Business of the House
Peter Bone Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir George Young
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and her team do their best to respond promptly to questions from the right hon. Gentleman’s Select Committee. I understand that there is a high volume of correspondence between the Home Department and his Committee, and that, on occasions, responses are sought within very short deadlines. None the less, we will try to raise our game and give the right hon. Gentleman and his Select Committee the quality of service to which they are entitled.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Gallay Ltd is a successful manufacturing company in my constituency. In February this year, it applied for a licence to export 88 specialised air conditioning units to a previously approved company. Unfortunately, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has still not approved the export licence, and the company is likely to lose the order to an American company. May we have a statement next week on why BIS is acting in this manner?
Sir George Young
I commend what Gallay has been doing in my hon. Friend’s constituency, in winning exports for air conditioning equipment in a very competitive market. I understand that the order to which he refers involves Egypt, where the internal security situation is giving rise for concern. I will ensure that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and BIS process the application for a licence as quickly as they can, consistent with their obligation to ensure that such equipment is not put to the wrong use.
Backbench Business Committee
Peter Bone Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The concern of some Members tonight is why it has taken so long to bring the motion forward. The House has been sitting for a number of weeks since the elections. People are concerned about why the Government have delayed the Backbench Business Committee in coming forward.
Mr Heath
Uncharacteristically, the hon. Gentleman is simply wrong to say that there has been any delay. At the very first opportunity following the elections in the various party groups, the matter was put before the Committee of Selection, and the Committee of Selection took the very first opportunity to put it on the Order Paper. There was an objection, so we could not form the Committee. That is why we are debating the matter—again, at the very first opportunity that the House has had—to bring it into effect.
There has been absolutely no delay. Matters have proceeded as quickly as possible. That is why I was a little flabbergasted to find that we would have to have a debate. As I said, I would have thought that the House would have wanted the Committee to be constituted as quickly as possible. Of course, there are legitimate reasons why hon. Members might wish have wished to have a debate. They might have felt that there had been procedural irregularities in the elections. However, I have heard no arguments of that kind. Indeed, quite the reverse: I have heard Members congratulating the hon. Members who have been elected. I am glad that they seem to have the acclamation of the whole House.
Business of the House
Peter Bone Excerpts(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir George Young
I begin by thanking the hon. Lady for her kind words about Tony Newton, whose funeral I attended last week, where I listened to some generous tributes from John Major and John MacGregor. It was a very well attended and moving funeral.
Let me move on to the hon. Lady’s questions. Most of them related to the Budget; I gently point out to her that we are debating the Budget for the whole of this week and that this time is for questions about next week’s business. All the issues she raised have been the subject of a debate this week or will be the subject of a debate later today. Let me also gently remind the hon. Lady about Budget rebellions. Three weeks ago, an amendment was tabled to the Budget opposing the cut to the 50p tax rate. In other words, it was an amendment that would have implemented the Labour party’s policy. When there was a vote, only two Labour Members voted for it: the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) and for Newport West (Paul Flynn). They were the only two Members who supported the official Labour party policy. Everyone else, including the hon. Lady, rebelled, so I will take no lectures from her on rebellions on Budget measures.
The hon. Lady raised some points about taxation. She did not mention the 2 million people we are taking out of tax or the 24 million taxpayers who will benefit from the changes we have made. As she knows, the better-off will pay five times more in extra tax than they will get from the reduction in the rate from 50p to 45p.
On the subject of Qatada, we have just had a whole hour of exchanges on Qatada and I hope that the hon. Lady’s colleagues have raised all the questions on that subject that could possibly be raised.
On the legislative Session, I gently remind the hon. Lady that, unlike during the previous Session under the previous Government, we have not rushed through Bills with guillotine after guillotine. We have consistently allowed two days on Report for several Bills, many programme motions have been supported by the Labour party—all credit to Labour for coming to a sensible accommodation—and we have had adequate discussion. I remember the hon. Lady saying that we would not get all the Bills through, but we are getting them all through, with adequate time.
On the hon. Lady’s final question, I have announced that the House will be sitting the week after next and I have announced the business for the Monday. She will understand that at this stage in the parliamentary Session, with four Bills still in play between the two Houses, it is impossible to forecast exactly when the House will prorogue. I anticipate that it will be some time the week after next.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Can the Leader of the House say when the parliamentary business committee will be established so that all the issues with programming motions can go? That would offer the opportunity of taking control of business away from the Executive and back to Parliament.
Sir George Young
As my hon. Friend will know, the Backbench Business Committee has been established and elections will take place at the beginning of the next Session. He will know of the commitment in the coalition agreement to introduce a committee to deal with Government business by the third year, which ends in about a year’s time and so, as my hon. Friend will understand, we have 12 months to honour that commitment. I plan to honour it.
Backbench Business Committee
Peter Bone Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Angela Smith
It is a minimum of two women, and the Opposition have plenty of very good women who would put their names forward. In my view, women on the Labour Benches are equally likely to be represented on the Committee as our male colleagues, if not more so.
Angela Smith
Very briefly, but then I must make progress, because I want to give Back-Bench Members time to make their contributions.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I rise to speak against the motion, largely in sadness and regret, because I will have to criticise those on the Government Front Bench, particularly the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House. I could do that in 10 seconds, because as we have already heard, Government and Opposition Front Benchers support the motion on the Backbench Business Committee, so we could almost say, “When the two Front Benches agree, it’s a clearly a stitch-up and can't be right for the House”—and sit down.
This attempt to alter Standing Orders on the Backbench Business Committee to suit the Executive is absolutely outrageous. It is an attempt by the Executive to ignore Parliament and to impose their will on the House. What is particularly shocking is that they are trying to interfere with business that is exclusively Back-Bench business. Such business has no relevance whatever to the Government.
The Government’s actions fly in the face of the House of Commons Reform Committee report, “Rebuilding the House”, HC1117, which proposed what are known throughout the House as the Wright reforms. Those reforms were designed to restore trust in Parliament and to reduce the power of the Executive. They were the very reforms that the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House supported so vigorously when they were in opposition. I am sad to say that it has taken less than two years for the Government to do a U-turn and go back to the bad old days of the Executive trying to tell Parliament what to do. There have been several signs over the past few months that the Government are adopting the policy of always knowing right and of assuming that Parliament is there only to rubber-stamp their decisions. This motion is the clearest and most obvious breach of their commitment to put Parliament first.
