Margaret Thatcher Day Bill

Debate between Peter Bone and Thomas Docherty

Friday 5th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bone]

You cannot object; I am within the time. Mr Deputy Speaker, I appreciate the support of my Whips in this—

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

My hon. Friend can go first.

[Mr Bone]

This was a politician with such courage and conviction—

Wright Committee

Debate between Peter Bone and Thomas Docherty

Tuesday 2nd July 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) on a powerful speech. I entirely agree with its content, so I shall go a little—in fact, a lot—further and faster. I think that his reluctance to do so is due to the fact that unfortunately, he has spent a bit of time in the Whips Office, which does something to dent the spirit.

When I first came to the House in 2005, I had a whole mound of mail, which I spent most of my time throwing in the bin. I opened an envelope, and there was a little book signed by the author, Graham Allen. It was an interesting book about the relationship with the Prime Minister: was he now actually the President? I could not put it down, and I have treasured it. It was nice to get it, but it was also a well-argued book.

One of the debates that the book raises is whether we should have separation of powers and an Executive that is completely independent of Parliament. On balance, I think that is a bad thing, because we have the wonderful opportunity, even if only on a Wednesday now, to ask the head of the Executive questions. There are still advantages to how our system works. However, the problem is that people in opposition who want to be in government or become Prime Minister can analyse things correctly and sensibly. When the current Prime Minister was in opposition, he produced a wonderful speech called “Fixing Broken Politics”, which I urge every Member to read. Everything in it is right. He decided how he was going to correct things. He is now Prime Minister, and none of those things have been corrected. I argue that in many cases, they have got worse.

There are a lot of things that we could easily do to bring Parliament back, even just a little. We can only move the pendulum back a bit at the moment, but one simple thing that we could do is restore Prime Minister’s questions to twice a week, and have one occasion on a Thursday. At the moment, Members come down late on Monday for a vote in the evening, and on Wednesday evening, after Prime Minister’s questions, they want to go. One thing that I have never understood is why so many Members work so hard to be elected and come to this place when, once they are here, all they want to do is get away from it. It is an extraordinary state of affairs. Regrettably, this debate is not particularly well attended. It should be packed. This is what parliamentarians should care about.

[Thomas Docherty]

May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that what we lack in quantity we make up for in quality?

[Mr Bone]

As the hon. Gentleman and I recently slept together—[Laughter.] I must explain that a little; it was an attempt by the hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), who is in the Chamber, another colleague and me to take a little power back from the Executive. We spent four nights sleeping outside the Table Office, so that we were first in the queue for presentation Bills. We presented about 50 Bills last week; we took that power away from the Executive, so that we could introduce Bills. One of the Bills that I introduced was for an allowance for married couples, which I did not realise that the Chancellor was to take up this very week. In a small way, doing such things achieves something, although it is ridiculous that we have to spend four nights sleeping in a small attic room to take a little power back for Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bone]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, although he may hear one such wish, because I am not sure yet. I do not trust the Government or the shadow Executive on the subject. I think that they will say, “Because the Backbench Business Committee is great, that is doing Back-Bench business. The other committee, therefore, must be for the Executive”—a business committee would be an Executive one. That is the danger.

If we have a proper committee for the business of the House, it should have no members of the Executive or shadow Executive on it, it should be elected by the House and it should produce a timetable that is amendable and can be voted on—that might go a little further than the hon. Gentleman intended. That is the real way to do things. We are a grown-up place; if we are to be a Parliament, that is how it should work. Otherwise, perhaps we should go completely the other way and have separation of powers. At the moment, however, we have a pretend Parliament on so many different issues. It breaks my heart that, with rare exceptions, Parliament does not bite back.

Recently, we have had two good examples of how Parliament does and does not work. On same-sex marriages, because all the party leaders and their Front Benchers agreed with it, the Bill was rammed through Parliament without proper debate, and many amendments were not even reached. That was completely what is wrong with Parliament. The week before, we had the amendment to the Queen’s Speech, arising from a revolt among Back-Bench Members that had resulted, unbelievably, within the week, in the Government completely changing their policy on an issue, because Parliament had said, “This is what we want to happen.” We need more of that, and less of stuff being rammed through.

There is so much we can do, but I am disappointed, because I do not think we will achieve any of it. The Deputy Leader of the House will give us a wonderful explanation of why we have not had the business committee in three years. It will be an absolutely wonderful explanation and it will be, of course, total rubbish, because I know the reason why we have not had that committee. I know what the Government care about because of where I sit in the House of Commons. You probably know, Mr Crausby, that I sit on the second Bench, behind the Ministers and the Whips. Any time there is discussion of the business committee of the House, the Whips, including the Leader of the House and Chief Whip, say, “Over my dead body!” I assume that that is what the Deputy Leader of the House will tell us. The Whips are completely opposed to the idea of a business committee of the House—it is just not going to happen.

