Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 30th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that children are the future and that we need to do everything we can to support them. Making their lives better than those of the generation before is our aspiration. I am sure that she welcomes the fact, as we all do, that there are now 1.8 million more children in good and outstanding schools than there were in 2010, and that there are more than 3.4 million apprenticeships for young people since 2010. It is absolutely vital that we do everything we can to support their future as we move into this enormous industrial change that gives us the opportunity to build the industries of the future.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I do not know whether the Leader of the House has seen the migration figures today, but net migration is a third lower in the past year than it was before the EU referendum. Can we have a debate in Government time on immigration, so that we can talk about the Government’s progress towards the target of tens of thousands, and the fact that we will be able to reach it when we come out of the EU and end free movement?

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the importance of immigration in this country both in terms of the enormous contribution made by those who have come here to live and make their lives here, and the pressure that high and uncontrolled immigration has wrought on some of our public services. Yes, I absolutely encourage him to seek a Westminster Hall debate so that we can discuss the relative merits of uncontrolled versus controlled migration.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 16th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Valerie Vaz]

I thank the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business. I note that next Tuesday we have day three of our consideration of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill—cheer!

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Hooray!

[Valerie Vaz]

That is day three of eight. We are talking about clause 5 and schedule 1. Can the Leader of the House confirm that the deadline for new clauses and amendments is 5.30 pm today? I have asked her previously about proper notice being given for Members, in the interests of our democracy, so will she ensure that she gives Members proper notice of consideration of Bills and ensure that this does not happen again? Can she say whether the Committee of the whole House will be completed before Christmas recess, which begins on 21 December? Will the Bill be in the other place before the Christmas recess? My friends in the other place are keen to help out.

Will the Leader of the House ensure that the List of Ministers’ Interests is updated, as it was last updated in December 2016? This is vital not just for Ministers, but for Members, because some of them, such as the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), may have another position. It seems that in an article, in his other job as an investment manager, he said it is:

“Time to look further afield as UK economy hits the brakes”.

Will the Leader of the House therefore say whether it is Government policy for Government Members, in their other jobs, to advocate not investing in the country?

It is difficult to understand how the Government cannot know the size of the divorce bill. Surely the Chancellor will have to know this amount of money, because he has to set his Budget. This just smacks of more fiscally incompetent government. The way the Government dealt with the Paradise papers, including in the response they gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) earlier this week, was appalling. We have had the Panama papers and the Paradise papers, and now we have the invisible papers—the so-called “impact assessments” on the 58 sectors; first, they exist and then they do not exist, and then they exist in a form that is incomprehensible to everyone apart from Ministers. The deadline for providing these to the Committee is next week, because the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) said he needed “three weeks” from the time the motion was passed by this House. He said there was a mixture of “qualitative and quantitative analysis”, but I am sure the Chair of the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) is perfectly capable of analysing those papers. As the motion was very clear, will the Leader of the House give a commitment that the invisible papers will be available and say when they will be delivered, given that the motion was passed by this House?

The invisible papers are rapidly leading to an invisible Cabinet. Some may have missed it but there seems to be a new game in town: “‘I’m a Cabinet Minister get me out of here!” The week before last one left the Government and last week another did so, and another comes before a Select Committee and makes a mistake on Government policy, putting a young family at risk. This is a heartless Government—[Interruption.] Listen to the evidence: 38 days before Christmas eviction notices are being sent out following a policy that is flawed and cruel, denying people a chance to manage their life; if the Government think universal credit does not have an effect, will the Leader of the House say why a major housing association has stated that the arrears rate for those claiming the new benefit is about three times higher than that for other tenants? That is the evidence, and that evidence calls for a pause in the roll-out of universal credit.

I note that there is to be a debate on tuition fees in Westminster Hall next week, but we would like the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation to come to the House to make a statement and explain why the chief executive of the Student Loans Company has been sacked. Given that his Department is a major shareholder, with 85%, will the Leader of the House ensure that the Minister comes here, particularly as some students have overpaid their loan by £10,000 and the budget is £100 million? [Interruption.] It is in the papers today—it is in The Times.

