Foreign National Offenders (Exclusion from the United Kingdom) Bill

Debate between Peter Bone and Lindsay Hoyle

Friday 6th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bone]

My right hon. Friend raises an interesting point. He is referring to clause 1(4):

“‘qualifying offence’ shall mean any offence for which a term of imprisonment may be imposed by a court of law.”

I think the intention is for that to apply to someone who would go to prison, having gone through the judicial system. The Government could at that stage say, “I’m sending you home, rather than you going to prison.” I understand the argument that my right hon. Friend makes—that that may be imposed by a court of law. I sincerely hope he will consider serving on the Bill Committee so that we can look at that in some detail. Now that we have been granted an extra Friday—I am not sure whether everyone in the House realises that we are sitting on 20 March—and as there has been no real explanation of why we are sitting on that day, I assume—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. The sitting on 20 March will be for the debate on the Budget, not for private Members’ Bills.

[Mr Bone]

I understand that, Mr Deputy Speaker, but this is a wonderful place—a mystic place—and sometimes things change. The Opposition might see the Budget as such a great thing that there was nothing they could oppose.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I want to hear a discussion of the hon. Gentleman’s Bill, not of that Friday.

[Mr Bone]

You are right, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am usually misled by—egged on—no, I am not going there. I do not want to take up a lot of time because there is another very important Bill to be reached later.

I am pretty sure that the sentiments represented by the Bill are what the Government would like to do, but the Minister might find that there are obstacles that he thinks derive from the European Communities Act 1972 or other enactments, but the Bill sweeps those away at a stroke. It would allow the Government to do what the British people want—for this place to be sovereign in making the laws of this country.

What annoys people is that someone who has come from abroad, committed a serious offence and been sentenced to a significant number of years in prison can claim, on the basis of his human rights, the right to remain in this country. People think that foreign criminals who do that should be deported and not allowed back in. I know that the Minister will have figures on how many we would like to send back, but that is a very small proportion of the number of foreign prisoners who could be sent home. I want to see all foreign prisoners sent home.

With reference to what my right hon. Friend said, if offenders have been convicted in a court, I am happy to save money by having them deported rather than sent to prison or for them to be deported during their time in prison. We cannot allow them to claim that they have some right to stay here, having come into this country and abused our laws. It is such a simple Bill that I hope there is not much opposition in the House and we can quite quickly give it a Second Reading.

Rushden Lakes and Skew Bridge (Planning)

Debate between Peter Bone and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bone]

I am not giving way. I will tell the hon. Gentleman this: he should be at Kettering hospital getting the splinters taken out of his backside for sitting on the fence for so long over this matter.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Hon. Members must be careful to temper the language that they use about each other. If the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) does not wish to give way, that is his choice. However frustrated the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) might feel, we must abide by the rules of the House. I hope that we can temper the heat in the Chamber at the moment.

[Mr Bone]

I apologise entirely, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am so annoyed by the appalling point of order yesterday for which I expect an apology.

I in Wellingborough and Rushden and Tom in Corby and east Northants spend a great deal of our time knocking on doors, attending meetings and sending out surveys to find out what local people are thinking about and concerned about. Once we have established which issues concern people in our community, we then campaign on them. Rushden Lakes was clearly a project that had overwhelming support, and it became a major part of our joint listening campaign. As long ago as the autumn of 2012, it has featured heavily in the campaign. In the Corby parliamentary by-election, with our excellent candidate Christine Emmett supporting the campaign and Tom Pursglove co-ordinating the day-to-day running of the project, Skew Bridge and Rushden Lakes became a major issue.

It is laughable that, Labour-controlled Corby council having opposed the development, Labour is now trying to take credit for a Conservative project, devised by a Conservative council, supported by a Conservative MP, campaigned for by a Conservative parliamentary candidate, and approved by a Conservative-led Government—to put it bluntly, Labour had absolutely nothing to do with the success of Rushden Lakes—and all that in spite of Labour trying to block investment and growth in the area.

The Labour leader of Corby council, Councillor Tom Beattie, has long been opposed to the development that my area so badly needs. Amazingly, on hearing the announcement, he described the news as “disappointing”, going on to say that he was

“disappointed for the traders and disappointed for the people who live in Corby”.

It is extraordinary for local Labour politicians to want to deprive the people of north Northamptonshire of much needed local investment and facilities. Extraordinary, yes; surprising, no. Sadly, this reaction is typical of Labour’s ingrained anti-business and anti-growth attitude. Thank goodness common sense and localism have prevailed.

