]
My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) is making exactly the same point. I am trying to tease out from my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary whether it is the Government’s policy to try to encourage people to take responsibility for their own health care, if they can so do. This is not the subject of an amendment, but similarly, if people can afford to educate their children in the independent sector, should they not be encouraged so to do?
Mr Chope
My right hon. Friend has particular expertise and knowledge about that particular end of the market. I am sure that the Committee is obliged to him for that information. The point he makes is absolutely correct. If we are thinking in terms of equity and fairness as the guiding words of the day, let us see if we can look again with radical eyes at this whole structure of taxing insurance premiums. Let us see whether the Government accept the amendment today; if they do not, let us see whether they have anything else to put on the table by way of responding positively to the points raised in the debate. We can then decide whether we wish to divide the Committee on this issue or just put down a marker.
Mr Bone
Before my hon. Friend concludes his opening remarks, will he clarify this? I assume that the amendment is not really about whether to have the tax rise or not to have it, because it is very small. Is it more about sending out a signal that the Government want to encourage people to take responsibility and take out insurance?
Mr Chope
Absolutely. I make no apology for declaring my own view, which is that if it could be afforded, it would be sensible to give tax relief on insurance premiums where we think those premiums are for the public good and will result in reducing the burden on the state and the taxpayer. I would like at least to bring in incentives in the form of tax relief, let alone eliminate the insurance premium tax. As I said earlier, I do not think that the latter is affordable in the present crisis. That is why I tabled this very modest proposal in the hope that it will get the Government thinking about alternative means of raising money from insurance policies.
Canterbury City Council Bill
Debate between Christopher Chope and Peter Bone
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) on introducing the revival motion, and on trying to seduce the House by not going into much detail about the background and history. If he were to do so, people would be reminded that of the four Bills dealing with pedlars introduced in this House in the last Parliament—there were also two others that started off in the other place—the Leeds and Reading Bills are now in the other place and their revival motions have not been objected to, and I think it would be sensible to put on the record why I did not object to their revival motions, whereas I did object to the revival motions in respect of the Canterbury and Nottingham Bills.
In a nutshell, the reason why I objected to one group of Bills and not the other was because in the last Parliament the promoters of the Leeds and Reading Bills and their respective council officers realised that the best way of making progress would be to have some constructive discussion about the contents of their Bills. That constructive discussion resulted in the equivalent of the clause 5 provisions on pedlars in the Canterbury and Nottingham Bills being significantly amended.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
There are a number of new Members in the House tonight who will not quite understand why councils have to come to individual Members in respect of these Bills, instead of their being like Government Bills. Will my hon. Friend expand a little on the procedure so Members can understand what is going on?
Mr Chope
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. The short answer is that there is no compulsion at all, but obviously, councils that are in close touch with their council tax payers will want to be able to ensure that the resources they spend are spent wisely. The view was taken in Leeds and in Reading that the provisions in the equivalent of clause 5 of the two Bills in question were not necessary for their areas, which is why they were prepared to have significant amendments. In particular, those amendments recognised that pedlars carrying their goods with them about their person should be able to continue to do so and to display and sell them in the city centres of Leeds and Reading, and to use modest additional trolleys and so on if appropriate. The issue in Leeds in particular was that the trolleys were causing the obstruction, which is why they were prepared to have their Bill amended.
Unfortunately, and despite my best efforts, the opportunity has not arisen to get any compromise out of Nottingham or Canterbury, save that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury did agree that when his Bill progressed, he would remove completely clause 11, which deals with touting. Although there was an opportunity to do that in the last Parliament, it was not seized on for one reason or another. I am not criticising my hon. Friend, however. I know he is keen for clause 11 to be removed as soon as his Bill goes before a Committee in the other place. I hope he will also ensure that clause 5, on pedlars, is significantly amended to bring it into line with the Reading Borough Council and Leeds City Council Bills.
