Health and Social Care Levy

Debate between Steve Baker and Peter Bone

1st reading
Wednesday 8th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I want to begin by thinking through what Labour would do if it were in power. [Interruption.] I am very grateful that the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) has just outlined some of the things that he might do. If I understand the Labour Front Benchers correctly, I think they suggested that they would use stamp duty or various transaction taxes on assets. I am grateful that Ministers are here, because I think that they know, as I know, that there is no way that the money needed would be raised—[Interruption.] I am grateful that the Minister says, “Correct”. It says in the document that not enough money would be raised from stamp duty and transaction taxes on assets. It is fanciful, and the hon. Gentleman’s proposals are likewise, I am afraid.

We would need to change one of the big taxes. Would Labour Members put up VAT from 20%? Of course they would not because it is regressive. It is a bad idea. It is already too high and it already hits everyone, so they would not put up VAT. Would they put up income tax? I think they would get the same advice that these Ministers have had from the same officials. I think they might be advised that we are already in a position where income tax is rather too dependent on the decisions of a small number of top earners. This is the sort of evidence we have had at the Treasury Committee for a very long time, so I think that we would find that, actually, they were not able to put up income tax.

So where would that leave Labour? That would leave it with the big tax that has always, as the document points out, been used to fund health and social care: national insurance contributions. I think that Ministers, if they were from Labour, would be presented with a distributional analysis like the one I have here, which our Ministers have. Labour Ministers would look at it and see that actually, distributionally, it is really only the top two deciles who are net losers. Deciles from the bottom through to No. 8 are either gaining or, in the case of the eighth decile, right there in net overall, neither gaining nor losing. I think that what Labour would do if it was in power is what it did last time it was in power and needed money for the NHS: it would put up national insurance contributions.

My constituents in Wycombe are very reasonable people. While knocking on doors in Marlow Bottom just last Saturday, I discovered constituents who recognise that we have suffered an enormous pandemic that has done so much to damage the public finances and people’s lives, as other hon. Members have said. But where are we going? That is the second point that I want to touch on. This is what I think Labour would do in power, and that is the problem—sorry, Ministers.

If we look, as I am sure colleagues have done, at the future debt trajectory for the United Kingdom produced by the Office for Budget Responsibility, we can see that our public finances are in an unsustainable state. I could easily give quotations—they are in my pocket—but if I recall correctly, the OBR’s 2018 report describes debt getting to about 260% by about 2057 and says something like, “Of course, policy would have to change by then.” I have always taken that to be a euphemism for “Of course, we would have to default on our age-related spending promises.” That is the consistent finding of the Office for Budget Responsibility on our long-term public finances. Sooner or later—in all our lifetimes, hopefully—we will find that the state cannot afford the promises that it has made to older people.

That is the problem that we face today. It is not about the national insurance contribution rise planned today, which I believe is a levy that the Labour party would adopt if it were in power; the problem is that we have no better ideas than putting up taxes to raise more money for public services.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes the powerful point that this is what Labour would do in power. Why are we doing it as Conservatives?

[Mr Baker]

That is the fundamental problem that I face today, because I believe that this is just the beginning of the generational crisis of our inability to fund the promises that have been made progressively for more than 100 years, since the National Insurance Act 1911. I have talked about it ad nauseam, particularly in relation to a Bank for International Settlements paper that sets out charts showing that all western welfare states, and indeed Japan, are in the same boat. Some of the cuts to age-related spending that would need to be made to balance the books are just implausible.

We are in a dreadful position. Historically, when this country has been in a dreadful position economically and socially and on a trajectory towards ruin, there has proven to be only one party capable of rescuing the situation, and of course it is the Conservative party. At some stage in our lifetime, the Conservative party will have to rediscover what it stands for, because I have to say that at the moment we keep doing things we hate because we feel that we must.

