Economy and Jobs

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 29th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I beg to move an amendment, at the end of the Question to add:

“but respectfully regret that the Gracious Speech fails to end austerity in public services, to reverse falling living standards and to make society more equal; further regret that it contains no reference to an energy price cap and call on the Government to legislate for such a cap at the earliest opportunity; call on the Government to commit to a properly resourced industrial strategy to increase infrastructure investment in every nation and region of the UK; recognise that no deal on Brexit is the very worst outcome and therefore call on the Government to negotiate an outcome that prioritises jobs and the economy, delivers the exact same benefits the UK has as a member of the Single Market and the Customs Union, ensures that there is no weakening of cooperation in security and policing, and maintains the existing rights of EU nationals living in the UK and UK nationals living in the EU; believe that those who are richest and large corporations, those with the broadest shoulders, should pay more tax, while more is done to clamp down on tax avoidance and evasion; call for increased funding in public services to expand childcare, scrap tuition fees at universities and colleges and restore Education Maintenance Allowance, maintenance grants and nurses’ bursaries; regret that with inflation rising, living standards are again falling; and call on the Government to end the public sector pay cap and increase the minimum wage to a real living wage of £10 per hour by 2020.”.

As of this year, Mr Speaker, I have been in the House for 20 years, just as you have. Never in all that time have we seen such a threadbare scrap of a document as this Queen’s Speech. But let us be grateful for small mercies: it is a pleasure to note what has not been mentioned in this vacuous notelet. Despite their being promised in the Conservative manifesto, we have had no plans for legislation to end the triple lock, we have heard nothing about legislation to end winter fuel payments, and we have heard no legislative plans for the so-called dementia tax. There is nothing of the policy to take food from the mouths of infants and young primary school children, and even the flagship grammar schools policy seems to have been ditched from the Queen’s Speech. I would therefore like to thank the millions of voters who rejected the Conservatives because they have prevented the Tories from implementing the full cuts that they promised. I thank all those people who called a halt to the barrage of cuts that the Tories were intending to introduce. Regrettably, the Government have instead been reduced to a grubby back-room deal in an attempt to cling on to office.

The result is that we have a Queen’s Speech devoid of content which offers no solutions to the pressing issues facing our country. The Queen’s Speech says:

“My Ministers will strengthen the economy so that it supports the creation of jobs”.

The reality is that we are witnessing, to quote the Governor of the Bank of England, the weakest UK business investment in half a century, and the growth of insecure, low-paid, low-skilled jobs, with nearly 1 million people now on zero-hours contracts.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I am very surprised that the shadow Chancellor talks about jobs, because every single Labour Government in history has left government with higher unemployment than when they came to power. We have lowered unemployment and got more people into work. How can he possibly suggest that it would be better to have Labour?

[John McDonnell]

I would check the hon. Gentleman’s facts, but let me say—[Interruption.] I suggest he goes back to other Labour Governments who increased employment in this country as a result of direct state investment: the Attlee Government in particular, and the Wilson Government.

The issue for many of us is the quality of those jobs. The fact is that we now have people in employment who literally cannot fend off poverty. Two thirds of our children who are living in poverty are in families where people are in work. That is the quality of some of the jobs brought about by this Government.

The Queen’s Speech promises

“to invest in the National Health Service, schools, and other public services”,

but that could not be further from the truth. The reality is that spending per pupil remains set to fall, the jobs of police officers, firefighters, border guards will be cut, and the NHS is “already at breaking point” and has been promised no new money. Those are not our words, but those of the British Medical Association.

In various interviews over the past fortnight, the Chancellor has bemoaned the fact that he was hidden away during the election campaign and that his record on the economy was not the central plank of the Conservative campaign. I agree with him. I wish he had been more to the fore in the campaign, with his record more widely exposed, because if that had been the case, Labour would be in government now.