One of the most shocking and shameful aspects of the debate is its timing. The Leader of the House put the motion on the Order Paper without any consultation with the Backbench Business Committee. Even more significantly, he did so only hours after the Committee met, so that it could not formally consider the issue. He has also tabled the debate and vote prior to tomorrow’s Committee meeting. He has deliberately slighted the Committee, which meets weekly, by putting the motion on the Order Paper hours after last Tuesday’s meeting and before tomorrow’s meeting.
What is even more reprehensible is that the Committee is reviewing its operation so that it can report to the House and provide evidence to the Procedure Committee’s inquiry. The Government’s timing is the most disgraceful discourtesy to the Backbench Business Committee. The Leader of the House is saying to the Committee: “I want to sneak this through before your Committee can formally protest.” That is devious, undemocratic and a disgrace to the Government.
I shall now turn to the crux of the matter—this is why the motion should be defeated. The Procedure Committee, chaired so ably by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight), who is in his place, announced on 21 February 2012 that it was launching a review of the operation of the Backbench Business Committee in accordance with a previous motion agreed by the House of Commons. The review was
“in particular to inquire into…issues relating to the membership of the Committee…the amount of time available to the Committee and the way in which the Government allocates that time…the powers of the Committee, and the process by which the Committee determines the matters to be debated in backbench time.”
The closing date for submissions was Thursday 8 March. Let us dwell on that for a moment. Thursday 8 March was two days after the Government tabled their motion and decided what the House would do. At best, that was a shoddy attempt by the Government to ignore a Select Committee; at worst, it was an attempt by the Government to interfere with a Select Committee, which could give rise to a number of issues for the Minister, possibly including a breach of the ministerial code and referral to the Standards and Privileges Committee. The Government might think that they can ignore the will of Parliament, but this is a different Parliament from previous ones. This Parliament is willing to stand up to an all-powerful Executive.
As the House is aware, Members were requested to send representations to the Procedure Committee by last Thursday. The first three things they were asked to consider were:
“The composition of the Committee and the process for electing its members; whether the Chair of the Committee should be reserved for an opposition Member; whether a place on the Committee should be reserved for the minority parties.”
The top three issues, then, that we were asked to consider and report on to the Procedure Committee by last Thursday are exactly the three issues that the Government are trying to shoot through Parliament today.
The Executive have decided, without waiting for the Procedure Committee report, that Committee members will be elected by party groups and that the Chair of the Committee will be an Opposition Member, and they have completely fudged the issue of the minority parties. The Government have predetermined the Procedure Committee’s inquiry before it has had time to collate the written evidence, take oral evidence and consider its report.
Mr Baron
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s explanation—that they had to push this through prior to an election—runs rather shallow given that, unlike for other Committees of the House, elections are every Session, so these proposals could quite easily have been postponed for a year until the next elections?
Mr Bone
Of course that is the case. These elections will determine the Backbench Business Committee not for the term of the Parliament but for a year. If the Procedure Committee happened to report after the next elections and there was a change to procedure, the elections afterwards could be run on the new system. There was absolutely no need to prejudge the Select Committee report, apart from the fact that it might have resolved matters differently from what the Government wanted.
Mr Bone
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s comments. Nobody who knows him will think that this sort of ploy could possibly affect what his Committee does.
I turn to one of the most appalling aspects of today—the whipping on the Conservative Benches. There is no question but that this is House business, and there is no question but that it is Back-Bench business. By convention, such votes should not carry a Whip; they should be free votes. There is no way that the Executive should try to instruct the House how to organise Back-Bench business affairs, but Conservative Members were told last week that we would be on a three-line Whip to vote for this outrageous motion. After protests, the Whips Office reduced it to a one-line Whip. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) laughs, and of course he knows why the Whips Office did that: to keep Back Benchers away from the House. I have received a very nice text from a Member saying, “I’m out working in my constituency. Aren’t the xxx Whips very devious?” That is very true.
After our protests, then, the Whips Office reduced the vote to a one-line Whip, but that is not a genuine free vote, because Members here will still be instructed how to vote. This is wrong, should not be happening and flies in the face of the coalition Government’s pledge to restore trust in Parliament. Even worse, I understand that Ministers and Parliamentary Private Secretaries are on a three-line Whip to vote through this despicable motion. The very people who should have no interest in Back-Bench business are the ones who are being told to vote for the changes. I am more than happy to take an intervention from the Leader of the House if that is not the case. [Interruption.] I see he does not want to intervene. This really is going back to the bad old days.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend aware that some years ago, in an extremely important book called “The Commons In Transition”, a former Clerk of the House said that the root of all the trouble with Standing Orders and whipping was collusion between the two Front Benches in the 1880s in order to take control of Standing Orders away from the Speaker? In those days it was the Speaker who determined these questions, which preserved the integrity of the House.
Mr Bone
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I turn to the amendments in my name and five of the seven other members of the Backbench Business Committee, including the Chairman. The purpose of amendments (d), (e) and (f) is to leave out the Government’s proposed changes to the election of Backbench Business Committee members. The Government are proposing that future members of the Committee will be elected by party group. There are two distinct disadvantages to that proposal. The first—I suggest that this is the reason for it—is that it will give the Government, as well as the shadow Government, greater influence in deciding who is elected to the Backbench Business Committee. Through their Whips Offices, they will try to engineer more pliable Members to be elected to the Committee. I believe that this will make the Committee much more divided on party lines. In all the time that the current Committee has met, there has been only one vote, and that did not divide it along party lines. The Government’s proposal will reduce the likelihood that independent parliamentarians will be elected to the Committee.
Secondly, the authority that members of the Committee hold is greatly enhanced by their being chosen by the whole House. Their mandate comes from Back Benchers of all political persuasions, not by a narrow party group. The Wright Committee was clear on that issue, saying in paragraph 180 of its report on page 54:
“We therefore recommend that a Backbench Business Committee be created. It should be comprised of between seven and nine members elected by secret ballot of the House as a whole”.
