Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Bill

Debate between Peter Bone and David Nuttall

Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 24th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nuttall]

The short answer is no; I cannot think of anything. I would be very interested if anyone else present could come up with any measure that we are prevented from introducing because we have not yet ratified the convention. In fact, as the previous intervention demonstrated, the Government have quite happily brought forward lots of proposals to tackle these matters already, and quite rightly. I have my own ideas about what we could do to try to tackle domestic violence, and I am interested in whether Opposition Members would support me. For example, we could start by saying that those who are convicted of domestic violence and sent to prison are required to serve the full length of their sentence, rather than being let out halfway through. If we are talking about sending signals, let us send the good signal that if someone commits an act of domestic violence and is sent to prison, they would have to serve the full length of their sentence. There are things we could do that I would be very much willing to support.

It is not even the final step when the report is finally tabled by the Secretary of State—

“as soon as reasonably practicable”—

and sets out the timetable. The final step comes afterwards. Even when the Secretary of State has finally determined that the United Kingdom is compliant with the Istanbul convention, a date by which the convention will be ratified does not have to be set. Following the amendments made, the Bill simply states that

“the Secretary of State would expect the Convention to be ratified”,

so another small delay is built in there. But then what happens? What is the purpose of the Bill then?

Previously, the purpose of the Bill would have been to report on progress every year until ratification and then, after ratification, to report on how the Government were doing. All the reporting after ratification has now been removed, and reports will be prepared only until ratification. There is no mechanism under this Bill—I stress under this Bill—to measure the various things set out in it, which the promoter must have thought were important at the time it was drafted. Those include measures to

“protect women against violence, and prevent, prosecute and eliminate violence against women and domestic violence”—

there is a long list.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I have come along today to support the Bill, but it has been watered down so much that I am not entirely sure which way to vote on Third Reading. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say before I make my mind up, but what would by hon. Friend’s advice be?

[Mr Nuttall]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because he raises an interesting point. Many supporters of the Bill will, like him, look at what has happened this morning and at the changes that have been made and think, “What is the purpose of this Bill?” Even people who, like him, were sympathetic towards it could now look at it and think, “Actually, there’s no real purpose to the Bill anymore.” I hope my hon. Friend has been persuaded that any measures he may have in mind to reduce domestic violence against women and men could be taken regardless of whether the Bill goes through; it is merely virtue signalling—we are merely sending a message. The Bill does nothing of itself to reduce violence against women and girls or men and boys.

Understandably, the Government say they cannot ratify the treaty until they know they are compliant in every respect, although, of course, lots of other countries have managed to ratify it, and as we heard earlier, a lot of them have done so by making reservations.

I have worked through the text of the Bill, but I want now to touch on another reason why the Bill is not necessary. A procedure already exists in law to govern the way this House ratifies international treaties. The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 was passed by the coalition Government in 2010 and came into force on 11 November 2010. It gave this House and Parliament a new statutory role in the ratification of treaties. It did not go as far as giving Parliament the power to amend a treaty, and nor does this Bill give it the power to change anything about the Istanbul convention. However, part 2 of the Act did set out a very clear procedure, and I submit that that is one we now need to follow.

There is a general statutory requirement to publish a treaty that is subject to ratification or its equivalent. The Government must lay the treaty before Parliament for 21 sitting days. That provision put into statute what was previously known as the Ponsonby rule, which was named after Arthur Ponsonby, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in 1924, during the debate on the treaty of Lausanne, a peace treaty with Turkey. The 2010 Act allows both Houses the opportunity to pass a resolution that a treaty should not be ratified during the 21 sitting days. If neither House does so, the Government are then able to proceed and ratify the treaty. If either this House or the other place votes against ratification, the Government cannot immediately ratify the treaty. Instead, the Government must lay a statement to explain why they wish to proceed with the ratification process.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Bone and David Nuttall

Monday 5th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

8. What assessment she has made of recent trends in the level of immigration.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

17. What plans her Department has to reduce net migration.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Debate between Peter Bone and David Nuttall

Friday 17th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

As the hon. Member for Clacton (Douglas Carswell) just said, next Friday it will be three years since I moved a motion in this House to hold a referendum on our membership of the European Union. At that time, there was a three-line Whip from all the major parties against my motion. I am pleased that the Prime Minister has listened to the overwhelming view of the majority of the British people that they want their say on this issue—that it should not be decided by a political elite, but by the hard-working British people.

There are two main reasons why the Bill is necessary and why there should be a referendum. First, as has been mentioned, it is four decades since the British people last had their say on our membership of what was then the European Economic Community, which people referred to at the time as a common market. But the organisation we belong to today is a completely different animal. It is vastly bigger and has vastly more control over the United Kingdom.

Secondly, as has already been evidenced in the debate, this issue crosses party political boundaries. There are supporters of all parties who want us to stay in the European Union, and there are supporters of all parties who want us to leave. In those circumstances, because it cannot be decided at a general election, and because it is a constitutional matter, it is right that it should be determined by the British people.

As chair of the Better Off Out group of MPs and peers, my view is clearly that we would, as a nation, be better off out of the European Union. On far too many issues this Parliament has no choice but to simply carry out the instructions sent to us from the European Union, whether we like it or not. This House of Commons should not simply be the lapdog of Brussels. Why should we have to pay billions of pounds each year just for the privilege of trading with our own European neighbours, even though, as has been pointed out, they would trade with us anyway? It just does not make sense.

[Mr Bone]

I was delighted to have the opportunity to wind up the debate that my hon. Friend initiated three years ago. Does he agree that this mother of Parliaments should decide today by having a Division? As someone who passionately believes that we should come out of the European Union, I do not think that we should allow this to go through on the nod.

[Mr Nuttall]

I recall that my hon. Friend summed up that debate eloquently and—this was the crucial point—just in the nick of time. The House divided then, and if we divide today I of course will have no hesitation in supporting the Bill.

As a nation, we need to export to the whole world. Having to comply with red tape from Brussels makes the job that much harder and more difficult for British companies that are having to compete on the world stage with companies that do not have to comply with such a regulatory burden.

I hope that the Bill will pass through its stages in this House quickly, and if it is held up again in the other place, I hope that the Parliament Act will be used so that my constituents in Bury, Ramsbottom and Tottington, and indeed constituents in the whole country, can have their say. It is long overdue.

Sittings of the House (22 March)

Debate between Peter Bone and David Nuttall

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bone]

No, that is an outrageous slur; I just put it down to incompetence. On a more serious note, the abuse from the Whips has already started, and I am still in the Chamber, so when we get out of the Chamber there will be even more. That is a bad thing for this House.

Going to the heart of the matter, the real problem is that Prime Minister’s questions has gone down to one day a week on the Wednesday. If it were still two days a week on the Tuesday and the Thursday, it would not really matter what day the House rose on, because there would be an opportunity to scrutinise the Prime Minister close to the rising of the House.

There is a principle involved that is not just to do with this motion. I gently say to the shadow Leader of the House that she is being a little opportunist in making a political point rather than taking the politics out of it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) wanted to do. There is a strong argument for the House not rising for a recess on a Monday or a Tuesday other than in very exceptional cases. It should rise on a Wednesday or a Thursday, and then we would get rid of all these problems.

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend said that it would not make any difference if there were Prime Minister’s questions on a Tuesday and a Thursday, but in fact it would make a difference in this case. If there were Prime Minister’s questions on the Tuesday, the Budget would follow immediately afterwards. If the House then rose on the Thursday, that would mean that it rose on Maundy Thursday. As my hon. Friend shares my views about the Christian religion, I am sure he agrees that that would not be a sensible idea.

[Mr Bone]

I hate to disagree with my hon. Friend, but the timing of the Budget is entirely at the discretion of the Executive. They have chosen to have it so late and that has caused all these problems.

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) made an absolutely first-class speech, as always, but drew completely the wrong conclusions.

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Peter Bone and David Nuttall

Tuesday 6th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nuttall]

I simply repeat the point I have made: if they are a menace in London, or indeed in Oxford, the matter should be dealt with on a national basis and not in a piecemeal way through a London local authorities Bill. As we have heard, pedicabs will not be dealt with in any way at all. We now hear that, having spent all these years on the one clause that might go some way towards dealing with something that someone is concerned about, it will not be dealt with by the Bill. I shall come to that shortly.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for his introduction and for acting on behalf of the promoters in the House. He has been passed the baton by our hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), who, I notice, is not in his place. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East will look to make the same scintillating speed of progress as our hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green made with the London Local Authorities Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East referred to the fact that 10 Bills have been promoted by the London local authorities. I do not know over what period, but I assume it is since the Greater London council was abolished—[Interruption.] I now hear that some were introduced before the GLC was abolished. My hon. Friend said that it was not uncommon for a Bill to be promoted in that way, but if I were a London council tax payer, I would ask why some of those Bills were not consolidated and dealt with in a rather more organised way than the current piecemeal and haphazard approach.

