Defence Reform Bill
Debate between John Baron and Peter Bone(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Baron
I will very directly answer both those questions. I completely agree that the report the Government would submit would be subject to the scrutiny of this House and a vote, but the fact that the Secretary of State seems concerned about that points to a bigger story about the reforms. If the Government are concerned that they might not carry the House as to the logic of their report, I suggest that that shows a weak point. I therefore suggest that the Secretary of State should, perhaps, not pursue that argument for too long, because for the Government not to accept this amendment because they are concerned they might not be able to carry the House tells a bigger story.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I am very concerned about that point because if the Government are saying they think they have real problems with this and they might not carry Parliament, the Executive are trying to implement something that Parliament does not approve of, and that is totally unacceptable.
Mr Baron
I agree with my hon. Friend. The restructuring of other areas of government, such as the NHS, has been subject to the scrutiny of this place, yet here we are undertaking a major restructuring—the Secretary of State cannot disagree with that—of the Army and we are not prepared to subject it to that scrutiny, apparently for fear that we might not carry the House. It is not a very good reason.
Economic Growth
Debate between John Baron and Peter Bone(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Baron
I completely agree. I think that the political system has denied the electorate their say for far too long and that Parliament needs to understand that. That is why some of us on the Conservative Benches have been campaigning for some time for a referendum in the next Parliament. I am pleased to say that the Prime Minister deserved credit for listening. In January he became the first major party leader to offer the country a referendum in 2017. But we, as a group on these Benches, have also long argued that our commitment must be both credible and believable. It is credible because the referendum in 2017 has an “out” option, but it is not yet believable.
The British electorate, quite understandably, are deeply sceptical of any politicians making promises about matters European, particularly EU referendums. Too many promises have been broken in the past. They remember Tony Blair’s broken promises about a referendum on the EU constitution, which never materialised. They are constantly reminded about Liberal literature promising an in/out referendum, which never materialised, even when they came to power. That is why we on these Benches have also campaigned for legislation in this Parliament for a referendum in the next, not because we do not trust the Prime Minister, but because the electorate do not trust politicians generally. I would argue that we as a party are more united on this issue than we have been for a generation. We have all signed up to the referendum in 2017; what we disagree on is the best way of convincing the electorate of the seriousness of our intent.
Mr Baron
It could well be earlier, but I am very content having a referendum in the next Parliament, because that will give time to renegotiate. However, that option does exist.
That is why legislation is more believable than election manifesto promises, too many of which have been broken in the past. That is why I very much welcome the party’s promise to support a private Member’s Bill, something that was not on offer when I asked a week ago. I also support the publication of the draft Bill yesterday. It just goes to show that a week can indeed be a long time in politics. However, the problem with a private Member’s Bill is that it is the second best option. We all know that a determined minority can block it by letting it run out of time. The Bill will fail, as so many others do, on a soggy Friday afternoon when no one notices.
That is why I urge the Prime Minister—I am pleased to see that the Chancellor is still in his place—to support the amendment. It provides him with a golden opportunity. If we were to win, that would provide him with the mandate to try to introduce legislation through the normal channels, which would stand a far better chance of succeeding. He should seize the moment. He could claim, quite rightly, that the situation was not of his making and blame me or us as a group. It would therefore be outside the confines of the coalition agreement. I must say to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor that the Liberals would be very hard pressed indeed to refuse to give time, given that Parliament would have expressed its view and that of the electorate. Let the media then knock at the Liberals’ door to ask questions.
The argument that there is no certainty that we would win such legislation is weak. There is no downside in trying. We may well win. Some MPs on other Benches—honourable and principled Members—support the concept. Even if we fail, we will have tried. On a matter of this importance, political transparency is paramount, and the electorate could then take note.
As a group on these Benches, I hope that we have helped in a small way to move the party closer to the electorate on this issue, but it is more important than party politics. I encourage other Members to do likewise within their own parties. Were the amendment to pass tonight, we as a Parliament would be opening the door to the possibility of introducing legislation that would stand a far better chance of succeeding. It would take a majority to defeat that legislation, rather than the determined minority it takes to defeat a private Member’s Bill. I therefore urge Members across the House to support it. I urge my own Front Benchers to support it. I urge the doubters to put aside their doubts and support it.
For too long the electorate have been unable to express their opinion on the changing nature of our relationship with the EU. The political establishment have essentially closed ranks over the past 30 years and denied the electorate a choice. We now have a golden opportunity to right that wrong. We should be bold of heart, seize the moment and do what is right by the electorate, and indeed by the country. I therefore intend to move the amendment.