[Thomas Docherty]

The hon. Gentleman must have misspoken. Surely the Chief Whip could not have said, “Over my dead body” because it is on the record that the Chief Whip was a huge enthusiast in his previous job for a business committee and surely he cannot have changed his mind now that he is a Whip.

[Mr Bone]

Was that before he became the Government Chief Whip?

[Thomas Docherty]

Yes.

[Mr Bone]

I think we have answered the question then. It is a wonderful piece of magic that these things happen when people change their position. Having said that, however, if I was sitting on the second Bench on the opposite side of the House of Commons, the Labour Whips would be saying exactly the same as the Government Whips, and that is the problem. It is not as if the Opposition are pushing for a business committee; they are not. The Opposition are muted—they say nothing—and I am really sad about that. I hope that what the hon. Member for Nottingham North has said today highlights the problem and I also hope that colleagues take it up. There may be a window of opportunity at the beginning of the next Parliament, but at the moment I see that we are going backwards rather than forwards.

Sittings of the House (22 March)

Debate between Peter Bone and Thomas Docherty

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Thomas Docherty]

I am grateful for that, Mr Speaker; of course, I never require any encouragement to do something.

I have the privilege of serving on both the Administration Committee and the Procedure Committee, and it is with those hats on that I wish to focus the majority of my remarks. Nobody has been a greater champion of parliamentary outreach than you, Mr Speaker. I think that the House would agree that in your time in the Chair you have done a vast amount to encourage Parliament to reach out, to open its doors and to do more to get the public in to see Parliament in action. The Leader of the House should be careful about what he wishes for in his motion. I am sure that he will have the answers to the following questions to hand, because he is an astute Minister. Will he clarify what discussions his office has had with the indomitable Mrs Aileen Walker who, as you know, Mr Speaker, is in charge of the tour office? I have the pleasure of serving on the Administration Committee with my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). You will know, Mr Speaker, that our tours are constantly over-subscribed. Will the Leader of the House clarify how many members of the public—how many taxpayers—who have booked travel well in advance to come down on the Friday to see Parliament in all its fine glory will not now have an opportunity to walk here on the Floor of the House of Commons because the Leader of the House wishes to take away that very valuable part of our democratic process? I hope that he has the figures to hand. I note that he is deep in conversation with one of his parliamentary colleagues, but I am sure he will be able to respond with those figures.

We also have to address the important issue of the staff of the House. Again, you have been a champion of looking after them, Mr Speaker. Has the Leader of the House had discussions with the Clerk of the House and with the trade unions about the disruption that will be caused to their plans? It is fair to say that our staff work incredibly hard, particularly those in Hansard, who do so much to clean up the expression of our thoughts. Has the Leader of the House made sure that they are not going to be unduly inconvenienced by having to come in on that Friday? He is clearly deep in thought about how he responds on that point.

On the issue of the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) raised a valid point about the sitting Fridays. I will not be tempted into explaining the contents of private Members’ Bills, but at this afternoon’s Procedure Committee sitting we had the Clerk Assistant, Mr David Natzler, as well as Miss Kate Emms and Mr Simon Patrick, and we were asking the Clerks what happens to those private Members’ Bills. As I understand it—you will correct me if my understanding is at all inaccurate, Mr Speaker—without the Leader of the House’s consent, those Bills cannot be placed on the Order Paper for the Friday. That would look extraordinarily confusing to people outside Parliament; they would see the Bills on the Friday but those Bills would not be able to be taken. So will the Leader of the House guarantee the House today that, as the hon. Member for Kettering proposed, if, for whatever reason, Members on either side finished early in the Budget debate on the Friday, the six Bills we have at the moment—I suspect, depending on the Leader of the House’s answer, that the number may grow—will be placed on as orders so that they can be considered? That is an important issue to clear up before we decide how to vote in this debate.

[Mr Bone]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Thomas Docherty]

Of course I will.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). I do not agree with all the comments he made, but the gist of his speech was very good. I rise to support the amendment. Were I sitting on the Opposition side of the House, I would support a similar amendment. Of course, I supported similar motions and amendments in the previous Parliament, as did my friends on the Front Bench, but they seem to have changed their position. It is also rather interesting that the shadow Ministers, when they were in government, took exactly the opposite position to the one they are taking today. It is the national union of Executives that we have to deal with tonight. Parliament—the mother of Parliaments—should decide the timetable, and it should do so through a House business committee. If that were the case, we would not have debates such as this one.