So there we have it: the Wright report recommends that individual members of the Committee should be elected by the whole House, not by party groups. That is what the House agreed when setting up the Backbench Business Committee—the House agreed with the Wright Committee. Now the Government want to change Standing Orders while a Select Committee is looking into the matter, and against the wishes of the Wright Committee and an earlier decision of the House.
In conclusion, I therefore wish to press my amendments, and if they are not accepted by the Government, I will seek your leave to divide the House, Mr Speaker. I will also be supporting the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel). I would urge Members both to support the amendments and to vote against the motion.
Business of the House
Peter Bone Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir George Young
I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman an undertaking on that last point, because I do not know when the tribunal will deliver its ruling. The Bill is scheduled to have its Third Reading in another place on, I think, 19 March, and we would then hope to deal with it here, so I cannot give him that particular undertaking. I hope that he will understand, however, that it is important for Ministers to be able to consider policy options, and to get frank advice from civil servants on their impact, without those options going into the public domain. We need sufficient space to develop our thinking and our policy options, which is why the Government opposed the right hon. Gentleman’s application. We will have to wait and see what the tribunal ruling comes up with.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Further to what the excellent Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) said earlier, all Members of the House have received an e-mail from the Procedure Committee asking them to submit their comments on the reform of the Backbench Business Committee by today. However, the very issues that we have been asked to comment on are those in the motion that the Government have tabled for debate on Monday. This is going back to the bad old days of the Executive overruling Select Committees. Whatever wishy-washy answer I get, this is not acceptable. Will the Leader of the House agree not to bring forward that motion on Monday?
Sir George Young
I am not sure that there is any point in my rising and coming to the Dispatch Box, as my hon. Friend has already discounted my reply. I must point out to him that, on 8 February, I made it absolutely clear that
“the Government believe that it would be appropriate for the House to address the anomaly whereby members of the Backbench Business Committee other than the Chair…are elected by the House as a whole rather than by Members of the political party to which they belong before the next elections of members. The Government propose to allow time for consideration of proposals to this effect towards the end of the current Session.”
That is exactly what we are doing. It will then be a matter for the House to decide, in the light of the debate on Monday, whether it wishes to adopt the proposal on the Order Paper. I note that my hon. Friend has tabled an amendment to the motion indicating a contrary view.
Business of the House
Peter Bone Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The Government are right to seek through the Council of Europe to change the rules so that the Supreme Court in this country would be the ultimate determinant of human rights. I would like to be helpful to the Government. I have introduced the European Convention on Human Rights (Temporary Withdrawal) Bill, which would speed up that process and allow us to deport extremists. Unfortunately, there must be a problem with the telephone line between the Chief Whip’s office and mine because he has not contacted me yet to make arrangements. May we have a statement on that?
Sir George Young
My right hon. Friend the Chief Whip was 6 feet away from my hon. Friend a few moments ago, when there would have been an opportunity for a direct dialogue. I would be misleading my hon. Friend if I said that, in the remaining days of the Session, his Bill was likely to reach the statute book, but he knows that we have the chairmanship of the Council of Europe, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is seeking to reform the ECHR in a way that my hon. Friend would approve of to tackle the backlog and to ensure that cases reach the European Court only when there is no alternative, thus returning more to subsidiarity of the national courts. Although I cannot promise my hon. Friend any progress on his Bill, I hope that he will endorse the direction in which the Government are now travelling.
Business of the House
Peter Bone Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir George Young
I confess to the right hon. Gentleman that I have not been following the odds quite as closely as he has. He did introduce a private Member’s Bill, and I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), at the Department with responsibility for political and constitutional reform, wrote to him explaining why, sadly, we could not use his Bill as a vehicle for the royal succession Bill. But it is on the Government’s agenda, and we will make announcements in due course.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I do not know whether the Leader of the House is having a bad day or what, but he suggested that the Backbench Business Committee has not awarded 8 March to a debate about international women’s day. The problem is that the Committee has been given no further days for such awards, so to suggest that we have not awarded a debate to a day that we have not been given is slightly misleading—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] Not misleading in any way whatsoever, just difficult to understand.
Sir George Young
The Government have undertaken to allocate roughly one day per week to the Backbench Business Committee. If we look at the allocations since the first debate that the Committee arranged, we find that we have allocated 0.97 days per week, so it is not the case that the Government are not honouring their obligation to the Committee, and we hope to go on offering days to it for the remainder of the Session. It is up to the Committee then to decide what to do with the days that are allocated.
Sittings of the House (20 and 23 March)
Peter Bone Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
I beg to move,
That—
(1) there shall be no sitting in Westminster Hall on Tuesday 20 March; and
(2) this House shall sit on Friday 23 March.
On Tuesday, the House agreed to a series of Adjournments up until January 2013, which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House set out in the business statement on 9 February. I think the whole House will agree that it is for the benefit of the House that Members, staff and the House authorities are given as much certainty as possible of recesses, as far in advance as possible, to enable the effective scheduling of hon. Members’ other work and major work projects in the House, among other things.
If passed, the motion will achieve two things in relation to the forthcoming business of the House in March. First, it provides that there will be no Westminster Hall business on Tuesday 20 March. It will not have escaped Members’ notice that that is the date scheduled for the attendance of the two Houses on Her Majesty in Westminster Hall for the presentation of Humble Addresses, as my right hon. Friend announced in the business statement on 19 January. I am sure Members will recognise the need to suspend regular Westminster Hall sittings on that day, which is entirely in line with precedent.
Secondly, the motion provides that the House will sit on Friday 23 March. That proposal was announced in the business statement on 9 February, together with our reasoning that it would allow the continuation of the Budget debate while still providing time for the Backbench Business Committee to schedule a debate on the day before the recess had it wanted to, as has been past practice.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making the Government’s position clear. Will he confirm to the House that all dates announced are always provisional? The House agreed to the dates set for Adjournments on a “forthwith” motion, which could not be debated or amended. This debate is therefore the first opportunity that we have had to debate and amend a motion.
