International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill (Money)

Debate between Peter Bone and Desmond Swayne

Monday 3rd November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swayne]

I would welcome being at this Dispatch Box to move a money resolution for the European Union (Referendum) Bill.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Go on then.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Swayne]

I am guided by your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the fact is that I am no more able to gratify the hon. Member for St Ives than I am my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). The fact is that this money resolution gives effect to the will of the House so this Bill can move into Committee.

[Mr Bone]

I think the Minister made a slight error with his numbers earlier. I think he was referring to the voting on the closure motion, when the debate was curtailed. The vote on the question on Second Reading was 164 to six. Will he enlighten us as to how the decision is made to bring money resolutions to the Floor of the House?

[Mr Swayne]

I stand corrected; my hon. Friend has clearly examined the record more scrupulously than I did. On his second question: that is a mystery to me. It is not for me to determine which Bills have money resolutions and which do not. That is a question that he might properly put to the Leader of the House on Thursday at business questions, because it is effectively his decision. The irony is that this Bill would not have required a money resolution in order to go into Committee had it not been for clause 5, which sets up a new body. The fact is that it is my intention to persuade my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Michael Moore) to amend the Bill in Committee by taking out that offending clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Swayne]

The process is simple. We discussed it a great deal on Second Reading, but my hon. Friend is now effectively attempting to reopen that debate. The Bill was approved according to the clearly expressed will of the House, but it concerns a pledge that was in every party’s manifesto.

[Mr Bone]

The Minister has got to the crux of the matter. This should be a Government Bill and it should be debated in Government time. It should not have to be pushed through by this back-door means.

[Mr Swayne]

I hardly think that a private Member’s Bill could be referred to as being “pushed through” in that way. If it had been a Government Bill, my hon. Friend might well have complained about the operation of the Whips and about it being railroaded through; he has often complained about that in the past. Surely he does not think that that is happening with a private Member’s Bill; that is absolute nonsense.

Dismissal of Ian Faletto, Lymington Stationmaster

Debate between Peter Bone and Desmond Swayne

Tuesday 5th July 2011 Commons Chamber

Mr Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

The excellent and award-winning stationmaster of Lymington was sacked for removing a shopping trolley from the line before a train could collide with it. The vicar of Pennington collected 8,400 signatures and sought to deliver them to South West Trains, but in an act of shocking discourtesy to the travelling public, the company refused to take them. It is therefore my privilege to present to this House the petition of the vicar of Pennington, which calls on this honourable House to enlist the support of the Department of Transport to intercede with South West Trains to reconsider this shocking injustice.

Following is the full text of the Petition:

[The Humble Petition of Revd Alex Russell, Vicar of Pennington,

Sheweth that a great injustice has been done by the dismissal of Ian Faletto Stationmaster at Lymington.

Wherefore your Petitioner prays that your Honourable House calls upon the Government to request that South West Trains reconsider their decision in the light of his many years of exemplary service to the public

And your Petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.]

[P000928]

Redevelopment of Rushden Hospital Site

Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)

- Hansard -

To follow that is impossible, but my petition is of more importance to my constituents, because the hospital site, where there is of course no longer a hospital, has always been an area where it was planned that we should eventually have a hospital. Unfortunately, the NHS plans to sell it off and 270 local residents have signed a petition, led by Sheila Vickers. I shall read the petition where the point is well made:

The Humble Petition of residents of Rushden, Northamptonshire and the surrounding areas,

Sheweth,

that the proposed revised redevelopment of the Rushden Hospital site for housing is unpopular, ill-advised and detrimental to the residents of Rushden; that over 25% of the residents of Rushden petitioned the House of Commons for a new outpatient facility in the town, the majority wanting the new facility on the Rushden hospital site; that the proposal to build housing on the site instead of an NHS facility is unacceptable and the impact on the surrounding roads of a large housing development and the density of the development and the proposed cut-through to the Greenacre Drive Estate is wholly detrimental to local residents and notes that a similar proposal for housing development on this site was not approved by East Northamptonshire District Council.

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to urge the Department of Health to withdraw the revised planning application and further urges him to request that the District Council of East Northamptonshire and the County Council and the Primary Care Trust work together to provide a suitable health facility on the site.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.

[P000937]