I have campaigned locally and in Parliament to give Rushden Lakes the green light. On 29 November 2012, I delivered a petition to Parliament in support of the development, with the best part of 1,000 signatures. I have never known such a popular planning proposal in my nine years of representing Wellingborough and Rushden. In fact, the Library of the House of Commons told me that this was the second most popular planning application. In other words, when there is a planning application, most people write in to oppose it; in the case of Rushden Lakes, vast numbers of people wrote in to support it.

I have asked many written and oral parliamentary questions on this issue to the Prime Minister, the Secretaries of State for Communities and Local Government and for Business, Innovation and Skills, and the Minister with responsibility for employment, as well as writing to the Planning Inspectorate. In addition, I spoke at the planning inquiry.

The fight to get Rushden Lakes under way would not have been possible without the unwavering support of all the local campaigners. There are some notable individuals who deserve a special mention for all that they have done to get the planning proposals through. There are so many to mention that I will undoubtedly miss out some key players, but they will know who they are and the excellent work that they have done. We had a most remarkable response to the campaign.

I start by thanking Councillors David and Barbara Jenney. David as my association chairman and Barbara through her personal efforts have been a great source of advice and help. I also thank Councillors Gill and Andy Mercer, who are the backbone of all the hard-working Conservative campaigning activity in Rushden, Councillor Steven North, leader of East Northamptonshire council, who had the foresight and drive to push Rushden Lakes through the local planning phase and Councillor Paul Bell, leader of Wellingborough council, for his foresight in realising that this development would be of great benefit to Wellingborough as well as Rushden.

I thank Jon McCarthy, the project lead at LXB, and Gary Wilburn, the architect and branding specialist of Rushden Lakes; the leader of Rushden town council, Councillor Sarah Peacock, for putting the town council’s support firmly behind the project; and Colin Burnett, expert retail planner at LXB. Special thanks are due to the chief executive of East Northamptonshire council, David Oliver, who put so much hard work into the project, much of it behind the scenes, over and above what he had to do. I thank Gavin Stollar, for helping project manage; Councillor Robin Underwood for his tenacity and unswerving support; Councillors David and Wendy Brackenbury for their huge practical and moral support; Peter Atchinson as chairman of Corby and East Northamptonshire Conservative Association, for throwing the association’s weight behind the project; and Helen Howell and Peter Wathan, for all their support in East Northants.

There are so many unsung heroes, but let me pick out a few—John and Sheila Vickers and Bill and Molly Clifton for delivering so many leaflets; Pam and George Whiting for all their efforts in Higham Ferrers; Councillor Jack Spriggs for all his enthusiasm and help; and Helen Harrison for being such an important part of the listening campaign. Particular thanks go to Councillor Richard Lewis for his unswerving determination to achieve Rushden Lakes and for his continuous pressure to see the project delivered, Councillor Rob Gough, Brian Skittral and Ollie Lewis, indispensable members of the listening team, and John Campbell, chief executive of Wellingborough council, for their help and support. I thank Christine Emmett, the former Conservative candidate for Corby for all her help.

The list goes on and includes the Northamptonshire Telegraph for its campaigning in achieving Rushden Lakes, showing what an excellent local paper can do on behalf of its community, the Northamptonshire Herald and Post, BBC Radio Northampton, BBC Look East and ITV Anglia for their support and coverage of Rushden Lakes.

Special thanks go to Helen Danzig and the Yes to Rushden Lakes campaign team, whose efforts and support were an essential part of this victory. That is a non-party political organisation with the sole aim of delivering this fantastic development to the people of Northamptonshire. Their tireless efforts have paid off and I know they are thrilled with the decision for Rushden Lakes to go ahead.

However, I want to single out one person in particular for his hard work, enthusiasm and dedication in delivering the listening campaign. I refer, of course, to Councillor Tom Pursglove, a Wellingborough councillor who, with me, headed the joint listening campaign. He campaigned tirelessly on this issue, as he has done on so many others. Tom is a prolific campaigner and he is now the Conservative candidate for Corby and East Northants. The people of Corby and East Northants could not wish for a better candidate. He has shown that he listened, campaigned and delivered on Rushden Lakes.

Finally, I would like to thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government for giving permission for this development. I know that it was a long, hard, well thought out decision, and all the legal ramifications were taken into account. I know that off his own bat he looked at the site personally. The development will transform Rushden and the surrounding areas and I look forward to welcoming my right hon. Friend back to my constituency once this fantastic project is completed.