Finally, I come to House matters. Will the Leader of the House say what day and time has been allocated for the debate on the restoration and renewal programme? She has previously talked about December, but given the Budget debate and the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, we do not have many days left before the Christmas recess. I, too, wish to remind everybody that they have three days left of #Parliamentweek2017. This was kicked off brilliantly by the ninth sitting of the Youth Parliament, and we have you to thank, Mr Speaker, for allowing it to sit here. Its Members are fantastic, treating this House with such respect and listening to the arguments on both sides. We can learn lots of lessons from them. On your behalf, I thank all the staff and volunteers who co-ordinated the whole day. Their topics for the year ahead were “Votes at 16” and “A curriculum to prepare us for life”. As the Leader of the House said, Parliament’s education service has ensured that 4,000 events are taking place throughout the country, with more than 900 primary schools and more than 300 secondary schools taking part. I thank them all for their efforts in educating the next generation on democracy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Lady raises an incredibly important point. She will be aware that, in England, any such claim from a woman who has conceived a third child through non-consensual sex will not be dealt with by a Department for Work and Pensions or Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs member of staff; they will simply take in the claim and receive support and professional third-party advice, and we will not require any evidence of a criminal conviction or a judicial finding. It is very important that we continue to work with Northern Ireland to ensure that that policy is implemented as far as possible. It is a devolved matter, but we will continue to seek to influence the outcome.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The Sun newspaper today published pictures of BBC workers asleep at their desk at the BBC News channel, although I cannot find any report about that on the BBC. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement or a debate on this next week?

[Andrea Leadsom]

Mr Speaker, I feel slightly stumped. My hon. Friend raises what I am sure is an important point, and I sincerely regret it if the reporters are so tired that they fall asleep on the job.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 26th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

It is a very important convention and the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government are committed to it. I cannot answer his question because he did not give me notice, but if he would like to write to me, I can look into it for him.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Prior to your taking the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Leader of the House announced a new convention for the House, whereby a Minister will respond to Opposition day motions that are passed by the House by making an oral statement within 12 weeks. That “Leadsom convention” is a slight movement back to the House and away from the Executive. May we have a statement next week, perhaps from the Deputy Leader of the House, on that very issue so that we can press the case and have that convention extended to any motion passed by the House, perhaps backed up by a written statement? Perhaps we could also have a progress debate in each Session on how the Government are dealing with the convention.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I think that I have already given an awful lot, considering that my hon. Friend did not buy me the glass of wine mentioned when he raised this matter a couple of weeks ago. I am always keen to hear further thoughts and I am open to suggestions from Members from all parties.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 19th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. I could repeat all the points I have already made: I absolutely take my responsibilities seriously; I am, absolutely, Parliament’s representative in Government as well as Government’s representative in Parliament; and I am listening very carefully. As I have assured hon. Members, the Department for Work and Pensions has taken action as a direct result of points raised in this House by Members from across parties, and it will come back to this House to provide further updates on progress made as a direct result of points raised in this House.

The hon. Gentleman talks again about the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. I think I have made the point very clearly that out of respect for this House, the Government are doing justice to the very significant concerns that have been raised about procedures and policy in the EU (Withdrawal) Bill, and it will come back to the House just as soon as the Government are prepared to do justice to the new clauses and amendments that have been tabled by Members. In addition, it is absolutely normal practice in this House to have a pause between Second Reading and Committee of the whole House, particularly on large constitutional Bills, to make sure that we are able properly to consider all the points raised.

The hon. Gentleman also raises the significant and very concerning matter of the Catalonian situation. He is right to do so, and I say again that we have all been very concerned and dismayed to see the violence on the streets in Spain. However, Spain is a very key ally of the UK, and we do urge all parties to ensure that any actions taken are constitutional and legally justifiable.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

On rare occasions, I have been in trouble with the Whips for not voting for Government policy. Yesterday would have been the first time that had I voted for Government policy, I would have been in trouble. We cannot ignore the will of the House. This is about not just Opposition days, but Back-Bench business days—and what if a motion put forward by the Government is lost, because the Government ignore it?

The fact is that we have to have a mechanism whereby the Government formally come back and explain what action they are going to take as a result of a vote in this House. May I suggest to the Leader of the House that she considers that proposal this week, and that she comes back next week and says that that is exactly what is going to happen? Will she tell us that within 12 weeks of a vote, a Minister—perhaps even the Leader of the House—will come back and explain what action has been taken? [Interruption.] I said within 12 weeks. [Interruption.] Oh, tsk—stop! That could perhaps be called the Leadsom convention.

