Council of Europe

Peter Bone Excerpts

Monday 16th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

No, indeed. They seem to be completely incorruptible and their behaviour impeccable, and they have represented this House well on that parliamentary body, whose job is to hold the 47 Governments to account.

By supporting the motion this evening, the House will be able to tell the Government that the way forward is not for the Government to seek to exercise ever more control through patronage, but to win political arguments through persuasion. We have a great ally in this. The House will be endorsing the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) who, as Leader of the Opposition in 2009, gave a speech called “Fixing Broken Politics”, in which he correctly said:

“If we’re serious about redistributing power from the powerful to the powerless, it’s time to strengthen Parliament so it can properly hold the government to account on behalf of voters.”

He specifically said:

“MPs should be more independent - so Select Committee Chairmen and members should be elected by backbenchers, not appointed by Whips.”

Very pertinent to today’s debate, he called for

“Parliament to be a real engine of accountability . . . not just the creature of the executive.”

If it is good enough for the Prime Minister, it is good enough for the rest of us.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

When my right hon. Friend introduced the motion, he mentioned all the eminent people who had signed it. He forgot to mention a former Secretary of State who is proposing the motion. Will he confirm that the Conservative party manifesto that we all stood on said that we would increase parliamentary reform in this Session?

[Mr Paterson]

Indeed. We all stood on that platform, so we are at one with the Prime Minister in his 2009 speech.

This is unfinished business. It is right that the Executive do not appoint members or Chairmen of Select Committees. It is right that we vote today that this House should appoint its representatives to the body that represents 47 Parliaments, holding 47 Governments to account.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I rise to speak as a member of the Council of Europe.

Many people may think it strange that we are having this discussion in the long shadow of the atrocities that we witnessed over the weekend. They might think that it looks like self-indulgent navel-gazing and that we should be talking about the clash between liberty and security, and how to have more light and love and less hatred and darkness. However, if we think of the history of the Council of Europe, which was born out of the clash of steel and fire of the second world war to champion democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and to spread its wings across a map of 47 nations, it is right that we think again about who we select, how we select, and what we are allowed to say.

Against the backcloth of what we find ourselves in, this may be regarded as a very trivial thing, but it is about whether the Government should be allowed to choose or exclude members of the Council of Europe on the basis of how they are whipped in a vote, whatever it may be. With regard to the Members who have been isolated in this way, I do not agree with what they say on a variety of issues, but I agree with their right to say it—or, should I say, their right to be wrong. Unlike some of the Members involved, I am very much a pro-European. I will be voting and campaigning for Britain to stay in Europe because I think that is in all our interests, while some Members are sceptical or anti-European, but that is not really the point. The argument about requiring the Government not to have a voice during the referendum—indeed, at a point where we may have the presidency of the European Union—may seem absurd to many, but this is about free speech and the right to be, in my view, wrong. Obviously other Members put forward their arguments with great sincerity and believe them to be true.

The issue is whether people who feel strongly about something and are willing to put that forward in what they say and vote for should be punished by the Government in order, in essence, to filter the people who are allowed to go the Council of Europe to talk about human rights, democracy and the rule of law so that they are just yes women and men for the Government of the time.

[Mr Bone]

If the hon. Gentleman did something domestically that the Labour party did not like, it could not remove him from his position. Is that not the crux of the matter? We need to have elected representatives in the Council of Europe, and once elected they must do what they think is right and not be looking over their shoulders.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), who has expressed exactly why this debate is so important and who has consistently put Parliament first.

I have come across the Council of Europe on only two occasions. One was early on when the deputy Chief Whip said to me, “Peter, we’d rather like you to go to the Council of Europe.” Then I found out why: it was not because I would be a star on the Council of Europe, but because I would be sent away from this House and not be aggravating the Whips. May I suggest that some of the Members who have now been removed were put there for that reason?

The principle is not the fact that three Members, who would by convention have been reappointed, have now been removed. That is not the reason why I am supporting the amendment so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady)—not the original motion, although my name appears on it. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) that, in practical terms, if the main motion were passed it would be difficult to get our delegation in place quickly enough, and there would be a gap. That is why we should all support our amendment.

