Business of the House
Peter Bone Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the closure at Daw Mill is the result of the catastrophic fire. I reiterate to him and the House that Ministers are in direct contact with UK Coal. The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), met UK Coal on Monday and is co-ordinating a cross-Government response. Some 1,300 people are employed at UK Coal’s other sites, Thorseby and Kellingley, and the company believe that they remain viable operations. On that basis, it does them no good to speculate in a damaging way about the viability of those operations.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
May we have an urgent statement from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury so that he can inform the House to which media outlets the Liberal Democrats will leak the Budget? Right hon. and hon. Members will then know what papers to buy and what television programmes to watch.
Sittings of the House (22 March)
Peter Bone Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Eagle
I agree wholeheartedly with the points that my right hon. Friend has made. As a former Treasury Minister, I can attest to the fact that some of the more disastrous bits of last year’s omnishambles Budget had indeed been put to Ministers for their consideration prior to their adoption last year and had been batted back for the nonsense that they were.
Because of the Government’s cynical manipulation of the recess dates, it took 28 days after that botched Budget for the Prime Minister to find himself back at the Dispatch Box to account for it. By then we had also had the fuel strike scare and the jerry can scandal to add to the chaos. Understandably, he was so unnerved that, red-faced and angry, he started attacking his own side. The hon. Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) was wholly unfairly ticked off for having a sense of humour failure by a rattled Prime Minister who was demonstrating to the House just how easily he seems to be able to channel his inner Flashman. The memory of this omnishambles is obviously still raw. According to samizdats emerging from the 1922 Committee, the Chancellor has admitted to Tory Back Benchers that last year’s Budget was a disaster. Why else would he have been seen nodding vigorously as he was being exhorted, in language so earthy that I cannot repeat it here, not to—how can I put this politely and stay in order—mess it up this time?
Perhaps the Prime Minister’s reluctance to appear at the Dispatch box the day after the Budget debates to answer for his Chancellor’s omnishambles is an understandable human failing on his part, but it is not one in which this House should be assisting or that we should allow him to repeat this year. However, that is precisely what the motion will do unless our amendment is accepted. The Budget will be on 20 March and the Prime Minister is not due to appear at the Dispatch Box to answer questions until 17 April. Once more, that is 28 days after the Chancellor’s Budget statement.
If the Prime Minister finds it impossible to appear before the House to answer questions on the Budget before 28 days have elapsed, he could do what all Prime Ministers in the past have done and let his deputy do it for him. After all, we are told that the Liberal Democrats are intimately involved in all of the decision making about the Budget. We know that they are so central to the Government’s inner core that they make up two of the “quad” who, we are told, make all the final decisions. They are so closely involved in Budget decisions that they leaked most of it in advance last year so that they could take credit for all of the nice bits and distance themselves from the nasty bits. The only thing left for the poor Chancellor to surprise us with was the granny tax, and that was all he had to take credit for. No one seemed to benefit—unless of course they happen to be a millionaire awaiting their huge tax cut this April while everyone else feels the pain.
In the spirit of being a team player and recognising the Liberal Democrats’ acts of selfless sacrifice on tuition fees, why does the Leader of the House not just accept our amendment, change the sittings motion and let the Deputy Prime Minister step in and help out with Prime Minister’s questions straight after the Budget? Surely the Prime Minister trusts him to do a good job.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech—unfortunately, she has made some political remarks, but parliamentarily it is a very good speech. However, I have not heard her move her amendment yet. Does she intend to do so?
Ms Eagle
Yes, we intend to press the amendment to a vote.
Surely the Prime Minister cannot have taken to heart the content of last December’s leaked Liberal Democrat memo, which urged senior Liberal Democrats to spread the message that
“The Conservatives can’t be trusted to build a fairer society”
and to remind voters that the Tories only want to look “after the super rich”. I am sure, given those comments, that the Deputy Prime Minister would be welcomed to the Dispatch Box the day after the Budget to support all its content. Perhaps he might also be asked by the Tories on the Government Benches why the Liberal Democrats keep sending out press briefings criticising the Government’s tax policies just after the Chancellor has finished announcing them.
Last December, for example, the Liberal Democrats were caught out saying:
“The only tax cuts the Conservatives support are ones for the very rich. At the General Election, their priority was to cut inheritance tax for millionaires. In the Coalition, Liberal Democrats have blocked these plans.”
After all, just this week the Business Secretary has expressed his
“deep disappointment at the lack of capital investment in the economy”
while declaring himself the shop steward of the newly formed “National Union of Ministers”, fighting cuts to his own departmental budget openly in any TV studio and newspaper that would have him. I can see why the Prime Minister might be reluctant to let his deputy fill in for him at the Dispatch Box given that level of loyalty, so perhaps he should just bite the bullet and do it himself.