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend has raised that perfectly reasonable suggestion on a number of occasions. As I have made clear, it is the intention of DWP Ministers to come back to this place to update the House on progress frequently and, I am sure, certainly within the timeframe that he mentions. I think it is very important to be clear on this: this is not some new precedent. On the universal credit issue yesterday, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions came to this House and responded very fully to points and concerns raised by this House. It is perfectly right that the House continues to raise issues and that Departments continue to respond to them.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 12th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his becoming the co-chair of the all-party group on human trafficking and modern slavery. I know that the issue is of great importance to him and to you, Mr Speaker. It is also of great importance to the Prime Minister, who was absolutely behind the introduction of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. It is a horrific problem that is still taking place on our streets every day, but the UK is at the forefront of tackling this evil. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will find a way to make sure that the Government come to the House to make a statement on progress.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

You must be cheered up today, Mr Speaker; in all the time I have been in Parliament, I have never heard a Leader of the House ask Members to suggest ways to increase scrutiny. That is a triumph for the current Leader of the House, who will be so good at this. One thing that we could do urgently is to require a statement from a Minister within four weeks of the House making a decision on a substantive motion, whether it is in a Backbench Business debate or on an Opposition day. As we go into a situation in which there will be a lot of delegated legislation under the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, a statement about substantive motions would help to reassure the House.

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend has made this suggestion several times, and I am interested in it and would like to discuss it with him further. My concern is that such a process could lead to the downgrading of the quality of debate, because it would effectively mean that the Government could just reply after the fact. Nevertheless, I am interested in what my hon. Friend has to say and would be delighted to have him buy me a drink so that we can discuss it further.

Government Policy on the Proceedings of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Tuesday 10th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Carmichael]

I can almost read the Whips’ brief that has gone round about the Opposition day debates—“Don’t make this about the Government, because this is not strong territory for the Government. Make it all about the Liberal Democrats or the opposition parties.” With all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman, whom I like and regard as a friend in many senses of the word, if not the political one, I am not going to play his game. Today’s debate is the Government’s opportunity to tell the House clearly and unambiguously how they intend to approach their business for the duration of this Parliament.

There is a further context to the Government’s approach on 14 September that the House should bear in mind. On Monday 11 September, they brought forward the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, including some quite remarkable Henry VIII powers, which many in this House and beyond see as a marginalisation of Parliament. On Tuesday 12 September, they brought to this House a motion to give themselves a majority on all Public Bill Committees, contrary to all previous practice in this House and the formula relied on for many years.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I have a lot of sympathy with what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but he must not say that that applies to all Bill Committees, because he well knows that that is not the case if there are equal numbers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

I do not dispute the hon. Lady’s thing. All I can say is that I was quoting from Hansard, when the Liberal Democrat health spokesman said:

“I feel that as the sole Liberal Democrat present it is my duty to intervene.”—[Official Report, 13 September 2017; Vol. 628, c. 862.]

If that is inaccurate, that is a matter for the right hon. Gentleman and he should correct the record. That is not my responsibility.

On the motion on the national health service on the Order Paper, my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary laid out the facts about the importance of a strong economy in paying for the health service. He laid out a lot of important facts about our record on the health service, but actually he was not arguing that we should vote against the motion at all. He frequently said it was a bogus motion and that he did not want to engage with it, so I do not think that that can be said.

[Mr Bone]

I really have heard enough from the former Chief Whip. Parliament voted, Parliament made a decision. He cannot get away from that. Does my right hon. Friend not agree that if Parliament decides on something the Government should listen?

[Mr Harper]

Yes I do. I read the motion very carefully. It said that the Government should abandon the 1% pay cap; and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, in her response to the debate, made it clear that the pay review bodies for the next financial year would have more flexibility—so, in effect, she confirmed that part of it.

The second part of the motion referred to NHS staff getting a fair pay rise. We all agree that NHS workers—indeed, public sector workers generally—should get a fair pay rise. The point of political debate is to ask what “fair” means. We have to balance affordability for the economy, what public sector workers need to get paid for recruitment, retention and morale purposes, and what those in the private sector, who pay taxes to pay for our public services, are being paid. If we read the motion, I think we find it was completely consistent with the Government’s policy, which I suspect is exactly why the Secretary of State for Health did not feel it was sensible to urge Conservative colleagues to vote against it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Valerie Vaz]

This is a debating Chamber, and this is a revising Parliament. Members can table motions, and then people can see what policy comes out. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), the deputy shadow Leader of the House, persuaded the Government to take on board the need for a new piece of legislation, and that is how we do things here. Ministers listen, they take on board what happens, and then we move forward. That is what I am trying to say.