I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman has been afforded his proper place in history. For those hon. Members who were not in this place 10 years ago, let me explain that prior to 2010 the Chancellor was the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury. In that role, as an ardent neoliberal, he was the architect of austerity. It was he who designed the detailed economic programme rolled out by his mentor, George Osborne, after 2010, and he has been at the heart of every austerity Cabinet throughout this period.

In the Chancellor’s recent Mansion House speech, he referred to his Government’s austerity record as one

“of which we are proud.”

The foundation of the Chancellor’s record is its adherence to neoliberalism and trickle-down economics—a theory that argues that if we cut the taxes for the rich and the corporations, and if we turn a blind eye to tax avoidance and tax evasion, somehow the wealth will trickle down to the rest of society. This Chancellor has certainly cut taxes for the rich and the corporations. Corporation tax, capital gains tax, inheritance tax and the bank levy have all been slashed by this Chancellor. Independent analysis of Office for Budget Responsibility costings demonstrates that the tax cuts introduced by the Conservatives on those four measures alone since 2010 will have cost taxpayers more than £70 billion between last year and the end of this Parliament.

Class 4 National Insurance Contributions

Peter Bone Excerpts

Wednesday 15th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

We have already addressed the concerns of women affected by the change in pension age. Of course I am aware of the residual concerns being expressed by that group of people, and we hear those concerns, but we have addressed the principal issue.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I very much welcome the Chancellor’s statement. In Wellingborough, we had a parliamentary meeting on Saturday morning, when the view on the general principle in the manifesto was mentioned. Will he look to the future, however? He may be able to narrow the difference between the employed and the self-employed by reducing the contribution that the employed make, so will he do that from the Brexit dividend?

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend never misses an opportunity to bring us back to his agenda. I have had suggestions from various parties that the gap between the contributions of the employed and the self-employed could be narrowed by the device of lowering the contributions of the employed. However, 85% of the working population are employed, and any reduction in the contribution of the employed would be a huge fiscal cost and would—in our world—have to be paid for, although the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington may have a different view.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Far be it from me to have to say this to the right hon. Gentleman, but I think that he has raised a notably political point under the elegant cloak of constitutionalism. He does have some experience and dexterity in these matters, and I am therefore not altogether surprised at his ingenuity on this occasion. However, I do not think that it warrants a response from the Chair beyond that which I have offered. His point is on the record.

[Mr Peter Bone]

But not germane. [Laughter.]

[Mr Speaker]

I do not wish to adjudicate upon how relevant it is—

[Mr Bone]

Division?

[Mr Speaker]

But it has been heard, and I do not wish further time to be taken up by a Division of the House. Now we must hear the point of order from Sir Desmond Swayne.

Budget Resolutions

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 9th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

I find it interesting that the response to yesterday’s statement has been anxiety right across the political spectrum. I hope that the Chancellor is listening. I hope that the Labour party and others in the House will combine with some Conservatives who are concerned and that we will force the Chancellor to think again.

The Chancellor says that he is concerned about the gap between different contribution rates. We do not believe that the burden of closing the gap should fall on some of the lowest paid workers, but that is the consequence of yesterday’s decision. The Government are making minicab drivers pay more. They are taxing Uber drivers while at the same time cutting the taxes of Uber itself. A hairdresser earning £15,000 a year will be £137 worse off as a result of yesterday’s measures. That cannot be fair—it just cannot be right.

And, yes, this is a manifesto betrayal. There was a promise in the manifesto and it read like this:

“This means that we can commit to no increases in VAT, Income Tax or National Insurance. Tax rises on working people would harm our economy, reduce living standards and cost jobs.”

That was not me or Labour MPs, but the Tory manifesto. The Government have been trying to muddy the waters by talking about a Bill they brought forward in 2015. That Bill sought to cap class 1 contributions—Labour supported it—but it did not even allude to the idea that any other classes would see increases. To quote the current Chief Secretary to the Treasury speaking in Committee:

“we do not have further proposals other than those that we previously set out”.––[Official Report, National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Public Bill Committee, 27 October 2015; c. 16.]