If our amendment were carried, all it would do is restore a status quo that has been long experienced in this Parliament: the Prime Minister comes to this House regularly to be held accountable during Prime Minister’s questions for the policy and the behaviour of his Government. That is even more vital after major Government announcements, such as Budgets. It cannot be acceptable that we are expected to put up with a month-long gap between the Budget and the next appearance by the Prime Minister to answer questions at that Dispatch Box.
If the Government resist the amendment to the sittings motion, it will become emblematic of their wider disdain for parliamentary accountability and even for democracy. After all, they have had no democratic mandate for the economic policy that they have pursued since June 2010, because the Liberal Democrats fought the election espousing a completely different economic policy from the one that they now support. The Government have had no democratic mandate for their disastrous top-down reorganisation of the national health service. They explicitly ruled it out during the general election, but now they pursue it with the certainty of zealots and the competence of Mr Bean.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I believe it is orderly, Mr Speaker, to say that the right hon. Gentleman is guilty of terminological inexactitude. The Prime Minister said nothing about a bedroom tax, for there is no bedroom tax. The Prime Minister is somebody who deals in truth, right and justice, and therefore does not talk about things that do not exist.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I am delighted that, as always, my hon. Friend has come up with a novel argument. I hope that it is approved of by Mrs Bone, although I would have thought that she would like to have him back for Easter by Holy Wednesday, which does seem a little late to be sitting.
Let me remind the House of my admiration for the nobility of the Opposition in offering themselves up as sacrificial lambs. Perhaps it is appropriate, in the context of Holy Wednesday, for them to be thinking of sacrificial lambs. However, it is better to save them the embarrassment and humiliation of having to watch, and save the nation its pity at having to watch, the poor Leader of the Opposition being filleted by our noble, illustrious and great Prime Minister, who on every Wednesday comes forth and ensures that there is success, a spring in the step of Conservatives, and joy across the land.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
This really is a most curious debate. We managed to tease out the information from the Leader of the House, slightly reluctantly on his part, that he seemed not to have been aware before he spoke that the Chancellor had announced the date of the Budget. He can rightly say, to some extent, that perhaps that should have meant that the motion would be opposed. Frankly, however, as I said to him from a sedentary position, it is the job of the Government business managers—the Leader of the House, the Chief Whip and their very able and extensive staffs—to look out for these things, let alone, perhaps, those who are in charge of the grid at No. 10, if anybody is. This is not just about the simple issue of not having a whole series of clashing announcements on one day; it is about the good management of business and the stress-testing of propositions before they see the light of day.
Mr Bone
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that none of these problems would arise if we had a House business committee? Then it would not just be a case of the Executive trying to force through such changes but of also having a committee to which every Back-Bench Member could make representations. Would that not be the answer?
Mr Spellar
In this context, I am not criticising the Executive for forcing things through but for not being on top of the job. Unfortunately, that is only too typical these days in a whole number of areas. There were several examples with the last Budget, where there were clearly issues that should never have got to the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Chief Secretary, or perhaps even other Ministers. They should have been knocked out long before by Treasury officials or special advisers.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I rise to support the amendment, because in my view the House should sit on a Wednesday in preference to a Friday. I am second to none in my admiration of the skills of the Leader of the House. He is a politician of legend throughout Cambridgeshire. He has had the good grace to visit Kettering general hospital in the past, and he is a politician without equal in his knowledge of this country’s health service. I am thus second to none in admiring his political skills, but I get the impression that he is feeling his way gently into his present position, and I feel that he has misjudged this element of his portfolio.
I give him 10 out of 10 for setting out the parliamentary timetable well in advance. I really think he has done his very best to inform the House and the House authorities about when the Chamber should be sitting, but there has been a miscalculation over the Budget. I do not know whose responsibility that is. I doubt that it is the responsibility of anyone in the Leader of the House’s office. I expect that the guilty suspect probably works somewhere in No. 11 and has not communicated the dates far enough in advance to the Leader of the House. We are therefore where we are tonight.
We are debating this matter at gone 7.30 on a Wednesday evening because the House has voted for the debate to continue until any hour. If any Members were keen to get away early this evening but voted for that motion, they would have only themselves to blame.
Mr Hollobone
As always, my hon. Friend is right. In both the last Parliament and the present one, he and I have ploughed quite a lonely furrow on the issue of the House rising on a Wednesday.
Mr Hollobone
I have done my best to apprise my constituents of the value of tuning into the parliamentary channel on one of the 13 sitting Fridays, and to lead by example by watching my hon. Friend from my room, even if I am not in the Chamber myself, and listening to his words of wisdom on so many issues. I am afraid that the message is not getting through to my constituents yet, but I will keep on trying.
My constituents do, however, want to watch Prime Minister’s Question Time on Wednesdays, and the problem with the motion as it stands is that they will be denied the opportunity to hear the Prime Minister being questioned on the Budget a week after it has been announced.