But I am not complacent. Now is the time to look to the future. The joint core strategy review for north Northamptonshire was held up until the Rushden Lakes decision was made. Now that Rushden Lakes has been approved, this review can go ahead. The importance of this for Rushden is that Rushden and the surrounding towns do not have a local plan. The most recent local plan was drawn up in 1996. However, we could not even start the plan until Rushden Lakes had been decided, because our local plan had to be compatible with the joint core strategy, which was held up.

Now that Rushden Lakes has been decided, we can get on with projects such as Rushden East, which is a plan to build at least 2,000 homes, and employment land for at least as many jobs, on the land east of Rushden. There are yet no formal plans as such, but the work on including it in the local plan has already started, a project board has been set up and Conservative-run East Northamptonshire council has already employed professionals to do some basic land studies.

Now that Rushden Lakes has been given the green light, Rushden East can proceed. It will first have to go into the new local plan, but then it can go ahead. Rushden Lakes is therefore the key to unlocking development that had been stalled until the decision was made. Now that it has been decided, we can get on with building more homes, as the Government need us to do in order to grow the economy and solve the housing shortage. It is now more essential than ever that the dualling of the A45 and the improvements to the Chowns Mill roundabout go ahead and that the infrastructure to support the development gets underway as soon as possible.

I have only one question for the Minister: how can we speed up the planning process for such popular developments? Let me explain the issue to him as I see it. The Rushden Lakes scheme was hugely popular. It had the approval of all the local councils and the overwhelming majority of local people. It was on a brownfield site. It meant investment and new jobs. It was delayed for quite a long time because it had to go through the planning process. It seems to me that all that happened over the past year or so is that we made a lot of wealthy barristers and solicitors even more wealthy. When we look at the inspector’s report, we see how firmly it comes down in favour of the development.

I just wonder, in relation to future projects, whether taxpayers’ money could be saved. Would it be possible to change the law so that developments that enjoy such overwhelming support can in future be subject to a local referendum? If 75% or more of local people voted for them, they could then proceed and we would not need to waste any taxpayers’ money. I hope that that idea will feature in some of the Minister’s radical thinking that I referred to at the start of the debate.

The main message that we can take away from tonight’s debate is that we listened, we campaigned and we delivered.

Margaret Thatcher Day Bill

Debate between Peter Bone and Lindsay Hoyle

Friday 5th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Perhaps it would be helpful to the Government Whips if they were to read “Erskine May” to see how the process works.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

That is not a point of order, but it might have been helpful if they had struggled a little longer to get through the Lobby.

[Mr Bone]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Bill would amend the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 so that the last Monday in August is known as Margaret Thatcher day. Baroness Thatcher was without doubt one of the greatest Prime Ministers in living memory—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Would Members please be quiet, because I am trying to hear Mr Bone. It would be helpful if those leaving the Chamber would do so quietly.

[Mr Bone]

Mrs Thatcher was a great stateswoman, a true patriot, and an inspiration to the masses. She not only did our country a great service but gave Britain back its pride and returned it to prosperity after some of the darkest economic days in recent decades. She gave us a legacy to be proud of. It is rare to find—

Points of Order

Debate between Peter Bone and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 4th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is about the extremely offensive remark made by the shadow Leader of the House, to whom I have given notice, about me and some other Members at business questions. She accused us of being Taliban, and at a time when the brave men and women of our armed forces are fighting these evil people, and some of us have very close personal relationships with people serving in Afghanistan, I found that to be a completely objectionable remark. I wonder whether there is any way in which it could be withdrawn.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Would the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) like to comment on that before I make a ruling?

Points of Order

Debate between Peter Bone and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 14th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the House referred to the supplementary programme motion. I have checked with the Table Office and the Public Bill Office, and no such supplementary programme motion has yet been tabled. If Members seek to amend that supplementary programme motion, they have to do so before close of business today. Could you advise, sir, how we can amend a motion that has not been laid?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

It may be helpful for the Leader of the House to give us an answer to that question.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Debate between Peter Bone and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. You will recall that Wellingborough prison was closed without any notification to me, and that I learned about it through the media. I have just been contacted by my local press and learned that Wellingborough prison has been sold. I have received no notification whatever from the Ministry of Justice, and there is no written statement in the Library. Can you advise me of how I might get some more information about what seems a very unfortunate situation?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

What I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that the Chair has not been advised of such a sale, but his point is now on the record, and I am sure that since he has raised it, the Prisons Minister will get in touch with him to say whether it has been sold. I look to the Government Front Bench as I say that I presume that has been taken on board.