The amendment is a sensible compromise—we would get our delegation appointed tomorrow, effectively, because Mr Speaker has said that he wants to know the will of the House before submitting the names, and then we would have elections next year. That would solve the problem.

I return to the simple point that we are talking about the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. It is not the Ministers who sit on it: it is parliamentarians. It represents this House, so this House must choose. The delegation should not be appointed by the Executive. This is clearly House business and not party political. I am sure that when we vote the Government will do what they have done with so many Backbench business motions and ask the payroll vote to abstain, letting Members who are not part of the Executive express their view on what is clearly a House matter.

[Mr Graham Brady]

Given that my hon. Friend has kindly indicated that he is transferring his support from the main motion to amendment (b), does he share my concern that the Minister only advanced reasons not to support the main motion? I have yet to hear an argument, from those on the Front Bench or elsewhere, why amendment (b) would be a problem.

[Mr Bone]

I am grateful for that intervention. The Minister rightly explained why the original motion would not work, but she did not want to express an opinion on the amendment because it is not something on which the Government should express an opinion. They will stay out of it and let Members, especially Conservatives, make up their own minds.

I pay tribute to the Council of Europe. When I was chairman of the all-party parliamentary group against human trafficking, it was not the European Union promoting reform: it was the Council of Europe. The original convention on the rights of people against human trafficking was a Council of Europe convention, representing 47 countries. I remember arguing from the Opposition Benches that the then Labour Government should ratify it.

This is not a minor matter: it is important. It is about parliamentary democracy, and is in line with what the Prime Minister said so eloquently in his fixing politics speech. The amendment is also in line with my party’s manifesto and, more importantly, supporting it is the right thing to do.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 5th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

Devolution deals are very much worth the paper that they are written on. It is our intention to move powers away from Whitehall. On the buses front, that matter is subject to debate, discussion and planning in the Department for Transport. Clearly, when we are ready to make further announcements, we will do so.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Page 49 of the Conservative party manifesto for 2015 says:

“We have improved the operation of Parliament, strengthening its ability to hold the Government to account, with reforms such as the election of Select Committee chairs”.

It also says in very bold print: “We will reform Parliament”. Will the Leader of the House provide at least a written statement next week on all the reforms he proposes for Parliament?

[Chris Grayling]

I will certainly consider my hon. Friend’s request, but I would say to him that I tend to want to wait for Committees—such as the Procedure Committee, which I know is considering a number of different options at the moment—to bring forward proposals, so that anything we do in Parliament is driven not by the Government, but by Parliament itself. A number of Committees are looking at making recommendations about the way Parliament works, and I look forward with interest to seeing what they suggest.

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe

Peter Bone Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Gentleman says that he rarely agrees with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). This is a rare occasion when I disagree with my hon. Friend.

I am sure the shadow Leader of the House recognises that this is the same process that has happened in the past five years. He will be aware that decisions are taken through the usual channels and approved by party leaders. I am not aware that his party leader has objected to the way in which the delegation was proposed.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I have a letter from the Ukrainian delegation to the Council of Europe to the Prime Minister on behalf of Georgia, Moldova, Poland and the Baltic states. It states:

“In international politics, it all too often comes down to personal trust and leadership shown in difficult circumstances. Mr Christopher Chope is such a man who has earned our trust and whose leadership deserves our highest esteem.”

The most important bit is this:

“It would be utterly regrettable if because of his absence during the coming crucial months the Russian Delegation would manage to have its credentials restored”.

I do not understand why the Leader of the House has not come to the Chamber. I suggest that the Deputy Leader of the House reconsiders the position and delays the submission of the names. The current situation is utterly undemocratic and utterly wrong. I am afraid to say that the Prime Minister should be ashamed of himself.