My hon. Friend the Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment stood at the Dispatch Box today and explained that vaccine passports go against his instincts and those of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister; at one point I think he said that they went against everything that he stood for. We have heard hon. Members say—there are quotes on the internet from former Ministers and Cabinet members—that they hate raising taxes, but do not see how they cannot vote for it. Tonight, colleagues will say, with a good heart, “I just must,” because we all know that we cannot let NHS waiting lists get to where they are going as a result of the pandemic. Well, I know that too, but this I also know: we are going to have to do things differently.

We have to rediscover our confidence as free market Conservatives and the radical reforming zeal of the 2010 Parliament and the big society. We have to show people that we can secure a bright, prosperous and free future that provides for their needs in their old age, but without coming back to higher taxes every time there is a squeeze on the public finances. Down that road is ruin. We all know that eventually socialists run out of other people’s money.

I am sorry, Ministers, but I cannot vote with the Government tonight. Some of us have to be seen to stand for another path.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Steve Baker and Peter Bone

Thursday 15th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baker]

Of course we are concerned about aerospace; it is one of our greatest industries. I remind the hon. Gentleman of what was said by his hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner). He said that retaining membership of a customs union would be “deeply unattractive”, because it would stop us negotiating our own trade deals:

“As a transitional phase, a customs union agreement might be thought to have some merit. However, as an end point it is deeply unattractive. It would preclude us from making our own independent trade agreements with our five largest export markets outside the EU”.

For all the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham P. Jones) says, his party is at sixes and sevens.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

If China is illegally dumping steel in the United Kingdom, will the excellent Minister agree that it is better that the British Government decide what the remedy is, rather than the European Union?

[Mr Baker]

I certainly agree that we should have our own trade policies in place and that we should not be standing against free trade. We should be unequivocally embracing free trade, but we must stand against unfair, anti-competitive practices, and that is what we will do.

Leaving the EU: Economic Analysis

Debate between Steve Baker and Peter Bone

Tuesday 30th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baker]

That was quite a long question. There are two particular scenarios that are not modelled in this analysis. One is the policy choices that the Prime Minister rightly set out in her Florence speech, and the other is exiting in the unfortunate, and we think unlikely, circumstance of not reaching an agreement and how one might take the right policy choices in the event of trading on WTO rules. We will continue to take this analysis forward, and I look forward to the day when we are able to present appropriate analysis to the House before the meaningful vote.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Does the Minister recall, prior to the referendum, what became known as “Project Fear”? Everything was going to go wrong after the referendum if we voted to come out—something short of bubonic plague—but that did not happen. With those warnings, the British people still voted to come out, so of what relevance is another forecast now that predicts exactly the same as “Project Fear”?

[Mr Baker]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I well remember “Project Fear” in all its manifestations. Most of us on the leave side thought at the time that those horror predictions would not come to pass after the vote and, happily, we have been proved correct. I look forward to continuing to prove economists wrong after they make horror story predictions.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Steve Baker and Peter Bone

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 14th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baker]

I did say just a couple of minutes ago that I would give way only once more, but on this occasion I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). Then I really will make a little more progress.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The Minister is making a very good speech, but what is not clear—and there is some media speculation about this—is whether, if amendment 381 is passed with the exit date confirmed as it is, the Bill allows that date to be changed subsequently by means of regulation.

[Mr Baker]

The answer to that is no. The point has been raised specifically in respect of the powers in clause 17, which relate to the consequences of the Bill’s enactment. I look forward very much to a full debate on those powers when we reach clause 17, but the short answer to my hon. Friend’s question is no.

Exiting the EU: Sectoral Analysis

Debate between Steve Baker and Peter Bone

Tuesday 7th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baker]

The hon. Lady is conflating various terms. There is certainly a sectoral analysis; what there is not is a quantitative impact analysis forecasting the future. It might help the House if I repeat what I said earlier. The analysis thus far has been a wide mix of qualitative and quantitative analysis, contained in a range of documents developed at different times since the referendum. The analysis examines the nature of activity in the sectors and how trade is conducted with the EU currently in those sectors, and in many cases it considers the alternatives after we leave, as well as looking at existing precedents.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The House has clearly voted for these papers to be released. My Whips advised me not to vote against that, so they have to be released. The Minister is trying to be helpful in providing additional information. I would say to him that that is not what the House requires. It requires lots of cardboard boxes with the information to be dumped on the Select Committee for it to look at. The Select Committee will then decide what, if anything, should be published.

