Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I completely sympathise with the hon. Gentleman’s desire to raise this issue here in the House. We have a full debate on Tuesday on the centenary of the Armistice. That would be an appropriate time to raise the issue of ships lost during the second world war; I am sure that would be in order and he can raise his questions directly then.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

This week, the National Football League has announced four regular season games to be played here next year—two at Wembley and two at Tottenham Hotspur’s ground. Could we have a statement next week from the Government on the development of American football in this country?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am thrilled to hear about this exciting, new and no doubt televisual opportunity. My hon. Friend will be aware that we have just had Digital, Culture, Media and Sport questions, and if he wants to raise it further, he should perhaps do so through a parliamentary question to Ministers.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am very sorry to hear about the death of the hon. Lady’s constituent. All too often, the rise in serious violence, particularly in knife crime, has had terrible consequences for too many people, especially young people. We are determined to tackle this issue, which is why we have introduced a new £40 million serious violence strategy that will help to tackle the changing nature of crime, and we are giving extra powers to the police to tackle knife crime through the Offensive Weapons Bill. We want to reach a place where every member of the public is served by a force that is rated at least good. Currently, nearly a third of forces are not, so standards do need to be raised and be more consistent to keep our communities safe.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Yesterday, the loan charge action group lobbied Parliament. It represent 100,000 families, including those of nurses, doctors, teachers, social workers and contractors. Retrospective taxation by this Government going back 20 years means that many of these families will lose their home and be forced into bankruptcy and, I am afraid, some will commit suicide. That cannot have been the intention of the Government. May we have a statement from the Financial Secretary next week so that we can ask him questions about something that I am sure the Government did not intend to happen?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I was aware yesterday of a lobby here in Parliament of those affected by the loan charge issue. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise it. I encourage him to seek an opportunity to raise it during the Budget debate next week where Treasury Ministers will be available, or indeed on 6 November in Treasury questions.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am very sympathetic to the hon. Lady’s request for a debate. It would be very well suited to an Adjournment debate, and she might be able to achieve that sooner than a debate in Government time. She raises an incredibly important issue.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I agree entirely with the comments of the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) about what happened to an hon. Member’s family yesterday. Most Members of this House will have had death threats. I have certainly had death threats, I have been attacked and our home has been attacked, but when it is the family—there have been threats against my former wife and our children.

The thing I am now prepared to say that I was not prepared to say a few years ago is that, when my son was about 12, the police rang me one day and said, “Where is your son?” I answered, “Well, I think he is at school,” and they said, “Can you check?” There was a social media post claiming to be the execution of my son, which obviously we did not bring to people’s attention at the time. Things have got worse and worse, and I doubt there is a single Member of this House who has not had something like that.

Can we have a statement, a genuine statement, when we get back about what we are going to do about this?

[Andrea Leadsom]

That is a truly horrible story, and I am sure all hon. Members will be completely disgusted by that account. I am also not surprised that my hon. Friend did not raise it at the time because, of course, it would simply have encouraged further such behaviour. No doubt he will find that that is the case today. The level of abuse that Members of Parliament and others in public life receive is extraordinary, and he is right that this is incredibly serious. I have a meeting with the Chairman of Ways and Means and the director of security when we return to look at what more can be done, but I am very sympathetic to my hon. Friend’s suggestion of a statement.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 6th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The Boundary Commission has reported to the Government on parliamentary constituencies, but that has not been reported to this House. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made next week about the publication of the proposed new parliamentary boundaries and when we will vote on them? Is the delay because the Government think they will not have a majority for the new proposal? I for one will not be voting for it.

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend is right; the boundary commissions submitted their final reports to Ministers on 5 September. We are required to lay the reports before Parliament once received, and we will do so promptly. As each report will be an Act paper, they can be laid before Parliament only when both Houses are sitting. Once the reports have been laid before Parliament we will make them publicly available, which we expect will be on Monday 10 September.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 19th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I thank the hon. Lady for her very warm words about Nelson Mandela. She is exactly right to pay tribute to him. He did so much in the whole area of truth and reconciliation, and on the importance of peace instead of continuing to wage war against each other. He was so right and he will always be remembered for that.