[Dr Coffey]

My hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to our hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) for his work on the Council of Europe, but I put to him again the fact that, as happened five years ago, there are new people on the Council of Europe. As a consequence, I do not believe that changes in the new delegation are unreasonable.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

Given that the ultimate owner of the ministerial code is the Prime Minister and he is here before the House for questions every week, there will be plenty of opportunity to ask him that if the hon. Lady wishes to do so.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

On page 29 of today’s Order Paper there is a motion about the UK delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Unusually, it goes on to page 30, because it is signed by 58 right hon. and hon. Members from all the major political parties. It commends the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who has spent years there. He was elected as chairman of the European Conservative group. Will the Leader of the House not only welcome this motion, but put it on next week’s Order Paper? As there is no House business committee, we rely on the Government to bring forward this excellent motion. Will he welcome it and bring it forward?

Commons Financial Privilege

Peter Bone Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

Let us be clear to the House—this is a very simple matter—that tax credits are officially categorised as a benefits matter and not a tax matter. If one puts a change to tax credits into a Finance Bill, that Bill will not necessarily be certified as a money Bill. That is the state of play and the reality of what we are dealing with. That is why the tax credits measures were not in a Finance Bill.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Has not the Leader of the House just said why the Lords were entitled to amend the statutory instrument? They did not reject it but delayed it because it clearly was not a tax measure. If it had been a tax measure, we would have put it in the Finance Bill. We are seeing a knee-jerk reaction to the House of Lords doing what it is supposed to do. I am all for a review, but let us have a proper review and take our time over it. Will my right hon. Friend reflect on that and announce more than just Lord Strathclyde heading a review?

[Chris Grayling]

It is absolutely essential that we do not rush this. We have said that there will be a panel of people working with Lord Strathclyde. Their names will be announced in due course, but I remind my hon. Friend that a statutory instrument has been rejected by the House of Lords in that way only five times in the past century. This is the first time that it has happened to a specifically budgetary measure. That is the important change.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Does the Minister welcome the National Football League establishing three international games at Wembley this year, and would she welcome a franchise based in London?

[Tracey Crouch]

As a fan of American football—the Green Bay Packers are doing incredibly well at the moment in the NFL—I welcome more American football, and I look forward to seeing more games here in London.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

As I explained at length in the Westminster Hall debate last week, one of our predecessors, the noble Lord Lansley set our four tests. We have yet to receive a recommendation or create a proposal that can pass the four tests that we believe necessary for the creation of a House business committee.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I will take that as a no—that the Minister will not bring forward a motion on this matter. The Backbench Business Committee, however, has put down such a motion and Members will have the opportunity in a week’s time to vote on whether they want to discuss proposals for a House business committee. Does the Minister agree that that is an excellent way forward?

[Dr Coffey]

My hon. Friend is a member of the Backbench Business Committee, and I know he has an interest in this issue. He displayed his knowledge of Standing Orders in Westminster Hall last week, and I believe he advised the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) to contest the decision. Of course, that situation has arisen in this Session because we used to adjourn in Westminster Hall but it now considers motions. The Backbench Business Committee has decided that this is a good use of parliamentary time next Thursday—it is a judgment that it has made.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I am rather surprised. The hon. Gentleman claims to know all about the procedures of this House, and he will know that at Business questions each week the Leader of the House gives the business for the following two weeks. That is the way it is today and it is the way it will continue to be. He will have to wait for the business to be announced when we come to that point, and I will make a point of announcing that when the time is right.

I have always had high regard for the hon. Gentleman as someone who knows the House of Commons procedures, but once again he seems be getting it wrong today. He is asking me for answers to questions of detail about ministerial responsibilities. This is a session for asking about future business, so when he asks me about numbers of asylum seekers or details of the Prime Minister’s knowledge about issues, I understand that he wants to ask the questions, but he needs to go to the relevant departmental questions and raise those matters himself. Today is about the future business of the House and I will be delighted to answer questions about the future business in this House. I just cannot help him. If the Clerks can spend a little time with him giving him a refresher course, perhaps next week we will not see quite such a lack of understanding of parliamentary process.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I had the pleasure of working with Michael Meacher in Parliament First. He was a great parliamentarian and he always wanted to put the House first. In that regard, what is my right hon. Friend’s view of the motion to be voted on roughly this time next week about establishing a business of the House committee? Would he regard it as House business on which there should be no whipping on the Government side?