Some have tried to portray yesterday’s announcement as progressive, but what is progressive about raising taxes for low-paid drivers while the Government go ahead with cuts to capital gains tax for a tiny few? What is progressive about raising taxes for low-paid self-employed cleaners while the wealthiest families in the country get an inheritance tax cut? What is progressive about raising taxes for plumbers while multinational corporations see their tax bills slashed year after year? What is not fair is £70 billion of tax giveaways for the wealthiest and the corporations while taxes are hiked for middle and low earners. Just because the higher paid will pay a bit more, that does not make it right for the Government to clobber those on low incomes to plug a gap in their finances.

Interestingly, the Government have promised a review, but the tax hike is already scheduled. It may be that there is jam tomorrow on benefits, if one chooses to believe the Government, but who would believe them after they have broken a clear manifesto promise? The Government could not have made their interests more clear in hiking taxes for the self-employed while slashing taxes for the corporations. I quote the Federation of Small Businesses:

“Increasing this tax burden, effectively funded by a reduction in corporation tax over the same period, is the wrong way to go”—

I agree.

Meanwhile, the Government’s small, incremental reforms to business rates fall far short of the radical long-term reform that is needed. They are just trying delaying tactics. Business rates are a ticking time bomb that threatens to destroy many of our town centres. To be frank, this is a Government of the giant corporations and tax avoiders. It is not a Government for workers, not a Government for the self-employed and not a Government for small businesses.

Let me turn to the social care system and yesterday’s announcements. Our social care system is in crisis. I have an anecdote about a constituent I visited last week. She is a young woman who looks after her father, who has had seven strokes, and a mother with dementia. She is trying to hold down a job, but cannot get the care. As a result, she has cut her hours, rendering the income into her family and for her own children extremely tight. It is a difficult situation. That one example from my constituency exemplifies what is happening right across the country. People are suffering in that way in virtually every constituency.

According to the King’s Fund, social care needs £2 billion now just to cope with the emergency. The Chancellor failed to grasp the scale of the crisis. The money announced yesterday amounts to less than a third of what is needed. What I resented yesterday was that it had been trailed in the media that £2 billion was coming, but we were not told until the last minute that it would be over three years. That is nowhere near enough to meet the crisis that people are enduring at the moment. There are now more than a million people, mainly older people and frail people, who are desperate for social care but still cannot get it as a result of the failure to address the emergency we are facing.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is, as usual, making a very clever speech. I understand that the Budget debate is a political moment, but does he think that at some time down the road both sides can work together, not on this model but on a new model for social care?

[John McDonnell]

I always respect the hon. Gentleman’s interventions because he seeks to find solutions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bone Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

While I welcome this Government’s commitment to health, may I invite my right hon. Friend to take a leaf out of President Trump’s book and increase defence expenditure by 10%, funded from the bloated overseas aid budget?

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Splendid idea.

[Mr Speaker]

It is quite a naughty idea, not because of its merits or demerits but because it has nothing to do with the Department of Health budget, as the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) is perfectly well aware. However, the Minister is a dextrous fellow and I am sure he can answer in an orderly way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Kirby]

Average earnings growth has now outstripped inflation for 27 consecutive months, and the Office for Budget Responsibility has forecast that real disposable income will be 2.8% higher in 2021 than it was in 2016.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Recent Office for National Statistics figures show that exports have grown and imports have fallen. Is that not good for jobs, the economy, and employment?

[Simon Kirby]

Yes, it is good for jobs, the economy and, indeed, the Scottish whisky industry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Philip Hammond]

The hon. Lady will have to wait and see, but I am well aware of the concerns that the industry is expressing. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary met industry representatives last week and we understand their principal asks.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer give a guarantee to the House that the details of the Budget will be first revealed to this House, and that we will not find out about them in this weekend’s press?