[Mr Baker]

I am very grateful indeed to my hon. Friend, but I would say to him that the information we have includes commercially sensitive information, information that is material to our negotiating capital and advice to Ministers. The House must be very careful not to establish precedents that it could regret in due course.

Prime Minister (Replacement) Bill

Debate between Steve Baker and Peter Bone

Friday 29th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

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

I am grateful to Her Majesty for her consent.

I clarify that we will not be debating the merits of Mrs Bone replacing the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron), as the name of my Bill might suggest, but rather the lack of clear succession should the Prime Minister become temporarily, or permanently, incapacitated to perform his duties.

I have asked on a number of occasions what procedure is in place should the Prime Minister be unable to perform his duties. Time and again, on each occasion Ministers have failed to give a substantive response, and I have been amazed at the number of different ways Ministers have dodged, ducked and dived around the question. Responses have ranged from the simply unhelpful reply from the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) that

“the Prime Minister is not incapacitated,”—[Official Report, 19 July 2007; Vol. 463, c. 446.]

to the Foreign Secretary’s positively clandestine explanation that

“we do not consider it appropriate to talk about these plans in public”—[Official Report, 17 January 2012; Vol. 538, c. 597.]

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Has my hon. Friend inquired what has happened in the past?

[Mr Bone]

That is a good point, but I am looking to the future rather than the past as I am a very modern Conservative.

I am not in the habit of subscribing to conspiracy theories—although I do think there was somebody on the grassy knoll—but there is something strange about the Government’s refusal to state their position on the matter. Could it be that the admission that the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg) is next in line to No. 10 is so scary that it would be a breach of national security should it become public knowledge?

In the terrible event of an airstrike on No. 10, we need to know instantly who would be responsible for commissioning a counter-attack. More to the point, we need the potential perpetrators of such an attack to know that we would instantly have the capability to take such decisions. It is preposterous for us to think that there would be time, or indeed the need, for a Cabinet meeting to be called to decide who is in charge. There simply would not be time because the military would need a decision as soon as possible on what action to take. It seems common sense that, in such an event, there should be a predetermined line of succession, as there is in the United States of America.

In a majority Government, there would be a clear mandate for the Deputy Prime Minister to take over, as there was when John Prescott was Tony Blair’s deputy. The same cannot be said of the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam, replacing my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney. Surely it is not fitting for the leader of a party that holds less than 10% of the seats in the House of Commons, and maintains a lower approval rating than the UK Independence party, to be positioned to take over from the Prime Minister in a national emergency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bone]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope that none of these events takes place. My comments, of course, were entirely about the Prime Minister and which elected person should replace him.

At a time when strong leadership would be more important than ever, the last thing we should be doing is having a debate to decide who is in charge. We need a clear line of succession, and we need it now. In the United States, if the President is killed, there is a list of succession of 18 different office holders. It starts with the Vice-President; then comes the Speaker of the House. It goes all the way down to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, so even if there is a mass terrorist attack on the American leadership, it will always be clear who is in charge. That person will immediately take over responsibility for the nuclear deterrent and will be able, if necessary, to order retaliatory action. I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, but these things have to be said: if a civilian aircraft was deliberately crashed on the White House, killing the President, and other civilian aircraft were heading towards Congress, it would be clear whose decision it would be whether those aircraft should be shot down.