New Schedule 2

Proceeds of crime provisions: Northern Ireland

Part 1

Civil recovery provisions

Meaning of “relevant civil recovery provision”

1 For the purposes of this Part of this Schedule, each of the following is a “relevant civil recovery provision”—

(a) section 33(2), (3), (5) and (6);

(b) section 33(7) so far as it relates to amendments made by section 33(2), (3) and (5) and Part 2 of Schedule 17;

(c) each provision in Schedule 17;

(d) each amendment or repeal made by the provisions mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (c).

Relevant civil recovery provisions not to extend to Northern Ireland unless order made

2 (1) The relevant civil recovery provisions do not extend to Northern Ireland.

(2) But that is subject to paragraph 3.

Power to provide for relevant civil recovery provisions to extend to Northern Ireland

3 The Secretary of State may, by order, provide for one or more of the relevant civil recovery provisions to extend to Northern Ireland.

Relevant civil recovery provision extending to Northern Ireland

4 (1) The Secretary of State may, by order, make such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in consequence of, or in connection with, a relevant civil recovery provision extending to Northern Ireland.

(2) An order under this paragraph may, in particular—

(a) provide for section 282A of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to have effect in relation to orders made by the High Court in Northern Ireland;

(b) provide for an enforcement authority in relation to Northern Ireland to make requests for assistance under section 282B of that Act;

(c) provide for a receiver appointed under an order made by the High Court in Northern Ireland to make requests for assistance under section 282C of that Act;

(d) provide for the High Court in Northern Ireland or a receiver appointed by an order made by that court to make requests for assistance under section 282D of that Act;

(e) provide for an enforcement authority or trustee for civil recovery to make a request for assistance under section 282F of that Act where a recovery order has been made by the High Court in Northern Ireland;

(f) provide for section 316(8B) of that Act to have effect in relation to an enforcement authority in relation to Northern Ireland.

Relevant civil recovery provision not extending to Northern Ireland

5 The Secretary of State may, by order, make such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in consequence of, or in connection with, a relevant civil recovery provision not extending to Northern Ireland.

Consent of Northern Ireland Assembly to transferred provision

6 (1) The Secretary of State may not make an order under this Part of this Schedule which makes transferred provision unless the Northern Ireland Assembly consents to the making of that provision.

(2) In this paragraph “transferred provision” means provision which, if it were contained in an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly—

(a) would be within the legislative competence of the Assembly, and

(b) would deal with a transferred matter without being ancillary to other provision (whether in the Act or previously enacted) which deals with an excepted or reserved matter.

(3) In sub-paragraph (2)—

“ancillary” has the meaning given in section 6(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998;

“excepted matter”, “reserved matter” and “transferred matter” have the meanings given by section 4(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

Orders under this Part of this Schedule: particular provision

7 (1) The provision that may be made by an order under paragraph 3, 4 or 5 (whether by virtue of that paragraph or section 43(12)) includes—

(a) provision conferring, removing or otherwise modifying a function (whether or not exercisable in, or in relation to, Northern Ireland);

(b) provision amending, repealing, revoking or otherwise modifying any enactment (including an enactment contained in, or amended by, this Act).

(2) Such an order may provide for provision amending, repealing or otherwise modifying Chapter 2 or 4 of Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to have retrospective effect.

(3) The making of an order under any provision of this Part of this Schedule does not prevent—

(a) a further order from being made under that provision, or

(b) an order from being made under any other provision of this Part of this Schedule.

(4) An order under paragraph 3 or 4 may modify or reverse the effects of an order made under paragraph 5.

(5) Sub-paragraphs (1) to (4) do not limit the powers conferred by paragraphs 3, 4 and 5.

(6) In this paragraph—

“enactment” means any enactment, whenever passed or made, contained in—

(a) an Act of Parliament;

(b) an Act of the Scottish Parliament;

(c) Northern Ireland legislation;

(d) a Measure or Act of the National Assembly for Wales;

(e) an instrument made under any such Act, legislation or Measure;

(f) any other subordinate legislation (within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978);

“function” means a function of any description, including a power or duty (whether conferred by an enactment or arising otherwise).