[Mr Hammond]

What I can do is give my hon. Friend a guarantee that I will follow all proper procedures. Unfortunately, I cannot give him a guarantee that that will necessarily lead to the outcome that he seeks.

Business of the House (29 November)

Peter Bone Excerpts

Monday 28th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

We rarely have the opportunity to debate this particular type of motion whereby we are changing the position under Standing Orders, which are here to protect Parliament from the Executive. The Standing Orders clearly say that opposed private business on a Tuesday should start at 4 o’clock and, in effect, run for three hours. The reason is so that the promotors of the Bill, and the people who support it and are interested in it, can know when they should be here. As MPs, we are here all the time. We should not inconvenience the promoters of private Bills, but that is routinely done. Standing Order No. 20 is not being suspended because there is a particular worry about what is going to happen tomorrow; that is happening because the Government routinely do it. If we get into a habit of letting the Government routinely suspend Standing Orders, which are here to protect Parliament, it is a dangerous course to tread.

Will the Deputy Leader of the House tell us why the motion is needed in this case? I have looked at tomorrow’s business, so I know that we could quite happily start with Government business. When we reach 4 o’clock, we could do the opposed private business, after which we could then return to the Government business. What happened time and again under previous Governments was that opposed private business was taken very late at night, which was not fair on the promoters of the Bills in question and was absolutely not the way to proceed. We should not be promoting Government business over the right of Parliament, so I would like the Deputy Leader of the House to tell us why we specifically need to do this in this case.

Claim of Right for Scotland

Peter Bone Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Before I call Patrick Grady to move the motion, may I say that I have not yet had any written requests to speak in this debate? Mr Speaker has asked the Panel of Chairs to remind Members that it is the convention of the House that they should submit in writing to the Speaker’s Office if they want to speak in a debate.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Claim of Right for Scotland.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I know that you are a great champion of grassroots democracy, so I hope that a lot of what I have to say will strike a chord with you. This has not been the most straightforward debate to bring to Westminster Hall. Members who pay close attention to the Order Paper will have noticed that before the recess, it originally appeared in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant). He has the same initials as me, but I clearly have considerably worse handwriting than him—bad enough for even the stellar cryptographers in the Table Office to be stumped.

After sorting that out, the Clerks and Library specialists wanted to know which Claim of Right for Scotland I wanted to debate: the ancient claim dating to 1689, which asserts the right of appeal against perceived judicial injustice; the more modern claim, signed in 1989 as the founding document of the Scottish Constitutional Convention; or the claim adopted by the Scottish Parliament in 2012, in the context of the independence referendum. The answer is not one of those, but all of them—or, more accurately, their central assertion, endorsed in 1989 and 2012, which acknowledges the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs and the obligation on elected representatives that in all our actions and deliberations, the interests of the people of Scotland shall be paramount.

My argument is that the Claim of Right is not, or is no longer, an historical document. It is a concept, and indeed a fundamental principle, that underpins the democracy and constitutional framework of Scotland. It is as relevant today as it has ever been. The economy on the brink of recession; the Government hopelessly divided on Europe; the Labour party in turmoil; a woman Prime Minister in Downing Street; and Scotland living under yet another Conservative Government it did not vote for, pushing through damaging social policies against the will of the vast majority of people and parliamentarians—yes, that was the situation in 1989, when parliamentarians, councillors and church and civil society leaders gathered on the Mound in Edinburgh to sign the claim of right and begin the work of the Scottish Constitutional Convention.

It is an historical fact that Scottish National party members were not present for the signing and did not take part in the convention. The SNP took part in early discussions, but withdrew when it became clear that the convention would not countenance independence. We argued at the time, and might still argue today, that to rule out such an option was to deny a key principle of the claim: the right to choose the best form of government. However, the claim signed in 1989 represented something of a consensus in the country that the democratic deficit experienced throughout the Thatcher years was becoming intolerable, and the convention paved the way for the Parliament that now meets in Holyrood. Today, the First Minister is outlining her programme for government, implementing as best she can with the powers available to that Parliament our vision of a more progressive and socially just Scotland.