The hon. Lady mentions Monday’s debate on strengthening the Union. There was some discussion yesterday about having the proxy voting debate on Monday. I genuinely feel that it is important we have that debate, so that issues can be raised: potential unintended consequences, and the very key points about when a proxy vote should be used and who it should be used by. I am very keen that all Members get the chance to do that and I am aware that many Members would not be here to take part in the debate if it were on Monday. I hope she accepts that. I will be bringing it forward as soon as possible.

I will look into ministerial responsibilities. I think the hon. Lady means for July 2018, not June 2018.

The hon. Lady also had a question about the Shadow Sponsor Body. We discussed this at House Commission. We are delighted that we do now have the Shadow Sponsor Body in place for the restoration and renewal of the Palace. It is of course right that there are four Lords Members of the Shadow Sponsor Body to only three Commons Members. As she will be aware, it was agreed that the Commons Commission would write to the Lords Commission suggesting that when the body is set up in statute that will be reviewed. She asks when the legislation will come forward. I can tell her that it has been agreed that we will bring forward a draft Bill, through joint scrutiny by both Houses, in the autumn. It is in draft form already. I have been working on it very carefully with the parliamentary counsel over the past few weeks.

I join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to the hon. Members for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) and for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and all those, including the shadow Leader of the House, who have worked so hard on this new complaints procedure. Today, Parliament can be proud; we are tackling our challenges and shortcomings and we want to be leading the world in treating everyone with dignity and respect. Following the debate later today, we will be turning to a new chapter, and I look forward to that.

The hon. Lady asks about the White Paper on the withdrawal agreement, and she will know that that will come forward in due course. We are not quite at the point of the withdrawal arrangements being finalised. It was very important that the Prime Minister’s White Paper following the Chequers agreement was brought forward. My views on that are on the record: I believe that it continues to uphold the will of the people.

The hon. Lady asks about voting on Opposition day motions. As I have made clear, we will continue to support the Standing Orders for Opposition days, and when the House does not divide and a motion is passed, the Government will come forward with very specific actions to be taken as a result of a motion passed by this House.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I, too, thank everyone who makes this Parliament work, and that relates to the question I would like to put to the Leader of the House. This House relies much on tradition and trust, and a number of things have happened recently that have disturbed me. I was quite ill when we were voting on the EU withdrawal Bill, and there were a lot of votes. I came in to vote and after a number of votes, the Labour Whips agreed to nod me through. That courtesy should be extended to everyone, and I do not think that happened recently. I am very concerned to hear that a pairing was broken, and I am very concerned that we tried to end Parliament two days early, which I think was for party political reasons. May we have a statement from the Leader of the House when we come back, or early next week, on this place and the fact that we must uphold the rights of this House and not hide behind small print because, otherwise, this place will not work?

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend is of course right to raise any concerns that he has, and I will always be happy to discuss them with him. As I said yesterday in the urgent question, a pair was broken. People were extremely apologetic. It was an error. In addition, I set out again that I absolutely uphold the rights and conventions of this House at all times, and will always continue to do so.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman’s point about Westminster Hall—it does sound quite difficult to manage—and would be happy to help him if I can. On the debates on tobacco and the pre-recess Adjournment, I think he can celebrate the fact that it means he will have extra Back-Bench business days while also having debates that the Committee was keen to have.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I went along to the Vote Office at the same time as the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), and there was no EU White Paper there. It is strange that the press had it at 9 o’clock in the morning. That is not how this place should be run. Referring to “the White Paper” is a bit confusing, however, because we now know there are two White Papers. The first was developed by Ministers and officials and sent to all Departments for comment and was in line with the Government’s policy at the time, which united 98% of Conservative MPs. We now know there is a second White Paper, developed by officials and Spads in No. 10 and which none of the Ministers saw. If we are to have a general debate next week, it would be really useful if both White Papers were presented. Maybe the House could then divide on which one it prefers.