In the United Kingdom, we have no idea who would take over if the Prime Minister were killed. Would it be the Deputy Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary or the Cabinet Secretary? The answer is not clear. It might be an elected person. It might be the Defence Secretary, or it might be the Leader of the House. It might be the Cabinet Secretary. It might be the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. It might be the senior representative of the BBC; after all, the BBC thinks that it runs the country.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is raising some extremely serious issues, and I think that we may be mixing up a number of the functions of government. I visited RAF Coningsby recently to talk to people who were operating on quick reaction alert, and I know that when it comes to that particularly difficult and painful decision relating to airliners—which is surely one of the most unimaginably difficult decisions that a politician might have to make—there are clear and robust procedures in place, and a politician would be the decision maker at all times. I do not think that there is any question that this country always has a political decision maker in relation to our air defence.

[Mr Bone]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention, but I invite him to intervene again, because I am not sure whether he was saying that the ultimate decision was always political, or that the action could be taken without a political decision.

[Steve Baker]

What I am saying is that a senior politician would always be involved in any such decision in the circumstances that my hon. Friend has described. I am not sure how much further I can go in terms of engagement, but I am absolutely clear about the fact that there is always a politician in that chain, and everyone involved knows who it is.

House of Commons Disqualification (Amendment) Bill

Debate between Steve Baker and Peter Bone

Friday 9th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. A yes-person who always agrees with the Whips will never be a good Minister. A person has to have independent thought to be a Minister. Some members of the Cabinet voted against the Maastricht treaty—probably the most controversial issue for the Conservative party—and it did not seem to do them any harm.

Parliament was originally intended to act as a check on the Executive, and to hold them properly to account, but with the advent of the party and such concepts as party loyalty and party manifestos, Members of Parliament who put their individual judgment to one side are increasingly frequently—more often than not—treated by the Whips as little more than sheep. They are blindly herded into Division Lobbies and told to vote a particular way on a subject that they know nothing about. Whips even have the nerve to divide the groups that they look after into flocks, because they regard them as sheep. Sadly, Christopher Hollis MP had it precisely right when he said in 1946:

“On most votes it would be simpler and more economic to keep a flock of tame sheep and from time to time to drive them through the division lobbies in the appropriate number.”

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I have great sympathy with what my hon. Friend says, and I was standing in about this position in the House when I first advocated abolishing whipping. However, does he not agree that it is necessary to organise for votes, and that without whipping, or at least some system of organisation, it would be very difficult for any Government to get their business through?

[Mr Bone]

Unusually, I disagree with my hon. Friend. If we go back to the years of Wilberforce, or the time of the American civil war, Members of Parliament quite often campaigned and voted against the Executive’s line. The Government would lose major pieces of legislation, but the Government did not fail; they carried on. That was what Parliament was supposed to do.

Loans to Ireland Bill (Allocation of Time)

Debate between Steve Baker and Peter Bone

Wednesday 15th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bone]

Mr Speaker, you would rightly tick me off if I answered that question. That is a matter for the Second Reading debate, because it is to do with the issues in the Bill. I am expressing no view on that at the moment. However, unless we have adequate time to discuss those issues, the hon. Gentleman’s point might not be clarified.

Lack of parliamentary time cannot be an excuse for this motion. The advantage of splitting the debate over two days is that it would allow a proper debate on Second Reading today. I believe that many Members would like to take part in such a debate. It would also allow amendments to be tabled in the normal way, and enable us to have a proper debate in Committee, with time for a debate and votes on each of the amendments. There would also be time for a Third Reading debate.

I understand that the Government have tabled a manuscript amendment today, although I have not seen it. That amendment has been tabled without allowing Members the time to consider it. That just shows the weakness of this procedure. If the allocation of time motion were defeated, we would have a full Second Reading debate and the Government would have to rearrange their business to provide for the Committee stage and Third Reading. The loan would still go through, but the Bill would have been properly debated and, if necessary, amended. Defeating the allocation of time motion would not wreck the Bill; it would simply give more time for proper scrutiny so that the Bill could be improved. We have already seen that the Government have tabled a manuscript amendment. What will happen if, during the 15 minutes of the Second Reading debate, a Member decides that they want to table an amendment? They just will not have time to do it.