We debated a Bill that deals with three or four things last week and we will debate another one next week, and the London Local Authorities and Transport (No. 2) Bill, which we are debating now, deals with six or seven different matters. I cannot see why they could not be brought together in one Bill, but I can see that it provides a good deal of work for the parliamentary agents who draft Bills and prepare the various petitions that are lodged in opposition to them.

What is common to all those London Bills is that each brings with it more regulation, more red tape, more bureaucracy and more rules for Londoners and visitors to London. This Bill has had a very long gestation period indeed. The petition for it was lodged as long ago as 27 November 2007. We have already heard this evening that the discussions and planning go back some years even before that.

The petition was lodged as long ago as four and a quarter years, and First Reading took place in the other place on 22 January 2008—incidentally, the day after the then Transport Minister, the right hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Ms Winterton), wrote a four-page letter to point out that the Bill was defective in many ways. So, even before it reached the First Reading starting gate, the right hon. Lady had written to the Chairman of Committees, Lord Brabazon of Tara, a four-page letter stating, in a nutshell, that the Bill did not comply with the European convention on human rights, not just in one particular but in several particulars. One would have thought that with all their experience of promoting Bills, the London local authorities would at least have got these matters right before drafting the Bill. Nevertheless, the Bill received its First Reading on 22 January 2008.

Not much happened after that, as we have heard, and on 17 November 2008 the other place resolved that the Bill’s promoters should have leave to suspend further proceedings on the Bill until the next Session. This House concurred with their lordships in their resolution on 19 November. Not much happened until Monday 9 March 2009, when a Select Committee of five noble Lords began a three-day hearing into the Bill’s contents and to listen to the petitioners’ objections. There were three petitions in the Lords, which for reasons of brevity I will not go into, although later I will touch on the Commons petitions.

The petitions were dealt with at length over three days, and the result was 119 pages of evidence. One would consider that pretty detailed analysis but unfortunately most of the evidence related to matters not before the House today. The Bill considered by the other place contained many more clauses than this Bill. I think it contained 38 clauses, whereas this Bill has 23. That is quite an attrition rate in the number of clauses in the four years since the Bill was originally introduced. The Committee reported to their lordships on 2 April 2009. Again, however, unfortunately for today’s proceedings, much of what was considered in the report from the then Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) has been removed from the Bill in the other place. The hon. Gentleman is now the shadow Minister and is in his place this evening, and I am sure he will recall signing the said document and will no doubt be able to recall its contents exactly. There is very little left worth commenting on from that report and from those three days of detailed examination of the Bill in the other place.

On 29 October 2009—more than six months after that report was presented to their lordships—the House of Lords resolved for a second time to give leave to the promoters to suspend proceedings on the Bill and, if they saw fit, to proceed with it in the following Session. This House concurred with the resolution of their lordships on 3 November 2009. I have to give the promoters of these Bills one thing: they are nothing if not determined. It will therefore be no surprise to the House to hear that the Bill was duly reintroduced, on 19 November 2009.

Yet again, it would appear that nothing happened for several months—according to the official Parliament website, that is—until the Bill was for some reason reintroduced on 28 June 2010. However, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, there was in fact a great deal of activity behind the scenes. Great chunks of the Bill were being removed and it was slimmed down to its current state. [Interruption.] I think I said earlier that it had 38 clauses; in fact, it had 39 in those days. Following what we might refer to for present purposes as the Select Committee stage—obviously the procedure is different with a normal public Bill—clauses 4 to 14 were removed, and amendments were made to clauses 16 and 21. Also, clauses 26 and 27 were removed on Third Reading, to which I shall turn shortly. Either way, the Bill was losing clauses at quite a swift rate.

Third Reading took place in the other place on 28 March 2011. It is perhaps worth noting how few people took part in that debate. After four years, one might assume that this Bill had been considered by dozens and dozens of their noble lordships and baronesses; in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. The Bill was considered by just five noble lords in Committee. On Third Reading, it was discussed by just six more. So, as far as I can see, a total of just 11 noble lords took part in the debates on the Bill in the other place.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has made an interesting point about the number of Members in the Committee in the Lords. If there were only five present, was there a quorum?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend says, “Why not?” from a sedentary position. I commend the Third Reading report to all interested Members, as it sets out the problems that their lordships saw with the Bill, to some of which they drew this House’s attention. Indeed, they invited this House to look at it again to deal with the problems they had identified in our further consideration.

Earl Attlee said on Third Reading:

“The Government are committed not to create new offences unless it is truly necessary to do so.”

One problem is that the Bill seeks to create new offences. I would accept that in one respect—responsibility and liability in respect of skips transferred from the police to local authorities—but the general thrust of the Bill is to create more rules and more regulation. Earl Attlee went on to say that the Government had not reached a final conclusion about the matter. He said:

“The Government’s position on increasing the burden on business is very clear and we will be considering”—

we should note the future tense—

“whether, in our view, the Bill would create an unacceptable burden on business in order to make our views known before the Bill reaches Committee stage in the other place.”

We may hear more about the Government’s view when we hear from the Minister later.

According to what Lord Attlee said, I understand that the Government had notified the Bill’s promoters that some clauses could be improved or altered by minor amendments, particularly regarding the affixing of street furniture to buildings. One specific suggestion was made—that the owner of the building should be served with a notice, giving the exact date on which the work would begin, and setting out the terms of the use of electric vehicle charging points installed and operated under the Bill’s powers. The noble Lord went on to say:

“We will be seeking to reach agreement on amendments with the promoters before Committee stage in the other place as it is then that the Bill can next be substantially amended.” —[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 March 2011; Vol. 726, c. 1034.]

I emphasise the words “substantially amended”. Clearly, on Third Reading in the other place, the Government had serious reservations.

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend is gracious in giving way. I draw his attention to clause 16 on gated roads, where we seem to be creating an offence that does not need to be made. I see these barriers all over the country. Surely we do not need another law; if they were interfered with, that would presumably be criminal damage in the first place.

[Mr Nuttall]

I have not yet reached the subject of gated roads, but it is probably possible to pick at random a part of the Bill that creates a new offence, rule or law, to which is attached a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

As my hon. Friend says, there are gated roads all over the country, and if that is a problem in the capital city of our great country, it is no doubt just as likely to be a problem on a country road somewhere out in the shires. If the correct way of dealing with the problem is to introduce legislation that creates a criminal offence—which is what we are doing here—it is surely correct to deal with it by means of legislation that covers the whole country, not just the capital.

Many things have happened since the Bill’s introduction in the other place as long ago as 27 November 2007, four and a quarter years ago. For instance, we have had a general election, and the Localism Bill—now the Localism Act 2011—received Royal Assent on 15 November last year. I am sure that several London local authorities have undergone a change of political control since 2007, and I wonder to what extent the promoters of the Bill considered those changes.

The Localism Act gives local authorities a general power of competence. It has completely changed the regime in which authorities operate: they no longer have to seek specific authority from this place to go off and do something, because the Act allows them to do it unless another Act tells them that they cannot. To what extent has that been taken into account by the promoters? Moreover, residents have been given the power to institute local referendums. If this is the problem that some Members think it is—as we heard earlier—I am sure that some residents will be hot on the heels of local councillors with petitions asking for something to be done about it.

After many years of delay, things speeded up after the Bill’s Third Reading in the House of Lords on 28 March 2011, and it appears to have been given its First Reading in this House on the same day. I believe that that is the only occasion on which anything to do with this Bill has ever happened speedily. It has, however, attracted four new petitions, from Bugbugs Media Ltd, Reliable Rickshaws Ltd, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, the Society of London Theatre, the Theatrical Management Association, and the London Cab Drivers Club. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East said, the promoters of the Bill managed to achieve the rare feat of upsetting the petitioners on both sides. They could not really win. Whatever they did, they were bound to upset somebody. I suspect they have probably reached the right conclusion by deciding to upset both sides and withdraw clause 17.

Let us return to the question of the cost to the London council tax payer. The organisations concerned—private limited companies, trade bodies and, indeed, trade unions—have been put to expense in having to raise these petitions. I dare say the solicitors and parliamentary agents were not acting for nothing; they could have been acting on a pro bono basis, and if they were I am sure someone will rise to tell me so—but the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington is not doing so. I therefore assume these people were being paid rather handsomely for their good services. These Bills are by no means a no-cost option, therefore.