Mr Chope
I am disappointed at my hon. Friend’s response, but not surprised; a lot of time has been spent in this House trying to tease this matter out. If his Bill is revived, goes before a Select Committee in the other place and the petitions against it are heard, I hope that Members there hearing them will take into account the compromise that has been reached by other councils—including, of course, on slightly different areas, Bournemouth borough and Manchester city councils. Obviously, my hon. Friend—and I, for that matter—will have to accept whatever verdict is reached in the other place when it considers the petitions’ merits.
One thing that emerged from what the Minister said in the previous short debate is that the Government will come forward in two or three months with their response to the consultation. I strongly urge Members of the other place to defer convening a Committee to look at the detail of these Bills and the petitions until after they have the Government’s response, because the information may be very helpful in enabling them to consider the petitions in detail. So I hope that, for the sake of a month or two, the Bills will be put on hold and that priority will be given in the other place to the Bills that were the subject of the constructive compromise to which I referred. If it is not possible to hear petitions against all the Bills at once in the other place, I hope that the Reading and Leeds cases will be dealt with before the Canterbury and Nottingham ones. That is another reason why I thought it would be helpful to put them on a different time frame by ensuring that we had this debate and that the other ones would already have gone through the other House with the revival motions unopposed.
So that is the background. We, in this House, no longer have any control over what happens to the contents of the Canterbury City Council Bill and the Nottingham City Council Bill. For that reason, the pertinent question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) in the earlier debate is more pertinent in respect of these two Bills—he asked whether the Bills are worth reviving. It remains open to this House to consider the contents of the City of Westminster Bill, but the Canterbury and Nottingham Bills are outwith our control. We have no opportunity to propose further amendments in the light of any suggestions that the Government may make, so we are at the mercy of the good sense of their lordships. To look on the bright side, I should mention that last week I met one of their lordships who is very interested in and concerned about these issues relating to pedlars. He spoke as warmly in support of the principle of pedlary as the Minister has just done, and I am sure that if that noble Lord is involved in the Committee, as I hope he will make it his business to be, the pedlars will receive a good hearing in the other place.
Mr Bone
I just wish to get this point clear in my mind. This is now in the other place, so we may now have only one option tonight if we have concerns about these Bills, on which we have had hours of debate. So if we were to divide and the Bill were not allowed to be revived, would that, in effect, kill the Bill off?
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. So much has changed, in regard not just to the national economy but to the information available on the role of pedlars and pedlary, since the Bills were first introduced in late 2007. Two and a half years have passed, and we must now consider whether we want them to be discussed for a further year or 18 months in the other place, or whether it would be better to have a fresh start. Obviously, some of us are asking whether the Bills are really worth reviving. That is the consideration that we must keep at the forefront of our minds.
Mr Bone
Does my hon. Friend agree that a new aspect has come to light, and that we ought to consider it before making a decision on whether to revive the Bills? It relates to whether these local Bills would interfere with the right to the free movement of labour granted by the European Union.
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend will recall that there was quite a lively debate in the previous Parliament about the interaction of the services directive and the provisions of the Bills. In the end, it was resolved by the then Minister saying that, as far as he was concerned, the legislation would not make any difference and that pedlars would still be able to carry on their pedlary irrespective of the interaction with the services directive. However, my hon. Friend is right to suggest that the matter might not be quite so clear cut.
Mr Chope
That is wonderful—a revelation. It has taken two and a half years and a general election, but we now have constructive engagement from the city of Nottingham. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that. I hope he will encourage his city council to engage with the other place in the same spirit, if we grant the Bills a revival tonight. His contribution to the debate—I do not know whether he intends to make a more extensive one later—may be an effective softening-up exercise among some of my colleagues, who may have been taking a rather hard line, encouraged by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley.
Mr Bone
My hon. Friend is generous. Before I make up my mind whether to support the revival of either Bill, I need to hear about the Bills. Last time we heard nothing about Nottingham. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) has been a powerful advocate and has made his point, but we will need to hear from Nottingham before deciding whether to divide the House.