How does the motion fit in with the principles behind parliamentary sittings? The present timetabling of our sittings is broadly based on the Jopling reforms and encompasses three principles. It is against those three principles that we should judge the Bill today. The first is that the Government must be able to get their business through, and, within that principle, ultimately control the time of the House. Secondly, the Opposition must have the opportunity to scrutinise the actions of the Government and to improve or oppose legislation as they think fit. Thirdly—this is of more interest to me—Back-Bench Members on both sides of the Chamber should have reasonable opportunities to raise matters of concern from their constituents. A number of my constituents have contacted me with concerns about this Bill.

A major role of Members of Parliament is to scrutinise and review legislation. It is a well-known fact—I doubt that anyone in the House would disagree with this—that the better the scrutiny, the better the Bill. It is also a major role of Members of Parliament who are not members of the Executive to hold the Executive to account, whichever party or parties make up that Executive. That is one of the most important roles we have as Members of Parliament. This motion removes that role. It is appalling that the coalition Government should try to stifle that essential function. I have long campaigned for more transparency and debate in Parliament. I strongly believe in strengthening the role of the Back Bencher. The erosion of parliamentary power to scrutinise legislation has been a long-adopted approach by successive Governments. This motion, I am afraid, is a step too far. Individual Members of Parliament attach a great deal of importance to scrutiny and accountability, and problems arise when the Executive try to deny us that right.

The Government have declared that amendments must be tabled before Second Reading, which is ludicrous. They ask MPs to table amendments before we have had a chance to hear what the Minister has to say. How can MPs properly table amendments when they have not heard the details and the arguments? Despite that difficulty, 11 amendments have already been tabled. The Government were forced to produce a three-page document—I have it with me—of amendments, and another five-page document on their justification for rushing the Bill through. These documents were produced only in the last few days. How can they, and the amendments, realistically be scrutinised if the Bill goes through all its stages today? It is just not possible.

The House of Lords got rather fed up with the Commons bouncing it, so it has now come up with a procedure whereby the Government have to answer a number of questions—I think it is eight—before they can get a Bill such as this through. Those questions are printed in the explanatory notes to the Bill. Let us look at some of them for a minute, and see whether the answers hold up to scrutiny.

The first question is: “Why is fast-tracking necessary?” The notes go on to explain that the proposal is for a bilateral loan, and that the timing of the UK’s proposed loan is currently unclear. They state:

“It is necessary to fast-track the Bill so that the UK’s international partners can be confident that the bilateral loan will be implemented.”

That is an absolutely hopeless answer to the question. It does not tell us why the Bill is being fast-tracked. It is ridiculous to suggest that our international partners would think that, because we had not taken another day or two to debate the Bill, the Government were not going to proceed with the loan.

The next question is:

“What is the justification for fast-tracking each element of the Bill?”

Again, there does not seem to be an answer. The notes state:

“The Bill is a short Bill, with few substantive provisions other than to provide for sums required by the Treasury”.

Yes, the Bill is short because many of the provisions deal with statutory instruments and affirmative resolutions. It is an important Bill, but it is short because many of the provisions do not go into detail. That is exactly why we need a proper Second Reading debate. I do not think that the Government have answered that question either.

The next question is a good one:

“What efforts have been made to ensure the amount of time made available for parliamentary scrutiny has been maximised?”

The answer is:

“The Bill is being published on the same day it is introduced and arrangements are being made for amendments to be accepted in advance of second reading in the House of Commons.”

How on earth does that answer the question about making time available for parliamentary scrutiny? It is like the Prime Minister being asked a question at Prime Minister’s questions and giving an answer to a completely different one. It might be a good answer, but it is not the answer to the question that was asked.

The next thing that the Lords want to know is this:

“To what extent have interested parties and outside groups been given an opportunity to influence the policy proposal?”

The answer talks about our European Union colleagues, but the key is in the last sentence, which states that

“there has been limited opportunity to give interested parties and outside groups an opportunity to influence.”

By the Government’s own admission, they have failed in regard to that question.