Over the past four years there has been an attrition rate of four clauses per year. However, only 10 minutes after the start of the opening speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, we heard that another clause is to go. We have made good progress, therefore: the first clause went in 10 minutes. If we carry on at this rate, the Bill will be gone in a couple of days—but if we carry on at the same rate as things have been moving since the Bill started its life, we may, sadly, have to wait another six years before it withers away to its natural end.

London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]

Debate between Peter Bone and David Nuttall

Tuesday 21st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nuttall]

I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) for his great patience and unfailing courtesy in facilitating the progress of this Bill, albeit progress at a speed that must appear to many people to be that of a particularly sluggish glacier.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Is this not what Parliament should be doing, including with Government business, too? Should we not be properly scrutinising things?

[Mr Nuttall]

I entirely agree. The quality of the legislation that passes through this House would be enormously improved if it was subjected to the sort of Report stage that this Bill is enjoying, when we have the time to examine each clause and, to be fair, the promoters listen to the argument and, where necessary, make amendments, accepting amendments that they find agreeable in this place rather than in the other place. Such amendments improve the quality of the legislation, so I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green for his patience in this matter.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) on his comprehensive and detailed analysis of the merits of the various amendments in this third debate. He built on and developed the excellent critique offered by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), who continued where he left off on 25 January, with his customary erudite evaluation and critical assessment of street trading. It is a matter of regret that on this occasion we are not able to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who always speaks with such common sense on these matters. We hope that even in his absence our deliberations will not leave any stone unturned.

I agreed with all the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch and for North East Somerset, but one or two further areas of concern and perhaps unease need additional examination this evening. As you will have seen, Madam Deputy Speaker, this group is very large, comprising no fewer than 53 amendments, and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset managed to deal with each one in slightly more than a minute, and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch dealt with each of them in less than one minute. I shall try to be as quick.

The lead amendment relates to clause 9. My concern is not primarily on my own account. My principal concern is that the provisions may have an effect on my constituents living in Bury, Ramsbottom and Tottington. When many people hear the word “London”, particularly those living outside the capital, they concentrate their minds on the centre of London, where the principal tourist attractions are located. Of course it is much more than that; it is home to millions of people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend makes a very interesting point. As we shall see in some of the later provisions—if time permits—the Bill seems to be trying to establish local authorities as judge and jury in their own case.

[Mr Bone]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I realise that he is going through his speech rapidly so that we have a chance to get to Third Reading this evening, but I wish he would slow down a little and think about the point in a bit more detail. Surely, there is only one institution that decides whether a person is trading—Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.

[Mr Nuttall]

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs may well have reached a conclusion about the activities of an individual who is engaged in what might in another sphere be called hobby trading, in the way that many people engage in what is known as hobby farming by keeping a few hens, a couple of sheep or some cattle. But someone who sells two or three vehicles a year, having repaired them as a hobby, would probably not be regarded and ought not to be regarded as being engaged in a business.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend is talking about a new subject which has not been discussed tonight. I am glad we are exploring something new, but is it not the case that whether or not the person in the example pays tax, he will be regarded as trading? It is the Revenue that will make that decision.

[Mr Nuttall]

Even if that were the case and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs decided that trading had taken place, it might well be too late. HMRC may not consider the matter until some time after the event. It could be as much as 10 months after the end of the tax year before that taxpayer was required to file an income tax return. The local authority official would be trying to make up their own mind on a fairly random basis, which might differ from borough to borough, whether trading had taken place.

I shall touch briefly on another way in which the Bill would impinge on traders at the other end of the scale who take the plunge and open their own large or medium-sized lot, selling cars as a genuine business. They are quite open about it and have established their business with a trade name, they advertise in the newspaper and they have all their cars together on a car lot. It is often the case with such businesses that from time to time their stock overflows the land that they have, and they must temporarily resort to placing vehicles outside their premises—on the street, perhaps. They would be caught by the provision, even though for the rest of the time they were good, law-abiding citizens. It is very much a case of the law of unintended consequences when we pass such legislation, because the regulations might catch people who were perhaps not at the forefront of our minds when we considered these clauses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. There is a risk that an over-zealous tatterdemalion—I have finally used the word—who was keen to impress his local authority superiors might be driving down that road and could photograph the vehicle and take action under this provision, should it pass into law.

The other, more fundamental, point about the clause is that it might prevent young entrepreneurs from setting out to make a living. I see car salesmen not as street traders but as entrepreneurs. One of the reasons I came into politics was that I wanted to encourage people to become entrepreneurs, to believe in the free market and to sell their goods and be buyers and sellers. We do not want a situation in which local government sticks its nose into every aspect of people’s lives.

[Mr Bone]

We now get to the nub of the matter. What we are seeing tonight is regulation being brought in for apparently good reasons, but that is what happens all the time. Parliament continually brings in regulation, but then we say that there is too much of it. We should be looking at entrepreneurs and saying that what they are doing is right, not adding regulation. That is what is wrong.

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the dangers of these provisions, and one of the ills that the amendments seek to address, is that they send out a very negative message about entrepreneurship. It sends out the message that if someone tries to use their initiative and start off in the motor trade we will jump on them, try to put an end to it and stop them starting out in life.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

Regrettably, I suspect that our hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) has misled our hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall).

Taxation Freedom Day Bill

Debate between Peter Bone and David Nuttall

Friday 25th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nuttall]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

[Mr Bone]

Will my hon. Friend make it clear that if there were to be such an oral statement by the Chancellor, it should be made to the House first rather than being given to the media in advance?

Daylight Saving Bill (Money)

Debate between Peter Bone and David Nuttall

Tuesday 22nd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Will the Minister in his reply say how much of the money that he has referred to relates to paragraph (1) of the motion and how much relates to paragraph (2)? In addition, as has just been said, may we have the total cost, not just the limited cost?

I would normally argue that we should vote specifically on the money resolution and how much it will cost the Exchequer, and if this related to a Government Bill, that would be quite in order. But this relates to a private Member’s Bill, and by tradition money resolutions automatically follow Second Reading. If a Member had managed to overcome all the hurdles and get enough Members here to pass a Bill on Second Reading, which I would probably not have voted for, they should have the right to go into Committee, have the Bill debated there and brought back to the House for a Third Reading, where, if Members so wished, they could defeat it. My concern about this money resolution is the length of time that it has taken from Second Reading to come to this House. It appears that we are looking at a new procedure here, where the Executive are trying to block Bills that they do not like. Apparently, they have now agreed changes to the Bill, so they like it, so they are bringing forward the money resolution. I believe that that is an abuse of Parliament.

There is another private Member’s Bill, whose promoter is my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), which has had its Second Reading, but it has had no money resolution, so it cannot get into Committee. Because of the way the Government gerrymandered the number of days for private Members’ Bills in this Session, there is only one more private Members’ Bill after this Friday. Unless the money resolution is agreed tonight, there will be no chance for this Bill to get into Committee.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

My hon. Friend says that there is no chance of the Bill getting through, but I know from a conversation I had earlier this evening with my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) that, if the Committee stage cannot be dealt with by 20 January 2012, the hope is that another day will be made available for private Members’ business.

[Mr Bone]

That is rather a surprise to me. I am now tempted to vote against the money resolution in order to allow another day for private Members’ Bills, but that would not coincide with my principles. What we must decide tonight is very simple. The money resolution is not about the money that would be spent, but about whether there should be an almost automatic passage through the House for a private Member’s Bill that has gone through Second Reading. What I am seeing tonight is an attempt to block that, and I do not like it. I do not like the way the Government have used that to put pressure to change the Bill. The House should support the money resolution, but I think that we should be wary of what the Government have done.

House of Commons Disqualification (Amendment) Bill

Debate between Peter Bone and David Nuttall

Friday 9th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend is correct. Although we may take two steps forward, we sometimes take one step back. The Whips Office have found it difficult to deal with the fact that their patronage has been taken away. They cannot appoint Select Committee Chairmen any more, so they have gone to a different camp and we have many more PPSs. We have probably got PPSs to PPSs—it is getting to that stage. At any time, the Government can probably rely on 150 votes in the House. I regret that control by the Executive over Parliament, and it would help enormously if it were not possible for MPs to be Whips.

Moving on to a more controversial part of an uncontroversial Bill, I shall describe the problems with the Whips Office. There is a story about a new Member who went into the Labour Whips Office and said, “Does it mean that we can’t beat people up any more?” That is probably an urban myth that has been widely cited, but there are other stories that are clearly true and are much more worrying. In fact, not a single hon. Member would deny that the Whips Office uses a whole arsenal of weapons including patronage, flattery, misinformation, which is highly effective, and the direct threatening of parliamentary careers should the unfortunate victim of their attention not comply with their wishes.