Let me attempt the near impossible and not view this issue through a party political prism. I think that my constituents, whichever party they vote for—and whether they vote for any party or none at all—want to hear what the Prime Minister has to say about the important issues of the day before the House rises for a long recess, and that, on any level, that is not an unreasonable proposition. I think that the Prime Minister himself would be keen to do that. What I am questioning is the advice that the Prime Minister is being given in this respect. As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset observed, the Prime Minister does extremely well. Indeed, most Prime Ministers do well at Prime Minister’s Question Time. It is not a level playing field: the balance of advantage lies with the Prime Minister of the day. I think that the Prime Minister would be up for it, but I think that he is being badly advised.
I also think that the timetable proposed by the Leader of the House does a discourtesy to the House. That is to do with private Members’ Bills. Half a dozen Members have tabled important Bills for debate on 22 March, which have been listed on the Order Paper for the whole House to see for many, many weeks. Three of them have been tabled by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife. Also tabled for that day are the Gift Vouchers and Insolvency Bill, the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (Amendment) Bill, and—perhaps most important of all—the Charities Act 2011 (Amendment) Bill, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), which was given a Second Reading by one of the largest majorities given to any private Member's Bill in the history of the House.
Mr Bone
I would vote for the Government motion if the Leader of the House assured me that if the Budget debate finished early on that day, the business listed for the day could then be proceeded with and include the private Members’ Bills. Would my hon. Friend support that proposition?
Mr Hollobone
I certainly feel the Government should give some ground on this issue, just out of generosity to the Members I have mentioned in the course of my remarks, because those Bills would be extremely worthy legislation, and given that the parliamentary timetable is not exactly chock-a-block at present, I think there is some room for manoeuvre for the Leader of the House.
My main contention, however, is that Wednesday is, rightly or wrongly, in many respects the most important day of the parliamentary week. I think it is a great shame that following the Budget—one of the pivotal events of the parliamentary year—the House and the country are to be denied the opportunity of holding the Prime Minister to account for the contents of that Budget a week after it has been delivered. Our parliamentary democracy is eroded as a result. I will support the Opposition amendment tonight, and I hope the Leader of the House takes my remarks in the spirit in which they are offered.
Thomas Docherty
I am grateful for that, Mr Speaker; of course, I never require any encouragement to do something.
I have the privilege of serving on both the Administration Committee and the Procedure Committee, and it is with those hats on that I wish to focus the majority of my remarks. Nobody has been a greater champion of parliamentary outreach than you, Mr Speaker. I think that the House would agree that in your time in the Chair you have done a vast amount to encourage Parliament to reach out, to open its doors and to do more to get the public in to see Parliament in action. The Leader of the House should be careful about what he wishes for in his motion. I am sure that he will have the answers to the following questions to hand, because he is an astute Minister. Will he clarify what discussions his office has had with the indomitable Mrs Aileen Walker who, as you know, Mr Speaker, is in charge of the tour office? I have the pleasure of serving on the Administration Committee with my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). You will know, Mr Speaker, that our tours are constantly over-subscribed. Will the Leader of the House clarify how many members of the public—how many taxpayers—who have booked travel well in advance to come down on the Friday to see Parliament in all its fine glory will not now have an opportunity to walk here on the Floor of the House of Commons because the Leader of the House wishes to take away that very valuable part of our democratic process? I hope that he has the figures to hand. I note that he is deep in conversation with one of his parliamentary colleagues, but I am sure he will be able to respond with those figures.
We also have to address the important issue of the staff of the House. Again, you have been a champion of looking after them, Mr Speaker. Has the Leader of the House had discussions with the Clerk of the House and with the trade unions about the disruption that will be caused to their plans? It is fair to say that our staff work incredibly hard, particularly those in Hansard, who do so much to clean up the expression of our thoughts. Has the Leader of the House made sure that they are not going to be unduly inconvenienced by having to come in on that Friday? He is clearly deep in thought about how he responds on that point.
On the issue of the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) raised a valid point about the sitting Fridays. I will not be tempted into explaining the contents of private Members’ Bills, but at this afternoon’s Procedure Committee sitting we had the Clerk Assistant, Mr David Natzler, as well as Miss Kate Emms and Mr Simon Patrick, and we were asking the Clerks what happens to those private Members’ Bills. As I understand it—you will correct me if my understanding is at all inaccurate, Mr Speaker—without the Leader of the House’s consent, those Bills cannot be placed on the Order Paper for the Friday. That would look extraordinarily confusing to people outside Parliament; they would see the Bills on the Friday but those Bills would not be able to be taken. So will the Leader of the House guarantee the House today that, as the hon. Member for Kettering proposed, if, for whatever reason, Members on either side finished early in the Budget debate on the Friday, the six Bills we have at the moment—I suspect, depending on the Leader of the House’s answer, that the number may grow—will be placed on as orders so that they can be considered? That is an important issue to clear up before we decide how to vote in this debate.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). I do not agree with all the comments he made, but the gist of his speech was very good. I rise to support the amendment. Were I sitting on the Opposition side of the House, I would support a similar amendment. Of course, I supported similar motions and amendments in the previous Parliament, as did my friends on the Front Bench, but they seem to have changed their position. It is also rather interesting that the shadow Ministers, when they were in government, took exactly the opposite position to the one they are taking today. It is the national union of Executives that we have to deal with tonight. Parliament—the mother of Parliaments—should decide the timetable, and it should do so through a House business committee. If that were the case, we would not have debates such as this one.
