European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (Rule of Law)

Debate between Peter Bone and Stephen Doughty
Monday 9th September 2019

(5 years, 1 month ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Peter Bone Portrait Mr Bone
- Hansard - -

I am sure that Eric Forth was much better. He will probably be looking down, saying, “Oh my goodness, what a shower there is on both sides!” He would do this far better than me and he would wear a much better tie in the process, but alas, he is in a better place—and he will be wearing a better tie than the hon. Gentleman, that’s for sure. The really important point is that this House delegated the decision to the British people, and after three years, we have failed to do it. That is the fundamental difference between this and anything else that we normally debate.

Stephen Doughty Portrait Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The hon. Gentleman and I obviously disagree on the Brexit issue, but he would surely accept that since that point, we have had a general election where the Government lost their majority, and the Government have further lost their majority during that time. That is part of democracy. Given that the Prime Minister found time to vote in the last Division—we all saw him scuttling off down the corridor—is the hon. Gentleman not disappointed that neither he nor the Law Officers are here to explain whether or not they will comply with the law of this land?

Peter Bone Portrait Mr Bone
- Hansard - -

Do I think that the Prime Minister should waste his time coming to an Standing Order No. 24 debate—a general debate—about whether he is going to obey the law of the land? Of course he is going to obey the law of the land. Nobody doubts that point. The hon. Gentleman made another important point before that, which I have completely forgotten—sorry.

Speaker's Statement

Debate between Peter Bone and Stephen Doughty
Wednesday 14th September 2016

(8 years, 1 month ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Peter Bone Portrait Mr Bone
- Hansard - -

rose—

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I will take points of order now, before we come to the urgent question. I saw the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) first, and I am slightly anxious that he will burst if he does not have his opportunity ere long.

UK Steel Industry

Debate between Peter Bone and Stephen Doughty
Tuesday 12th April 2016

(8 years, 6 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Peter Bone Portrait Mr Bone
- Hansard - -

My hon. Friend is correct. That is the problem. I am afraid that the two Front-Bench teams cannot deal with this situation because of their position on the European Union. If the referendum had not been going on at the moment—

Stephen Doughty Portrait Stephen Doughty
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I was in agreement with much of what the hon. Gentleman was saying until he got on to his usual track about the EU. Celsa in my constituency is a Catalan company that operates across the whole of the EU. If we were to leave and to lose access to the single market, we would still be bound by World Trade Organisation rules on state aid and other issues. The uncertainty, damage and risk to jobs in south Wales, which he said he cared about, would be immense. It is grossly irresponsible to suggest that leaving the EU would benefit the steel industry in this country.

Peter Bone Portrait Mr Bone
- Hansard - -

I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that his analysis is absolutely wrong and that his ideology is driving his comments.

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

Debate between Peter Bone and Stephen Doughty
Monday 3rd November 2014

(9 years, 12 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Doughty Portrait Stephen Doughty
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is more bluff and bluster from the hon. Gentleman: the type of rhetoric about blank cheques and throwing money at problems. If that is the view, would these Conservative Members say we should not be supporting the efforts against Ebola in west Africa, or we should not be helping to immunise children across the world, to educate people or to strengthen the Governments who need to be in place and to be strong to tackle the very corruption these Members are talking about?

Peter Bone Portrait Mr Bone
- Hansard - -

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech, but it is more like one for a Second Reading debate. The issue we are dealing with today is a money resolution. If the will of this House was expressed by 283 votes to nil, for example, would it not be right for the Government to introduce the money resolution measure? Is that not the approach that has been taken in this House in years gone by?

Stephen Doughty Portrait Stephen Doughty
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

You have given a clear direction already, Madam Deputy Speaker, that Members should not be drawn down other routes about other money resolutions. We are talking about the money resolution for the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill, which was passed by a clear will of this House. I am extremely disappointed that some Conservative Members are attempting to frustrate that, insert other agendas and rhetoric, and create a misleading impression of a Department that is regarded—and has been, whichever party has been running it—as one of the leading Departments in the world for tackling poverty.

Corruption has been spoken about a lot, but both the previous Government and this one have spent significant time on strengthening anti-corruption activities. By ensuring development, growth and strong Governments, we create a virtuous circle that tackles the very corruption and problems these Conservative Members seem so exercised about. It is a shame they do not often turn up for more debates on international development to talk about some of these issues and engage constructively on them, rather than trying to bring in other agendas. As I said, we can look at plenty of reports about DFID. It would be misleading to suggest there is no corruption in the world—of course there is. Of course there are challenges in programmes and programmes that can be dealt with more effectively, but we ought to be proud of the fact that we have the systems in place to establish that, instead of suggesting that the whole development programme is a huge mess and none of it is making any difference—that is patently not the case. I want to stand firmly in support of this money resolution and stand against the nonsense, bluff and bluster we have been hearing from some Conservative Members.