Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

At the last business questions, the Leader of the House said that a business of the House committee could not be introduced because there was not consensus. I went back and checked on that. All three main political parties committed to it in their manifestos and it is in that hallowed document, the coalition agreement. The Prime Minister made a speech saying that he wanted to have a business of the House committee. On Tuesday, this House gave leave for a Bill to be brought in to establish a business of the House committee, supported by senior parliamentarians on both sides of the House. Will the Leader of the House introduce such a Bill and, if not, will he explain where the consensus is not?

[Mr Hague]

It is wonderful to hear my hon. Friend cite the coalition agreement as a key document and I look forward to his doing so on many other occasions. He is a strong and consistent advocate in this regard, which I respect very much, including in the ten-minute rule Bill motion to which he spoke. He won leave to introduce his Bill earlier this week, but this is a matter on which a great deal of detail would need to be sorted out and that is where there is a lack of consensus. There would have to be wide agreement across the House including with the Government on the detail of how that would operate and I do not think that consensus exists at the moment.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful for the warm welcome from the right hon. Gentleman. The United Kingdom remains very strongly engaged not only in the work to find those schoolchildren—we have military assets that have been joining in that—but in working with the Nigerians to ensure that a vastly greater number of girls are able to go to school in Nigeria. When I hosted the Foreign Minister of Nigeria here last month, I announced British assistance to help a million more girls go to school in Nigeria. I know that my successor as Foreign Secretary will want to keep the House updated and it is Foreign Office questions next Tuesday.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) stepped down from the role of Foreign Secretary and became an excellent Leader of the House. He was the House’s representative in Government, not the Government’s representative in the House. I am sure my right hon. Friend will follow that example. He is very committed to the coalition, and he will know that it is a coalition agreement to have a business of the House committee by the end of the third year of this Parliament. It is slightly past the third year of this Parliament, so when are we going to have that business of the House committee?

[Mr Hague]

I join in my hon. Friend’s tribute to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), who was not only an extremely energetic Foreign Secretary but successfully applied himself to the rigours of this job too, and I will follow his example in doing so, although there is a bit of both in representing the House in the Government and the Government’s views to the House. That is understood. These things have to be reconciled. My hon. Friend is a doughty champion of the cause of a business committee. I will be very happy to discuss that with him but, as I pointed out earlier to our hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), no consensus has yet been established on that.

Votes at 16

Peter Bone Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. It is normal to refer to Members by the constituency that they represent, not by name.

[Sarah Champion]

I apologise for that slip, Mr Bone.

The motion for that debate stated:

“That this House believes that the age of eligibility for voting in all elections and referenda in the United Kingdom should be reduced to 16.”

Incredibly, it won the Commons vote, with 119 Members voting in favour and 46 against, yet the Government have still done nothing to send a signal to young people that their voice and their vote are valued.

A persistent refusal by this Government to permit voting at 16 sends a message to 16 and 17-year-olds that their views on society are not valid. That is not and should not be the case. Our 16 and 17-year-olds will form the next generation of creative thinkers, business leaders, scientists and engineers. We will and do expect them to contribute to our society, both now and in future. Our message to them should be that we expect them to contribute to a society that appreciates them, that welcomes their opinions and that is willing to act to represent their views. If we cannot act to bring that about, it should be no surprise if our young people become alienated from the democratic system.

Already, the political system serves to alienate young people. The average age of an MP is 50, and less than a quarter of MPs are women. We cannot expect young people to engage in politics if it is seen as unfamiliar to and unrepresentative of them. I do not believe that granting votes at 16 is the final or only step needed to engage young people politically, but I believe that it would be a really positive start to the process. We must show young people that we value both their contributions to society and their opinions about how things should be done.

In government, Labour introduced citizenship to the national curriculum. Rather than paring that back, we should be bolstering the teaching of citizenship and politics in schools. Research has shown that if someone votes in the first election after they reach the age of majority, they are more likely to carry on voting; conversely, someone who does not vote in that first election is unlikely ever to vote. As Members of Parliament, we have an important role in structuring a society that teaches young people that using their vote is worthwhile and that their voice is valued as part of society’s decision making.