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend is always full of great ideas for how to proceed. I suggest that he takes this up with the new Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union in the statement to follow.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right that this is an ongoing catastrophe. The conflict is now in its eighth year, and the UN estimates that more than 400,000 people have been killed and over half the population has been displaced. He is right to raise that, and he may well wish to take it up with Defence Ministers on Monday during oral questions. The UK can be very proud that we are the second largest bilateral donor to the humanitarian response in Syria. We have now committed more than £2.7 billion to the Syria crisis since 2012, which is our largest ever response to a single humanitarian crisis.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

On pages 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of today’s Order Paper, there are more than 60 private Members’ Bills listed for Friday from 20 right hon. and hon. Members. The vast majority of those Bills will be objected to by a senior Whip on Friday. Can we have, for transparency’s sake, a statement tomorrow morning listing all the Bills that the senior Whip will object to on Friday, so that the House knows which ones to concentrate on?

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend will know that the Government have always maintained the view that private Members’ Bills serve a very important function. They are an invaluable opportunity for Members to promote legislation on the causes they support. The Government have been keen to support a number of private Members’ Bills—I will not go into them now—and there are some excellent ones coming forward. I can also tell him that the number of private Members’ Bills passed under the Government in the 2010 Parliament was 31, versus only 22 in the 2005 Parliament. This Government have a very good record of supporting and enabling Back-Bench business to get on to the statute book.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 28th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government have looked very carefully at the issue of the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon, and at the other projects as well. As he will be aware, the Swansea Bay proposal would cost £1.3 billion to build, but would have produced only around 0.15% of the electricity that we use each year, which is a capital cost more than three times as much per unit of electricity as Hinkley Point C. Therefore, it simply was not good value for the taxpayer.

However, I stress that this Government have been absolutely committed to success in Wales, as demonstrated, I think, by abolishing tolls on the Severn bridge by the end of 2018; by the city and growth deals that have been signed for Cardiff and Swansea; by the deals that are being negotiated for north Wales; by the Government’s willingness to look at a deal for mid-Wales as well; and by the £150 million for the Swansea Bay city deal, which will deliver £1.3 billion of investment to the region and 9,000 jobs. This Government are fully committed to the success of Wales commensurate with good value for taxpayers’ money.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Next Friday, 63 Bills will be offered for Second Reading. None of them will be debated. Four of them are in my name: one to end voter fraud; another to abolish hospital car parking charges; another to have a Business of the House Committee; and another to have an independence day bank holiday on 23 June. A senior Whip will jump up and object to all those Bills. It is a complete farce. Does the Leader of the House agree that the private Member’s Bill system needs reform, and that the Government will continue to block every private Member’s Bill that does not have a Second Reading debate?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The Government are fully committed to the success of both the process and the reality of private Members’ Bills. The number of PMBs passed under this Government and the coalition Government far exceeds that of the last Labour Government. In the 2005 Parliament, 22 private Members’ Bills received Royal Assent. In 2010, 31 private Members’ Bills received Royal Assent; and if we include the 2015 to 2017 Parliament, the number is more than double that achieved in 2005. There is no question but that there are some very important private Members’ Bills, including the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation and Liability for Housing Standards) Bill of the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) and the Stalking Protection Bill from my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). These are very important measures that the Government are pleased to support. The Select Committee on Procedure reviewed the PMB process in the last Parliament and the Government responded to its reports. Should the Committee choose to look further at the PMB process, the Government and I will of course look closely at its recommendations.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 24th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Valerie Vaz]

May I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the forthcoming business and for her statement? I say to her gently, however, that by making a statement she eats into the time for right hon. and hon. Members to ask questions, so perhaps she should provide statements at the end, when she is the last person to speak.

