Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Of the 144 hours that Parliament has sat this year, 33 hours have been spent on Government Bills. We have an Immigration Bill before the House today and there are nearly 50 pages of amendments on very, very important issues. I urge the Leader of the House to think again and to bring in at this late stage an extra day to debate exceptionally important issues.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will know that so far in this Session the House has spent just over 500 hours debating Government legislation. I entirely understand the point he makes about Bills having two days on Report, and we have programmed that seven times in instances where that was programmed at the outset. I cannot give another day. We have to make progress with this business. My hon. Friend understands perfectly well, I know, that in order to be confident that the Bill will secure passage—and we must ensure that it does—we wanted to make sure that it was completed now.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Tomorrow, as the Leader of the House travels to Corby to support the excellent Conservative candidate, Tom Pursglove, he will have to drive through my constituency. As he does, will he reflect on the fact that when Labour left power 2,757 people were unemployed and now fewer than 2,000 are unemployed? Would it be possible to ensure that there is not a debate on the economy next week so that the Opposition are not embarrassed?

[Mr Lansley]

I often drive through my hon. Friend’s constituency, and I look forward to doing so to visit Corby in east Northamptonshire tomorrow evening. Of course, the Opposition had an Opposition day available to them next week but chose not to debate the recent economic good news, so, as he correctly observes, they are not willing or keen to be embarrassed.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I will of course draw what the hon. Gentleman rightly says to the attention of my colleagues in BIS. They may well be aware of the facts that he has given, and supportive of what he has said. I think he will agree that, overall, this country’s fire prevention measures have been remarkably successful, but it is nevertheless important for us to maintain them, because there are still occasional tragic instances in which fires result in injuries or fatalities that could have been avoided if the right sprinklers and other preventive measures had been in place.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Business questions probably constitutes one of the most important sessions in the week. We have two star performers who do not need any acting lessons, but the real advantage of being here for business questions is that we learn the truth, as well as new things. Today we have learned from the shadow Leader of the House that the Labour party is in favour of continuing our present relationship with the European Union and is opposed to an EU referendum, and we have learned from the Leader of the House—I do not think that even the Prime Minister has said this—that the Conservative party now wants to return to a common market and nothing else. That is really good news, so will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on whether the EU should become just a common market, and give our Liberal Democrat colleagues the right to vote against that proposal along with Labour Members?

[Mr Lansley]

As I said when I announced the future business, we expect the remaining stages of the European Union (Approvals) Bill to be debated on Monday week. I think that that will give Members an opportunity to continue to debate specific issues relating to the Europe for Citizens programme which, in my view, illustrates the capacity for positive co-operation across Europe that extends beyond the achievement of a common market.

I fear that I must inform my hon. Friend that while I said that I had voted for a common market and that I wanted one, I did not say that I had voted for a common market and nothing else. However, I think that there is as yet unfinished work to be done in the establishment of a single market, and that one of the best things that we can achieve in Europe is to become the strongest and most influential advocates of a competitive single market. I thought that the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor earlier this week amply illustrated the benefits of that competitiveness to Europe, the necessity of achieving it, and the dangers of not doing so.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will know that both my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Prime Minister have repeatedly responded to questions about food banks, as we will continue to do. For my part, I know, having visited a food bank, the value of food banks’ work. It is important to recognise that, and we have supported them. That is why, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State came into office, he changed the decision of the previous Government not to refer people from jobcentres to food banks.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

In February 2009, Zac Knighton-Smith, who was five, was diagnosed with neuroblastoma and given only a few weeks to live without a new monoclonal antibody therapy. That treatment was not available on the NHS, but thanks to the efforts of the former health Minister Ann Keen, John Parkes of Northamptonshire primary care trust and the then shadow Secretary of State for Health—the Leader of the House—Zac received the treatment in Germany, which the NHS paid for. On Saturday, this lovely, full-of-life and happy little boy passed away. He will be sadly and greatly missed. However, without politicians of different parties working together, he would not have had the last five years of life. May we have a statement on how this Parliament can make a difference?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I recall the case to which he refers, and he is absolutely right that we in this House can make a difference, not least by working together, but especially where Members of Parliament pursue their constituents’ cases and concerns. I pay tribute to the way in which he did so on behalf of Zac’s family.