The next question asks whether the Bill includes a sunset clause. The Government can argue, with some justification, that it does, because it stipulates a period of five years. It does not tell us when the loans are to be repaid, but it places a five-year limit on the period in which they can be made. That is not what is normally understood by a sunset clause, however. Sunset clauses normally stipulate that in, say, a year’s time, Parliament will look again at the legislation to see whether it is correct.

The next question is:

“Are mechanisms for effective post legislative scrutiny and review in place? If not, why do the Government judge that their inclusion is not appropriate?”

The answer states:

“The Bill provides for regular reports”.

On that one, I will give the Government a tick. So far, they have passed one of the six tests. The next question is:

“Has an assessment been made as to whether existing legislation is sufficient to deal with any or all the issues in question?”

The Government do not really answer that one. They say:

“Statutory authority for such expenditure is required in accordance with the Concordat of 1932 between the Government and the Public Accounts Committee.”

I am unclear as to what that means, but it does not seem to answer the question that has been asked. The final question is:

“Has the relevant Parliamentary committees been given to opportunity to scrutinise the legislation?”

The explanatory notes were drawn up in such haste that the spelling of the question was incorrect, but the simple answer to it, as I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) might confirm, is that no such scrutiny has taken place.

In concluding my opening remarks, I want to say a few words about what I think is wrong. Let me state to the House how this mother of Parliaments should work in relation to timings of debates. The driving principle of reform should be the redistribution of power—from the powerful to the powerless. That means boosting Parliament’s power to hold the Government of the day to account. The House of Commons’ historic functions were to vote money for Governments to spend, and to scrutinise laws. It now barely bothers with the first, and does the second extremely badly. There was a time when legislation that had been formulated after months of civil service and ministerial deliberation was sent to the House of Commons which would pore over it, shape it and send it back, get it back, look at it again and improve it some more—Bill by Bill, clause by clause, line by line. Every piece of legislation would be put under intense scrutiny. Is it legally sound? Will it be effective? Is it worth the cost?

Let us compare that with today. Let me take Members on the journey of a piece of legislation as it passes through the modern House of Commons. It is likely to have been dreamt up on the sofa of No. 10. A Bill is drafted and it is sent to the House for a couple of hours of routine debate among a few MPs. Then the bells ring, the whips are cracked and suddenly, out of nowhere, all the Members turn up to vote. More often than not, they do not even know what they are voting for. The Bill limps through. Then it goes into Committee. The Committee’s duty is to look at the detail clause by clause, but it is packed full of people that the Whips have put there. So, surprise, surprise, the Government rarely lose a vote on any of the individual points of detailed scrutiny. Then it is back to the House to do it all again—debate, bell and then vote to wave the legislation through.

Every Bill now has a programme motion setting out how much time can be spent scrutinising and debating each part. There are automatic guillotines, and the time allowed for scrutiny is set in advance, before anyone can see whether or not a particular issue is contentious or complex. Watching a Minister in the Commons drawing out one point for an hour to fill the time, to an audience of dozing Back Benchers—that is not accountability. How can the mother of all Parliaments turn itself into such a pliant child?

Unfortunately, I cannot claim credit for that last section of my speech. It was in fact from a speech on fixing broken promises delivered on 26 May 2009 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr Cameron). I do not think that Ministers on the Front Bench today want to upset the Prime Minister. So they have an opportunity, before the conclusion of the debate, to say that they will withdraw the allocation of time motion, and that we will have proper debate.

For many years I have sat on the Back Benches imploring others to give more time for Parliament to scrutinise legislation. I believe that to be the fundamental role, not only of the Back Bencher, but of Parliament itself.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to say just how much I stand behind the Prime Minister in his remarks, which my hon. Friend has so generously shared with the House. However, does my hon. Friend agree that if this bail-out is necessary at all, it is an emergency?

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend is tempting me to enter the debate, which I am not going to do, and as time is short, I shall conclude my remarks.

Time is all we have as Back Benchers, and if that is taken away from us, so is power. I urge all parliamentarians in the House to vote against the guillotine motion.