The forthcoming business is very light and no Lords amendments are expected for when the House next sits—[Interruption.] I will take longer if Government Members keep chuntering. Will the Leader of the House confirm what the Government Chief Whip said to the 1922 committee, namely that the European Union (Withdrawal Bill) will be back on 11 June? It seems that the respected journalist Faisal Islam is announcing House business: he has tweeted about the withdrawal Bill, the trade Bill and the customs Bill, and that there will be a debate on 11 June. Will the Leader of the House confirm whether he is the new virtual Leader of the House? Will the trade Bill and customs Bill, which should by now have passed Report stage and Third Reading, be debated on 11 June? I am asking the Leader of the House rather than Faisal Islam. Will she confirm whether any of the Bills relating to Europe will be debated in this place—she obviously cannot talk about the other place—before the European Council meeting scheduled for 28 and 29 June?

It is unprecedented to treat Parliament in this way, with business being announced in the media, not in the House. Surely Democratic Unionist party Members do not want to prop up a Government who treat Parliament in such a way—short-termist, limping from one week to the next.

Brexit is so important. We need to take time to consider the proposals, in the best interests of the country. However, yesterday’s session of the Treasury Committee heard that the Government still have not worked out the customs arrangements. It is no wonder that the Tory party has to have a loyalty scheme to try to attract young people. This is about the interests of young people and the future of this country.

Where are the hon. Members for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and for Stone (Sir William Cash)?

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I’m here!

[Valerie Vaz]

They have been calling for parliamentary sovereignty, but why have we not heard in this House when we will debate the Bills? [Interruption.] I will take longer.

What about a debate on the fact that the number of French, Belgian and Dutch companies registered 48%, 38% and 52% fewer businesses respectively in 2016-17 than in the previous year, and that there was a 90% collapse in foreign investment in the UK last year compared with 2016?

If the Government are too afraid to debate any Bill with the letters “EU” in it, how about heeding the words of the Prime Minister:

“to make Britain a country that works for everyone and not just the privileged few”;

or, to put it the other way—the way we put it—for the many, not the few? Perhaps, therefore, we could have a debate on the report by Professor Peter Dwyer of the University of York, who tracked claimants over five years and said:

“The outcomes from sanctions are almost universally negative.”

Or what about a debate on the social injustice of the growing number of homeless people being fined, given criminal convictions or even being imprisoned? A judge said:

“I will be sending a man to prison for asking for food when he was hungry”.

Or what about a debate on “Still Dying on the Inside”, a report by the charity Inquest? Most women who go to prison—84% of them—do so for non-violent offences, and two thirds of women in prison are mothers of dependent children. Where is the Government’s commitment to social justice?

And what about the head of Motability, whose salary is more than 10 times that of the Prime Minister? He can afford to buy a top of the range car, but I have had to write to him about constituents who have had their cars taken away, and some of them cannot even walk while waiting for their assessments. He has had support from the Government through tax breaks.

We have had the chaotic situation of the Government standing to support the Opposition in the application made by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) for an emergency Standing Order No. 24 debate on his constituency boundaries Bill, when all that was needed was a money resolution. The hon. Member for North East Somerset said that the quote I gave from “Erskine May” did not apply to private Members’ Bills, but I have taken advice and found that it applies both to Government Bills and to private Members’ Bills. Indeed, the Standing Orders that he himself mentioned apply to both.

I want to raise another House matter, raised last week by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), about the post office counter in Members’ Lobby. Will the Leader of the House use her best offices to talk to the Chair of the Administration Committee to ensure that Members are consulted about the closure of that counter, because they have not been. It is very useful to have it there, particularly if there are queues in Central Lobby.

Finally, will the Leader of the House confirm, following the wonderful wedding last week and the performance by the gospel choir, that the Prime Minister is now singing that Ben E. King classic, “Stand by Me”? I, too, wish everyone a happy Whitsun break.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman raises an incredibly important point. He may be aware that this week, in fact, Cabinet Members received training on dementia awareness and how to behave in a more helpful way to those with dementia. He is absolutely right that there are so many people suffering from this awful disease now. As the chief executive of the Alzheimer’s Society explained to us, what is very important is to help people to live well with dementia.