I want to deal with some of the points that have not been touched on. Members have pointed out that business is listed as provisional, and of course that is always the case; it says that on the handy card showing the calendar. The only way there could be an extra sitting day is if business has not been proceeded with. If business had not been proceeded with, obviously the Budget could be on an earlier day. We therefore have to assume that business has not proceeded as the Leader of the House wanted.

I should have taken the opportunity at the beginning of my speech to apologise to the House and to the Leader of the House for not being here early enough to hear all his comments. Unfortunately, I was in another part of the Palace and had made the real mistake—I apologise profusely for it—of listening to my Whips, who told me that this business would not start until after 7 o’clock. I will never make that mistake again.

[Thomas Docherty]

I wonder whether it has occurred to the hon. Gentleman that his Whips may not have been entirely helpful to him in suggesting the timing of the debate.

[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.

House of Commons Disqualification (Amendment) Bill

Debate between Peter Bone and Thomas Docherty

Friday 9th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

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

It is a great pleasure, and somewhat of a surprise, to be able to move on to this uncontroversial and straightforward little Bill. We have the best part of an hour to discuss it, so I think we should make good progress.

I am introducing such an uncontroversial and minor Bill in the true spirit of private Members’ Bills. Its aim is to act on the Prime Minister’s wishes, support coalition party policy, increase parliamentary scrutiny, reduce the size of the Government and save considerable amounts of money for the taxpayer. As I have said, it is uncontroversial, helpful to the Government and supportive of the Prime Minister.

I know that people will be suspicious that this might be a Government hand-out Bill. Let me reassure the House that although I have had some robust exchanges with the Government about the Bill, I can confirm that it is not such a Bill. I also noted, however, that the objections raised by the Government were weak and half-hearted, so reading between the lines I know that they are actually keen for the Bill to become an Act.

In a nutshell, the Bill would stop Members of Parliament becoming Whips. Why am I introducing the Bill now? There is, of course, an argument, which I shall explore later, that Members of Parliament should not be Whips at any time, but there is a more practical reason why the Bill should be passed. The Government have confirmed that they will set up a business of the House committee by 2013 as part of the ongoing radical reform of Parliament that is allowing better scrutiny of Government business. May I praise the Deputy Leader of the House, who is in his place and who I hope will have a chance to reply, for what the Government have done? They have taken the reform of Parliament seriously and there is ongoing progress—this Bill would just add a little to that progress.

The business of the House committee will timetable the business of the House so that the parliamentary week will be controlled by Parliament instead of being controlled by the Executive. That will have the effect of doing away with most of the work that the Whips now do, of which the organisation of the business of the House is a major task. Only yesterday, the Leader of the House reaffirmed at the Dispatch Box the Government’s absolute commitment to setting up the business of the House committee by 2013. He said:

“This Government successfully implemented the recommendation to establish a Backbench Business Committee, which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomed. The majority of the remaining recommendations of the Wright Committee are a matter for the House rather than Government. The Government will be bringing forward a Green Paper on intelligence and security later this year in which we will make initial proposals on how to reform the Intelligence and Security Committee. As set out in the coalition agreement, the Government are committed to establishing a House business committee in 2013.”—[Official Report, 8 September 2011; Vol. 532, c. 546.]

Clause 3(2) of my Bill states:

“This Act comes into force on the day of the appointment of the House of Commons Business Committee.”

My Bill would not abolish overnight the right for Members to be Whips. There would be a period of transition for up to two years.

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

Obviously, I have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman about the wonderful job that the Whips Office does, as it says here in my notes, but will he clarify what would happen to the functions that are provided to the royal household by the Whips? Who would take on those roles?

[Mr Bone]

Time is limited but I will address that later if I get to it.

This is not an attempt to denigrate or try to get rid of individual Members or right hon. Members of Parliament who are Whips at the moment. Almost without exception, they are talented, thoughtful, hard-working Members of Parliament who would be better employed as Executive Ministers in the Government, as shadow Ministers or on the Back Benches scrutinising the Executive. It is a waste of their considerable talent to have them in the Whips Office. I should like to single out and praise two Whips—the Government Chief Whip and the Government Deputy Chief Whip, who have been exceptionally helpful Members of Parliament and who have certainly produced a system of whipping that is fairer, freer and better than in the previous Parliament. In my opinion, they should both be Executive Ministers and should not waste their huge talents in the Whips Office.