Part 2

Investigation provisions

Meaning of “relevant investigation provision”

8 For the purposes of this Part of this Schedule, each of the following is a “relevant investigation provision”—

(a) each provision in paragraphs 2 to 13, 25 to 27, 29 and 30 of Schedule 18 (including each amendment or repeal made by those provisions), and

(b) section 34 so far as it relates to each of those provisions.

Relevant investigation provisions not to extend to Northern Ireland unless order made

9 (1) The relevant investigation provisions do not extend to Northern Ireland.

(2) But that is subject to paragraph 10.

Power to provide for relevant investigation provisions to extend to Northern Ireland

10 The Secretary of State may, by order, provide for one or more of the relevant investigation provisions to extend to Northern Ireland.

Relevant investigation provision extending to Northern Ireland

11 The Secretary of State may, by order, make such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in consequence of, or in connection with, a relevant investigation provision extending to Northern Ireland.

Relevant investigation provision not extending to Northern Ireland

12 The Secretary of State may, by order, make such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in consequence of, or in connection with, a relevant investigation provision not extending to Northern Ireland.

Consent of Northern Ireland Assembly to transferred provision

13 (1) The Secretary of State may not make an order under this Part of this Schedule which makes transferred provision unless the Northern Ireland Assembly consents to the making of that provision.

(2) In this paragraph “transferred provision” means provision which, if it were contained in an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly—

(a) would be within the legislative competence of the Assembly, and

(b) would deal with a transferred matter without being ancillary to other provision (whether in the Act or previously enacted) which deals with an excepted matter or a reserved matter.

(3) In sub-paragraph (2)—

“ancillary” has the meaning given in section 6(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998;

“excepted matter”, “reserved matter” and “transferred matter” have the meanings given by section 4(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

Orders under this Part of this Schedule: particular provision

14 (1) The provision that may be made by an order under paragraph 10, 11 or 12 (whether by virtue of that paragraph or section 43(12)) includes—

(a) provision conferring, removing or otherwise modifying a function (whether or not exercisable in, or in relation to, Northern Ireland);

(b) provision amending, repealing, revoking or otherwise modifying any enactment (including an enactment contained in, or amended by, this Act).

(2) The making of an order under any provision of this Part of this Schedule does not prevent—

(a) a further order from being made under that provision, or

(b) an order from being made under any other provision of this Part of this Schedule.

(3) An order under paragraph 10 or 11 may modify or reverse the effects of an order made under paragraph 12.

(4) Sub-paragraphs (1) to (3) do not limit the powers conferred by paragraphs 10, 11 and 12.

(5) In this paragraph—

“enactment” means any enactment, whenever passed or made, contained in—

(a) an Act of Parliament;

(b) an Act of the Scottish Parliament;

(c) Northern Ireland legislation;

(d) a Measure or Act of the National Assembly for Wales;

(e) an instrument made under any such Act, legislation or Measure;

(f) any other subordinate legislation (within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978);

“function” means a function of any description, including a power or duty (whether conferred by an enactment or arising otherwise).’.—(Mr Jeremy Browne.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Business without Debate

Debate between Peter Bone and Lindsay Hoyle

Friday 30th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Am I incorrect then in thinking that it would have been possible for any hon. Member to have asked for an urgent question on any subject they were worried about today?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

That is correct, subject to people actually knowing what was laid earlier today.

Prayers

Debate between Peter Bone and Lindsay Hoyle

Friday 17th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We see today in the newspapers that the Government are announcing new measures on public sector pensions. It is in the media and we have seen the Chief Secretary to the Treasury being interviewed about it, but unfortunately there has been no notification on the Annunciator or the Order Paper that an oral statement will be made at 11 o’clock. Is that an error, and in fact a statement will be made?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I have had no notice of any statements.

Spring Adjournment

Debate between Peter Bone and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 24th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.

I move the motion on behalf of the Backbench Business Committee. It uses the Hollobone method.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Before I call the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), I have been asked by Mr Speaker to remind him of his ruling yesterday, when he said:

“I strongly deprecate the abuse of parliamentary privilege to flout an order or score a particular point…It is important…that we recognise the need to temper our privilege with responsibility.”—[Official Report, 23 May 2011; Vol. 528, c. 653-654.]

I trust the hon. Gentleman will not test the patience of the Chair today.