We know that people are encouraged to vote when it is easiest and most convenient for them—that is the experience from postal voting—so some campaigners have argued that we should consider having polling booths in schools. That would mean that the first time sixth-form and college students voted, they would do so in a supportive and welcoming environment. Surely that can only be a good thing. Such modifications are crucial in opening up our democratic system. If we want to understand why young people do not engage as much as we would hope, we must start by addressing the environment in which they engage. If we cannot get that right, young people’s entire experience of political engagement will start off on the wrong foot.

Some might argue that that role should fall to the young person’s parents, but leaving it to parents alone allows for a much more variable rate of participation by young people, potentially based on the parents’ own view of whether it is important to vote. We should not be looking to establish a system in which young people decide based on their parents’ intentions, but one in which young people are well informed and have enough support to decide for themselves.

After today’s debate, I hope that every MP—not just the ones here in the Chamber—goes to schools and colleges to discuss this issue with young people in their constituency. I hope that young people take the initiative to write to their MP and tell them why it is so important. I was aware of the issue and believed in it, but I did not actively campaign on it until I heard the young people of Rotherham telling me why it was so important to them. As elected Members, we are here to represent our constituents, and it is particularly important that we represent those who do not have a voice of their own. Hearing the passion of so many young people who believe so vehemently is enough to make one realise that allowing voting at 16 is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do because it is inclusive. It is the right thing to do because it recognises the contributions that 16-year-olds make to society.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Field]

Apologies; I have just come in, but some of us have other constituency duties. Those who can rely on the Welsh Parliament obviously have far less to do as Members of this House. May I ask the hon. Lady whether inclusiveness applies—[Interruption.]

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. It is normal when there is an intervention that it is addressed to the Member who is speaking. Hon. Members sitting next to her should be quiet.

[Mark Field]

The hon. Lady refers to inclusiveness. Does that apply to 14-year-olds, or perhaps to 12-year-olds as well?

[Mr Slaughter]

The hon. Gentleman should have been here at the start.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. Let me make this point clear. You do not have to be here at the beginning of the debate to intervene. That is a fact.

[Wayne David]

On a point of order, Mr Bone. It would help the consistency of the debate if someone was here to hear the arguments. Logically, they might not ask about points that have already been made.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

That clearly was not a point of order.

[Mark Field]

I had been here for the previous few minutes, which is why I asked whether that particular point about inclusiveness should apply to 14-year-olds and 12-year-olds. Does the hon. Lady not think that as well as having a right to vote, there is also a responsibility that any young adult should have in matters of politics or current affairs, and that therefore we have probably got the balance right and 18 is roughly the right age? Of course, there will be 16-year-olds and 15-year-olds who are very engaged, but equally there are older people who are not.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. First of all, interventions are short. Secondly, it is entirely up to the hon. Member who is speaking whether they take an intervention. The hon. Lady has kindly taken the intervention, but we do not want half an hour on it. I think we have had enough.

[Sarah Champion]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman turning up to the debate. Had he heard my speech, all his questions would have been answered. I refer him to Hansard. I absolutely agree that children should be made aware of the political process from a very young age, but I do not agree that those younger than 16 should be given the vote, because in other areas of their life they are still treated as children, whereas in some areas of their lives 16-year-olds are treated as adults. That is where I believe the discrepancy lies. Most importantly, giving votes to 16 and 17-year-olds is the right thing to do, because it sends a message about the values that we as society place on them. It shows them that we believe that they are important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

Although I used to be a great fan of tidying things up, one of the things that I have learned in my time in politics is that life is quite complicated and that some of those anomalies exist for very good reasons. For example, although the hon. Lady said earlier that people can get married and have children at 16, and it is perfectly right that they can legally do so, I do not think there are very many people who would advocate doing so or say that, as a general rule, it is a good idea for 16-year-olds to get married and start a family. I think that most people would consider that 16 is rather too young for someone to do that.

Also, regarding the hon. Lady’s point about children having sex and watching sex, I hope that she is not suggesting that the age at which children can participate in pornography should be reduced. As I said, I am very happy that the age for that is set at 18, which is not the same as the age at which people may have sex, for very good child protection reasons. Again, the trend has been against any reduction in the age at which children can participate in pornography.