The problem is not with the individuals or the tone of the Whips Office but with the institution itself. One could argue that when there was slavery in the southern states of the USA, there were benign slave owners, and the tone of slavery definitely improved over the years, but that does not take away from the fundamental fact that the institution of slavery was wrong because it sought to control other human beings through various methods. Similarly, the Whips Office seeks to control the minds, actions and votes of individual Members of Parliament. That is fundamentally wrong. I would argue strongly that we have a benign set of Whips at the moment, and the tone of whipping has definitely improved considerably over the years, but it is the institution of whipping that is wrong.

Looking elsewhere, let us imagine what would happen if any other organisation, private company or individual told a Member of Parliament when to speak, what to say or how to vote. They would be hauled before the House for contempt, but that is exactly what the Whips try to do every day. They will flatter, cajole, threaten or even use blackmail to achieve this. They are a perfect example of people who believe that the ends justify the means. I have lost count of how many times the Whips have shouted or sworn at me. The institution of the Whips Office is secretive and highly efficient. It is exceptionally talented at getting what it wants.

Before I go into the detail of the Bill, I shall briefly mention a television programme that many of us have probably watched. In 1980, “Yes Minister” aired for the first time. It went on for a further four series. It is of course a satirical sitcom about a hapless Minister and Parliament, but I understand that it is also the training manual for Ministers. However, I mention the programme for one episode and one scene alone. Jim Hacker, the hapless Minister, says to his private secretary when the Division bells sound, “What’s the vote?” The secretary goes on to explain that it is about the education Bill, and continues to explain about the details of the education Bill and what it hopes to achieve. However, before he can finish Jim Hacker cuts him off and says, “No, don’t tell me about the Bill; tell me which Lobby the Whips want me to vote in. I don’t need to know about the Bill. I just need to know which Lobby I have to vote in.” That was 30 years ago, and nothing has changed over that period.

Most Members of the House, on most occasions when Division bells ring, have no idea what they are voting for. Many do not even know the basics of the Bill; they are just voting the way the Whips tell them.

European Union Bill

Debate between Peter Bone and Thomas Docherty

Tuesday 1st February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bone]

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

It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), who made such a powerful speech. I hope that I am able to tempt her into joining us in the Division Lobby later tonight, given what she said about new clause 7. It would be wrong of me not to pay tribute to the Whips Office for allowing me this time tonight, and for arranging matters so that my amendment 48 was not debated last week, when there clearly was not enough time for it. Now, we have absolutely hours and hours to discuss new clause 11, and I congratulate the Whips on that.

The new clause, which stands in my name and those of other hon. Members, reads:

“In order to meet the referendum condition referred to in section 2, section 3 and section 6 of this Act, the Act providing for the approval of—

(a) a treaty under the terms of section 2; or

(b) a decision under the terms of section 3; or

(c) a decision or draft decision under section 6

shall also provide for a further binding referendum to be held on continuing United Kingdom membership of the European Union, if the majority of those voting in a referendum held under the terms of the relevant section are opposed to the ratification of the treaty, decision or draft decision, as the case may be.”

What does that actually mean? For the first time, this Parliament would have an option to debate whether we should have an in/out referendum on the European Union. In other words, there would have to be a binding in/out referendum on our membership of the European Union if the new clause were passed and two hurdles cleared: first, a referendum would have to be triggered under the European Union Bill, owing to a proposed transfer of competency; and secondly, the British people would have to vote against such a transfer of power.

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

I am very grateful for having stumbled into this debate. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept the danger that, although people might not be in favour of voting yes in the first referendum, they would be forced—with the proverbial gun to their head—to vote yes to such a transfer of powers because they did not want an in/out referendum?

[Mr Bone]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but that matter comes somewhat later in my address. In fact, I think that it would work to the reverse of what he said.

Finance Bill

Debate between Peter Bone and Thomas Docherty

Thursday 15th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bone]

I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend’s point, but I want to draw a distinction between amendments 18 and 19. Amendment 18 addresses health insurance premiums, and the fact is that if someone does not take out health insurance, the state picks up the bill, because they will go to the NHS. When someone does not take out motor insurance, the responsible citizen picks up the bill through the Motor Insurers Bureau, but that is not quite the same as the position for health. It is clear that if someone might have paid for insurance so that they could go to an independent sector hospital but does not do so, they will be in the NHS and the state will have to pay. I argue that we could send a signal today to the citizens of this country, as part of the big society, that we want them to be responsible and to take out insurance, especially health insurance, which would save the Government money.

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

Labour Members do not have a philosophical objection to private health care, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that many people cannot afford such coverage? It is wrong to say that taking out private health care is a responsible option because that portrays those who cannot afford it as somehow irresponsible.