Mr Heath
Obviously, “forthwith” motions can always be objected to if hon. Members have problems with them. I assume from the silence when that motion was moved that there were no objections. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that all future business is always provisional until we get to the point at which it is no longer provisional, and it is open to the House to change its mind. However, I say again that it is very helpful to have some certainty, not only for Members, who have busy diaries to arrange, but for the staff of the House, who will also wish to make arrangements. I believe it is good practice to try to provide that certainty as far as possible.
I understand that my hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) do not entirely share what I had hoped might be a consensus on the matter. They have tabled amendments showing plainly that they do not share that consensus and we will discuss them today. I also note the point of order made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on Tuesday. He was very keen to make his point then, but perhaps not so keen to make it today when we are actually having the debate. His absence will be regretted by everybody. He clearly felt very strongly about the motion but is otherwise engaged today.
The Opposition sought to amend the motion on Tuesday in order that the House would sit on Wednesday 28 March. Let me make it plain that the Government are not opposed to sittings on Wednesdays, but the proposal for the House to rise on Tuesday 27 March was announced when the calendar was last issued in October 2011. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough made the point that the calendar is always provisional because it is always subject to the progress of business. But my point, again, is that the Government are conscious that we have announced recess dates and Members and staff will have made arrangements for the Easter recess. It would now be inconvenient, at least for some, to change them.
I have heard reports that the Opposition—laughably in my opinion—are accusing the Prime Minister of running scared from Prime Minister’s questions, which is a triumph of hope over experience on their part. They say that that is why we have scheduled the Friday and not the following Wednesday. As I said, that is an entirely laughable proposition and it is totally without basis in evidence.
I have had the benefit of considering the evidence and it might help if I enlighten the House on it. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House perhaps alluded to some of this information in business questions. The frequency of Prime Minister’s questions per sitting day has risen in this Session compared with the last Session of the previous Administration, so there is no reasonable accusation that we are manipulating the calendar so that there are fewer Prime Minister’s questions sessions.
It is also true that the current Prime Minister is turning up to Prime Minister’s questions more often than his predecessor, who was absent from the Dispatch Box for Prime Minister’s questions twice as often as the current Prime Minister has been. We know the record of the previous Prime Minister—I think I coined the expression “McCavity” to describe him, because where there was trouble, he was always somewhere else—but nevertheless, for the Opposition to suggest that the current Prime Minister is avoiding his commitments is absolute nonsense. The Prime Minister has made more statements to the House per sitting day than his predecessor and has spent more than 30 hours at the Dispatch Box in so doing. He takes his responsibilities to the House very seriously, and I am afraid I have very little time for claims that are posturing nonsense of no substance whatever.
It might be helpful if I inform the House that there is a precedent for the proposal to sit on a Friday to allow the continuation of the Budget debate before a recess. We do not have to delve too far back to find it—it happened under the previous Government, during my period in the House and that of many right hon. and hon. Members, on 11 April 2003, just nine years ago and a passing moment in the time scale of Parliament.
During points of order on Tuesday, the hon. Member for Rhondda, who I again note is not yet in his place, asked what business may take place on a Friday sitting and specifically about statements and urgent questions. As we know, the Government rightly remain accountable through statements and urgent questions on a sitting Friday, but we have not the slightest intention of changing Standing Orders to allow for oral questions on that day, which would require wholesale changes to the rota. That is entirely in line with precedent, including under the previous Administration—on Friday 11 April 2003, in similar circumstances, no oral question session took place. It is a wonder that the hon. Member for Rhondda, having been a business manger in his time, now takes a very different view of what should happen in the House from that which he proposed from the Dispatch Box previously.
Amendments (a) and (b), tabled in the names of the hon. Members for Kettering and for Wellingborough, would establish sittings in Westminster Hall on Monday 19 March and Friday 23 March. There is a problem with this and I ask the hon. Members to address it if they speak to their amendments. In the absence of any other changes to Standing Orders, it would fall to the Government to nominate business in Westminster Hall for those two days. There are colleagues of mine in government who might appreciate the generosity of these amendments from two notable members of the Backbench Business Committee. They have obviously recognised that, at the moment, the Government have no control over the time allocation in Westminster Hall, and wish to correct this anomaly.
Mr Heath
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right that everybody would be very happy, but the fact remains that the Backbench Business Committee, of which he is such a distinguished member, now has responsibility for scheduling debates on those days. If his amendments were successful, these days would not be available to the Committee, so it simply could not be done under the terms of the Wright Committee proposals. That is the sadness of what is obviously a well-intentioned thought on his part. The Standing Orders get in the way, and we are as bound by the Standing Orders as any Member.
Mr Heath
I am sure that we could, but that would be to return to the dark ages when the Government decided what was debated in the House, rather than the Backbench Business Committee, and I do not want to do that. I am a great believer in the Backbench Business Committee and in the need for us to continue making progress towards a House business committee in due course. I do not want to return to the time when the Executive decided what the House could debate. The idea that Ministers should retake possession of Westminster Hall and decide what the House should debate on those days on the basis of their prejudices and requirements rather than of what is properly decided by the Backbench Business Committee is wholly retrogressive. So I will hold firm to the principle behind the Backbench Business Committee and the Wright Committee reforms that we have put in place. I certainly do not think that we should move away from that principle without the benefit of a more thorough inquiry.
The Procedure Committee recently reported on new and inventive ways in which Westminster Hall could be used. It is absolutely right that the House, in the future, be given an opportunity to consider those proposals in more detail. There are colleagues in government who would be delighted to take up the hon. Gentlemen’s suggestion of giving more power to the Executive, and at some point a Minister from the Dispatch Box might ask for their support and would be grateful for it when that time comes. But it will not be this Minister on this day.
Mr Heath
No, because I was being entirely speculative, and idle speculation is not something that we should indulge in from the Dispatch Box, as the hon. Gentleman will readily recognise. As I have said, my view is that we must keep to the reforms that we have put in place and not move backwards.