The excellent briefing produced by the House of Commons Library for this debate contains an appendix showing the 1989 claim and its list of signatories. Some of the names are familiar: Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling, John McFall, David Steel, Jim Wallace, Archy Kirkwood. Some of those individuals can still be found at Westminster, although they go by slightly different styles and titles and work in another place with little in the way of a democratic mandate.

Another signatory is a constituent of mine, Elspeth Attwooll, a former Liberal Democrat MEP whom I credit for inspiring this debate. Before the European referendum, we both took part in a hustings where she reflected on what it meant to her to have been a signatory to the Claim of Right. It made me think about how far Scotland has come over the nearly 30 years since the claim was signed, and indeed over the years since the referendum on devolution, the 19th anniversary of which we will mark this coming Sunday. We have come far, but we still have much further to go.

The Brexit result is only the most glaring and recent example. Despite all the powers that have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament, Westminster still holds the purse strings. After three Scotland Acts since 1997, 70% of taxes and 85% of welfare spending, two of the most crucial levers of social and economic policy, remain reserved to Westminster. The Scottish Parliament, 58 out of 59 of Scotland’s MPs and local authorities across the country have all voted against the renewal of Trident, but it will still go ahead, less than 40 miles from our biggest population centre. The bedroom tax, welfare cuts, the undermining of energy and climate change policy, the threatened withdrawal from the European convention on human rights and even the removal of a tugboat from the west coast of Scotland are all directly against the will of the people of Scotland, as expressed democratically at the ballot box, yet all of them have been foisted on us by Westminster Governments.

It will undoubtedly be argued that the people of Scotland exercised their sovereignty on 18 September 2014. Some have argued that during those 15 hours when the polls were open, Scotland was truly an independent country: the future of our governance was in the hands of our people and nobody else. Disappointed though many of us were by the result of the referendum, we accept that Scotland voted to remain in the Union. However, voters were told repeatedly during the referendum that a no vote was not a vote for the status quo, and that choosing to stay in the Union would bring about a new relationship in which Scotland would lead the UK, not leave it. A vow was made to deliver something as near to federalism as possible, and a guarantee was given that Scotland would remain a member of the European Union.

As we approach the second anniversary of the referendum, none of those promises have been kept. There might have been a new status quo on the morning of 19 September 2014, but there was also one on the morning of 24 June 2016, when the Union for which people in Scotland voted came to an end. That United Kingdom—a United Kingdom that would remain part of the European Union, guaranteeing people in Scotland freedom of movement for themselves and their goods, capital and services across a continent to which we have always looked and of which we have always seen ourselves as a part—no longer exists. The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union said as much yesterday: Brexit means that the UK will leave the European Union. That is not what people in Scotland voted for, either in 2014 or in 2016. In choosing the form of government best suited to their needs, people in Scotland, on both occasions, chose a form of government that involved continuing membership of the European Union.

That is why the Scottish Government have pledged to work as constructively as possible to protect and defend Scotland’s interests within the Brexit process. I hope that the UK Government will work constructively with the new Scottish Government Minister for UK Negotiations on Scotland’s Place in Europe as they prepare for the article 50 process. The First Minister has appointed a standing council of expert advisers to help explore different options to maintain a relationship between Scotland and Europe that reflects the choice made by people in Scotland in the European referendum.

That is also why the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament must ultimately reserve the right to hold another referendum on independence for Scotland. If it becomes clear that the best or only way for Scotland to remain in the EU is to become an independent member of the EU, we must have the right to make that decision for ourselves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. I think two Back Benchers are trying to catch my eye and I ought to start the wind-ups at half past. Will Members bear that in mind?

--- Later in debate ---

[Deidre Brock]

There were certainly members of the commission who were unhappy. None of the SNP amendments to the Scotland Bill were accepted for consideration until it went through to the unelected House of Lords, which is laughable.