Occasionally, the operation of the Whips Office becomes public knowledge. Let us go back just a few weeks to June, when a Backbench Business Committee debate on wild animals in circuses dominated the news outlets. First, I must say that this reforming Government have set up the Backbench Business Committee which, for the first time, has allowed Back Benchers to table business in the House. We have 35 days per Session to allocate debates, which is a huge step forward in parliamentary reform. It allows better scrutiny of the Executive and allows issues that would not otherwise be heard to be debated on the Floor of the House.

My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) secured a debate on wild animals in circuses. Unfortunately, the Whips had not embraced the idea of non- Executive business or the notion that Parliament should take a view on the matter different from that of the Executive. They still tried to influence my hon. Friend with their normal bag of tricks: flattery, inducements and threats. However, my courageous and independent hon. Friend stuck to his guns and forced a change to Government policy. He said in the Chamber:

“I am not going to kowtow to the Whips or even the Prime Minister of my country on an issue that I feel passionately about and on which I have conviction.” —[Official Report, 23 June 2011; Vol. 530, c. 548.]

He also said that MPs should show “a bit of spine” and that he would not be bullied.

The result of my hon. Friend’s bold stand was that the Government caved in and allowed a free vote on his motion, which was overwhelmingly endorsed by the House of Commons. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) said, it produced better legislation as a result.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

If I remember correctly, there was no vote that day. Am I right in my recollection?

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend is not quite correct. The Question on the motion was put, but because nobody expressed dissent, it was carried by the collection of voices. Many of us who returned especially to vote on that were delighted that there was no opposition.

My argument about that day is that the Whips should not have attempted to influence support for the actions of my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin, as the debate was Back-Bench business. The Whips should simply have butted out. The Bill would make it impossible for such pressure to be applied in the future because Members of Parliament could not be Whips. Instances of such behaviour abound and we all know several Members whose careers have been significantly affected by the actions of the Whips Office. It is, sadly, a simple fact of parliamentary life that even the size of the room a Member gets depends on how much they have pleased the Whips. My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering is still in a shoebox.

As for disinformation, let me give the House an example, particularly in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). I know that Whips deliberately misinformed hon. Members about the facts relating to the new Backbench Business Committee by sending out an e-mail out that claimed the Committee always held its business on a Thursday and decided the topic under discussion only a few days before. That was sent out by the Whips as authoritative fact, although it was completely and utterly untrue. It was intended to rubbish the new Committee because that Committee put business before the House that the Whips did not want to see debated.

It is astonishing to think that in an age where employees have more rights than ever before and workplace bullying has, thankfully, become increasingly unacceptable, Members are still treated in such a manner. If I were to treat my staff in this way for even an instant I would, quite rightly, be taken to an employment tribunal, yet it is through these often underhand methods that Whips ensure that the Executive line is strictly obeyed, and that the public are therefore denied the independent-minded Members of Parliament and, indeed, the Parliament that they deserve.

The situation is worse in coalition Governments, as Whips often force Members to vote in totally the opposite way to what their party manifesto stated on issues that they stood on at the last election. Although Liberal Members signed a pledge before the last election not to increase tuition fees, they were forced by their Whips to do completely the opposite when they were in government. Equally, Conservative Members who stood on a platform opposing the alternative vote were forced by the Whips to vote for a Bill on a referendum for the alternative vote system.

Let me give a personal example of Whips’ tactics. In the last parliamentary term, on 30 March 2011, a Whip sent out an e-mail, which I will read out:

“I regret to have to inform colleagues that we are all required tonight after 7pm on a strict 3-line whip with respect to a Motion by the Leader of the House to which an amendment has been tabled by Mr Peter Bone and others so it is now votable. Unless you have previously been slipped by me, your presence is required.”

The e-mail was sent out to every Conservative Member of Parliament. Not only did it cause great embarrassment, but it was factually incorrect and misleading—another example of misinformation. The e-mail received an understandably negative response from my colleagues, including a Minister who had to return from an important meeting because of the Whip’s action. After I contacted many of my colleagues and explained the true situation, they were appalled that the Whips had ever sent out such an e-mail. What was so outrageous was that the Whip was trying to influence Members of Parliament about a matter relating to House of Commons business which was of no concern to the Executive and entirely the responsibility of Parliament. Of course, though, that is insignificant compared with some of the other episodes in which the Whips have involved themselves.

That is not to say that all Whips behave in such a manner, and nor is it to say—this is a response to an earlier intervention—that the Whips do not perform useful functions, but it is the Whips Office that performs those useful functions. We do not need Members of Parliament to be Whips. We can get civil servants, who are currently employed in the Whips Office anyway, to carry out the administrative necessities. There is nothing that the Whips do that could not be done by civil servants, if there was a business of the House committee. The only thing left for them to do would be the strong-arming tactics of trying to tell people how to vote.

[Dr Wollaston]

rose—

[Mr Nuttall]

rose—

[Mr Bone]

Oh, ladies first.

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend hits on a good point that I am going to deal with a little later. Clearly, though, the system does not provide value for money at the moment.

[Mr Nuttall]

The Whips Office would submit that it performs another function—a pastoral role for Members of Parliament. Does my hon. Friend agree that that role could be undertaken by the parties—for example, by the parliamentary Labour party or the 1922 committee? Does he think that they could perform that pastoral role?

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend raises an important point that has been used as the sole argument for keeping the Whips Office. If a Member of Parliament is suffering from a problem with which they need serious help, the last person they will want to go to is their Whip. Their party might even be the last people they would want to go to. Instead, they would want to see an independent professional, and such a person should be available in the House of Commons. It would be a huge improvement, not a setback.

Broadcasting (Public Service Content) Bill

Debate between Peter Bone and David Nuttall

Friday 1st April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bone]

Indeed. I have to say that I have not had the privilege of seeing it because I do not know how YouTube works, but on the very day that it was broadcast, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, who was taking his children to school, was hauled aside by someone who said “You must come and watch this on YouTube.” It should have been on national television rather than on YouTube. He followed it up with a letter to the director-general, who passed it on to someone else in the organisation to answer, who eventually replied saying, “We’ve looked into this matter and”—this is the crucial point—“the BBC news content is subjective.” How right that is! It is utterly subjective. Therefore, by the BBC’s own admission, it would fall foul of this part of my Bill and so would not necessarily qualify for licence fee funding for its news output. It would then have to start being objective, factual and impartial, and once it achieved that, it would qualify for the funding.

Because of what we Members do for a living, we watch all the news broadcasters to see the different ways they cover the news so we get a broad understanding of what is happening. Quite often Sky, Channel 4 and ITV will have a story at the top of the bulletin that the BBC has chosen to place further down because it is biased against that story. I do not say that with any glee; rather, I say it with some sadness and concern. When a state broadcaster is institutionally biased against the views of Conservative-leaning people—even though it does not understand that—I wonder why the majority in this country, who are Conservative leaning, have to pay a forced poll tax. I remember the poll tax demonstrations.

All that this little, uncontroversial Bill would do is remove all of the funding from the licence fee going to the BBC, thereby reducing the cost of the fee to, let us say, about £50, and allowing the BBC to put on other programmes if it wants—and which it should do—but funding them through product placement, resale or a small subscription. The great benefit of that is that it would bring competition into the industry. I think all Members would agree that the BBC is overmanned and that some of the other stations produce the same quality of news broadcasting for far less. The key benefit for viewers is that after the Bill becomes the fifth private Member’s Bill to be enacted this Session, if they want to watch the BBC, they will find that the cost of the licence fee they are required to pay—which will be the fee for public service content for all broadcasters plus the subscription fee to the BBC—is less than the £150 that they are forced to pay now.

In concluding my opening remarks, I shall address the detail of the Bill. It is a fairly short Bill—there are only three clauses—but it is very important.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Bone]

I am keen to make progress, but I will give way.

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend mentioned at the beginning of his speech that this Bill makes one minor change to the Bill introduced in the previous Session by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). What is that change, what will its effect be, and why has it been made?

[Mr Bone]

It was remiss of me not to address that earlier, but I omitted to do so because I wanted to make swift progress. The problem I identified with the previous Bill—and I think this is why the Minister, who was the shadow Minister at the time, did not welcome it entirely in the last debate we had on the issue—was the fact that the licence fee was stuck with the BBC. The former Bill reduced the licence fee, but that was still only paid to the BBC. Therefore, although there would be all the advantages of the licence fee being payable only for public service content—which is, in essence, what this Bill is about—it would still be restricted to the BBC alone. The new Bill changes the wording so that the measures apply to all broadcasters rather than just the BBC. The logic of that change is clear. If the licence fee is payable for public service content, it should be open to all broadcasters. Therefore, an independent local radio station—Connect FM in Northampton, for instance—would have the same right to that funding as BBC Radio Northampton. It is a very small, but a very important, change, as I hope will become clear when I address some of my more detailed points.