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury went into enormous detail about the situation in Canterbury, so much so that one almost felt that one had been living in the environs of Canterbury cathedral, among the street traders, the pedlars, the tourists and others. We have never had any similar word picture from Nottingham. We had a very effective word picture from Members from Leeds, and my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson) did a similar job in relation to Reading. I hope we will have the benefit of a contribution this evening from the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) so that he can put on the record—
Mr Bone
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. Had he been a Member of this House for a little longer, he would know that I am just as critical of my own side on many occasions.
The other issue we must take into account is whether the new Parliament has a right to discuss this Bill.
City of Westminster Bill [Lords]
Debate between Christopher Chope and Peter Bone
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) on taking the matter before us seriously. The reason why I and other colleagues shouted “Object” to prevent the revival motion from going through on the nod was so that we could hear from the Bill’s sponsor exactly why it was held up for so long in the House of Lords between Second Reading and the completion of its Committee stage, which, as he said, has not yet happened. We now understand from the promoter’s statement that a date for the resumption of that Committee has been fixed for later this month. That will mean that the Bill and the petition against it will be considered in the Lords. As he said, if passed in the other place, the Bill will come to this place in due course, when hon. Members can give it proper scrutiny. I am all in favour of that.
I heard what my hon. Friend said, but it is worth emphasising that a revival of a private Bill is not a right but a privilege, and it is right that Members of the House ensure that a motion to revive a Bill is made on good grounds and that the case is made. We will have a chance in due course to consider aspects of the detail of the Bill, but one point my hon. Friend did not deal with is the interaction between the City of Westminster Bill and the possibility of more general legislation applying to pedlars. The Bill consolidates much of the private legislation relating to pedlars in the city of Westminster.
In the previous Parliament, the Government initially asked Durham university to carry out research, which was subsequently conducted and consulted upon. Proposals were then introduced and subjected to further consultation. I hope that during the course of the evening, in response either to the debate on this Bill or to the debate on the Canterbury City Council and the Nottingham City Council Bills, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey) will say what the Government’s initial thinking is on their approach to pedlar legislation. What impact would national pedlar legislation have on the provisions in private Acts in relation to Westminster city council? Obviously, it might be a waste of time if the House or the other place spend a lot of time discussing the consolidation measures in the City of Westminster Bill if the Government subsequently introduced national legislation on pedlar activity.
At the moment, traditional pedlars cannot operate within the city of Westminster boundary. They can go from door to door, but they cannot act as pedlars on the street, which means that they are severely disadvantaged, notwithstanding their national licences to peddle. I hope for national legislation and a national approach to the matter, and that the Minister tells us what the Government’s thinking is on the prospect of such legislation, so that we do not have piecemeal proposals from councils up and down the country.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Is that not the crux of the matter? The previous Government talked about introducing national legislation. It costs local councils an enormous amount of money to promote private Bills, so would not such legislation solve that problem?
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are told that had there not been so much resistance from him and others to private Bills in the previous Session and the one before that, there would have been many more. That it was difficult for such Bills to make progress through the House acted as an effective deterrent for the very good reason he articulates. Such legislation is expensive and will often be seen by local taxpayers as a disproportionate response to a local niggle. That is why a large number of councils did not go down the private Bill route. Obviously, the City of Westminster has a very well-resourced council—it also delivers one of the lowest council taxes in the country—and has decided that it will go down that route, but it is important to point out that many of the private Bills promoted by local councils to deal with street trading and peddling were encouraged by the City of Westminster Bill, which has acted as a sort of precedent. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) and others will be interested to see what the City of Westminster council thinks of touting. I notice that its Bill includes a lot more information on seizure powers and what to do with the receptacles that are used for street trading, and that it includes some of the powers that were eventually excluded from the Bournemouth Borough Council Act 2010 and the Manchester City Council Act 2010, which were passed following a gentlemanly compromise prompted by the opponents of those provisions.
Some of the developing law is contained in the City of Westminster Bill, which is why Members who are alert to the concerns of individuals who try to eke out a living as street traders or pedlars should be vigilant on their behalf. We want to ensure that oppressive, disproportionate legislation is not introduced under the radar. That is why this evening’s debate is important, but I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster that it is not my intention to press the motion to a Division.