Angela Smith
It has to be said that the previous Prime Minister faced up to his global leadership responsibilities in the face of the biggest recession in this country for 60 years, unlike the present Prime Minister, whose global leadership involves standing on the sidelines and walking away from negotiations. Our previous Prime Minister played his part and led the world in showing the way out of the previous crisis.
This Government’s unwillingness to be held to account is becoming more apparent by the day. First, they rushed through the Commons a number of highly controversial pieces of legislation in the early days of this Parliament, denying this Chamber the right to proper scrutiny of their provisions.
Angela Smith
That is not necessarily the case. What we are discussing today is the need for competent scheduling of the business of the House, rather than last-minute motions on the Floor of the House as a result of the Government getting themselves into a hole in regard to the time they have allowed for debate.
The Bills to which I have just referred are now bogged down in the Lords, with the detested Health and Social Care Bill alone requiring more than 1,000 Government amendments so far. Furthermore, we have Ministers regularly ignoring the rights of this House over important announcements about Government policy. Many Members will recall the occasions on which it has been necessary to point out to the House that a Minister has yet again briefed the media, before briefing the House, on an important matter.
Now, we have a Prime Minister who will apparently do almost anything to avoid being held to account at PMQs. The House is therefore entitled to ask why the Prime Minister is so reluctant to account to his peers for his actions. This is, after all, the man whose self-confidence led him to say, live on air, “Bring it on!” when asked in 2009 whether he was looking forward to the general election. This is the man who wanted to “Fire up the Quattro”, and who gave voters the clear impression that he was a man who meant business and knew what he was about.
Mr Hollobone
I give notice that I shall endeavour to press amendments (a) and (c) to a Division, so the Whips can get on their BlackBerrys and signal the troops that their presence in the Chamber will be required later. I do so more in disappointment than anger because I thought that the Leader and Deputy Leader of the House were bigger men than this. On this occasion, much against their normal form, they have shown a lack of imagination and a lack of innovation. Although they do a tremendous job for this House, it is at times like this that we gently need to remind them that they are the Leader and the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons, and that they are here to represent the interests of Back Benchers as well as those of Her Majesty’s Government. On occasions such as this, there is a simple solution to ensure that the accountability of Government is maintained.
The Government motion proposes
“no sitting in Westminster Hall on Tuesday 20 March”.
The reason for that is entirely understandable. Her Majesty the Queen is coming to Westminster Hall on that day to celebrate her diamond jubilee, so it is entirely appropriate that normal sittings in Westminster Hall should be cancelled for that day. No one has any argument with that. What the Leader and Deputy Leader of the House should have proposed, however, is the rescheduling of that lost parliamentary time at some other point in the parliamentary calendar, because effectively some of our precious parliamentary air time is disappearing. My amendment (a), supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone)—to whom I must say a huge thank you—suggests that that air time should be replaced on the previous day, Monday 19 March, while amendment (b) suggests Friday 23 March as an alternative.
Westminster Hall is an important part of parliamentary procedure. The Leader of the House and his deputy have previously told the House that they support it and feel that it does a valuable job, and evidence from the Table Office supports that. The hard-working, diligent, capable, lovely, kind people in the Table Office have told me that they receive an average of some 60 to 70 applications a week for Westminster Hall time from Back Benchers, that there can be as many as 150, and that the number never falls below 40. What better evidence could there be of the popularity of Westminster Hall among Members? Effectively, however, the Leader and Deputy Leader of the House are denying Back Benchers the opportunity of a day’s debate there.
Mr Bone
We heard the Deputy Leader of the House suggest that the real problem was that the Government did not want to dictate what was debated on Monday. Is there not a simple solution? The ballot could proceed in the normal way, the listing for Tuesday could be provided, and the Government could then accept it and transfer it to Monday. That would help everyone out.
Mr Hollobone
I am most grateful for that suggestion.
When I flagged up the issue during business questions earlier today, the Leader of the House said that the Deputy Leader of the House would provide a powerful response to my amendments during his speech. I do not know whether the Deputy Leader of the House left his notes in the Leader of the House’s office, but his contribution certainly did not constitute a powerful response to the amendments, which I found disappointing. This could have been the occasion for the establishment in the Chamber of a new doctrine, the Heath doctrine, to celebrate Her Majesty’s diamond jubilee. The Heath doctrine could have stated that whenever a sitting in Westminster Hall is cancelled for understandable reasons, the parliamentary air time must be replaced by an alternative sitting. The Deputy Leader of the House would have been applauded by Members on both sides of the House, and I am disappointed that he did not choose to grasp that chalice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough is right: there are all sorts of innovative ways in which the Government could overcome the difficulty of allocating the time. If we accept that, as the rules stand, it is up to the Government to decide what debates take place, the Government could say, for example, to the Speaker’s Office through the Table Office, “We must allocate this time, but will you invite applications from Back Benchers to fill the slot? We will then take your recommendation for filling the time appropriately.” That would have been the imaginative and innovative solution that I would expect from our two colleagues, and I am sorry that they did not think of it.
There is no shortage of potential debates in Westminster Hall. Only today, we heard 37 Back Benchers call for debates on a range of subjects: cosmetic surgery, north-east regional strategy, the Royal Bank of Scotland, drought and the national water grid, the Olympics, working tax credits, youth unemployment, music exports, Syria, international women’s day, elected mayors, design patents, directory inquiries, high streets, defence procurement, work experience schemes, unemployment in the north-east, business in the community, the Backbench Business Committee, arms exports to the middle east and north Africa, apprenticeships, local heating schemes, music licences in public places, bans on protest marches, the economy, education and manufacturing, employment law, Professor Ebdon, job clubs, small and medium-sized enterprises in retail, manufacturing, energy companies and their customers, and the efficiencies of police services. That is just the list for today; I am sure that in most weeks many further requests are made to the Leader and Deputy Leader of the House.