I want to deal with some of the points that have not been touched on. Members have pointed out that business is listed as provisional, and of course that is always the case; it says that on the handy card showing the calendar. The only way there could be an extra sitting day is if business has not been proceeded with. If business had not been proceeded with, obviously the Budget could be on an earlier day. We therefore have to assume that business has not proceeded as the Leader of the House wanted.
I should have taken the opportunity at the beginning of my speech to apologise to the House and to the Leader of the House for not being here early enough to hear all his comments. Unfortunately, I was in another part of the Palace and had made the real mistake—I apologise profusely for it—of listening to my Whips, who told me that this business would not start until after 7 o’clock. I will never make that mistake again.
Thomas Docherty
I wonder whether it has occurred to the hon. Gentleman that his Whips may not have been entirely helpful to him in suggesting the timing of the debate.
Mr Bone
No, that is an outrageous slur; I just put it down to incompetence. On a more serious note, the abuse from the Whips has already started, and I am still in the Chamber, so when we get out of the Chamber there will be even more. That is a bad thing for this House.
Going to the heart of the matter, the real problem is that Prime Minister’s questions has gone down to one day a week on the Wednesday. If it were still two days a week on the Tuesday and the Thursday, it would not really matter what day the House rose on, because there would be an opportunity to scrutinise the Prime Minister close to the rising of the House.
There is a principle involved that is not just to do with this motion. I gently say to the shadow Leader of the House that she is being a little opportunist in making a political point rather than taking the politics out of it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) wanted to do. There is a strong argument for the House not rising for a recess on a Monday or a Tuesday other than in very exceptional cases. It should rise on a Wednesday or a Thursday, and then we would get rid of all these problems.
Mr Nuttall
My hon. Friend said that it would not make any difference if there were Prime Minister’s questions on a Tuesday and a Thursday, but in fact it would make a difference in this case. If there were Prime Minister’s questions on the Tuesday, the Budget would follow immediately afterwards. If the House then rose on the Thursday, that would mean that it rose on Maundy Thursday. As my hon. Friend shares my views about the Christian religion, I am sure he agrees that that would not be a sensible idea.
Mr Bone
I hate to disagree with my hon. Friend, but the timing of the Budget is entirely at the discretion of the Executive. They have chosen to have it so late and that has caused all these problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) made an absolutely first-class speech, as always, but drew completely the wrong conclusions.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that although the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) did make some very good and eloquent points, given the recent scandal over the adulteration of food, the Food Standards Agency should possibly look at Her Majesty’s Sandringham apple juice?
Mr Bone
I want to keep very closely to the subject of the motion, and I think that that is straying rather wide.
I feel exceptionally strongly about this issue and the fact that Parliament—[Interruption.] The Whips are already having a go at me from a sedentary position. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) asked why I was not here at the beginning of the debate. I have already explained that to the House. I am really annoyed by the attitude of the Whips in this place. That is what brings this House into disrepute. They do not care about Parliament; all they care about is getting Executive business through. They are shameful. I wish my private Member’s Bill had gone through, as that would have abolished them.
The Comptroller of Her Majesty’s Household (Mr Alistair Carmichael)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36.)
The House proceeded to a Division.
Business of the House
Peter Bone Excerpts(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Can we have an urgent Government statement, because it is grossly unfair that each week the Leader of the House turns up at business questions to be duffed over by Members on both sides of the House over the allocation of time for parliamentary business? That happens because it is the Government who allocate the time. The coalition is committed to a Business of the House Committee made up of parliamentarians of all parties, excluding Front Benchers. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Government are opposed to such a measure, as long as it is based on the Jopling principles. We are committed to having this committee by the beginning of May: when are we going to have this Business of the House Committee?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend will know that I am not opposed to a House business committee; I am supportive of it, but we need to get it right. The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee is examining the issue right now. I do not feel in the least bit—
Mr Lansley
I do not in the least feel under any kind of duress in respect of the allocation of time. I just need to remind Members from time to time that the House has resolved that a substantial part of its time—something approaching half the total number of sitting days—is made available to the Backbench Business Committee, to the Opposition, to the Liaison Committee—[Interruption.] We have to secure the business of government. From my point of view, it is absolutely transparent that a House business committee should add value to the measures that have made progress in this Parliament in giving Back Benchers access to parliamentary time, rather than detracting from them.
Business of the House (26 February)
Peter Bone Excerpts(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)
I beg to move,
That at the sitting on Tuesday 26 February, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 20 (Time for taking private business), the Private Business set down by the Chairman of Ways and Means may be entered upon at any hour, and may then be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours after which the Speaker shall interrupt the business.