Backbench Business Committee
Debate between Christopher Chope and Peter Bone(14 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Bone
I thank my hon. Friend. I was intending to deal with that issue shortly.
I suggested five additional days to balance the Sessions, but I have not moved the trigger forward. That means that after the eighth private Members’ Friday progress can be made on Bills, which will make it easier for Members taking part in the ballot to ensure that their Bills are heard and passed into law. I thought that there was a bit of smoke and mirrors in the statement by the Leader of the House.
I have not much more to say, but I want to tell the House where I think the five extra days should go. I was going to say something about Wednesdays, but that point has already been dealt with. I propose—this touches on a point made earlier about September sittings—that two of the extra days should be in September, so that the September weeks become even more important. I was not here on the last occasion when the House sat in September, but I understand that there was a feeling that the House was almost “going through the motions”. If two of those Fridays were devoted to private Members’ Bills, the sittings would become even more important. I have also proposed adding one day in October this year, one day in June, and one day in July next year. Sittings on those days would inconvenience no one, and would add dramatically to parliamentary democracy.
Another of the last Government’s objections to more sitting Fridays was that they would somehow prevent Members from carrying out constituency business. As my staff members have reminded me today, constituency business continues throughout the week, and is certainly not restricted to Fridays. Moreover—new Members may not know this—Members do not come to the House on days when private Members’ Bills are debated unless they are interested in those Bills. Normally there is no Whip to ensure that Members attend, so there would be no requirement for a full House.
In proposing the five additional days, I am merely suggesting that the number should be returned to what would be expected in a normal two-year cycle. In a two-year period, we would expect 26 Fridays for private Members’ Bills. Given that there were only eight in the last Session, an additional 18 in the current Session would produce the 26 that would normally have occurred. I am not proposing to increase the number of days for private Members’ Bills; I am proposing to keep it in line with the spirit of Standing Orders and the House.
The public are still clamouring for change in the way in which politics is conducted, and for a check on the power of the Executive. Parliament must be allowed to fulfil its role, and Members of Parliament must be allowed freedom to express their opinions and those of their constituents. How the Government respond to this issue will be an important public indication of their commitment to real openness. I am pleased to have received a pledge from them that this will be a free vote, and that there will be no guidance from the Whips. This is a genuine House matter, and it could lead to a huge leap forward. Tonight, Members will have a chance to express their opinions about private Members’ Bills without any influence.
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend is making a brilliant speech. Can he confirm, in his peroration, that there is no reason why any Back Bencher should vote against his amendment? If a Back Bencher were so to do, they would be voting against the interests of other Back Benchers, and the only people who can possibly lose out if his amendment is carried are members of the Government.
Mr Bone
I agree and disagree with my hon. Friend. I agree with his remark about Back Benchers, but I also believe that it is very much in the interests of the Government and Front Benchers to support my amendment, because that would show that the Executive are open to scrutiny and new ideas.
We are experiencing the dawn of a new age. We have a coalition Government who are charging forward with reform. If I have an opportunity to do so, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall press my amendment to a vote.
Dissolution of Parliament
Debate between Christopher Chope and Peter Bone(14 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
What does my hon. Friend think would have happened when Callaghan’s Government fell and an election was called if the 55% rule had been operating?
Mr Chope
It was because I did not know the answer to that question that I initiated the debate. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to speak in it as well, given that, as I have said, it will be much longer than we expected it to be.
It must also be unusual for the first Adjournment debate in a new Parliament to concern a subject that was not raised at all during the general election campaign. I can recall only one reference to it by a member of my party. At some stage during the campaign, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that, if elected, he would legislate to require that in the event of a change of Prime Minister—let alone a change of Government—a general election should be triggered within six months. I think that he was emphasising the importance of accountability to the public and the people, and felt that that accountability had been lacking when the last Prime Minister became Prime Minister without the people having a say. Now that we have an arrangement that is becoming increasingly presidential in style, with rival candidates for the position of Prime Minister almost standing on soapboxes in front of millions of television viewers, it is probably all the more significant that a change of Prime Minister should generate a general election rather than being simply dealt with through the usual channels.