[Mr Bone]

I agree with much of what the hon. Lady is saying. This debate is about Parliament v. the Executive, and it is right that it is urgent, because the issue needs to be discussed. Does she agree, however, that Parliament voted, and therefore the Government should take note of whatever Parliament decided on that day and respond to it? She will agree, I hope, that if the Opposition had wanted to engineer a vote on that day, it would have been quite possible. I do not think we should misrepresent Parliament and say that a decision was not made; a decision was made to support the Opposition motions.

[Valerie Vaz]

I am pleased to hear that, but I wish that it had been indicated to everyone at the time. It would have been fantastic if it had been 564-nil.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am not surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say he has no idea what that last paragraph represented because I was seeking to explain why this Government are not playing Labour’s party political games. The Opposition do not face up to the reality of the mess they left this country in, and our children and grandchildren will end up paying for their mess unless we can get back to living within our means. That means that in their party political motions we chose to leave them to their games. Conservative Members will always balance the need for fairness to our superb public sector workers with the need for fairness to the next generation.

[Mr Bone]

There has been a lot of re-running of our previous debate, but I wish to go back to the principle of the thing. If this House expresses an opinion, be it in a Backbench Business Committee debate or an Opposition day debate, it is the Government’s duty to respond to that. Will the Leader of the House therefore undertake that the Government will reflect on whatever decision the House makes and come to make a statement—say within the month—giving their view about or response to what the House has decided?

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, but I am trying to explain that that is exactly what the Government are doing in those debates by matching up speaker for speaker to ensure that Back-Bench speakers get their views heard, with Secretaries of State opening the debates and senior Ministers closing them, and by taking account of and listening to Members’ views. It cannot possibly be the case that the Opposition can require Government Members to vote against a motion in order to prove that they were listening—what a daft thesis that is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I would say to the new hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) that if he thinks this Government are bad in relation to Parliament, he should have seen the Blair Government. However, I have a hint that we may be friends, because I think he said something nasty about Whips, which is always a good sign for a new relationship.

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this Standing Order No. 24 debate, which is about Parliament versus Government. It is impossible for us as Back Benchers to get this issue debated, so I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for introducing it. Although there was a little party politics on the Opposition Benches, there were also some very good speeches about parliamentary sovereignty, and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said everything I would have said—which is worrying me and probably worrying him.

There were some arguments today that were just plain wrong. The argument that this time is taking up time we could be using to debate something else is nonsense. We can extend the parliamentary day, and we have extended it. We could have extended the parliamentary day by three hours today. The Government chose to introduce two statements today, which took up parliamentary time. So the argument is completely false.

There is nothing more important than discussing the sovereignty of Parliament and the rights of Parliament in relation to the Executive. The Executive control virtually everything, and legislation can, effectively, be brought forward only by the Government. We talk about private Members’ Bills, but if we pass a private Member’s Bill on Second Reading and the Government do not provide a money motion, it is completely stuffed. So everything is completely in the control of the Government.

The fact that the Backbench Business Committee was introduced—it came out of the Wright reforms, although its debates were supposed to be in prime time, not stuck on a Thursday—is a credit. However, I remember sitting next to the former Prime Minister, David Cameron, in the Tea Room and saying, “Isn’t it wonderful, Prime Minister, that we have a Backbench Business Committee and substantive motions the House can vote on?” He was having a cup of tea, and he spluttered it all over the place—he had not quite realised that point. However, there is no point having a substantive motion and having the will of the House expressed on a particular issue if the Government then choose not to take action. In my view, the Backbench Business Committee is the thing that has been ignored the most.