You will recall, Mr Speaker, that on Thursday 14 February I confirmed to the House that the business for tomorrow, 26 February, would be the remaining stages of the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill followed by opposed private business. Tonight’s motion seeks to ensure that the House can spend the planned amount of time on each of those items of business.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that if we agree to the motion it is likely that we will spend three hours after the moment of interruption in a debate that goes very late into tomorrow night?
Mr Lansley
All I can confirm to my hon. Friend is that if we agree to the motion we will protect the time available for the debate on the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill and ensure that the House has the time intended—that is, three hours—to discuss opposed private business. As my hon. Friend and the House will recall, the programme motion for the Bill allows up to four hours for consideration on Report and Third Reading. The motion would then permit opposed private business to run for up to three hours following the conclusion of our debate on the Bill.
Mr Bone
I might have misunderstood, but I thought that the House’s view was that tomorrow’s business on the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill should run until the moment of interruption. I think that the Leader of the House is talking about a variation to the programme motion that has not yet been put before the House.
Mr Lansley
I am sorry to have to disagree with my hon. Friend, as it is rare for us to do so, but in this instance I am afraid that he is wrong. The programme motion for the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill allows up to four hours for Report and Third Reading.
The motion is needed because even without any statements, four hours of debate on the Bill would take us beyond 4 pm, which is the normal time for commencing opposed private business on a Tuesday. It will also therefore allow the House to sit beyond the moment of interruption—that is, 7 pm. Although the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) was not selected for debate, it would have prevented opposed private business from being taken if it were reached after 4 pm. As I have just said, we do not expect business on the Bill to conclude before 4 pm and the opposed private business is likely to be reached after that. The amendment would therefore have obstructed the opposed private business tomorrow. I know that my hon. Friend takes a particular interest in such business and I am surprised that he would have sought to do that.
If the motion is passed, we will be able to debate the Bill and opposed private business as planned. I do not believe that the House would want to obstruct the business that the Chairman of Ways and Means has set down for tomorrow in accordance with Standing Orders, so I commend the motion to the House.
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 Speaker
Order. Before the hon. Member for Christchurch gives way, I gently note that quite a lot of rather noisy private conversations are taking place on both sides of the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman must be heard—[Hon. Members: “No.”] Indeed, he must be heard with courtesy. I think the hon. Gentleman was giving way.
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.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Tonight we are discussing a significant point of principle. We are lucky to have a benign Leader of the House, but that will not always be the case.
Yet again we see the Executive abusing their position by getting rid of Standing Orders, or abandoning them for the day. It is clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) said, that on Tuesday, if private business has been laid down by the Chairman of Ways and Means, it should be debated between 4 o’clock and 7 o’clock. That is specified for certainty, so that we will not be discussing important legislation late at night just because it is private. Of course, there might be an emergency debate under Standing Order No. 24, which would take precedence, but otherwise Standing Order No. 20 requires private business to be taken between 4 o’clock and 7 o’clock.
On 19 November 2012 the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill programme motion clearly stated:
“Consideration and Third Reading
4. Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.”
Nowhere in that programme is there discussion of a four-hour rule. I am sure the Leader of the House is about to correct me.
Mr Lansley
I will correct my hon. Friend to this extent: if he looks at the Remaining Orders and Notices on the Order Paper today, he will see that No. 4 is the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 3) motion, which sets out that proceedings on consideration shall be brought to a conclusion after three hours and on Third Reading after four hours, so the nature of the programme motion intended to be attached to the debate on the Bill tomorrow is clearly set out on the Order Paper.
Mr Bone
I am very grateful to the Leader of the House for the apology for what he said earlier, but I believe I am still correct in saying that what the House voted for, and the position tonight, is the programme motion of 19 November. The Leader of the House may wish to table a programme motion tomorrow to curtail the debate on the Bill.
We have two things going wrong here. We have a reduction of scrutiny of the Bill and at the same time we are pushing back—it could be very late, because we do not know if there will be any statements or urgent questions tomorrow—discussion of private business. It is really a bit of a dog’s ear—
Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)
A pig’s ear. Or did the hon. Gentleman mean a dog’s breakfast?
Mr Bone
Whatever. It is late at night. The comment from the Opposition Front Bench is spot on. That is what happens late at night when we are trying to discuss important business. That is why we should not be debating private business late tomorrow night. I am thankful for that helpful sedentary intervention.
There is a serious principle here: we are reducing the scrutiny of an important Bill and removing the fixed time at which private business is heard, and simply for the convenience of the Executive, not that of Parliament. We are reducing scrutiny and removing certainty, and that is against the interests of every Member sitting here tonight. [Interruption.] Members might boo and grunt because this is going on, but I notice that most of them are members of the Executive. In my view, they are not necessarily here representing Parliament; they are representing the Executive.
While we have a very nice and benign Government, this is probably okay, but I ask the Leader of the House to imagine what the other lot would do if they were sitting on the Government side of the House. What sort of nasty things could they get up to? They would then refer to what is happening here tonight as the precedent.