I know that many of my constituents were rather enthusiastic about the point made by my right hon. Friend during the general election campaign. I wonder whether the Deputy Leader of the House, when he responds to the debate on behalf of the Prime Minister, will be able to explain what has happened between the occasion, a few weeks ago, when the Prime Minister said that such a development was desirable and the position today, which seems slightly inconsistent with that stance. I understand that the talk is now about having a five-year Parliament, irrespective of how many Prime Ministers there are, and not giving the people a chance to have their say when there is a change of Prime Minister in the intervening period. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to provide a response to that extra question.
I also in my preliminary remarks refer to the fact that I was elected, and was proud to be elected, on the Conservative party manifesto. I was pleased, as I am sure the Deputy Leader of the House is pleased, that page 63 of the Conservative party manifesto included the Conservative commitment to change Britain
“with a sweeping re-distribution of power…from Government to Parliament.”
We all signed up to that in the Conservative party and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be consistent with that part of the manifesto. For the sake of completeness, I refer to page 67 of the manifesto where there was a pledge
“to make the use of the Royal Prerogative subject to greater democratic control so that Parliament is properly involved in all big national decisions.”
Mr Chope
I have not gone into the detail of that, but I am sure the hon. Lady is correct.
All of this brings me to chapter 24 of the coalition agreement, which states that the Government believe that it is necessary to make
“changes to our political system to make it far more transparent and accountable.”
The chapter continues:
“We will establish five-year fixed-term Parliaments. We will put a binding motion before the House of Commons stating that the next general election will be held on the first Thursday of May 2015. Following this motion, we will legislate to make provision for fixed-term Parliaments of five years. This legislation will also provide for dissolution if 55% or more of the House votes in favour.”
It is because of the various ambiguities in that passage that I thought it would be a good idea to explore these matters in this Adjournment debate.
I have set out a number of questions to ask. I am sure that many others could be asked as well, but the following are the questions that immediately came to mind when I looked at the wording of chapter 24. What is meant by a “binding motion”? Surely any motion that is passed can later be amended or revoked by Members of this House? Will this binding motion also be put before the House of Lords; will it need to be approved by both Houses? Will the binding motion include reference to the proposed 55% threshold for Dissolution, or will that be dealt with later in the proposed primary legislation? Will the binding motion be brought before the House before the summer recess? It was stated in the original draft coalition agreement that this motion would be put
“before the House of Commons in the first days following this agreement”,
but those words are omitted from the final version. Does this indicate a welcome ingredient of consultation and opportunity for full debate inside and outside the House, in the context of our commitment to more transparency and accountability? I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will be able to confirm that that is the correct interpretation to put upon that change of wording.
Will the legislation that is promised in the coalition document to make provision for
“fixed-term Parliaments of five years”
only apply to future Parliaments, or will it apply retrospectively to the Parliament elected on 6 May 2010? If it is going to be retrospective legislation, how can that be justified constitutionally?
What is meant by the following statement in the coalition document:
“This legislation will also provide for dissolution if 55 per cent or more of the House votes in favour”?
Does the 55% figure mean 55% of those voting on any motion, or 55% of those eligible to vote, or 55% of all MPs elected at the 2010 general election, including Sinn Fein Members and you yourself, Mr Speaker? What role, if any, will there be for the House of Lords in the legislation?
Will Members other than the Government be able to move a motion for Dissolution? If so, what safeguards will there be to require the Speaker to give such a motion precedence over ordinary business? Those of us who have been in the House some time know that it is all very well having a motion on the Order Paper. Indeed, during the last Parliament, there were motions reflecting decisions taken across the House in important debates on future House business and our organisation of our affairs, yet the then Leader of the House refused to put those motions above the line on the Order Paper, thereby preventing Members of the House from voting on them, even though, collectively, we were in a majority. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome and I were seething with frustration and anger about that, so I am sure he would not wish us to be in a similar situation under this new regime.