[Chris Grayling]

I know how strongly my hon. Friend feels about this and how expert he is at working at parliamentary procedure. Perhaps he might like to give the shadow Leader of the House a lesson afterwards. It might be helpful to the hon. Gentleman. I am going to have to make my hon. Friend wait for a few days. I will give the matter careful consideration. Whipping is not a matter for me—it is for the Chief Whip, and I am sure he will make that point as well. I do understand the point he makes.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am looking to conclude business questions by 11.45, so if we are to accommodate everyone, we must have very short questions and answers.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

At 4.25 pm yesterday in Westminster Hall, a unique event took place. For the first time, a question in Westminster Hall was not agreed to. Under subsection (13) of Standing Order No. 10, a motion should be brought to the House in those circumstances so that the House can then vote on it without further debate. I listened carefully when the Leader of the House announced the business for next week, but I did not hear him mention any such motion. Was that an omission that he would like to correct now?

[Chris Grayling]

I am aware of what took place yesterday, and I will be happy to discuss the matter with the Clerks and to write to my hon. Friend.

House Business Committee

Peter Bone Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the creation of a House Business Committee.

Welcome to the Chair, Mr Pritchard. It would probably be hard to think of anything more technical, boring or dry than a House Business Committee—that is what people would like you to think. But it is actually the heart of political power in respect of Parliament’s relationship to Government. It is amazing that in this day and age, at least 200 years since Montesquieu wrote “The Spirit of Laws”, which talked about the separation of powers, the good old United Kingdom still does not have a written settlement. It does not have something that we can all refer to so that we know what Parliament does, what Government do and what the judiciary does, and that keeps them separate.

The lesson learned at great cost in the French revolution, and enacted with some blood in the American revolution, has bypassed the United Kingdom. We still have a system that Charles I would recognise, in which the Executive have supreme control and what they say goes—only Charles I would see that instead of a monarch, we have a Government. They are benign, because we live in a democratic culture, and people are normally very nice to each other and quite polite. The reality, however, is that power is exercised by Government over Parliament, rather than Government seeing Parliament as a partner. That makes our system dysfunctional and incapable of providing a serious process of reconciliation or holding to account.

[Mike Gapes in the Chair]

Of course, many people have vested interests in keeping the system exactly the way it is. I put it to the Government, at both ministerial and official level, that that is an immature way of viewing our politics. It weakens our politics and our governance, particularly in this day and age when people are so turned off by politics in general. This is a moment where we can win people back, and say, “You know what? We are going to listen to people. We do not always want to do what they tell us, but we will listen to them and their elected representatives because that is part of the warp and weft of our democracy.”

By doing that, we could bring people together and command greater consensus on our decision making. The decision-making process would be less arbitrary and much stronger if we had that level of maturity in our politics—if the Government did not cynically laugh up their sleeve and say, “We are going to ram this through if we possibly can, come what may, despite what people think,” rather than, “I wonder whether any of these people in Parliament who are not in government have a contribution to make. Shall we listen on the off-chance that they have?”

Perhaps if we had a proper Report stage in the House of Commons, we could find a way of making better law. Perhaps it would save us time, because we would not have to come back to things, as we infamously did on, I think, five occasions during one Parliament on a criminal justice Bill. If we listened to people, we would not have to swallow, give in or U-turn, but we could distinguish the good from the bad and help to make our system better. Doing so would make our politics and our democracy stronger, and it would certainly make our Parliament and governmental relationship stronger.

That is not the way we have chosen to do things so far, however. The Wright Committee suggested that we should have a House Business Committee. Why would we want such a thing? It would bring to the table Parliament and the respective Whips. In addition to those who work for the Government and the alternative Government, it would bring to the table some people from the institution—perhaps the leader of the 1922 committee, the chair of the parliamentary Labour party, a couple of people elected from the Back Benches, someone from a minority party and a nominee of the Speaker. The committee could have a majority from the Government so that, having heard all the voices, the Government could still, if they wanted, ram through whatever they felt was convenient to their long-term interest, whoever was in power.