I encourage all right hon. and hon. Members to seek dementia-awareness training so that we can all contribute. In response to his specific request for a debate, perhaps the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee might look favourably on something cross-party so that we can all share ideas on this subject.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The shadow Leader of the House was a little bit grumpy this morning, which is very unusual for her. To suggest that I have not been banging on about parliamentary sovereignty is a little unfair. The excellent Leader of the House also bangs on for the House with the Government, and she does that very well. The Opposition have asked for time to debate the amendments to the EU (Withdrawal) Bill. I wholeheartedly support that. Shall we test the sincerity of the Opposition by removing the moment of interruption from the debate, so that we can talk all through the night if we want to?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful, of course, to my hon. Friend for his support for careful debate of all matters pertaining to the EU (Withdrawal) Bill. I assure him that we will indeed be giving plenty of time to this place to be able to debate the amendments when the Bill comes back to this House, which, as I have said, will be in the next few weeks.

Private Members’ Bills: Money Resolutions

Peter Bone Excerpts

Monday 21st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the expectation that the Government brings forward a Money resolution relating to a private Member’s bill which has received a second reading.

Five months on from Second Reading, the Government have yet to bring forward a money resolution on my private Member’s Bill, the Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill. This is an abuse of Parliament. The Government are making a mockery of the private Member’s Bill process. They are defying the will of Parliament and going against explicit commitments given to a Select Committee. These are the actions of a weak Government who are hiding behind procedure to avoid a vote they know they cannot win. We will not stand for it. We will fight for democracy, and we will always fight for what is morally and ethically right to serve our people.

It is an established parliamentary convention that the Government bring forward a money resolution on private Members’ Bills that have received a Second Reading. Until recently, the Government largely followed this convention; they are now running roughshod over it.

In 2013, giving evidence to the Procedure Committee when he was Leader of the House of Commons, Andrew Lansley said:

“To my knowledge, Government has provided the money resolutions…whenever we have been asked to do so.”

The Procedure Committee’s 2013 report therefore concluded:

“Government policy is not to refuse a money or ways and means resolution to a bill which has passed second reading.”

During debate on the money resolution for the Access to Medical Treatments (Innovation) Bill, the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Life Sciences, clearly stated

“I just want to confirm that once the House has given a private Member’s Bill a Second Reading, the convention is that the Government, even when they robustly oppose it, always table a money resolution… Doing so is not a signal of Government support; it is absolutely in line with the convention of the House with all private Members’ Bills, whether we oppose or support them.”—[Official Report, 3 November 2015; Vol. 601, c. 926.]

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I am following the hon. Gentleman’s speech with great interest and I agree entirely with it so far. Does he agree that the Government must table a money resolution, although they do not have to vote for it?

[Afzal Khan]

Absolutely. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Government can table the money resolution but not then have to agree with it.

The Government have changed their line. Last week, the Leader of the House said:

“money resolutions will be brought forward on a case-by-case basis as soon as possible.”—[Official Report, 10 May 2018; Vol. 640, c. 894.]

There is clear water between saying the Government will always table a money resolution and saying that this will be considered on a case-by-case basis. What has changed since 2015? We have had the disastrous 2017 election, when the Government lost their majority.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bone]

My right hon. Friend is a superb Leader of the House. Of course she makes our representations to the Government, but unfortunately the Government do not necessarily agree. A money resolution should have been provided for the referendum Bill; two wrongs do not make a right.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I always listen very carefully to the views of my hon. Friend, but I am afraid that I must again draw all hon. Members’ attention to the fact that, as set out in “Erskine May”, it is for the Government of the day to initiate financial resolutions, of which this is one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that I was very impressed with his skills in the Scottish cup final the other day. His recovery technique was absolutely superb. It was the highlight of the game for me. I can also tell him that my mailbag is absolutely full of all types of suggestions for private Members’ Bills that people find favour with, and I am pretty certain that the hon. Gentleman will have had the same experience.