Representations to the Backbench Business Committee continue to flood in, too. There is a long list of outstanding issues for which it has not been possible to allocate any time, simply because the Government have not allocated the Committee sufficient time to be able to debate them. When the Backbench Business Committee was established, we were promised that it would get 35 days per Session. The gentleman’s agreement—to use a sexist phrase—was that that would, in effect, be 35 days per year. This Session lasts for two years, however, and although I am not a great mathematician, I believe that the Backbench Business Committee should therefore be allocated 70 days for the discussion of issues Back Benchers wish to raise, but today’s Order Paper reveals that it has been allocated only 53 and a half days, and we are about to go into March. It appears that we will fall well short of that 70 total, therefore. Some of these outstanding issues could be scheduled for debate in an extra day in Westminster Hall. That would go some way towards dealing with the large number of issues that have come before the Committee.
Amendments (a) and (b) are reasonable measures intended to preserve the power of this Chamber to hold the Government to account and to allow Back Benchers on both sides of the House to raise constituency interests and concerns. Even at this late stage, it is not too late for the Leader and Deputy Leader of the House to have what was called this morning a Pauline conversion and to say, “Yes, this is a good idea from the Members for Kettering and Wellingborough. We wish we had thought of it, but we’re going to be charitable because we know that these two fine gentlemen have the best interests of the House at heart. We will support amendment (a).” If they were to say that, no one would cheer them louder than my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough and me.
Amendment (c) would allow for an extra sitting day on Wednesday 28 March. That is a separate issue from the rescheduling of Westminster Hall time. It is, in part, to do with the issue raised by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) about Prime Minister’s questions, but not for the reasons she suggested. I think the Prime Minister does extremely well at PMQs. It is an occasion when the great British public tune in to see Parliament at work. If we ask our constituents whether they watch any of the parliamentary television coverage, most of them will say that they do not, but most of those who say they do will watch PMQs. It is a regular half hour each week that people know is worth watching for information, news and, frankly, entertainment. The great British public look forward to Prime Minister’s questions and I think that, just on the basic level, it is a shame that the nation and the House is denied an opportunity for Prime Minister’s questions, regardless of who the Prime Minister is and of which party is in power, because it is a great British occasion. It is a shame that by having the Adjournment on the Tuesday, we do not get Prime Minister’s questions on the Wednesday.
On a partisan point, I take completely the opposite view to the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), because I think that the Prime Minister does extremely well at PMQs. I understand her point of view—she thinks he does particularly badly—but these differences are what makes for good debate and for the sense of occasion. I suspect that the Prime Minister enjoys Prime Minister’s questions and that he will be disappointed that he is not able to come here on that Wednesday. I suspect—this will doubtless be written down and used against me at some future point—that the Prime Minister is being given bad advice. I do not know whether it is coming from the Leader of the House or the Government Chief Whip, but someone is telling him, “Look, it would be a good idea to have the Adjournment on the Tuesday, so that you don’t have to go through all the hassle of Prime Minister’s questions on the Wednesday.” That is bad advice, wrongly given, and I suspect that the Prime Minister is disappointed that he will not have the opportunity to address the nation on that day.
On a serious level, all this does mean that the nation goes without Prime Minister’s questions for a month when it need not do so. According to the Government’s timetable, the last Prime Minister’s questions before the recess will be on Budget day, Wednesday 21 March, and the next Prime Minister’s questions will take place on the first Wednesday when Parliament comes back—Wednesday 18 April. So for almost a month the nation will be deprived of Prime Minister’s questions. Will the wheels come off the country, will the nation stop working and will everything grind to a halt? No, of course that will not happen, but there is no need to have a month between Prime Minister’s questions. We are talking about the Prime Minister of our country, and it would be a good precedent—perhaps this could be the Young doctrine—if the sign-off note before entering a recess were the Prime Minister answering questions from hon. Members in this House, to set the nation off for the recess. Would that not be a wonderful parliamentary occasion?
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
It is a great honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), who made a most excellent case that has probably already persuaded the Deputy Leader of the House to agree to the amendments. The danger of my speaking, of course, is that I might dissuade him. Now we are to have Heath time and Young time, the Deputy Leader of the House might have to consider declaring an interest in the debate.
I start by congratulating the Government on doing something that we never saw under the previous Government. Whenever these motions on the sittings of the House came along and were opposed, they used to be objected to at 10 o’clock at night and rather than arranging a debate, the then Government tabled them night after night, hoping that we would not turn up to object. Of course, we did turn up every night and eventually they had to give way. The Government have seen straight away that they needed to give the opportunity for this debate and they have done so very quickly, albeit on a Thursday when there are not normally many Members about, which could have meant that they risked losing the debate. Then I realised that this is a House matter, so they would not possibly be considering putting a Whip on. I have had an electronic message saying that we are suddenly on a three-line Whip, but that must be a mistake and I dare say that the Whip will disappear to change the whipping any second now. I am making a serious point, however, and I am very pleased that the Government have allowed this debate. I want to speak briefly about the three amendments, but I should say at the very beginning that I have had a text message from Thomas and I must make it absolutely clear that he regards the Deputy Leader of the House as a goodie.
The Government are absolutely right to put the extra day on Friday 23 March. I agree entirely, as it makes eminent sense that the Budget debate should run consecutively, so I welcome and support that decision. It also makes a great deal of sense, because of the timetable of the Budget debate, to have that debate on a Friday.
I also take the opportunity to thank the Government for the introduction of the Backbench Business Committee; they were instrumental in setting up one of the greatest movements towards parliamentary democracy for a very long time. Having said that, there is the issue of the Westminster Hall sitting, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) referred, to address. It is a scrutiny day and its loss denies people the right to a debate. I have to say that the Deputy Leader of the House’s argument that the Government would have to choose the topics was a little hard to swallow. Some people do not think that Westminster Hall is a very important Chamber or that the debates in it are important. I absolutely disagree. Westminster Hall debates are equally important as those in this Chamber. Indeed, I often chair Westminster Hall debates and I would argue that debate in Westminster Hall is better.
Mr Hollobone
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech, as usual, to which I am listening with close interest. Perhaps one reason why there are not more Members in this Chamber to hear this debate is that there is a packed Westminster Hall debate taking place on cycling campaign being run by The Times’s . Does that not illustrate the point about the power of Westminster Hall and the importance attached to it by hon. Members?