We can also make a difference by the policies we bring forward. In that respect, I am proud that as Secretary of State for Health in this Parliament I was able to introduce the cancer drugs fund, which has delivered treatments to 38,000 patients. We also decided to undertake investment in the delivery of proton beam therapy in this country, because the only way patients could otherwise access that treatment was by going to Germany.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I think the hon. Gentleman is living in some kind of fantasy world. I can assure him that Nigel Farage is not pulling the strings. If I may revert to being a constituency Member of Parliament for this purpose, I take particular pleasure in the fact that before the last county council elections there was one UKIP county councillor in South Cambridgeshire and after it there were none.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

During 13 years of Labour misrule, things got worse and worse. Under this coalition, things have got better and better. Under Labour England lost 21 times to Australia and lost five series, despite what the shadow Leader said last week. Under this coalition Government, we have won more than we have lost, and we have won two series. Is not the truth that the only way we are going to regain the Ashes is by having a Tory Government?

[Mr Lansley]

I have to admire my hon. Friend’s optimism in trying to derive a good story out of the English team’s performance in Australia, and I hope he will be proved right in the fullness of time, in the same way as in the fullness of time we have always discovered that unemployment is higher when a Labour Government leave office than when they take office. Under this coalition Government employment has increased and unemployment has decreased.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. As usual, a great many right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. I remind the House that there is a statement by the Chair of the Liaison Committee to follow and then two debates to take place under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee. There is, therefore, heavy pressure on time and pithiness from Back and Front Benchers alike is imperative.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Does the Leader of the House agree that, as usual, the shadow Leader of the House was talking this country down? It was outrageous of her to suggest that we will not win the Ashes.

[Mr Lansley]

I think that the shadow Leader of the House was intending to make a joke, but to make a joke at the expense of our team in the Ashes test series shows very poor judgment.

Business of the House (Today)

Peter Bone Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I was rather surprised to hear what the Leader of the House said in his closing remarks—that the Chairman of Ways and Means was entirely happy with this. Earlier today, I recall the Chairman of Ways and Means standing up and announcing that opposed private business would be taken at 4 o’clock today, in accordance with Standing Order No. 20. Nothing that the Leader of the House has said affects the ability of the House to sit after that. The point of the Standing Order is that there is a specific time for opposed business—between 4 pm and 7 pm. That allows those involved in the consideration of the private business to know what time the House is going to debate it.

I have heard an enormous number of complaints, and I am sure that the Leader of House will have heard them, about sitting late to discuss opposed private business. That is entirely because the Government continue to take Standing Orders, rip them apart and say that they are not going to abide by them. What should have happened today is that the debate on Government business should have continued to 4 o’clock and then stopped so that the opposed private business could be dealt with. After finishing the debate on private business, we should then have gone back to the previous debate. That is what should have happened; this Government are not being fair to those who are interested in listening to, and hearing about, opposed private business. People who are interested in those Bills do not know what time they will be debated, which is completely the wrong attitude. That is why we have Standing Orders; they are there to help the House.

I am minded to divide the House on this issue so that Members can say whether or not they want to sit late tonight to discuss opposed private business. If they are willing to do that, I do not want to hear another murmur from any hon. Member about sitting late and having to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). This is a really important issue, with the Executive deciding that their business must overrule the procedures for Parliament. I urge the Leader of the House to think again.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot offer a debate at the moment, but he will appreciate that during next Wednesday’s debate on banking reform issues may well arise relating to banking standards and the performance of the banks, including those in which the public sector—the Government—has a substantial stake, and he may wish to use that opportunity to discuss them.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

In about 34 minutes we will hear the autumn statement for the second time. I am sure the Leader of the House is as horrified as other Members about how much of it has already been leaked. Previously, the Government have said that this has been due to Liberal Democrat Ministers leaking the information. May we have a statement next week on this very serious matter?

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I have to confess that I have no idea who will attend it.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

My Prime Minister (Replacement) Bill is due to have its Second Reading tomorrow. It provides for a line of succession if the Prime Minister is killed or incapacitated. My apologies to you, Mr Speaker: I had listed you as third in line to succeed the Prime Minister, but unfortunately the powers that be have said that the House could not contemplate that. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the first item of business tomorrow is concluded very early and that no filibustering prevents my Bill from being debated? Before he answers, I can let him know that, for his information, he is 20th on the list to succeed.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because I was not aware of that possibility under the Bill. It ever so slightly changes my perception of it, but I fear that I am still not entirely in favour of it, not least because it impinges on Her Majesty’s prerogatives under the constitution.