We have to come to a situation where, if the House expresses a view, a Minister must respond to that view in a statement. On the two debates that are being discussed, it does seem that the Government have changed policy subsequently, which is good, but would it not have been better if a Minister had come to the House and said, “As a result of that debate, we have thought about the issue, and this is what we propose to do”? I would like to suggest to the Leader of the House that it becomes a formula that if the House expresses a view, the Government should respond to it. That does not mean that they have to accept everything, but they should come to the Dispatch Box and say what they are doing on the issue.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I thought the day would never come when a newbie Lib Dem would agree with the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), but I like the cut of his jib. I think there is something more dangerous here, and I will probably incur the wrath of the House by turning to the territory of the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), but in the place where I once served for 12 years, we had private Members’ debates of an evening, to which a Minister would reply and after which, to be honest—I have to be careful about parliamentary language—damn all happened. That was dangerous for democracy in Scotland because the general public started to lose faith in the purpose of that kind of debate, and when we lose that, we are in danger of losing something incredibly important.

[Mr Bone]

I am grateful for that intervention, but may I give the new Liberal Democrat Member some advice? He should never agree with me if he wants to progress in his party.

Let me go back to another false argument that was used today. There was criticism of the Liberal Democrats for not being here for certain votes, and I have on occasion pointed that fact out in this Chamber. However, if we extend that to say that only people in this Chamber who know what the debate is about can go and vote, we would have quite a lot of different results in this House. It is not a bad idea.

A business of the House committee would solve a lot of these problems. That was proposed by Wright. It was supported; it was Government policy. Unfortunately, it was not Whips’ policy, and that is both lots of Whips. Many of the problems we have would be solved by having such a committee.

I am not sure whether anyone from the Government will be winding up the debate, but it would be useful to have a commitment from them on this matter. On an Opposition or a Backbench business day, if the House votes on something—we did vote; it is just that no one opposed the motion, so there was no recorded Division—that is the will of this House of Parliament and we should have a Government response.

[Mr Harper]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Bone]

Give way to a former Chief Whip? Alright.

[Mr Harper]

Presumably, my hon. Friend is asking the Government to say something only if the House votes for something that is counter to the Government’s existing policy. My argument was that the motion on the NHS was completely consistent with the Government’s policy, which is of course why the Government did not oppose it.

[Mr Bone]

I am grateful to the former Chief Whip for his intervention. As usual, he will not expect me to say anything other than that I completely disagree with what he said. I am saying that, if the House expresses a view, a Minister should come to the Chamber. The Minister can stand up and say, “I absolutely agree with the motion”, if that is what it is, but that should happen if, on an Opposition day, on a substantive motion, the motion is carried.

The issue of circus animals is the best example we have had in the House. There is no doubt that the overwhelming majority in the House wanted something done about circus animals.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Bone]

I am sorry, I do not think I have time to take another intervention.

We really do need this to be done: the Government must take notice of what the House decides. It is a fact that, when the Backbench Business Committee came into being, the Government used to take it seriously. They used to vote on the motion. Then a former Leader of the House decided that it would be a good wheeze just to ignore votes and carry on. The reason we did not vote against the motion on circus animals—we can deny it as much as we like—is that we would have been defeated. It would be good in this parliamentary democracy if the Government on occasion were defeated. It would not be the end of the world and the Government would take note of it. That lot on the Opposition Benches would cry about it, but so what? Let us get used to it. This is Parliament. The people sitting here are not members of the Government—they are MPs sitting on the Government side. No one tells me how to vote.

[Mr Harper]

That is true.

[Mr Bone]

The former Chief Whip knows that. If I had wanted to, I could have been the only one to oppose the motion on that particular day. However, I did not feel like that.

This is not a wasted debate. It is a chance for parliamentarians to say that Parliament should come first and the Government should listen to what the House says when it votes.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. In thanking the Leader of the House for her kind invitation, I can confirm to the House that my Chair is not going anywhere. Neither am I, for that matter. I call Mr Peter Bone.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is none the less a serious point that you bring up. Parliament clearly voted for two motions yesterday, so it seems to me that the Government are going to have to listen carefully to what the House says, or at least, as a minimum, if they lose a vote in the House—

[Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)]

When?

[Mr Bone]

Someone has shouted “When?” It is probably likely to happen again. Could we have an undertaking from the Leader of the House that in those circumstances the Government would subsequently make a statement in reaction to any such vote? This also applies to debates arranged by the Backbench Business Committee. If the House passes something, the Government need to respond to it. It would therefore help the House if the Leader of the House were able to give such an undertaking.