Mr Bone
I am grateful in one way for that intervention. The only problem is that that was exactly the next paragraph in my speech. Westminster Hall will now be packed with people discussing cycling. That was close to being the lead story in a lot of media outlets this morning, so the suggestion that Westminster Hall is not important from a national point of view is incorrect.
Let me give another, more personal example of how important Westminster Hall is. More than two years ago, the Speaker graciously granted me a Westminster Hall debate to discuss a constituent of mine—a five-year-old boy who was suffering from a very nasty cancer called neuroblastoma. Due to red tape, he was not allowed to enter a trial that could have increased his chance of survival from 20% to 70%. To cut a very long—and unfortunately continuing—story short, the excellent Health Minster at the time, Ann Keen, turned up to that debate, listened to the argument and went away and sorted the problem out. That little boy then got treatment on the NHS in Germany. I believe that if it had not been for that Westminster Hall debate, that little boy would not have got that cancer treatment. So, the loss of a Westminster Hall day could be very damaging.
In amendment (a), Monday 19 March is selected as a day for the relevant Westminster Hall sitting. That would be a suitable day because it is close to the day we are losing on Tuesday 20 March. Also, the House will be sitting on that day, so it will not inconvenience Members in any other way. On 26 May 2009, our excellent Prime Minster, who was then simply the leader of the Conservative Party and was about to embark on a very successful election campaign, produced a speech called “Fixing broken politics”. Anyone who does not have it should really get it and have it on their wall. It tells how Parliament is going to be transformed and many of the things in that speech have been done. There are one or two other things that are still to be sorted out, but we are getting there. In that speech, he said:
“The House of Commons should have more control over its own timetable, so there’s time for proper scrutiny and debate.”
That is what we are arguing about tonight. I think the Prime Minster put his point across perfectly and I could not agree with him more. By moving the Westminster Hall sitting, we would be fulfilling the Prime Minister’s desire by allowing Back Benchers to have a say in the timetable. We would also be fulfilling the Prime Minister’s desire for more and proper scrutiny of government. As we all know, Westminster Hall is one of the best places to scrutinise the Government on a particular issue. Therefore, if we move the Westminster Hall sitting, rather than cancel it, the House will definitely benefit.
I am fully aware, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering, that there is no precedent for Westminster Hall to sit on a Monday, but by being the first Government to have a Monday sitting, we would really show the House and the public that the Executive are determined to be scrutinised and to put Parliament first. That would be an extension of what the Government are already doing and it is quite appropriate and right that it should be called the Heath doctrine. I remember that when the Deputy Leader of the House and I sat on the Opposition side, he had rather similar views to mine. I do not know why, but sometimes when Members move to the other side of the Chamber their priorities and judgment are affected. He could show that that has not happened to him and we could have this wonderful doctrine.
I understand that there is a problem with Mondays because, according to the rules of the House, the debate would have to start at half-past 9 in the morning, which might make it difficult for Members from further away to attend. That is why I also support amendment (b), which would put the lost Westminster Hall day on the Friday when the House is already sitting for the Budget debate. Members would already be here and therefore would not be inconvenienced. Of course, all the arguments we have made for not losing the Westminster Hall day apply equally to that Friday. If the Government do not want to accept amendment (a), I think amendment (b) would do the trick and I would be happy for it to be made.
I do not want the Deputy Leader of the House to worry that he would lose the title of Heath days, because there is no precedent for Westminster Hall to sit on Fridays, so that, too, would be a new and good way of putting Parliament first. One of the concerns I have heard is the difficulty of getting Members to turn up on extra days, but of course only the Members interested in the matter being debated need to turn up for Westminster Hall and there are no Divisions, so it is not the case that everyone would have to come along.
I will concentrate on what I think is the main amendment, amendment (c). In essence, it would make Wednesday 29 March the final sitting day before the Easter recess. We have heard the argument that it should be a Wednesday so that we can have Prime Minister’s questions. When the previous Government avoided sitting on a Wednesday, I argued from the Opposition Benches that it is essential that Prime Ministers are scrutinised as often as is practically possible, because the House does not sit for a full year and there are huge gaps, and I still argue that now that I am on the Government Benches. If we have the option of breaking up on either Tuesday or Wednesday, let us make it the Wednesday. If Members want to call that Young time, I am more than happy to agree.
I heard the argument that the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) made about not having the Prime Minister here. The idea, from an hon. colleague, that the Prime Minister turns up so often because he does not want the Deputy Prime Minister to answer questions—I mean, how far-fetched can she get? When the Deputy Prime Minister speaks at the Dispatch Box, he sounds to me like a Tory, and we should hear more of that. Actually, it would be a very good idea for the Prime Minister, even if he was available on the Wednesday, to step aside so that the two deputies could have a go. I think everyone in the House would enjoy that.
I will come now to what I think is the most important and serious part of the debate. It is a slightly complex issue. The Backbench Business Committee, which has been given the Tuesday for Back-Bench business at the end of term, has allocated it for a debate on assisted dying. We have done that because we recognise that assisted dying is an important matter that the whole House should vote on, and on a free vote—I am sure that all parties will have a free vote. We also wanted to give notice of the debate so that Members who are interested could prepare for it. It is not a debate that we can have the following week, as we need time to prepare for it. The usual channels had promised us a date in March so that we could tell people when there would be a debate on assisted dying, but we were not given a date.
We were in a dilemma. How could we give a future date for a debate on assisted dying so that Members could prepare for it? The only date we could possibly give was the end of term, 27 March, but by doing so we had to get rid of the Hollobone day—the pre-recess debate on the new format, in which Ministers come along and answer groups of Back Benchers. Many Back Benchers who do not normally speak in the Chamber speak on those days about important constituency matters. So we had to decide, should we have the Hollobone day or the debate about assisted dying? We felt that we had to have the debate about assisted dying, and that was the only way we could schedule it, on a fixed date in March, and give people the notice that they deserve, but we were conscious that we would lose the end-of-term debate, which many people think is important.