Will there be constraints on the Government’s tabling a motion for Dissolution? That point was raised in an intervention. I mentioned Germany, and an example of how something that on the face of it seems plausible could actually be cynically used for the self-interest of a coalition Government when they see that their opponents are in a particularly weak situation.
In what circumstances will a Dissolution follow if the Government are defeated on a confidence motion by a bare majority? There has been a lot of debate about that outside, and perhaps some confusion and misunderstanding, which I hope can be cleared up this evening. Are there any circumstances in which a Government defeated on a confidence motion could remain in office? If they did not remain in office could an alternative minority Government be formed even if they did not enjoy the support of a majority of MPs on confidence and supply measures? What would prevent Parliament from repealing by a vote of 50% plus one legislation requiring a 55% threshold for Dissolution?
I shall expand on some of those points in a minute, but I now turn to some fundamental procedural questions. Will the proposed legislation to establish a fixed-term Parliament and a 55% threshold for Dissolution be published first in draft, and be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny? When we were, collectively, in opposition, we were very much in favour of draft Bills and pre-legislative scrutiny. There could be no more critically important constitutional legislation than the proposals we are talking about this evening.
Will the Government set up a special Joint Committee of both Houses to consider the matter, along the lines of the Joint Committee on the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill in the last Parliament? My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—I am delighted to see him on the Treasury Bench—and I were privileged to serve on the Committee. It drew on expertise not only from this House but from the other place; for example, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, who has recently written on the subject in The Times, gave some important evidence and his counsels were very well received. Such a Committee would be a sensible way forward.
My next question is for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House: will all these important and novel matters—which were not raised in the Conservative manifesto at the general election, when we said we were in favour of more free votes—be the subject of free votes for all Conservative Back Benchers? That would take quite a lot of heat out of the situation, because it would then be obvious that in order to win parliamentary support for these novel propositions, my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench would need to win not only the votes, but the arguments. A free vote would, I submit, be useful; indeed, it might be a good example of the new politics in action. To balance that out, I ask the Deputy Leader of the House why, when a fixed term of four years was proposed in the Liberal Democrat manifesto, we are now talking about a five-year fixed-term Parliament.
Some of those questions and others were raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) in an article in one of the national newspapers, and in other media outlets. He has said that he is sad that he is not able to participate in this debate, but he has been kind enough to share with me the response that he received to a letter that he wrote to the Prime Minister. It might help the House if I quoted from it a little. Members will make their own judgment about whether it clarifies or obscures what we are talking about. It says:
“I do take on board your concerns about our suggested proposal to require a 55 per cent majority to dissolve Parliament. Let me set out why I think this is an important, progressive and necessary step.
As we know from last week, the country wants strong and stable government.”
I do not want to pour cold water on anything that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister says, but I thought that in the general election campaign we were saying that the only way to deliver strong and stable government was for the Government to have an overall majority in Parliament. Indeed, I can remember distributing leaflets that were strongly against the threat of a hung Parliament, and which said that if we had a hung Parliament, there would be deals done behind closed doors; that nobody would know what was happening; that hon. Members of this House would be the last people to know what was going on; and that the country’s economic crisis demanded strong and stable government, and that is why we needed a Conservative Government with a strong majority. I still believe that proposition, and that is what I was campaigning for.
I disagree with the Prime Minister’s interpretation of what the country wanted, because the country voted for a hung Parliament. The essence of a hung Parliament—this is important for those of us who have the privilege of being Members of this Parliament—is that it is not a strong Government, but a strong Parliament. A strong Parliament is one that can hold the Executive or the Government to account. It means that we can put pressure on the Government if we disagree with them, whether on relatively minor matters such as the details of Bills, or on slightly more important matters, such as those that we are discussing this evening.
A strong Parliament and a strong Government are two separate propositions. My interpretation of the fact that we have a hung Parliament is that the people decided to have a strong Parliament. I am privileged to be a Member of this Parliament, and I hope that it will be known in due course as the strong Parliament, rather than be given the epithets that the previous Parliament was given.