I have another solution to the Government’s approach: if they do not like a Bill, they should come to the House and explain why they do not like it. They should not hide behind process and procedure. They should not try to block these Bills simply because they have the means and the capability to do so. They should argue their case on the Floor of the House. I happen to think that the Government have a case when it comes to the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton. They tell us that a boundary review is under way, and yes, of course it is. The House seemed to back it, but the Government did not get a majority in the last election. I think that the Leader of the House has got that one wrong. But let the Government bring their argument for not progressing the Bill to the House where we can debate it. If they have their way, and majority is in favour, that is what the Government will do. However, if they do not get their way, and if this House clearly tells them that it wants to pursue a different approach, the Government should listen to that and respect that decision. Democracy starts with respecting the wishes of this House, and we are getting into dangerous territory when that is so casually overlooked. Let us get back to making sure that when this House speaks, the Government respond and act on that clear decision.

I want to say a bit more about the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton. It is an important Bill that I personally support. I spoke in the debate on the previous Bill that Pat Glass was trying to take through Parliament. The critical feature of this Bill is to defend the number of Members of Parliament in this House. Is it not something else when, over the weekend, extra unelected Members of the House of Lords were created? Is it not something when this Government want to cut the number of directly elected Members of Parliament while increasing the number in that absurd circus down the corridor? Apparently, this is all because they are embarrassed by the successive defeats that they have suffered at the hands of the House of Lords. Apparently, they are not the right type of legislators, so the Government are going to appoint the right type of legislators. Is that not utterly absurd?

[Mr Bone]

The first half of the hon. Gentleman speech, when he was talking about the money resolution, was great. On his later point, however, I understand that my party has created seven or eight peers, yet only one of them is a Brexiteer.

[Pete Wishart]

I can sense the hon. Gentleman’s pain as a result of all this.

I have seen a petition signed by 150,000 people across the country who are calling for the abolition of the House of Lords. I have listened keenly to the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), who has now started to suggest that there is something perfidious about the nature of the House of Lords. He now has doubts about its constitutional role. I think that the Government are on their last legs when it comes to this. Perhaps there is a coalition across this House that might be able to deal with this question adequately. There are only 22 countries across the world that have a Chamber like the House of Lords. In having a fully appointed Chamber, we are in the company of the Russias, the Madagascars, the Omans and the Saudi Arabias. That profoundly embarrasses this country, and it has to be addressed. How dare we have the gall to lecture the developing world about the quality of its democracy when we have that absurd institution down the corridor?

I want to say something ever so gently and I hope in a friendly way to my friends in the Labour party: what on earth are they doing appointing Members to that absurd circus? They are just as culpable as the Government when it comes to putting more people into that absurd institution. Comrade Lords are taking their places with the nation’s aristocrats, party donors, bishops and failed politicians, and backing the sound socialist values of deference, knowing your place, forelock-tugging and the hereditary principle. Well done the Labour party! Is that not something else to be proud of? Until they stop putting people in the House of Lords, they are no better than the Conservatives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Skidmore]

As we know, the current rule will mean there will be 650 and it will remain that way. It is a disgrace that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) said, we are still using demographics going back to February 2001 for our general elections. I was 18 when that last boundary review was passed and, historically, we have never been in this position before—this is unprecedented. We have gone far past the situation of the 1970 decision to delay the 1958 review, and the current delay is unacceptable. Constituencies near that of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) have historically been small. For instance, Arfon has 38,000 constituents whereas North West Cambridgeshire has 95,000. It is unacceptable that when it comes to our parliamentary representation—

[Mr Bone]

This is an interesting debate on boundary reviews, but may I ask my hon. Friend what on earth it has to do with a money resolution for a private Member’s Bill? Is he in favour of that being laid tonight or not?