So the solution is to make Wednesday the last day of term. It would be a Back-Bench business day, and we could have the pre-recess Adjournment debate then, too. We would have Prime Minister’s questions and then the Adjournment debate, and the advantage is that we would not only get to scrutinise the Prime Minister or Deputy Prime Minister, which any parliamentarian would want, but let Back Benchers raise issues that were important to them, with a Minister or, sometimes on those occasions, a Whip responding to the debate.
That is why on this particular occasion, amendment (c) is very important. The Deputy Leader of the House did not address it in his speech, perhaps because he had not thought or did not know about it, but now that I have explained it I hope that he will accept it. If he does, we will not need to press amendments (a) or (b), because the great advantage of amendment (c) is that it also involves a day on which Westminster Hall sits. There would be none of the problems to which he refers, because it would be a normal sitting day, and the Backbench Business Committee or the Speaker would be able to allocate the debates.
The Deputy Leader of the House and the Leader of the House have done much to improve parliamentary scrutiny; I genuinely mean that. On this occasion, without any detriment whatever to the Government, we can move Parliament forward, so I urge the Deputy Leader of the House to support at least amendment (c).
Business of the House (Private Members’ Bills)
Peter Bone Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I am grateful to speak in this short debate. I would like to congratulate the Government on putting down so early the days allotted for private Members, so that we can put them in our diaries and be pretty sure that the debates are going to happen on those dates. I accept, of course, that they are provisional, but this is a very good guide.
Will the Deputy Leader of the House explain why, if the Government can do that, they cannot allocate the 25 Backbench Business Committee days in the same manner in advance, which would be most useful to us? I entirely agree with the opening comments of the Deputy Leader of the House: he was very coherent and persuasive in the earlier debate, albeit in arguing a case that was completely hopeless. On reflection on the figures, he might realise that the number of Members voting for the motion was less than half. In fact, there were massive abstentions, which most people would regard as a warning shot or perhaps as a defeat for the Government.
Mr Heath
With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker.
This has been a wonderful opportunity for a short debate about the dates of private Members’ Bills. We are always happy to have a debate when the House demands one. Equally, we are always happy for there not to be a debate when the House agrees to something without objection. That always strikes me as a sensible use of time in the House, which, as we have already heard in previous debates, is at a premium.
I am grateful to the hon. Members for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) for making clear the value of being given the earliest possible notice of dates when they are available to us. We always try to accommodate the House as best we can by providing early notice, and that goes for the printed calendar as well. That too is provisional, but it helps Members to identify how the timetable fits in with their personal and political arrangements. They can then notify us if there are difficulties, although on this occasion no one has mentioned any problems with the dates that have been allocated.
This is provisional in the sense that any decision by the House can be rescinded by the House. Not so long ago, the House was invited to rescind a motion that it had passed only two days earlier. I cannot say whether at any time in the next year the House may wish to rescind the dates that it has chosen for private Members’ Bills, but I hope that it will not do so, because it makes sense for us to be able to plan.
We are also in the hands of the Select Committees, including the Procedure Committee, which examines the proposals for private Members’ Bills. I have no idea what the Committee will say, and it would be improper if I did. If it produces recommendations and they are put to the House, the Government will of course respond, and the House will determine whether there is to be a change. Again, that would not be a matter for me, as a Minister, to determine.
As for the question of whether adequate time is provided by the procedures governing private Members’ Bills, we are bound by a Standing Order of the House, but within what that Standing Order sets out, we try to provide the days that seem to us to be most suitable. The Fridays in September have been included because it has been suggested that it would be helpful for Back Benchers to be able to make progress with their legislation then, but if the House were to recommend otherwise, we would obviously pay attention to that view.
The arrangements for money resolutions and the like are normally determined on a Bill-by-Bill basis with both the Member responsible for the Bill and the Minister who would have an interest in it. There is not a Government position on that. That often involves complex negotiation, because we all want good private Members’ legislation that the House can support where appropriate, while also ensuring proper scrutiny. That is our intention, and the intention of the House.
Mr Heath
The answer to that is simple. Private Member’s Bills are dealt with on Fridays so they do not compete for time with Government legislation. As we know, Government legislation does not always run in a straight trajectory, not least because we are dealing with two Houses of Parliament, and there are therefore variables. We do not want to give people a firm calendar on which they then make their arrangements only for them subsequently to find that it has been changed at late notice.
The hon. Gentleman has a point in respect of whether the Backbench Business Committee, the Government and others who have an interest should consider whether there might be a way of accommodating fixed-point debates, as it were, on matters that there is a relevant time to discuss. We should address that question in the context of the review of the operation of the Backbench Business Committee.
Sadly, we are not yet at a point where we can decide with certainty and long in advance which day in the legislative week will be given over to what activity of the House, because there are too many imponderables. As a Government business manager, I would love to know well in advance the position in respect of every Bill before the House, but I listen to what both Houses say and respond accordingly. We all must accept that that means that there will be uncertainties in the future programme. On that basis, I commend the motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Private Members’ Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 6 and 13 July, 7 and 14 September, 19 and 26 October and 2, 9 and 30 November 2012 and 18 and 25 January, 1 February and 1 March 2013.
Oral Answers to Questions
Peter Bone Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Heath
We will do our best. The seminar to which the hon. Lady refers will help to inform the work of the Procedure Committee. The results of the seminar plus the Government’s response will—I hope—enable something to be laid before the House that will improve how we deal with e-petitions. With co-ordination and co-operation from everybody involved, we will ensure we get the right response.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I think I am right in saying that virtually every e-petition a Member has brought to the Backbench Business Committee that has reached 100,000 signatures has been debated in one way or the other. The Government should be enormously congratulated on bringing the public in line with Parliament. The Leader of the House has not had enough praise for that. Without this system, we would not have had the EU referendum debate.
Mr Heath
I am always grateful for praise and congratulation from the hon. Gentleman. I genuinely think the e-petition system has been a great improvement. The old Downing street e-petition system, under the previous Government, had no mechanism for questions ever to get on to the Floor of the House. The most memorable thing it ever produced was a suggestion that Jeremy Clarkson be Prime Minister. I think our system works an awful lot better.