[Andrea Leadsom]

As usual, my Northamptonshire neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) makes a good and constructive suggestion. As I tried to indicate to the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), the Government have taken very seriously and considered in great detail the issues of public sector pay and tuition fees, both in the Chamber and outside it. However, my hon. Friend makes a good point about areas that have not been so thoroughly discussed in this place, and I will certainly take that away and look into it.

Nomination of Members to Committees

Peter Bone Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Valerie Vaz]

Yes, there was more than one of them.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Valerie Vaz]

No.

The motion that was agreed by the House in 1995 stated that “unless and until” the party that had a majority at the election loses it through by-elections or defections—not when the Whip is taken away—Standing Order No. 86(2) shall be interpreted

“in such a way as to give that party a majority on any standing committee.”

Let us look at the Standing Orders, which could be another reason why the Government are doing this. But, oh no, Standing Order No. 86(2) states clearly:

“In nominating such Members the Committee of Selection shall have regard to the qualifications of those Members…and to the composition of the House”.

The words “composition of the House” are found in other Standing Orders, too. I do not know if Members are aware, but Standing Orders are how the House does business. The Deputy Leader of the House knows that because he is a lawyer. He will know that the civil procedure rules are there for a specific purpose, and so it is with Standing Orders. They are there so that the House can do its business in a proper and orderly way. The Government, however, have no regard for the rules of the House. Why is the Leader of the House ignoring Standing Orders? What is her interpretation of the words “composition of the House”?

Perhaps the Government are relying on democracy. That is disingenuous, because the Government did not win the election. This is a minority Government. They did not get a mandate. The British people gave us their verdict, and what they wanted was to rein back the Government, and for the Opposition to scrutinise the Government and make them accountable. Public Bill Committees are where the British people expect us to reflect the views of our constituents, business, science, the financial system, the legal system and our fundamental rights—all the things that make up this thriving democratic country, with its devolved Governments that make up the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Many hon. Members said yesterday, “Don’t worry about the powers reserved to Ministers; we can make amendments in Committee.” They cannot. With this motion, Back Benchers cede the power to the Government to select Members and ensure the Government have the majority on Standing Committees. It will be impossible to amend the Bill. The Government are packing the Committees—the Whips are one step ahead of them all.

In his widely acclaimed speech on Thursday, the Shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the EU said:

“That we are leaving is settled. How we leave is not.”—[Official Report, 7 September 2017; Vol. 628, c. 368.]

New evidence comes forward every day from the negotiations—or perhaps the lack of negotiations. Look at what happened to the party that went into coalition with the last Government: reduced in numbers, because they propped up a Government they could not control. Hon. Members will know in their heart what is right and the democratic thing to do.

Perhaps the Government are relying on the constitutional position. This minority Government are governing through a confidence and supply agreement. Who knows what will happen when the £1 billion runs out? May I ask the Leader of the House why the Government should have a majority on Committees when they do not command a majority from the country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Valerie Vaz]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not appreciate being shouted at across the Chamber by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone).

[Mr Bone]

I ask the hon. Lady, very gently, to give way.

[Valerie Vaz]

I will not give way.

No party enjoys an overall majority. You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Opposition have struggled to get an Opposition day debate since January. The shadow Chief Whip and his office are incredibly upset by the suggestion that they were not ready to put forward names for the Committee when they had them ready—we were ready to go in July—and that is why the House should not give these powers away to the Government. I feel sorry for the Leader of the House. She has been sent out in a bright outfit like Ri Chun-hee, the North Korean television presenter, to tell us that everything is well when actually something really bad and dramatic is happening to our democracy. [Interruption.]

This is an over-reaching and overbearing Executive. The Government are taking away from Parliament powers to which they are not entitled.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), although I do not agree with her interpretation of the motion before us tonight. I would be the first one in the No Lobby tonight if the arguments made by the Opposition held water. It was weird that the shadow Leader of the House would not take any interventions. I think that that was because the Labour Opposition do not actually know what they are talking about on this matter: it is a lot of hot air—

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

You’d know all about that!

[Mr Bone]

Certainly. Of course.

As I understand it, the Opposition are saying that when a Bill goes into Committee, the Members on the Committee always vote in the way the party Whips tell them to. That is just not the case. I have seen Government Members in Bill Committees who are absolutely opposed to something the Government are proposing because it is not right. That is what the Committee system is about. It is about improving Bills. I am reluctant to say that I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) on this issue, but he is quite correct. The check and balance is the Report stage. If, as the Opposition claim, they have the majority in this House, they will be able to reverse anything that is passed in Committee.