All of the rules on age may not be logical and tidy, but a lot of them exist for very sensible reasons. The hon. Lady says that she would like to tidy some of the rules up. Some of the arguments about increasing the age at which people can buy tobacco and do a whole bunch of other things—use sun beds, for example—were championed by her party. I am perfectly happy to accept that there are people who think that we should change the legal age for doing lots of things to a lower level, and if they want to reduce the voting age as well, that seems logical and consistent. However, I find it very odd that people who support raising the age at which we let people legally do things such as using sun beds and purchasing tobacco—it is perfectly sensible to hold that view—simultaneously hold the view that people should be able to vote at a younger age. It is not logically sensible to hold both those views; to do so seems to make no sense at all. If someone votes, they are making decisions about who governs the country, about tax rates, about where we deploy armed forces and about all sorts of important issues. If people think that young people are capable of making those sorts of decisions, I do not see how they can also say that young people cannot purchase a packet of cigarettes. That does not seem to make any sense at all.

Let me just pick up on the point that the Electoral Commission made, which has been mentioned. In 2004, the commission published the results of a review that it had carried out on the age of electoral majority; the review took 12 months and was pretty extensive, and it was set up under the previous Government. Having carried out that research, the commission concluded that the minimum voting age should stay at 18. That conclusion was based on international comparisons; on the minimum age limits and maturity, although as I have already said the maturity issue is not one that I am particularly focusing on; and on research that the commission had carried out among the public, which suggested there was strong support for keeping the minimum voting age at 18 and which also showed that young people themselves were divided on the question. I will come back to that last point in a moment, because I have a relevant story about it of my own; it is similar to that told by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), but has a different conclusion.

The commission also referred to voter turnout, although I have to say that the argument about voter turnout is not my strongest argument; just because people between the age of 18 and 25 turn out to vote at very low levels, that is not in itself an argument against reducing the voting age. Having said that, it is an odd argument that lowering the voting age will engage more people, because there is no evidence that suggests that 16 to 18-year-olds would turn out to vote in higher numbers than those aged between 18 and 25.

The commission recommended that the candidacy age should be brought into line with the voting age and thus be reduced from 21 to 18. That is a very sensible proposal. It seems to me that if someone is able to vote and make a decision about who their representatives are, they ought to be able to stand to be one of those representatives themselves. The House has debated the issue previously and I know that a number of younger people have been elected to local authorities, although no one under the age of 21 has been elected to the House of Commons. As I say, the suggestion seems perfectly sensible, but it prompts a question. If someone believes in reducing the voting age to 16, do they also believe that 16 to 18-year-olds ought to be able to be candidates at elections? I genuinely do not know the views of the hon. Lady and the Parliamentary Secretary on that issue; the hon. Gentleman might like to fill us in on what the Liberal Democrat view is.

Let me deal briefly with a number of the arguments that the hon. Lady made. The one that I thought was not very sensible was about the various previous campaigns about voting—for example, the campaigns to enfranchise women, first the campaign to enfranchise women generally, and then, of course, the campaign to reduce the voting age for women after they were enfranchised at a higher age level than many people wanted. That question arose when we were debating the private Member’s Bill on voting age. There is an obvious difference between enfranchising women and reducing the voting age. Unless something horrible happens, a 16-year-old will become an 18-year-old in due course and will then be able to vote. Women, who were unable to vote were never going to be anything other than women and therefore were never going to be able to vote. So giving the vote to women is qualitatively different from giving the vote to children, because a 16-year-old may not be able to vote today but will of course be able to vote in two years’ time.

That point relates to the issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham, who is no longer in his place, raised earlier. As an MP, like all hon. Members, I am sure, I visit youth projects and schools. I visit schools right down to primary schools, where I talk to very young children, and right up to secondary schools, including sixth forms, where there are students who are old enough to vote today. I treat all the young people I meet with great respect. First, I respect them in themselves; we debate and have arguments. Secondly, I am of course very well aware as an elected Member that if I am talking to a 13-year-old today, in five years’ time that person will indeed be casting a vote. When I was first elected to the House in 2005 and I went round schools, I was very clear that in 2010, when I would be seeking re-election, any 13-year-olds to whom I spoke would indeed have a vote and would be able to make a decision on my future.