We would not lose a lot by having such a meeting once a week, and we would risk gaining an incredible amount. For instance, the 90 minutes allocated for the debate in the main Chamber tonight, which everybody seems to feel is incredibly important, on whether there should be a legally binding obligation on deficit reduction could be extended. We could use parliamentary time more effectively. Perhaps, Mr Gapes, someone of your distinguished history on that committee might say, “We are going to clear off early if we possibly can on Tuesday, and we will have only four people in the Chamber. Why don’t we use that time effectively to discuss important issues?” It would not be necessary to find a clerkly device to wangle one’s way on to the agenda and squeak in a few words to heckle the Executive steamroller; instead, we could have a proper debate on refugees, on the Redcar steelworks or on tax credits. We have just had such a debate in Westminster Hall, which is a well-attended but none the less secluded venue for something so important.

I do not raise this matter—yet again—in anger; I raise it in frustration at the fact that our governance is such that we would rather keep control than find a sensible way to conduct a modern and mature democracy.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Can the hon. Gentleman explain to me why in May 2009, the Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, made a powerful speech about fixing broken politics, in which he said that there should be a business of the House committee; why he committed in the coalition agreement to establishing such a committee within three years of the Parliament; and why it never actually happened? What evil forces behind the scenes are stopping this?

[Mr Allen]

I do not believe that there are any evil forces. There is a desire when in government not to be bothered with explaining things any more than one has to. Governments want to get on and do business. There is a feeling that parliamentarians can be treated with contempt, because Parliament is a holding pen for the sheep who will troop through the Lobby to enact measures that have been in a manifesto or on the Government’s agenda, and that is the way things are done. I do not think that people are evil, unpleasant or malicious; I think that they are simply missing an opportunity.

I want to mention the two most powerful people in the House of Commons: Roy Stone, the principal private secretary to the Chief Whip, and Mike Winter, the head of the Office of the Leader of the House. They are decent civil servants, but they could be told by an incoming Prime Minister, “This is simply not good enough. We are a laughing stock compared with other legislatures.”

We are elected on election day and the electorate give us legitimacy, which is sucked out of us by a Government who have no legitimacy of their own. They are not directly elected, so they have to get legitimacy from somewhere. It is rather like a scene from a science fiction film in which people are tied to a wall and pipes attached to their veins, so that they can give sustenance to a beast that sucks their blood. Government suck out the legitimacy that the electorate give to Parliament and leave us a shell, and we are the worse for it. Government stride off, pumped up with the legitimacy that is rightfully Parliament’s, because they have none of their own.

I do not blame any of the civil servants or incumbent Ministers, because that has been a feature of governance in this country—this includes Labour Governments and Labour Prime Ministers—for as long as I have been in Parliament. I am simply trying to put on the table yet again the fact that there is a better way of doing things, as a result of which we would not be held so much in contempt. If the Government involved Parliament and listened to people, they would act as a symbol to people out there that we are doing things in a different way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bone]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and not reading her prepared speech. The situation is that this was in the coalition agreement—the bible of the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg) and the Prime Minister. How on earth could it have got in the bible if it had not been thought through and agreed? I do not think that my hon. Friend’s speech is career enhancing if she is going against what the Prime Minister wants.

[Dr Coffey]

I am so pleased that my hon. Friend is interested in the future of my career. At the time, the noble Lord Lansley said that, yes, it had been in the coalition agreement but that he feared he would not be able to effect it because he had not been able to find a model that satisfied those tests. The tests are still valid. Could such a Committee co-ordinate the business of the House of Lords? How would a weekly meeting react to fast-changing events and the need to change business at short notice? How could it represent all Back Benchers without becoming unwieldy in size?

The current system gives every Back Bencher a weekly opportunity to hold the Leader of the House to account for the proposed business, to question him on that business and to make requests for future business. The previous coalition Government gave evidence to the PCRC on the large amount of consultation that had been undertaken and on the diversity of views that had been expressed, none of which fulfilled the tests or looked capable of securing consensus.