Backbench Business Committee
Debate between John Baron and Peter Bone(12 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I rise to speak against the motion, largely in sadness and regret, because I will have to criticise those on the Government Front Bench, particularly the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House. I could do that in 10 seconds, because as we have already heard, Government and Opposition Front Benchers support the motion on the Backbench Business Committee, so we could almost say, “When the two Front Benches agree, it’s a clearly a stitch-up and can't be right for the House”—and sit down.
This attempt to alter Standing Orders on the Backbench Business Committee to suit the Executive is absolutely outrageous. It is an attempt by the Executive to ignore Parliament and to impose their will on the House. What is particularly shocking is that they are trying to interfere with business that is exclusively Back-Bench business. Such business has no relevance whatever to the Government.
The Government’s actions fly in the face of the House of Commons Reform Committee report, “Rebuilding the House”, HC1117, which proposed what are known throughout the House as the Wright reforms. Those reforms were designed to restore trust in Parliament and to reduce the power of the Executive. They were the very reforms that the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House supported so vigorously when they were in opposition. I am sad to say that it has taken less than two years for the Government to do a U-turn and go back to the bad old days of the Executive trying to tell Parliament what to do. There have been several signs over the past few months that the Government are adopting the policy of always knowing right and of assuming that Parliament is there only to rubber-stamp their decisions. This motion is the clearest and most obvious breach of their commitment to put Parliament first.
One of the most shocking and shameful aspects of the debate is its timing. The Leader of the House put the motion on the Order Paper without any consultation with the Backbench Business Committee. Even more significantly, he did so only hours after the Committee met, so that it could not formally consider the issue. He has also tabled the debate and vote prior to tomorrow’s Committee meeting. He has deliberately slighted the Committee, which meets weekly, by putting the motion on the Order Paper hours after last Tuesday’s meeting and before tomorrow’s meeting.
What is even more reprehensible is that the Committee is reviewing its operation so that it can report to the House and provide evidence to the Procedure Committee’s inquiry. The Government’s timing is the most disgraceful discourtesy to the Backbench Business Committee. The Leader of the House is saying to the Committee: “I want to sneak this through before your Committee can formally protest.” That is devious, undemocratic and a disgrace to the Government.
I shall now turn to the crux of the matter—this is why the motion should be defeated. The Procedure Committee, chaired so ably by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight), who is in his place, announced on 21 February 2012 that it was launching a review of the operation of the Backbench Business Committee in accordance with a previous motion agreed by the House of Commons. The review was
“in particular to inquire into…issues relating to the membership of the Committee…the amount of time available to the Committee and the way in which the Government allocates that time…the powers of the Committee, and the process by which the Committee determines the matters to be debated in backbench time.”
The closing date for submissions was Thursday 8 March. Let us dwell on that for a moment. Thursday 8 March was two days after the Government tabled their motion and decided what the House would do. At best, that was a shoddy attempt by the Government to ignore a Select Committee; at worst, it was an attempt by the Government to interfere with a Select Committee, which could give rise to a number of issues for the Minister, possibly including a breach of the ministerial code and referral to the Standards and Privileges Committee. The Government might think that they can ignore the will of Parliament, but this is a different Parliament from previous ones. This Parliament is willing to stand up to an all-powerful Executive.
As the House is aware, Members were requested to send representations to the Procedure Committee by last Thursday. The first three things they were asked to consider were:
“The composition of the Committee and the process for electing its members; whether the Chair of the Committee should be reserved for an opposition Member; whether a place on the Committee should be reserved for the minority parties.”
The top three issues, then, that we were asked to consider and report on to the Procedure Committee by last Thursday are exactly the three issues that the Government are trying to shoot through Parliament today.
The Executive have decided, without waiting for the Procedure Committee report, that Committee members will be elected by party groups and that the Chair of the Committee will be an Opposition Member, and they have completely fudged the issue of the minority parties. The Government have predetermined the Procedure Committee’s inquiry before it has had time to collate the written evidence, take oral evidence and consider its report.
Mr Baron
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s explanation—that they had to push this through prior to an election—runs rather shallow given that, unlike for other Committees of the House, elections are every Session, so these proposals could quite easily have been postponed for a year until the next elections?
Mr Bone
Of course that is the case. These elections will determine the Backbench Business Committee not for the term of the Parliament but for a year. If the Procedure Committee happened to report after the next elections and there was a change to procedure, the elections afterwards could be run on the new system. There was absolutely no need to prejudge the Select Committee report, apart from the fact that it might have resolved matters differently from what the Government wanted.