The Bill is essentially about public service content. That is addressed in clause 1(1), which states:

“For the purposes of the Communications Act 2003 ‘public service television broadcasting’ shall be construed as broadcasting material with public service content, as defined in subsection (2).”

This measure gives the phrase “public service television broadcasting” in the 2003 Act a proper definition, and thereby improves that piece of legislation.

The BBC used to try to say, “Everything we do is public service broadcasting.” [Interruption.] No, I am not going down that route as there are too many examples of programmes about which people would say, “That was smutty, and had no public service content.” “EastEnders” is a very good programme, and I have certainly watched it more times than the new chairman of the BBC, because I think the last time he watched it was the last time he bought a McDonald’s meal—I believe that is what he said to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. “EastEnders” is entertainment, however; it is not a programme that has public service content.

Clause 1(2) addresses the core of the definition of public service content, and it states:

“‘Public service content’ is content which is primarily produced in the United Kingdom and which satisfies one or more of the following criteria”.

I have stressed that the content should be primarily produced in the UK because if we are forcing UK taxpayers to pay a fee, the least we can do is ensure that the programmes are made in this country. That is especially the case at a time of economic crisis, but even if we were not in an economic crisis, I still think it is right that UK licence fee money should go to UK-produced programmes.

The definition of public service content is divided into four categories. The first is that

“it comprises local, national, international news or current affairs which is impartial, factual and objective.”

I have spent some time outlining why some of the BBC news programmes would fall foul of that, and would therefore not get any licence fee money. However, other programmes such as “Question Time” and “Newsnight” clearly would qualify for that funding.

Something else I notice about the BBC, which, again, shows its institutional bias against anyone from the right, is that the people its news channel invites to review the newspapers are invariably lefties with some bizarre left-wing view. When is a normal citizen there? I have never been invited on one of these programmes; I am willing to turn up and do that at some unearthly hour, but I am never asked. That institutional bias is one of the reasons I think the BBC would have a problem getting all its news output paid for by the licence fee.

The second definition of public service content is that

“its primary purpose is to inform, educate or entertain children”.

I think most of us would agree that that is a reasonable definition. You, Mr Deputy Speaker, are far too young to remember this, but I can remember television going off air and the test card coming on the screen at 5 o’clock so children could do their homework. I am not suggesting we go back to that, but would it not be nice if we had some better children’s programmes? I understand broadcasters do not want to go down that route at present because they are not commercially viable.

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend looks very young, but he is obviously older than I am because I cannot remember the black and white era, and so I cannot possibly comment on whether that would be a good or bad thing.

[Mr Nuttall]

The go-ahead BBC still regards black and white television as being sufficiently important and relevant as to issue a separate licence to those who have black and white sets. So there clearly must be some demand for this and it would be interesting to know how many such licences are issued. One has to pay only £49 to watch in black and white, rather than £145.50.

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, which may well be teased out in Committee. This very good coalition Government have a one-in, one-out policy on regulation, and my Bill removes regulation. One licence fee would disappear because the £49 licence fee would, in effect, be the only licence fee, so no matter whether someone had a black and white TV set or a colour one, they would not be discriminated against; people would certainly be paying no more than they are now, but they might be paying a great deal less. My Bill would end the bureaucracy of having two fees. That deals with clause 1(2)(b).

Clause 1(2)(c) also deals with the public service content and says that if a programme is produced primarily for “charitable or religious” reasons, licence fee money would be provided. The cost of one of the national charity appeals, for example, red nose day, would fall on the licence fee. That is perfectly fair. This approach would also open things up for other organisations, such as Sky, to put on those sorts of programmes, and so more charitable money would be raised. I do not think that many people could be against that.

I am old enough to remember when we had a lot more religious programmes. I do not confess to it, but I am a practising Christian and this is a largely Christian country, as I hope the census will confirm—I remind everyone to fill it in. Bizarrely, the census question on religion is optional—I believe it is the only one that is. That confirmation would help to demonstrate to broadcasters the need to spend public service money on religious programmes, because the census will have proved that a lot of people want to see them.

[Mr Nuttall]

That is an important point, because the Bill does not try to restrict the religious content to the religion that my hon. Friend and I follow. Followers of any religion—Muslims, Hindus and those from the Jesus Christ Church of Latter-day Saints—could qualify for protection under this Bill.

[Mr Bone]

Indeed. My hon. Friend makes the point much better than I could. Some people will ask what the census has to do with this issue, but it has a lot to do with it because it is from that census that broadcasters will be able to determine what percentage of the population are interested in religious programmes. That is why I find it strange that the question on religion is optional on the census form.

Clause 1(2)(d) is the catch-all provision and we have to explain it in a little more detail later. It states that

“the content would not otherwise be likely to be provided by the market responding to consumer demand.”

It deals with programmes for which there is a very limited interest, despite the fact that they should be put on. The BBC does put such programmes on, as do some other broadcasters, although fewer and fewer are doing so. I am talking about programmes that cater for people who are interested in steam engines—I have probably picked the wrong example, because I know that they interest a lot of people. Things that would not normally attract big audiences would still be funded by the taxpayer if they were in the interests of public service.

Many questions arise from that catch-all phrase, which is why we have to deal with it a little further on in the Bill. People were saying to me that programmes that were not popular would no longer be put on, but that is not the case. People have said to me, “I understand that news, children’s programmes with educational purposes and charitable and religious programmes will get the licence fee, but what if it is a programme that I really care about? How is that going to be funded? They will not put it on because it is not commercially viable.” That is where clause 1(2)(d) comes in.

Such a programme might be about fishing or it might be a minority programme that eventually becomes commercially viable and has to move out of this arrangement. A very good example of that is coverage of American football. When American football first came on to British screens on Channel 4 it was very much a minority interest, although I am interested in it and I have often wondered why we do not have a NFL all-party group. Interest in the sport grew, as did the audience, and eventually Sky took on the coverage, with some of it also appearing on Channel 4 and Channel Five. Under my Bill, it would have initially been funded by the licence fee and no longer have needed any licence fee support on becoming commercially viable. Just because licence fee money would be given at the beginning to develop an interest in a particular field, it would not have to continue to be paid once the programme became commercially viable.

The problem with that provision is, of course, one of definition. I have tried to deal with that in clause 1(3), which states:

“Where the only criterion of public service content is that contained in subsection (2)(d), the judgement relating to the likelihood of market failure shall be made by the National Audit Office, which must publish an opinion on any matter referred to it by the Secretary of State pursuant to this section.”

By the time my Bill comes in, and after the reshuffle on 6 May, I expect the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) who is with us in the Chamber today to be the very Minister who makes these decisions, so I hope he will be paying particular attention to this provision, as he will have to deal with it.

The provision has been misunderstood. People have said that it means that the Secretary of State—or the NAO—will decide on whether to have a fishing programme or another synchronised swimming programme, but that is not its purpose. The broadcaster will able to apply for the money from the licence fee for those programmes and that money will be given. The audit is retrospective and would deal with cases where it is felt a broadcaster was putting on something that is commercially viable, but that it had claimed under 1(2)(d) would be a market failure. The NAO is an admirable body that would be able to tell clearly whether a programme was likely to be commercially viable or whether there would be a market failure, which would account for its taking money from the licence fee pot.

To be fair to the newly promoted Secretary of State, as I shall call him, I do not think he would actually have to decide very often on this matter, because self-regulation would do the trick. To use a ridiculous example, it would be very embarrassing if the BBC applied for funding for “EastEnders”, because although it would get the money, shortly afterwards the Secretary of State would make a referral to the NAO to say, “This is completely ridiculous.” Self-regulation would stop such applications, because broadcasters would be hugely embarrassed if they took money from the licence fee for public service content only for the Secretary of State to refer the matter to the NAO and for it to say, “No, this is a commercially viable programme. Repay that money.” The damage it would do to that broadcaster would be immense, so I think there would be self-regulation in that field.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bone]

For those hon. Members who wonder why I was interrupted at this particular moment for that point of order, it is because 11 o’clock is the usual time on Friday when statements are made.

[Mr Nuttall]

It has been reported this morning that a Libyan Government envoy, Mohammed Ismail, has been in the country for the past few days and I can well understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) made that point of order.

On the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) was previously making, about “EastEnders”, does not the fact that such programmes are covered by the BBC and paid for out of the licence fee prove the problem with the current definition of public service broadcasting? They are paid for by the licence fee, as a poll tax on everyone, whereas a programme such as “Coronation Street”, which is watched by just as many people, does not receive a penny.