To get back to the issue of respect, politicians, monarchs and bureaucrats need to understand and accept that powers lie with the people we serve, not with us. It is about knowing that the colossus that bestrides the world stage is people power and that those who lead are servants of the people, not masters. That is what the Claim of Right is. It is a declaration that the people are sovereign, as has been mentioned, and that it is in their gift to decide how that sovereignty should be used. Governments and Parliaments rule only with the consent of the people, and they exist only because the people allow them to. That is a reality that politicians forget at their peril.

It is important to note a clear difference between the attitudes struck towards Parliament in Scotland and in England. I understand that that point of difference is also noted in the legal concept of sovereignty in each nation. In England there is a belief in, tradition of, and historical precedent for the absolute sovereignty of Parliament, but there is no such belief in Scotland. The Scots’ attitude, and our constitutional law—which perhaps my learned friends will confirm—is that sovereignty rests with the people. That principle is embedded in the 1320 declaration of Arbroath, in which the King and future kings were warned that if they displeased the people, the people would elect another king—more like a president than a king, I suppose. That principle is embedded in the Claim of Right.

It is not quite right to say that no Conservative has ever acknowledged that principle, because it was acknowledged by the current Chair of the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), when he said in a debate in the House on 22 May 1997:

“The ultimate sovereignty of the Scottish and Welsh peoples is a fact. Whatever the niceties of international law, Scotland and Wales can claim the right of self-determination if that is what they want”.—[Official Report, 22 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 872.]

It took a bit of time from the publication of the Claim of Right to the interim solution—the creation of a devolved Administration—but 10 years is nothing in the great scheme of things, and in the march of nations it is but a blink of an eye. I have to say, though, that the Conservatives have a lot to thank the Claim of Right and Scottish devolution for—they saved their party. In fact, the current Scottish Secretary owes his political career to the Scottish Parliament. There had been few opportunities for Tory politicians in Scotland, even those who had previously been Social Democratic party councillors. The proportional representational element of the Scottish electoral system revived a party that was frankly dying, and which had ironically opposed its creation in the first place. Democracy, properly energised, gives some strange, interesting and unexpected results.

The Claim of Right was democracy in action. It emerged from civic Scotland, the Churches, the trade unions, small business and organisations the length and breadth of the country as a demand to address the democratic deficit that arose from being governed by a Government who could not command support in Scotland. It is interesting to note that John Major’s Government had 14% of the Members representing Scottish seats while the current Government have a bit less than 2%, so there is work still to be done in removing that democratic deficit from Scotland and rendering those of us who are Scots MPs redundant.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. I do not want to rush the hon. Lady, because she has been waiting patiently and was kind enough to write in to request to speak, so we can extend her speech to 3.34 pm and bring the Front-Bench speeches down to eight minutes each.

[Deidre Brock]

You are very kind, Mr Bone.

Independence, in our view, is the logical end point for the journey that the Scottish Constitutional Convention set out on, and it is interesting that the original convention refused to countenance that possibility—there has been some mention of that. I am told that that is why the Scottish National party stepped away from the convention. It was some years before my time in the party, but I am told that the prospect of devolution caused great debate about whether it was good for Scotland, and that the refusal even to discuss independence in the convention was the final straw. My much older and more grizzled colleagues will be able to correct the record if I have misspoken in that respect—they have long and detailed memories.

The Claim of Right, resting on the principle that the people are sovereign and imbued with a notion of changing the form of government to address a democratic deficit, has an increased resonance now. In June, the UK voted to leave the EU. Scotland did not. Some 52% of UK voters voted leave, and 62% of Scottish voters voted remain—untimely ripped from the European Union were we. The democratic deficit remains stark, real and unrelenting. The conditions that necessitated the Claim of Right and the creation of the devolved Administration and Parliament in Edinburgh remain.