I am sure I am right in telling my hon. Friend that there is no prospect of filibustering in this House. It is a term of usage, but it is not in order to filibuster, and the Chair would not contemplate anything disorderly happening in the House.

Business of the House (2 December)

Peter Bone Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[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 Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

All the background.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 Bone]

I am concerned about my hon. Friend; he is becoming a bit of a leftie and a liberal. Is he really suggesting that the House should sit 9 to 5? That is outrageous.

[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.

[Mr Bone]

I am sorry that I misunderstood my hon. Friend’s point. I think he said earlier that slips were being cancelled and that people were being whipped, but that cannot possibly be right, because this is House business, and House business cannot be whipped.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

I shall not answer my hon. Friend, but I invite him to intervene on me again.

[Mr Bone]

With regard to the date and time of the debate in question, why does my hon. Friend think so many Members will be present?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Because they are good Members of Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who has made a lot of important points. My concern is the restriction of time for the debate to one and a half hours. We shall be discussing important changes to the way in which Back-Bench business is debated in the House. When this Parliament came into being, the Backbench Business Committee came into force and we took great steps towards greater transparency and accountability. That is to the great credit of the Government, but I am worried that there is sometimes a temptation for them to row back slightly in this regard.

The Leader of the House might well have a good explanation for the decision to limit the debate to one and a half hours. If he does not think that the debate will take more than that length of time, there is no need to bring in the restriction. If, however, he thinks that Members might want to speak for longer on this important matter, surely they should be able to do so. There seems to be no point in curtailing the debate, especially as the motion states that it will be allowed to

“continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption”.

The Government have been very good on the questions of transparency and accountability and it is a shame that, on occasions such as these, they seem to row back a bit.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

As ever, I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) for their good-natured contributions. It is entirely right that they should ask a number of questions about this motion as the time permits. It might be sensible if I make it clear that the business of the House motion has two main effects. First, it allows the House to take the two motions together for debate. Given that both relate to the work of the Backbench Business Committee, that seemed entirely sensible, as it would not otherwise have been possible for them to be brought together in one debate. Secondly, it specifies a maximum time for debate of one and a half hours, as my hon. Friends have noted. My view is that that is an entirely sensible period to allow for this debate. I freely admit that that is a judgment about the amount of time in which the issues that arise on these two motions are likely to be debated. My personal view is that the second motion, relating to the capacity for Select Committee reports to be launched, will not detain the House for long, as we have seen in practice, but it needs to be regularised in the structure of the provision of Backbench Business Committee time.

[Mr Bone]

I thank the Leader of the House for the explanation he has given so far. If the motions had been tabled separately, he would almost certainly have granted one and a half hours for each of them. I do not think he would have granted a 45-minute debate; so a good compromise might be to extend the total time to three hours.

[Mr Lansley]

I think I have explained straightforwardly the judgment I have made, which is that the two motions relating to the work of the Backbench Business Committee in the House can be brought together perfectly sensibly. The latter motion, which I understand has the support of the Chairs of the Liaison Committee and the Backbench Business Committee, would not detain us at any great length. From my point of view, in order to protect Government time, it is important for us to ensure that we have allowed these motions to be brought forward for the House to debate. I freely admit to the House that it has been difficult to find Government time. The Backbench Business Committee, as my hon. Friends will know, does not have the capacity to use its own time to bring forward its own motions relating to itself. [Interruption.] That is a separate debate, but the Committee does not have that capacity under the Standing Orders. For these motions to be debated, Government time has to be used, and so I have looked, along with my colleagues, to ensure that we find such an opportunity. That has been difficult and we have made the appropriate judgment in securing the possibility of time.

It is entirely a matter of speculation as to whether the Mesothelioma Bill will absorb all the time through to 10 pm. The assumption being made is that it will do so, and if it does, so be it. If we commence this debate after the moment of interruption, I do not want it to extend for a long period beyond 10 pm, although I am happy for the debate to go beyond 10 pm if necessary.