[Mr Bone]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. That is exactly the case. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not suggesting that the reporting of the Libyan situation by the BBC is anything other than impartial and accurate and it has clearly been able to get licence fee money for that.

I move to the part of the Bill on which I expect to get shouted down the most and get a lot of criticism—clause 1(4), which states:

“No content shall be public service content if it fails to satisfy prevailing standards of good taste”.

Hon. Members might think this measure means that the National Audit Office is going to look at programmes and decide whether they are smutty, but that absolutely is not what my Bill does. My Bill says that public service content money cannot be given for programmes that do not comply with the prevailing view of what constitutes good taste and decency. It will be the prevailing view that is important. The measure would apply only if a broadcaster applied for public service content money from the licence fee for a programme. It could broadcast any other programmes it liked, within the general law of the land, but it would not get any licence fee money for producing programmes that did not meet prevailing standards of good taste and decency. It would be the British public who decided whether a programme met those standards. If only 10 people wrote in to complain about a programme, obviously the Secretary of State would not refer that case to the NAO.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bone]

Under clause 2(3), it is for the National Audit Office to determine not a programme’s content, but whether the programme is made in a cost-effective way. For instance, if a programme on fishing is put on by the BBC at a cost of £200,000 an episode, and a similar programme is put on by Sky at a cost of £20,000, it would be for the National Audit Office to point out that figure. It would not be for it to take action, but it would refer to the fact in its audit.

That happily leads me to clause 2(4), which says:

“The results of all audits conducted under this section shall be published in reports which must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”

When my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) was effectively in charge of the overall scrutiny of the National Audit Office, the most splendid reports in the House came out. The Public Accounts Committee is most powerful and informative, and I would not want to do anything in the Bill that in any way reflected badly on the National Audit Office.

Under subsection (5),

“The Secretary of State must by regulations provide for any costs incurred by the National Audit Office in the exercise of its duties under this Act to be reclaimed from licence fee revenue.”

To respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), the subsection is another addition to the previous Bill; I draw that point to the attention of the Opposition spokesmen and the Minister. We are reducing the licence fee here, but I do not want any other cost to be put on the general taxpayer. Any cost that the National Audit Office incurs will be recovered from the licence fee, so there will be no additional cost to the general taxpayer, and that is a change from the previous Bill.

Clause 2(6) says:

“Regulations under subsection (5) shall be made by statutory instrument and are subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”

I hope that when the Bill is in Committee, we will have those draft regulations, so that the Committee can consider them before the Bill makes further progress. That, in a nutshell, is clauses 1 and 2. I am sorry to be so brief, but there are other important Bills that we must get on to.

Clause 3 is just on the short title, commencement and extent of the Bill. The short title is in clause 3(1), which says:

“This Act may be cited as the Broadcasting (Public Service Content) Act 2011.”

Even if I were sitting on the Opposition Benches, I would have difficulty criticising that part of the clause, though I might have a go. Clause 3(2) says:

“This Act shall come into force on a day to be appointed by the Secretary of State by order made by statutory instrument provided that such date shall be no later than 1 January 2012.”

I have allowed plenty of time for the Bill to be passed. If the Government are so enthusiastic that they want to bring it in before 1 January 2012, they can, but we have put in place a back-stop.

[Mr Nuttall]

That may well be so, and I sincerely hope that the Bill does make such rapid progress, but of course it may not. It may well be held up in Committee, or in the other place. What would happen if 1 January 2012 had already passed by the time of Royal Assent? That, of course, would also affect clause 3(1), because the title of the Act would have to be changed so that it ended with “2012”.

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I made a judgment call. The issue was discussed in some detail with the Clerks when I was considering the drafting. If that were to happen, the Bill would have to be amended, either in Committee or on Report. The reason that we chose 1 January 2012—this relates slightly to a debate that we had earlier this week—is that the number of days for private Members’ Bills is very limited this Session. Instead of getting the 26 that we should have, we have only 17, which means that if the Bill is not further considered on one of those dates, it will be lost.

My hon. Friend makes a fair point about the situation in the other place. He also raises another good and important point; the last private Members’ Bills day is 20 January 2012, so perhaps there would be an argument for pushing the date in the Bill back to after 20 January 2012. I thank him for that, and I hope that his bid to be on the Bill Committee will be noted by the business managers. I hope that every Member who has spoken gets on the Committee.

The final provision is clause 3(3), which says:

“This Act extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.”

I do not think that there is much doubt that the Bill, which affects the British Broadcasting Corporation, should cover the whole of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In fact, I probably should have put “United Kingdom” in the subsection.

There is one clause that was not printed. We considered whether we had to print “notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972”, but I was told that, unbelievably, the Bill is in no way affected by the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher). I wanted to comment further on what the hon. Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero), who has just left the Chamber, said. Like her, I grew up in Yorkshire, albeit not in Bradford, but in Rotherham in south Yorkshire. Also like her, I gathered a lot of political news from the BBC in my earlier years. I remember watching the great Brian Walden on a Sunday lunchtime. I hope it is not too embarrassing to say that in some ways, I rather looked forward to his interviews and his tremendous style. It was a great pleasure to me that as I progressed in politics, I had the opportunity to meet him in person and to listen to him at greater length. I am glad that he is now far more supportive of Conservative views than perhaps he was when a Labour Member of Parliament. Nevertheless, he was a great interviewer.

I have that in common with the shadow Minister, but at the outset, my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), who so ably moved the Second Reading motion, mentioned Dan Hannan’s successful viral video, which had 2 million or 3 million hits from around the world. As my hon. Friend said, on Second Reading of a similar Bill in 2009, it was mentioned that that story was covered by the BBC not at the time, but two days later, when Mr Hannan, a Member of the European Parliament, was interviewed on the BBC not because of the speech itself, but because of the coverage that it received on YouTube. With typical modesty, Mr Hannan said that he was completely perplexed and slightly stunned by the global reaction to his speech, but many licence fee payers would have been completely perplexed and slightly stunned by the fact that Mr Mardell, the reporter who covered the story, had not felt it necessary or appropriate to cover the speech in his report from Strasbourg on the day when it was made.

I shall not stand here this morning and launch a diatribe against the BBC—far from it. I have no axe to grind against the BBC, which does the job that it was set up to do. In many ways, the problem is historical and lies with the legislation. Many good people work in the BBC, and day in, day out, carry out their duties to the best of their ability. I do not see it as my job to attack the BBC.

Debates on such matters often turn into a debate on whether one is pro or anti-BBC, but I want to approach it from the point of the view of the public. What is best for the public? What is best for an average family sitting at home? What do they want from their television set and radio?

We are moving to a completely new set-up for the whole of broadcasting, which is why I think this debate is so timely and important. The licence fee dates back to an era when broadcasting was new and cutting-edge technology, and I can well understand why it was necessary for it to receive public help. It was sensible for Parliament at the time to say, “Look, if this new technology is to get off the ground, it needs help and something to push it along”, and so the licence fee was born. It started life modestly. I think that the first licence fee, back in the early ‘20s, was just a few shillings. It then developed over the years to what it is today. The first licence fee was for a radio—of course, there was no television when it was introduced—and was just 10 shillings in November 1922. The first television licence fee was £2, the first colour licence fee, which was introduced in 1968, was £10, and today it is £145.50.

I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for ensuring that the licence fee will be frozen for the next six years. When it comes down to the household budget, that will be of great benefit, certainly to all of my constituents.

[Mr Bone]

As usual, my hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. I would have to disagree with him on one thing though. How can it be right that when every other public service has to make cuts, the BBC only has to freeze its spending? That does not seem fair to me.

[Mr Nuttall]

There is that point. One might ask why it was not asked to reduce the licence fee, but it did take on additional responsibilities, as I understand it. That was covered in the letter from the Secretary of State to Sir Michael Lyons in which he reaffirmed the Government’s respect for the BBC’s editorial and operational independence, but made it clear that, as part of the new settlement, the BBC would have to provide funding for new broadcasting activities. That includes local media, to which I will return later. However, the thing that has received most publicity is that it will take over funding for the World Service, BBC Monitoring and S4C. So the Government have asked the BBC to take on new responsibilities, so, in effect, there will be a reduction.

There is, however, plenty of scope for cuts to the BBC’s budget. The amounts involved are eye-watering. I realise that £145.50 does not sound like very much. People would think, “That’s pretty good value, isn’t it?” It might well be good value, but the point is that it is multiplied across the whole nation. Let us consider houses split into separate flats and households. Each needs a separate television licence. In large cities, such as Sheffield, Manchester and London, there are houses that have been divided into flats, and there could be six, eight, 10 or even more individual units, each paying a £145.50. It is therefore quite feasible for the BBC to receive more than £1,000 from just one small block.