Mr Bone
May I take my hon. Friend back to before the general election? He will recall that on the Order Paper, below the line, there was a motion for fixed-term Parliaments. I think that I was the only Conservative Member to sign that motion, and there were very few names on it, so before the election there was no groundswell among Conservative Members for fixed-term Parliaments.
Mr Chope
I am interested in the fact that my hon. Friend was and is in favour of fixed-term Parliaments, and he is quite right to reflect on the balance of opinion within the Conservative parliamentary party and throughout the House more widely. At one stage during the previous Parliament, it seemed that the then Government were flirting with the idea of a fixed-term Parliament. Indeed, I think that the Modernisation Committee—I shall be corrected if I am wrong—looked at the idea for a time and took evidence on it, including evidence from Officers of the House. The whole project was then kicked into the long grass.
I revert to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden. The Prime Minister said that
“we are determined to deliver that stability with our lasting coalition. The introduction of a fixed term Parliament was, therefore, a necessary and important measure to propose. Obviously, this is a new idea for our Parliament and necessitated a mechanism for dissolution. I want to reassure you that a mechanism for a no confidence vote in the Government is unchanged.”
That is an important statement. The Prime Minister continued:
“Rather, what our proposals would do is give Parliament a new power to dissolve itself”—
rather like a Beechams powder, although that is perhaps an unfair analogy. That power, he said, is
“currently only exercised by the Prime Minister. We are, in effect, taking a power away from the Executive and putting it in the hands of Parliament, not the contrary. As you know it has always been my intention to reinforce the powers of our Parliament. I hope that this proposal is one positive measure to do just that.”
In my final quotation from the letter, the Prime Minister says:
“The House of Commons will remain able to call a vote of no confidence in the Government as at present. If that took place, a vote of 50 per cent plus one would mean that the Government falls and unless an alternative workable majority can be formed within a specified number of days, a General Election would be called.”
The convention that prevailed meant that if the Government were defeated, the Prime Minister would go to the sovereign and invite her either to dissolve Parliament or to invite somebody else to form a Government, but the new proposal seems to leave Her Majesty out of the equation. I do not know whether that is the intention, and if I am incorrect on that, I am sure that I shall be corrected in the Minister’s response.
I am not criticising anything that has been proposed; all I am doing is asking questions and saying, “Why is the change to the convention on Dissolution necessary or desirable?” The Prime Minister is giving up his constitutional right to request a Dissolution, and I can understand that that is very important—a matter of honour between himself and the Deputy Prime Minister. It means that the Prime Minister cannot pull the rug from under the coalition, but why do we need legislation or, indeed, a motion to achieve that? Surely the Prime Minister’s word is sufficient. Such a unilateral commitment gives the Liberal Democrats the assurance that the Prime Minister will not pull the rug, but during the debate on the Loyal Address earlier today the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) said that the measure might provide for less stable government, because it would enable the Liberal Democrats to withdraw from the coalition and vote against the Government on a motion of confidence without causing a general election. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will be able to deal with that issue. If at some stage the Liberal Democrats withdraw from the coalition, the threat hanging over them, as things stand, is that the Prime Minister would go to the Queen and invite her to call a general election. But if the Prime Minister said that he would not do that in any circumstances, but had no reciprocal Liberal Democrat commitment not to withdraw from the coalition in any circumstances, the Liberal Democrats could withdraw and align themselves with the left, as the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) would have much preferred them to have done in the first place. They could create an alternative coalition.
That predicament is unlike the situation that prevailed immediately after the general election, when the Liberal Democrats, those on the left and the nationalists were not able to form a sufficient number to guarantee staying in Parliament and enjoy a confidence and supply measure of support. In the situation that I have described, the Liberal Democrats would have no such constraint—they would be able to form a minority Government and stay in office for the remaining period of the fixed-term Parliament. I hope that that nightmare scenario, from a Conservative perspective, is just a nightmare and is not realistic, but I have yet to be persuaded of that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to persuade me.