Consequently, I just do not follow the argument that just because someone is not entitled to vote today that we pay no attention to their views, because we only pay attention to people who can vote. I pay attention to the views of all my constituents. Some of my constituents—for example, Jehovah’s Witnesses—do not vote because they choose not to, but I still listen to their views and take their arguments seriously. About 30% of my constituents chose not to vote at the last general election, but when people come to me to state their views on something, I never engage in a conversation with them about whether they are likely to vote for me. I treat everyone’s views with great respect and I am sure that that is true of all Members, so the idea that we do not listen to young people and we do not pay attention to what they think—that we do not think about tuition fees, education or similar things just because young people under the age of 18 are not able to vote—does not hold water.

We have to set the line somewhere, and I think that the right place to set it is the age of majority—the age of 18—when we basically decide that children become adults. That is where I think the line is best left. I do not think that that means that we do not engage with children in debates and arguments in schools and colleges; I and all other Members do engage with children in that way perfectly well. Also, those who campaign on this issue because they think that it will in some way pay an electoral dividend for them—I am not putting the hon. Member for Rotherham in that category—should, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster said, be careful what they wish for. If we treat young people with respect and engage them in the argument, they will have more respect for us than if we just agree with something that some of them think because we consider that it will make us more popular. As I say, I do not put the hon. Lady in that category. The voting age should stay where it is—at 18—and I am against what the hon. Lady is proposing.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. It might help right hon. and hon. Members to know that I would like to start the wind-ups at 10.40 am.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 10th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am not familiar with the issue in Newry, so I will refer it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I will ask her to respond to the right hon. Gentleman in more detail. I entirely understand the responsibility that we have in relation to victims. I hope that she will be able to give him some reassurance on that matter.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) made a very good point. The problem in this House is that we have a dictator who decides the timings, even if it is a benevolent dictator in the form of the Leader of the House. Surely meeting the commitment in the coalition agreement to a House business committee would remove all these concerns. Will the Leader of the House make a statement next week to say that we will have a House business committee very soon?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will be aware of the evidence that I gave to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee on the difficulties associated with the proposals for a House business committee. In a sense, we are a Committee of the whole House on business. Last week, I received representations about how much time should be available on Second Reading of the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill. As I have explained to the House, the time available is not just a day and a half, but more than a day and a half. It could amount to close to the equivalent of two days’ debate on Second Reading and the other motions.

Parliamentary Standards

Peter Bone Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I went doorstep canvassing on Thursday night, Friday night, Saturday morning and Saturday afternoon, and I was telephone canvassing last night. There was one issue of huge concern, which was immigration from the European Union. What we are talking about now did not come up once. May I ask the Leader of the House to give his personal opinion on whether recall would in fact end the matter that we are talking about today? Ultimately, if recall were in place, the British people would decide, and could it be pure recall?

[Mr Lansley]

As I have said, these are issues that are debated by the public, and understandably so. In my experience, the public often want to have a conversation, not least when their Member of Parliament is available, to understand what is going on and why something is happening. We need to explain more effectively the transition through which we are going and the nature of the systems that should give the public greater confidence. As far as a recall Bill is concerned, I fear the House will have to await the publication of the Government’s proposals on that.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I do not have the figures in front of me, but my recollection is that 14 major contracts for new energy investment are in prospect over the next 15 years. We are world leaders in offshore wind energy, and we now have some of the greatest prospects for investment in energy, not least as a consequence of the capacity market reforms in the Energy Act 2013, which will give investors the opportunity to come in and make their investments, confident about the nature of the market in the years to come.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I endorse everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) has said. Did I just detect a hint that the Leader of the House was encouraging Back Benchers to amend the Immigration Bill to restrict immigration from the European Union? If so, may we have a statement from the Leader of the House next week to celebrate that fact?