[Chris Skidmore]

No, simply because, as I have stated, it is right that we allow the boundary process, which is only 14 weeks from completion and the Order in Council being laid, to carry on unhindered. Those independent civil servants deserve Parliament’s support. They deserve our providing consistency and not mucking around with this process once more. They deserve the opportunity to have this vote, as do our constituents who voted, through manifesto processes in 2017 and 2015, to restate the case for a reduction in the number of parliamentary constituencies. Whenever that vote takes place between 1 September and 1 October, I ask every Member of Parliament who is going through the Lobby to think about how they are going to vote. Our constituents are not going to thank us if we turn around and say we want to increase the number of MPs and that we think it is totally fine that we have 650 Members of Parliament, whereas in France Emmanuel Macron is claiming that 550 representatives are too many and he wishes to cut that number by a third.

In my local authority of South Gloucestershire, residents voted for a ticket whereby the Conservative council administration has successfully taken forward a local government boundary review reducing the number of councillors by 10%, from 70 to 63. That is right because it is cutting the cost of politics and we should also do that in this House. In the vote, Members should look themselves in the mirror and think, “Do I wish to be an MP who has to turn around and say to my constituents that I voted to protect my job and a bureaucracy, when Chambers across western Europe are looking in the other direction and reducing the number of elected representatives?”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I am going to talk about the constitutional point in relation to money resolutions, rather than the virtues of the private Member’s Bill of the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan), and about the difficulty related to that Bill being a private Member’s Bill. In promoting his debate earlier, the hon. Gentleman said that the situation was democratically quite improper, that the procedures were being ignored, and so on and so forth, but that seemed to me rather to ignore the point that it is usually the practice of this House that the Committee stage of a constitutional Bill is considered on the Floor of the House, just as the Act that the hon. Gentleman’s Bill seeks to amend was. After Second Reading, the hon. Gentleman did not, as he was entitled to—as it happens, as I have done on several occasions—move that his Bill should be put before a Committee of the Whole House, which would have been the correct procedure for a constitutional Bill.

In respect of the money resolution, we are dealing with the most ancient practice of this House and of the constitutional division between the Crown, as represented by Ministers, and the responsibilities of Parliament. Although in this country we do not have as formalised a separation of powers as they have in the United States, none the less we have a separation of powers between that which is done by Ministers and that which is done by this House. What is the role of the House historically? It is to seek redress of grievance and to achieve that redress of grievance by preventing the Government from getting or spending money, or by forcing the Government to change the law to implement that redress of grievance. It is not and never has been the role of this House to seek to force the Government to spend money; the House has always responded to requests to do that.

Therefore, we turn to chapter 32 of “Erskine May”, on page 711, where things are set out extremely clearly. Under the title “Financial Relations Between the Crown and Parliament”, it says:

“It was a central factor in the historical development of parliamentary influence and power that the Sovereign was obliged to obtain the consent of Parliament (and particularly of the House of Commons as representatives of the people) to the levying of taxes to meet the expenditure of the State. But the role of Parliament in respect of State expenditure and taxation has never been one of initiation: it was for the Sovereign to request money and for the Commons to respond to the request. The development of responsible government and the assumption by the Government of the day of the traditional role and powers of the Crown in relation to public finance have not altered this basic constitutional principle: the Crown requests money, the Commons grant it, and the Lords assent to the grant.”

Then there appear in “Erskine May” the rather dubious words “In more modern terms”, before it goes on to say that

“the Government presents to the House of Commons its detailed requirements for the financing of the public services; it is for the Commons, acting on the sole initiative of Ministers, first to authorize the relevant expenditure (or ‘Supply’) and, second, to provide through taxes and other sources of public revenue the ‘Ways and Means’ deemed necessary to meet the Supply so granted.”

[Mr Bone]

I do not disagree with anything that my hon. Friend says, but he refers to the situation for Government legislation. When it is a private Member’s Bill, the convention and tradition of this House, which I hope my hon. Friend supports, is that a money resolution is laid. That does not mean that the money is granted; that is up to the House to debate and then divide on. Does he not accept that point?