The whole point of this debate is to stop us sitting late tomorrow night. I hope that when the House divides—[Interruption.] In fact, I hope that the House does not divide, because I am sure that the Leader of the House, having heard these short arguments, and the much more powerful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, will withdraw the motion.
Mr Speaker
Does the Leader of the House wish to respond? He is not obliged to do so, but he can.
Business of the House
Peter Bone Excerpts(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
The hon. Lady has to recognise, for example, that we specifically excluded carers from the constraint on the uprating of welfare benefit—recognising their role. The draft Care and Support Bill puts into statute for the first time specific support for carers, not least in respect of supporting their health.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The shadow Leader of the House made a very wise suggestion earlier today—for Conservative Members to date a Liberal Democrat Member tonight. I pick the Deputy Prime Minister; who would my right hon. Friend choose?
Mr Lansley
I think I may have detected a somewhat different sense to the remarks of the shadow Leader of the House than my hon. Friend has in his interpretation. I think that the Leader of the House and the deputy Leader of the House make a perfectly good team; that is how we regard ourselves for these purposes.
Business of the House
Peter Bone Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House. I think she asked one question relating specifically to future business.
Of course, it is absolutely our intention and that of my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary that the House should be regularly and appropriately informed about our engagement in Mali and in north-west Africa. On the issue of a statement or an urgent question, the circumstances were that EU agreement had not yet been reached on the EU training mission, and in my colleague’s mind was the intention to update the House in the light of the EU training mission as well as the bilateral agreements that were entered into. I make no bones about that—it was absolutely fine for the urgent question to be responded to and we will keep the House informed. I cannot promise an oral statement in every case, for reasons of the progress of business, but I am sure we will keep the House fully informed through a combination of written ministerial statements, oral statements and answers to questions.
The hon. Lady asked a number of questions. It is interesting—the Leader of the Opposition made almost exactly the same point yesterday—that the Opposition try to argue that the economy requires the Government to spend more money, but complain, at one and the same time, that the Government are borrowing too much. They cannot have it both ways. They have to decide. Not only does their position represent utter confusion on the part of the Labour party, but, to be frank, it carries no credibility outside Parliament—that is the essential point. As the Prime Minister rightly said, the public will not trust the people who crashed the car last and put them back in the driving seat. It is not going to happen.
I listened to yesterday’s debate on Europe, but did not hear the confusion regarding the Labour party’s position remotely clarified. As far as I can see, the Opposition’s position now is that they are not in favour of an in/out referendum today, but they might be at some point in the future; yet, at the same time, they manage to be opposed to the idea of making a future commitment to the public that a new settlement with Europe should be the subject of a referendum. If they, like us, do not want a referendum now, why can they not just agree with us that there should be a referendum in the future on the basis that the public have the right to decide on the character of the settlement that we seek to negotiate with Europe?
On the question of powers in Europe, the Foreign Secretary has made it clear that, through the review of competences, we are looking at that negotiation with specific objectives for the return of powers. The hon. Lady and the Leader of the Opposition talk about returning powers, but the shadow Foreign Secretary has said that the Opposition are talking not about repatriation but about reform and a flow of powers to and back from Europe. I thought that the Opposition had just agreed to the referendum lock on powers to Europe, yet they seem to be reopening that question. There is utter confusion on their part.
Finally, the hon. Lady referred to collective ministerial responsibility. It was my happy duty to lead from the Dispatch Box on the debate on the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill. She was very kind about that. In fact, she was so kind that she did not observe that, although I was defending a sticky wicket—though I did make the odd stroke here and there—the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), who is not in his place, took the bails off my stumps later on. He was rather good—I give him credit for that.
The point is—the hon. Lady has to give the Government credit for this—that the mid-term review shows that we are very clear about where we are going and we are doing it together as a coalition. We have entered into not only a coalition but a mid-term review. We understand that we have a collective responsibility. I wish that the shadow Leader of the House and her colleagues would stand at the Dispatch Box and take either collective or individual responsibility for the mess they left this country in—for the debt and the six-and-a-half per cent. collapse in the economy. The reduction in GDP was not 0.1% but 6.3%. It was a bust like we had never seen before, after her then leader had promised that there would be no more boom and bust.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
On collective responsibility, paragraph 2.1 of the ministerial code says that the way the Liberal Democrats behaved on the boundary review would have required them to cross the Floor and leave Government unless the Prime Minister had signed an explicit waiver from collective responsibility. How was the House informed of the waiver? Was it by a press release to the BBC or an e-mail to Lobby correspondents, or has a yellow flag been run up over Downing street?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend will recall, because he was in his place, that the House was informed that one of the reasons why I addressed the House from the Dispatch Box on Tuesday was that the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith) spoke on behalf of the Government on the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill. I spoke as Leader of the House in order to facilitate debate and to speak on behalf of my party in circumstances in which the Prime Minister had explicitly set aside collective ministerial responsibility. The House was informed by me then.