It is also notable that the licence fee has never gone down. Most technologies are expensive to start with, but as more and more people are drawn into the market, the costs come down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

So yes, on that basis, the licence fee is probably more affordable now. However, that is not to say that my underlying point about the wealth, assets and financial power of the BBC is not entirely valid.

Indeed, it might benefit the House to look at how, in very broad terms, the licence fee was spent in 2009-10 and how that equates to a monthly cost for each household. For example, the cost of the television service—which covers the main BBC channels, CBBC, CBeebies, BBC News, BBC Parliament, the HD service and the red button service—was £2.351 billion. That means that two thirds of the licence fee went on television. The radio service—Radios 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7—took up 17% of the licence fee, at a cost of £604 million. Online services—BBC online, iPlayer and BBC Mobile—cost £199 million, at 6% of the fee. One might think, “Well, what’s left?”, but under the final heading, “Other”, £406 million was spent on, for instance, “digital”, investing in new technology—one might ask what that has to do with public service broadcasting—running costs and collecting the licence fee. To break that down into monthly costs for each household, the television service costs £7.85, radio costs £2.01, online services cost 67p, and “Other”, including collection, costs £1.35. Those are important figures to bear in mind for what I will say later about what I see as the future of broadcasting in this country.

Since its early days, the BBC has developed because it has benefited from a constant, annual, fixed flow of income. It has not had to worry about marketing its services—although it has, of course, through BBC Worldwide and its commercial arms. Indeed, in many ways, part of the problem is that the BBC has been encouraged to become more than just a public service broadcaster, and is now a quasi-commercial animal. It sells its programmes around the world and takes on new roles all the time. Incidentally, I have never been convinced that it was necessary—and no one has been able to explain to me why it was necessary—for the BBC, a broadcaster, to purchase the Lonely Planet travel guides. But we do not want to turn this into a debate about what is right and wrong with the BBC. It performs an excellent role, but the future is surely going to be more about the local TV network, which this Government are doing so much to develop. That is why I support the Bill. Under the terms of the settlement, only a small amount of money will go from the licence fee into local television. I think that it is about £200 million, which is small beer when we consider that the BBC’s total income is £3.5 billion. I honestly think that it could afford to do much more than that.

It has been pointed out that the licence fee is the equivalent of a poll tax, in that anyone who has a television has no choice about paying it. In return for paying it, they are guaranteed a certain level of programming from the BBC, based on the Communications Act 2003, which contains the crucial requirement that the broadcast programmes of the BBC must comply with section 264 of the Act. This is central to our debate today, because the definition of public service broadcasting lies at the root of the problem, as I said in an earlier intervention.

The problem is that section 264 is drafted so widely that it covers virtually everything. I cannot think of anything that would not be covered by it. Subsection (4) of the provision states:

“(4) The purposes of public service television broadcasting in the United Kingdom are—

(a) the provision of relevant television services which secure that programmes dealing with a wide range of subject-matters are made available for viewing;

(b) the provision of relevant television services in a manner which (having regard to the days on which they are shown and the times of day at which they are shown) is likely to meet the needs and satisfy the interests of as many different audiences as practicable;

(c) the provision of relevant television services which (taken together and having regard to the same matters) are properly balanced, so far as their nature and subject-matters are concerned, for meeting the needs and satisfying the interests of the available audiences; and

(d) the provision of relevant television services which (taken together) maintain high general standards with respect to the programmes included in them, and, in particular with respect to—

(i) the contents of the programmes;

(ii) the quality of the programme making; and

(iii) the professional skill and editorial integrity applied in the making of the programmes.”

Subsection (6) states:

“(6) A manner of fulfilling the purposes of public service television broadcasting in the United Kingdom is compatible with this subsection if it ensures—

(a) that the relevant television services (taken together) comprise a public service for the dissemination of information and for the provision of education and entertainment;

(b) that cultural activity in the United Kingdom, and its diversity, are reflected, supported and stimulated by the representation in those services (taken together) of drama, comedy and music”.

Given that statutory definition, it is not surprising that the BBC is able to broadcast anything it can think of.

It was said earlier that it is not for politicians to define public service broadcasting, but with great respect to those who said that, I contend that that is exactly what politicians have tried to do. If someone has to do the defining, who else could it be other than politicians who are elected to this place to make those sorts of judgments? What matters is that, having provided the definition, we then give broadcasters the independence and freedom to make programmes that comply with the terms that we have set down.

The definition in clause 1(2) is much narrower. It mentions the importance of “impartial, factual and objective” as well as

“local, national, international news and current affairs”

programmes. It also refers to the purpose of informing, educating and entertaining of children and programmes whose

“primary content is charitable or religious”.

That is perfectly adequate to cover those areas that might not properly be provided for in the competitive marketplace.

We are where we are with broadcasting. Although the BBC strides the stage like a colossus in broadcasting in this country, fortunately it has not completely shut out other broadcasters. These other broadcasters are, however, shut out from having any share of the licence fee. That is why I support the Bill. It cannot be right that a small, independent broadcaster that wanted to put on, for example, a religious programme on a Sunday afternoon which might attract only a few thousand people should be excluded from access to the vast funds that the BBC has simply because of how our broadcasting system is established.

I support the Government’s actions in trying to introduce more diversity into our television network. I suspect that, in years to come, this whole debate will become completely out of date and irrelevant. We are already seeing the morphing of television and the internet into one seamless product. Already, high-end, top-level specification televisions are being introduced with the ability to take in content down the line from the internet. I have a television that can be plugged into the internet to download extra things, but I am not proficient enough to be quite there yet. We all will be, however, in years to come. Perhaps if I did not spend as much time on my feet in this place and went home to fiddle with my telly for a few hours, I would be able to do that. I see the Minister nodding.

All that brings enormous challenges to the BBC. If I were looking at it from the BBC’s point of view, I would say, “Look, in future, how are we going to be able to raise our revenue when nobody will really want to bother with a licence fee?” It will be considered more and more anachronistic as time goes on. It will become out of date and out of place in modern, 21st-century Britain.

Television will eventually have a series of online channels that will be accessed through broadband and provided by a range of organisations. People may well access them by means of a code or a special encrypted key for which they will pay a small subscription fee, and which may be connected with an individual provider or even an individual programme. Someone might, for example, be interested in “Test Match Special”, as I am. There would be nothing to prevent “Test Match Special” from being made available, perhaps not by the BBC but by A. N. Other organisation, which would charge a small subscription fee to those who wanted to access it through their digital radios—which are becoming far more common, and are installed in most modern vehicles almost as a matter of course—through their televisions, though long wave, or online through their computers.

That strikes me as an entirely feasible funding model. If people were not paying £145 a year for a licence, they would be able to choose which programmes to watch and to subscribe to on a much more interest and subject-specific basis. At present there is a “one size fits all” arrangement whereby people must pay for everything, whether they are interested in it or not and whether they watch it or not.

Let us be honest about this. The figures that I read out earlier show that a vast proportion of the billions that go into the BBC each year is spent on programmes that are not, by any stretch of the imagination, what most people outside the House would regard as public service broadcasting. I have already mentioned soap operas such as “EastEnders” and “Coronation Street”, and I will not pursue that line again, but I will say that, by definition, the very fact that soap operas are so popular and attract millions of viewers means that they are capable of standing on their own two feet.

[Mr Bone]

I will not press you on the fact that we are now going into repeats, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Does not the definition of a soap opera make it clear that it cannot constitute public service content? Soap operas were introduced in the first place to advertise a washing powder on television.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

Hon. Members have raised the question of public service, and it may well be that sport does not fall into that category, although as a matter of fact these things are being dealt with at the moment.

I wish briefly to examine the arrangements in some other countries, which have struggled to tackle this problem of how to deal with paying for an independent broadcaster. In Pakistan, the public broadcaster is a state-owned corporation—the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation—which was funded publicly through money obtained from television, radio and video cassette recorder licensing. Its Radio Pakistan has stations covering all the major cities and 80% of the country, serving 95.5 million listeners, which is more than we have in the UK. It also has its own world service, broadcasting in seven languages daily.

Sadly, events in Japan have meant that the Japanese station that many of us have been able to see recently, as it has shown the coverage following the earthquake and tsunami, is its main public broadcaster, NHK—the Japan Broadcasting Corporation. Many English speakers often refer to it informally as “Radio Tokyo”. It was set up in 1926 and was modelled on the BBC. It is funded by a receiving fee paid by every Japanese household, it has no commercial advertising and it maintains a position of strict political impartiality.