There is but one answer that will address that deficit and Scotland’s needs; one simple, elegant solution—the dissolution of the UK, Scottish independence and the creation of good neighbours as separate nations. No one has the right to fix the boundary to the march of a nation. No one can tell a country, “This far and no further”. The ultimate sovereignty of the Scottish and Welsh peoples is a fact. Scotland’s march goes on, and independence beckons.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

I remind the Front-Bench speakers that they will now have a maximum of eight minutes each, and I remind the Minister that under the new procedure he should allow at least two minutes for the proposer of the motion to sum up. I call Patrick Grady—I am sorry, Peter Grant.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bone Excerpts

Wednesday 9th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

An important report was published today showing that the TV debates at the general election were a great success, engaging people who are not normally interested in politics, particularly young people. Will the acting Prime Minister—I know he might have a personal interest in this matter—encourage TV debates at the next general election?

[Mr Osborne]

The TV debates are decided in discussions between the political parties and the broadcasters. I think that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did exceptionally well in them last time.

Points of Order

Peter Bone Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is ever helpful, and that is appreciated. It is not really a matter for my office to engage or collaborate with the Government on the subject of the allocation of time—that is something for the Government to come to a view about and for the House either to agree to or not, as the case may be. However, I heard what he said about the likely level of interest in contributing and I can say that my door is always open, as is that of the outer office in the Speaker’s Office, as colleagues will know. There is no secret about the number of people putting in to speak. As colleagues will know, the Leader of the House and I speak regularly, as do the Government Chief Whip and I, and the same is true for the shadow Leader of the House and the Opposition Chief Whip. Of course I am happy to keep them informed, along with any Member who asks me how many people have put in to speak.

The shadow Leader of the House said that the Leader of the House was a servant of the House. I am a servant of the House, too, and I intend to be in the Chair tomorrow, very fully, to chair the debate. I would be happy, if the House willed it, to sit up all night in the Chair to hear colleagues—it is a pleasure and it is my responsibility—but how much time is allocated is not a matter for me. The Leader of the House will have heard that there is some interest in having the maximum possible time allocated for this important purpose.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Item 6 on today’s Order Paper relates to the sitting of the House on 2 December, and we can talk all night on it, if necessary, in order to reach a conclusion. What I cannot find on the Order Paper is the extension of the moment of interruption, which has been referred to as and almost assumed to be 10 pm tomorrow. I assume the Leader of the House will table a motion tomorrow morning dealing with when the moment of interruption will occur. If that is the process, the Leader of the House has until tomorrow morning to make up his mind whether it is until 10 pm or 11.30 pm. Alternatively, does the motion have to be tabled tonight and, if so, could you advise the House as to whether it is amendable?

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer is that it does have to be tabled by the close of business tonight and, yes, that motion will be amendable. I hope that is helpful.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bone Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

As I have said, investment in renewables will double over the next five years, and much of that investment will go into Scotland—[Interruption.] Look, the Scottish nationalists have a choice now. They have got some extra money and increased capital spending, and if they want to invest in carbon capture and storage in Scotland they can do so. It is called devolution.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Every three weeks, British taxpayers send more than £1 billion to Brussels. If the British people vote to come out of the EU, can the excellent Chancellor tell us how much earlier we would eliminate the deficit?

[Mr Osborne]

I will not get into the debate about our membership of the European Union, but what I would say is that—thanks to the hard negotiating of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—we have cut the EU budget.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bone Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

The Government remain committed to the Barnett formula and to delivering all aspects of the Smith agreement during the fiscal framework, and in the Scotland Bill that is currently before this House.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Will the excellent Minister think again on that answer, because my constituents have £2,000 less per person on public expenditure than constituents in Scotland and we pay the same taxes? How can that be fair?

[Greg Hands]

It is worth noting that the Barnett formula will continue, but diminish in importance. For the first time, more than half the Scottish Government’s budget will come from Scottish taxpayers rather than a grant from the UK Government. That will add extra accountability to the Scottish Government.