I remind Members of the positive reforms and developments in the last Parliament, which should be rightly celebrated. A PCRC report in the last Parliament considered the impact of reform and welcomed the progress that had been made since 2009—indeed, we voted for most of the reforms in 2010. The PCRC stated:

“There have been clear advances in the effectiveness of Commons select committees… The Backbench Business Committee has been a success and we welcome the good working relationships which it has established with the business managers”.

We should also consider our recent experience of scrutinising legislation. There have been an increased number of multi-day Report stages—there were 25 in the 2010 to 2015 Parliament, compared with 11 in the previous Parliament. There has been increased use of pre-legislative scrutiny, with 17 measures in the last Session being published in draft. We have allocated more time for scrutiny, but four in five Public Bill Committees, 83%, finished early last year, which is more than in the previous year. We have also implemented explanatory statements on amendments.

The House and the Government have not rested on their laurels. Ten of the reforms highlighted by the 2009 House of Commons Reform Committee report related to better engagement with the public. I am pleased that, following collaborative work between the Procedure Committee and the Government, this House agreed to a joint system of e-petitions, thereby meeting the public’s expectation to be able to petition their Parliament and to seek action from their Government in response. The Petitions Committee created in this Parliament as part of the joint package fulfils that expectation. Two debates have been organised by the Committee, including one on Monday led by the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), which attracted wide attention.

I am disappointed by the reference of the hon. Member for Nottingham North—dare I say it?—to colleagues being lifeless clones who are just part of the machine. He referred to executive power, and he needs no reminder that the Executive are part of this House. This place may be unusual, although not rare, in not having a separate Executive and legislature, but I do not believe that this is a weak Parliament, far from it. Parliament does hold the Government to account. He referred to legislation being rammed through but, despite what people think, my party has a mandate from winning the election. Nevertheless, it has not been my experience, either as a Back Bencher or as a Minister, that the Government ignore other people; in fact, I find that the Government have listened to people’s views. Debates have been extended and Bills have been amended in Committee and on Report to reflect discussions with other MPs. That is mature politics, unlike what was suggested earlier.

There has already been a large amount of scrutiny on the subject of tonight’s debate, but I am pleased that we are debating it once again. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will decide whether some of his colleagues are mindlessly walking through one Lobby or another. The result will be interesting.

I hope that I have addressed the points about the coalition agreement by simply reiterating what the noble Lord Lansley has previously said to the House, but I recognise that the hon. Gentleman will still be disappointed. I conclude by assuring him, and other Members present, that we will continue to work constructively and positively with the relevant Committees and others on both sides of the House. Ultimately, we are all parliamentarians, and we all fought an election to get here. We are all proud of that and want Parliament to work, but we need to do something feasible that allows scrutiny while allowing the Government to enact their legislative agenda.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

We have a big event next May, and it is very much my hope that a Conservative MSP will represent the hon. Lady’s constituency after the elections. It is therefore indeed my intention between now and next May to spend some time visiting Scotland, but not necessarily with a purpose she will find terribly congenial. I am very happy to talk to her constituents, but mostly to get them to vote Conservative.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I welcome the new shadow Leader to his post. He made a good point about lack of time for debate. It is very frustrating for Back Benchers when we are waiting to speak and the time limit has to be reduced. That point has also been made by SNP Members. Surely, in this new Parliament, we should look again at having a business of the House committee. It would not be the Government deciding timing; it would be an independent committee, and Members would at least be satisfied that their concerns were being looked at. May we have a motion on the Order Paper creating a business of the House committee and allowing a free vote by MPs to see whether the will of Parliament is for such a committee?

[Chris Grayling]

I know how strongly my hon. Friend feels about this issue. There will shortly be a debate on it, but I simply say to him that more than half the allocated time in this House is already beyond the control of Government—the Opposition days, the private Members’ Bill days, and Backbench Business Committee days. We already allocate more time than most other Parliaments to the will of Parliament, but the Government also have to timetable and get through their own business.