[Mr Lansley]

I think what I said was that, in so far as my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) wished to have an opportunity to debate those matters—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) agrees with him on that—the Immigration Bill will take us further in the direction of ensuring that there are no incentives for people to come here without good reasons or without the prospect of work. I am not encouraging amendment to the Bill as such, because a number of useful amendments are being made in the House of Lords. When the Lords amendments come back to this House, however, we will have an opportunity for that debate.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

Perhaps it was not on that issue specifically, in which case I apologise. I will, of course, raise the issue with my colleagues at the Department for Transport, who I know will be anxious to provide the hon. Gentleman and, perhaps, the House with information.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I have learned today of another reason to dislike the European Union: the idea that it will deprive the Leader of the House of the opportunity to be here is absolutely outrageous. Did he listen to the LBC debate on the EU yesterday and hear the leader of the fourth party in British politics say that only 7% of our laws are made by the European Union? The Deputy Prime Minister quoted the House of Commons Library, but I have spoken to Library staff, who have confirmed that he was referring only to primary legislation. If we take into account the thousands and thousands of statutory instruments, we will see that the actual figure is much higher. Could the Leader of the House arrange a statement by the Deputy Prime Minister next week to clarify that?

[Mr Lansley]

I think we all recognise that primary legislation is critical. Although there is an enormous amount of legislation, the question of who makes our primary laws is an issue on which we should focus. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his solicitous remarks. I cannot comment on such issues, because they are matters for the Prime Minister, not for me, happily—it is up to him.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure the hon. Lady, if she has not already done so, will read the written ministerial statement on the European Environment Council. The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs both attended and, rightly, pursued ambitious targets. They argued that it is very important for us not to have binding renewables targets, because it is necessary for each country to meet not just the challenge of climate change but supply and security requirements.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I understand that the Prime Minister’s excellent policy to have an in/out referendum by 2017 cannot be introduced as Government legislation, because it is being blocked by the Liberal Democrats. May we have a statement from the Leader of the House next week on whether he would welcome a Back-Bench amendment to the Queen’s Speech asking that the EU referendum be debated in Government time?

[Mr Lansley]

If I may speak frankly to my hon. Friend, the Government’s objectives are put into the Queen’s Speech—that is what we set out as a Government. On behalf of the Government, I have to say that, if the Government do not agree that there should be an EU referendum Bill, then we do not agree that. I am afraid it is then for the House to decide by other means.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

We are very lucky to have had some excellent Leaders of the House. I wonder whether the current Leader of the House might make a full oral statement next week on votes in this House. As a Member of the House, I have always thought that when this House votes, the Government are bound by that vote, but that does not necessarily seem to happen when Back-Bench motions are debated. Will he make a statement on that next week?

[Mr Lansley]

I can tell my hon. Friend that it has never been the case that a motion in this House binds the Government, except in so far as a vote is taken on legislation. With the greatest respect to him, whatever he may believe to be the case, a motion in this House has never bound the Government, except in such circumstances.

To repeat what I said to the shadow Leader of the House, time and again, even if the Government have not agreed with what was expressed in a motion passed after a Backbench Business Committee debate, we have always taken the motion seriously and responded to it. For example, I recall that hon. Members felt strongly about the matter relating to the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. We did not agree with them, but a lot of care was taken to explain why we did not agree and to respond to the House on that subject. We will continue to act in that way.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me to reach back into my past as a member of the Puttnam commission and the Standing Committee on the Communications Act 2003, but my recollection is that the Act gave the responsibility to Ofcom. I will therefore ask my colleagues at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to check with Ofcom and respond to him on the points that he raises.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

May we have a statement about the Prime Minister’s long-term economic plan as it affects north Northamptonshire, which my right hon. Friend visited recently? Unemployment in Kettering has fallen by 26% in a year, in Wellingborough by 28% and in Corby by more than 36%. Would that allow us to say what a disaster Labour made and how much better the Conservatives would do on their own without the Liberal Democrats?

[Mr Lansley]

I wish I could find time for such a debate. There is always pressure on Government business, but such a debate would be very welcome. Apart from anything else, it would give the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford), who is in his place, an opportunity to welcome the progress of the Government’s long-term economic plan and how it is creating more jobs and opportunities for his constituents. Even the shadow Leader of the House might like to join in, as unemployment has fallen by 20% in Wallasey in the last year.