Broadcasting (Public Service Content) Bill

Debate between Peter Bone and Lindsay Hoyle

Friday 1st April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Has there been a request from the Government for an urgent ministerial statement on the arrival of the Libyan Foreign Minister Musa Kusa? There have been reports overnight that another envoy—this time an official envoy from the Gaddafi regime—is here. These matters are of the utmost importance, because clearly we have embarked on what was to be a humanitarian mission and we are now very heavily engaged in the murky politics of Libya. What is going on? The House would like to know.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I have had no indication that there will be any statement.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bone]

It does all those things, particularly the latter, but I am afraid it is still a commercially viable programme, so, if my Bill were passed, there would still be a “Top Gear” on the BBC. There is no doubt about that. Therefore I think that I win and my hon. Friend loses on that point.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think we are doing quite well, but we have given “Top Gear” and “EastEnders” a good run and I am sure we could move further into the Bill now.

[Mr Bone]

I hope that we are making good progress, Mr Deputy Speaker. We are nearly at the end of clause 1, which is the most important, and there are only three clauses. My problem is coming up with BBC programmes that I have heard of, because I watch so few of them, but I do watch “Top Gear” and I occasionally see “EastEnders” when I am in the gym. I do not listen to it, but it is on the television, although I never understand why that is on and the Parliament channel is not. I am talking about the gym in Westminster. I am sorry Mr Deputy Speaker, but I could not think of any other programmes.

Let me return to the wording that I have already said might be the biggest problem, in clause 1(4):

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

I think that would be self-regulated unless a particular broadcaster were determined to try to circumvent the Bill. The measure would not mean that other, commercially viable, programmes that broadcasters wanted to put on could not go into areas that would fall foul of the measure.

I am pleased to say that we now come to clause 2, on the payment of the licence fee. Subsection (1) says:

“No licence fee revenue shall be paid to any broadcaster by the Secretary of State for services which do not satisfy the criteria of public service content in section 1.”

That is clear. An interesting point that will surprise most people is that the licence fee is not paid directly to the BBC; it is handed out by the Secretary of State, so there is no real shift under the Bill. The Secretary of State will still make the payments, but instead of all the licence fee being handed over to the BBC, it will be divvied out to different broadcasters who provide public service content.

Clause 2(2) says:

“It shall be the duty of the National Audit Office to keep under review the total cost of public service television broadcasting.”

That is quite an important little subsection, because we could find—to take things to an extreme—that because there is that pot of money, all the non-BBC broadcasters apply for money to put on public service content, and the overall cost would then balloon, so the National Audit Office will keep under review the total expenditure. I say that the licence fee should come down from about £150 to about £50. That is why that provision is in clause 2. I think it will have to be developed and amended in Committee; Members might like to put some limit on the total cost of public service broadcasting, but that will be subject to the will of the House and up to the Committee.

Clause 2(3) says:

“In pursuance of its duty under subsection (2) the National Audit Office must conduct, in each calendar year after the year in which this Act is passed, a value for money audit of the expenditure incurred on the broadcasting of public service content that is funded by the licence fee payer.”

That is pretty straightforward: the National Audit Office will produce a report once a year.

Private Members’ Bills

Debate between Peter Bone and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I am very grateful to Mr Speaker for having selected my amendment, but having heard what the Deputy Leader of the House said in his powerful speech, with your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will not move the amendment. I should instead like to speak to the main motion.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

We thank the hon. Gentleman for the clarification. The amendment is not moved.

[Mr Bone]

Ooh, my pager has just pinged.

I do not know whether to cheer or boo—I have heard some booing tonight. I was slightly disappointed that the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) wished to carry on the old Executive’s way of controlling private Members’ days and having as few as possible. The enlightened view of the Deputy Leader of the House has encouraged me to support the motion, and I am looking forward to the reform of private Members’ business.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I hope that my hon. Friend will be good enough to note that if a Member introduces and prints a presentation Bill, that will demonstrate to the country what they intend to do. My Prevention of Terrorism Bill, for example, would unwind the application of the Human Rights Act 1998 and give us a proper terrorism law. Does he also appreciate that it is possible to attach signatures to such Bills by tabling an early-day motion? On one occasion, there were as many as 350 signatures attached in that way. That provides ample evidence of the support that a Bill has, even though the Government, by their continuous diminishing of the opportunities for the House to vote on matters that are important to the people at large—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

[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.

Education

Debate between Peter Bone and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 21st December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bone]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I understood that Ministers would take approximately 10 minutes to respond in this debate, because this is Back Benchers’ time, not Ministers’ time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The House is well aware that we have tried to keep Ministers to 10 minutes, but we have now drifted over the 15-minute mark. I am sure that the Minister will have taken that on board, as he now comes to the end of his speech .