Electoral Registration and Administration Bill
Peter Bone Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend makes his point very well. I will come on to the substance of the issue, but if he will forgive me and the House will bear with me, I wish first to make certain that hon. Members understand the structure of the debate and what the implications of each vote might be.
If the motion to disagree with the Lords in their amendment were agreed, we would go on to vote on the Government amendments in lieu, which would have the effect of proceeding with the boundary review without further votes in Parliament. If, however, hon. Members vote against the motion to disagree, the Lords amendments will be held to have been agreed with, and no further votes will take place on this group. There are therefore three potential outcomes: to agree with the Lords; to disagree and put the Bill back as it was when it left this House; or to settle the boundaries review issue now through the amendments in lieu.
I should make it clear to the House that while as Leader of the House I am enabling the debate, I will also set out my view and that of my party. In doing so, I will not be setting out formally the view of the Government, as there is not a settled coalition view. Accordingly, and as happened in the Lords, collective ministerial responsibility has been set aside for this debate.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I do not quite understand what the Leader of the House has said. On 6 September 2010, the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill received its Second Reading, and the Deputy Prime Minister—Nick Clegg, as he is listed in Hansard—voted for it, and Mr Peter Bone voted against it. On Third Reading, on 20 November 2010, Mr Clegg again voted for it and Mr Bone voted against it. Surely it must be the settled view of the Government? It has gone through all its stages: how can it not be the settled view of the Government?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend will recall very well that that Bill was the Government’s view and the Government’s policy, and the House agreed with that Government Bill. The issue is these Lords amendments, and as I told the House, the ministerial code explicitly allows for ministerial responsibility to be set aside in particular circumstances, and it has been set aside in relation to the debate and votes on this particular point.
Sadiq Khan
May I begin by congratulating the Leader of the House on the sheer audacity of his speech? His criticism of the House of Lords is breathtaking. Only six months ago, he and his party were saying that—I paraphrase—the House of Lords was so perfect that it did not need any reform, yet here he is today, arguing that it is so inept and incompetent that it cannot be trusted with this issue, despite all the Lords’ experience and the impartiality that the Conservatives claim comes from being unelected. You really could not make it up.
Sadiq Khan
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Leader of the House is in charge of the timetabling of legislation in Parliament, and that it is for the Government to decide whether to proceed with a Bill. The Government chose to abandon that Bill, not the Opposition. The chairman of the Conservative party has now left the Chamber, but I have never known him to be a scholar of political and constitutional matters. We know why he was here. It is his job to ensure that the largest possible number of Conservative MPs are returned at the next general election. That is why he was here, taking an interest in this matter. It was not because he is interested in political and constitutional reform or because he is trying to reduce the cost of politics.
The House of Lords is a self-regulating Chamber. The Clerk’s advice on the admissibility or otherwise of an amendment is non-binding. By voting in favour of the amendment, the Lords have made clear their view that it is within the scope of the Bill. I am afraid it is hard luck if the Conservative part of this Government does not like that. When it comes to House of Lords reform during this Parliament, the ship has sailed.
Before us today are two groups of amendments made in the other place to the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill. I want to put on record our recognition of the work done by colleagues in the other place, from all parties and none, who spent four days debating, revising and improving the Bill.
John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I rise to ask the House to agree with their lordships in the amendment, and to disagree with the motion to disagree. Let me, however, begin on a note of agreement with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. It is important for us to deal with this matter, and to deal with it today. It is before us now, so let us deal with it.
I want to touch briefly on what I consider to be the three main questions that confront us: the admissibility of the amendment, the substantive issues surrounding it, and what I might euphemistically refer to as the wider issues for the coalition.
Let me start with the question of admissibility. The other place is self-regulating; it is completely different from this House in that regard. Because it is self-regulating, all matters of order reside with the House collectively, not with any individual. The Clerks give advice, and it is given on the understanding, and in the belief, that it will be accepted. That is the convention, but it is a convention, not a rule. The rule is that anything their lordships decide collectively is in order. As they have so decided, that settles the matter as far as order is concerned. If anyone wants to revisit the debate, however, may I suggest they look in particular at the remarks of two Cross Benchers, both of whom served this House well as Speaker? They made very plain their reasons for voting for this amendment.
John Thurso
I am sorry, but, as a matter of fact, I cannot. All sorts of things have happened in their lordships’ House, however, and I can tell Members the last time that the asperity of speech motion was moved. I was there when the late great Lord Conrad Russell moved it, and I do not think it had been moved for 300 years before that.
Bill Wiggin
I am deeply sorry that my hon. Friend will not have the chance to say more this evening. He deserves to.
The economic and other damage left by the Labour party, and the need for equality in votes, shows the greatest good to my county and my country although it may cause me the most harm personally. Putting aside all temptations and fears, my conclusion is that the sacrifice made by the loss of my seat must be worth it for my constituents. They deserve promises to be kept, fairness and justice to be paramount, and for their vote to count as equally as any other. I therefore support the Government and disagree with their lordships.