Malaysia has a public service broadcaster that is entirely state-owned. It was previously funded publicly through money obtained from television licensing, but it is now state subsidised, as Malaysia has abolished TV licences. Malaysia operates 16 state and seven district radio stations, as well as two national terrestrial television channels. Croatia, interestingly, has a mixed approach. The last figures I could find were from 2002 and they showed that 70% of the funding for HRT—I will not attempt to pronounce the name of Croatia’s national broadcaster—comes from broadcast user fees for each house, with the remainder being made up by advertising.

The best and most well-known other example of public service broadcasting can be found in the United States, whose arrangements are entirely different. Its public service broadcasting is decentralised and is not Government operated, yet nobody in this House could possibly say that the media—the broadcast and electronic media—in the US is anything other than free, impartial and independent.

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend is making a good series of points. I am interested in hearing an around-the-world tour of different broadcasters, but I am trying to get us back to discussing the British Broadcasting Corporation.

[Mr Nuttall]

I just make the point that it is possible to do things by other means, as other countries have proved, although some say it cannot be done.

I am conscious that many others want to speak and perhaps these are matters that we can touch on in Committee and on Report. I would happily take up the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough to serve on the Committee should the Bill proceed, as I sincerely hope it does. There are a number of other matters that I could touch on, but I will leave it there and listen—hopefully—to what the Minister has to say.

Private Members’ Bills

Debate between Peter Bone and David Nuttall

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Just to cheer him up, I can tell him that if Friday 18 November had been one of the days selected by the Government, there would have been a Referendums Bill introduced by hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, which he might have been interested in.

Sometimes, private Members’ Bills serve the purpose of getting the issue discussed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) has just demonstrated. They also serve the purpose of getting the matter into law. There are a great deal many difficulties involved in getting a private Member’s Bill through the House, and that is why we should not reduce the number of days available on which to debate them. I shall give the House an example of someone who knew how to do all this. Anthony Steen, the former Member for Totnes, got his Anti-Slavery Day Bill through in the dying days of the last Government when no one was watching what he was up to. That was a very important Bill, and we now celebrate anti-slavery day on 18 October. He has changed the national law, and well done to him, but that was only possible because he used the procedures. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) will agree that this is all about knowing the procedures, and that that is what we, as parliamentarians, should be doing.

I must tell the House why I have a problem with the Deputy Leader of the House. He knows of my admiration for him. We have, in the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House, two superb parliamentarians, supported by an equally superb Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell). Selfishly, I hope that they will remain in their posts on 6 May, or whenever the next reshuffle is going to be. We are lucky to have them, and that is why I am slightly disappointed. I cannot remember what the Deputy Leader of the House did before he came to the House. I had the unfortunate problem of being a chartered accountant, and I am therefore used to adding sums up and getting wrong numbers. I think that the hon. Gentleman might have been a chartered accountant, too, because he has added the sums up and got a wrong number. Standing Order No. 14(4) clearly states:

“Private Members’ bills shall have precedence over government business on thirteen Fridays in each session to be appointed by the House.”

There is no question about that.

Now this is where I was a little disappointed by the hon. Member for Warrington North, who I guess is shadow Deputy Leader of the House. In the last Session of the last Government, there were only five private Members’ days. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady mutters—she could have acted properly and intervened—that that is because it was a short Session. She well knows, however, that that is not allowed for in the Standing Orders. We must have 13 days.

If I were to be generous to the last Labour Government, as I always am, I would say that they quite properly argued that the eight days lost because it was a short Session should be added on to the longer Session that would run from the election in May—not to the November of that year, but to that of the year after. I am happy to accept this argument, which gives us eight more days for a start.

The Government have given us the 13 days that we would normally have in a Session—there is no argument about that; they are absolutely correct—but there are, of course, the eight that have been missed. That takes us up to 21 already. Because the Government are moving towards a five-year, fixed-term Parliament, which I agree with, and there will be one-year parliamentary Sessions, they have added from November 2011 to May 2012—I reckon that is six months—and assumed that to be half a year. What we need, the Government have said, is half of 13, which seems to come to four.

Now I reckon half of 13—as an accountant, I have to round up—comes to seven. What we should have, then, are the 13 days the Government have given us, the eight that the previous Government took away, plus the seven for the additional term. If I add seven and 13, I get 20 and if I add eight, I get 28. This is my problem; I think we should have 28 days.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is, as ever, making a very powerful speech. Does he agree that, on that basis, the amendment—I fully understand the reasons why it was not moved—is a compromise? It might almost be described as the third way.

[Mr Bone]

As always, I was trying to be helpful and considerate towards the Government. In fact, on the day before yesterday, I had a fine meeting in private with the Leader of the House. After our conversation, he was very clear. I had impressed him so much that he said, “Peter, I have not given you a wink, nod or any indication that the Government have moved from their current position”, which is, of course, exactly what happened. They did not move and they slapped this motion down for tonight.

Let us get back to the number of days: the 13 plus the seven that we should get under the Government’s own very generous thought, as they are extending the Session. If we add the eight, we get 28 days. I would have accepted 28 days, but I thought, “Let us look at it another way, as accountants always do it twice”. If we are moving towards one-year parliamentary Sessions—from May to May— we are going to have 13 private Members’ Fridays in each year. That is very clear, and that will kick in in May 2012. From May 2010 when this Parliament started—on 18 May, I think—to May 2011 would provide us with 13 days. From May 2011 to May 2012 would provide another 13, making 26. As a chartered accountant, I have done the sums and come up with two different answers. We should have either 26 days or 28 days.

Unfortunately, when the Deputy Leader of the House came up with his calculations, he came up with 17 days, which is the 13 days that we had to be given, plus the extra four. That is why I wonder whether he is another chartered accountant. He has clearly come up with a completely different result from that most people expected.

On a serious note, I just think that this was a great opportunity to fix broken promises. I re-read the Prime Minister’s excellent speech of 26 May 2009 when he said he wanted to return powers to Parliament and to Back Benchers. He wanted MPs to be independent. I have taken that to heart and tried to be independent and tried to be a parliamentarian, but the lack of days will restrict my ability to do that.

I encountered another difficulty today when I received a text message from a constituent saying “If you do not get this amendment through, it will mean that you will be at home more often.” I want to know what the Deputy Leader of the House will say to Mrs Bone about that, because it seems to me that parliamentarians should be here scrutinising the Government. The provision of a private Members’ day once a month—which is what this amounts to—is surely not a problem, and I feel that we have missed an opportunity.

I know that there are pressures on those in government, I know that the Executive want to control everything, and I understand that that is the old way. I also know that the Prime Minister wants to get away from that, and wants a new politics that will make the House of Commons more important. I did not move my amendment for precisely the reason given by the Deputy Leader of the House: we are moving towards the establishment of a Business of the House Committee, and once we have such a Committee, none of these problems will arise. Everything will be sweetness and light, because Parliament rather than the Executive will allocate the days.

I was so encouraged by the fact that reform of the private Members’ Bills procedure was being considered seriously that it would have been absurd for me to argue for the provision of 13 extra Fridays. In a few months’ time the Leader of the House will stand at the Dispatch Box, announce that private Members’ Bills will be debated on Wednesday evenings, and say “We have thought about this, and we are going to grant such-and-such a number of extra days.” I see this as a holding debate in anticipation of those reforms. I am encouraged by what has happened today, and I will therefore support the motion in the hope of seeing the reforms introduced a little later.

Lawful Industrial Action (Minor Errors) Bill

Debate between Peter Bone and David Nuttall

Friday 22nd October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nuttall]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Bone]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Nuttall]

Certainly.

[Mr Bone]

I am genuinely undecided about how to vote today. I want to know whether the Bill has been introduced purely because of the ridiculous action that British Airways took, or whether there is a more general problem. I hope that this will come out in the debate. I do not think that we should make law based on one case, and I want to know whether there is a genuine problem.

[Mr Nuttall]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I agree that this is important. I shall look at the case law shortly.

I shall turn to the detail of the Bill very shortly, Mr Speaker. The early-day motion was signed by 133 Members, including the previous Member for Bury North. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington is to be commended for his determination in bringing this Bill before us today.

The House must not take the Bill lightly. It contains just two clauses—one is substantive, the other deals with the short title and details of the commencement provisions—and there is a real danger that, because of its brevity, many Members might think that it is a trivial matter that can be disregarded. We should not take it lightly, however. There is a danger that, because its title contains the word “lawful” and, in parentheses, the words “minor errors”, we could be lulled into a false sense of security. Those words might suggest that it is a trivial piece of legislation that will merely tidy up some long-forgotten legislation that contained one or two technical errors, but nothing could be further from the truth.