Mr Bone
I want to make a few brief points. I voted against the original Bill on Second and Third Reading because I wanted to see boundaries equalised but not a reduction in Members. I lost that debate and that vote, and I accept the will of the House. I also accept that Labour Members have been consistent in their views.
I thought today that I would be speaking in support of the Government, but I have since learned that I am speaking in support of Conservatives in the Government, which makes me feel a little better. My problem is very simple. If one reads the debates on Second and Third Reading, the Deputy Prime Minister, who led for the Government on this issue, made sensible remarks about equalising the size of constituencies, with which I thoroughly agree. However, when something is said as a matter of principle—this is where I think politics is brought into disrepute—whether it is about an in/out referendum on the EU or voting against tuition fees, and when a deal is done and a pledge made in coalition that there will be a vote on the alternative vote and in return the boundary review will be supported, that pledge must be kept.
The only honourable thing the Liberal Democrats can do tonight if they do not vote with Conservative Members is resign from the Government and cross the Floor of the House. If they have any principle, any honesty, that is what they must do. I remember when the aspiring new Prime Minister spoke to the Conservative party in the 1922 committee when the coalition came into being. The only issue that the party had to decide on was whether it would allow a vote on AV in return for Liberal Democrat support on boundary reviews. That was the deal. The Conservative party kept to that deal but the Liberal Democrats have gone back on their part of it. They are a disgrace and should be on the Opposition Benches.
Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)
I rise briefly to express my regret on three points. First, I regret that the other place has seen fit to ride through the conventions that have held it secure in its position for many centuries. It has done so on the basis of Members who have gone to that House, precisely—Opposition Members have referred to this—through a packing of the House of Lords under the previous Government. Those Members have then ridden through their conventions in order to place us in this position, with a constitutional change foisted on this democratically elected House.
I also regret that we will not have boundary review until 2018 if we disagree to the motion. That will mean that many Members will not be equal. Mr Speaker, you said in response to an earlier point of order that all hon. Members are equal, but they will not be equal in the representation they bring to the House.
Business of the House
Peter Bone Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I am sure that, from now on, questions and answers will relate exclusively to the business of the House for next week and the provisional business for the following week.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Does the Leader of the House have any views on what will happen in next week’s local government by-elections following the Prime Minister’s speech on Europe? I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend has granted a debate on Europe so that all the party leaders can make their position quite clear—with the Prime Minister saying we want an in/out referendum, the Leader of the Opposition opposed to it and the Liberal Democrats facing both ways.
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend makes a good point. It seems to me that next week’s business, including as it does a general debate on Europe, affords an excellent opportunity for the Foreign Secretary to set out the Government’s position—and in so doing, he may well refer to the Conservative party’s policies for beyond the next election. That should provide a real opportunity for the Conservatives to maximise the Conservative vote at any by-election.
Business of the House
Peter Bone Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that a written ministerial statement was laid before the House this morning—[Interruption.] He says that he wants an oral statement. The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice laid a written ministerial statement that is very full and detailed, and there will, of course, be opportunities in future, for example during Justice questions, for Members to ask questions on that.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
In the past half hour my hon. Friends the Members for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) have all questioned the length of time there will be for discussions on the Bill to equalise marriage, and it seems to me that a Committee of the whole House is the answer. Previously, when the Leader of the House, as shadow Health Secretary, was involved when a conscience issue came before the House, it was considered in a Committee of the whole House, so will he reconsider his position and ensure that the Bill is considered in a Committee of the whole House?
Mr Lansley
I reiterate that in the past conscience issues, including those that have been the subject of free votes by virtue of that fact, have not necessarily been considered by a Committee of the whole House. There is a job to be done in scrutinising legislation, which can sometimes be best achieved in Committee, and all Members have an opportunity to participate in the debate on Report, particularly if sufficient time is available. I am not prejudging the question of the equal marriage Bill at all, as it has not been introduced and I have not announced how we propose the business should be taken forward.
Business of the House
Peter Bone Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
On the first point, we in this House have a responsibility to look after the House staff, and I think we discharge it properly. Speaking as a recent addition to the membership of the House of Commons Commission, I know that it takes that responsibility immensely seriously, and ensures the staff who look after us are employed, and looked after, on the best and most favourable conditions.
The PAC report into the BBC is a matter for the BBC Trust and the BBC itself, not for me or Ministers directly. Such reports are important, however. As I know as a former head of a Department, when the PAC issues reports and recommendations, they must be responded to and taken very seriously.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
May I wish the Leader of the House a happy Christmas—and, as it is Christmas, thank the Whips for looking after us, because that has not been said yet? Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Bill on the redefinition of marriage will have its Second Reading on 28 January, and that there is no truth in the outrageous suggestion that Whips are slipping Members who do not want to support that measure and calling people back from overseas trips who want to support it?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I cannot confirm the timing of business beyond what I have announced to the House, and it is not my place to comment on the characteristics of any whipping operation. However, we have made it clear, as I believe all parties have, that votes on the equal civil marriage Bill will be free votes.