[Helen Goodman]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Bone]

No. I am taking a leaf out of the shadow Leader of the House’s book.

[Mr Carmichael]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Bone]

Of course.

[Mr Carmichael]

The hon. Gentleman misrepresents the case that is being made on this side of the House. We are not saying that this side of the House has a majority; we are saying that his side of the House does not.

[Mr Bone]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. I was surprised that the official Opposition had not tabled an amendment to the motion, which I could have supported and I think he could have supported. I do not agree with his amendment because it simply removes part of the motion. A sensible amendment would have instructed the Selection Committee to ensure parity on all Public Bill Committees. What the Bill actually says is that if a Committee has an even number of Members, there will be parity. The simple answer would therefore be to ensure that all Committees had an even number of Members, but Labour did not table such an amendment.

[Mr Carmichael]

The effect of my amendment would be perfectly simple. It would allow the Government to have their majority on the Selection Committee but thereafter to use the rules that we have always used. Why does the hon. Gentleman think he should be allowed to change the rules simply because they do not suit him?

[Mr Bone]

That is somewhat unfair, Mr Speaker, because you know that that is not what I would do if I thought the House was being done down by the Executive. In fact, I would be the first one to complain about it. It seems to me that the result of the election means that we should have parity on Public Bill Committees, and that could have been achieved by a simple amendment, which I would have supported. That did not happen, however.

[Steve McCabe]

As a great democrat who obviously has massive influence over his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, why does the hon. Gentleman not urge her to accept such a sensible course of action?

[Mr Bone]

The hon. Gentleman is making my speech for me. I spent a lot of time talking to the Clerk of the House, and I am grateful to the Leader of the House for the time she allowed me to go through this to ensure that I was absolutely right. The motion states that if a Public Bill Committee has an even number of Members, there is parity, and that is great. I urge the Selection Committee, when it comes into being, to make sure that Public Bill Committees have an even number of Members so that there is parity. That seems a very fair way forward, so I was a little surprised that the Labour party and the shadow Leader of the House, for whom I have a great deal of respect, did not seem to want to engage in the debate today. I think that the motion is perfectly fair and reasonable, and I hope that the Selection Committee will listen to this debate and interpret the rules in such a way as to make the situation fairer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady]

I accept that point. The Government do not have a majority here on the Floor of the House either, and Bills are improved in Committee. The whole point of Committees is that parties are supposed to work together.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) has pointed out, the situation is not difficult or unprecedented; it is exactly what happens in the Scottish Parliament, and it has happened on a number of occasions over many years. The Scottish Government at the moment are a minority Government, and they are in a minority on most, if not all, the Committees. Therefore, there has to be genuine cross-party compromise, and the Scottish Government have to respect the will of the electorate. Perhaps that is the fundamental difference, because in Scotland our tradition is one of popular sovereignty. The people have always had the right to choose and, if necessary, to dispose of their Governments. Of course, that is what happened to the UK Government in June this year. They were stripped of their majority, and so they should be listening to our views.

The Leader of the House cited as a precedent what happened in the 1970s, but, as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire, the hero of the Brexiteers, Margaret Thatcher herself, stood at the Dispatch Box and opposed the very kind of motion that the Government are now trying to drive through. The shadow Leader of the House spoke about the Maastricht rebels who voted to protect parliamentary sovereignty from the power-grabbing of Brussels. They morphed into the Brexiteers, but they are not rebelling any more. At least the DUP get their £1.5 billion and get to keep their Short money. I am not sure what the parliamentary sovereigntists are getting out of this. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) stood on the Floor of the House earlier this afternoon and quoted, with some approval, what David Cameron said about the progress of a Bill in the House:

“The Bill limps through. Then it goes to the Standing Committee. Their duty is to look at the details clause by clause. But it’s packed full of people that the whips put there. So, surprise, surprise, the Government rarely loses the vote on any of the individual points of detailed scrutiny.”

This same Member who stood here to propose handing power back to this House will now meekly follow his Whips through the Lobby.

[Mr Bone]

That is a complete misrepresentation. I said that the Committees should have parity. Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that that is what I said? [Interruption.]

[Patrick Grady]

I heard the hon. Gentleman say that, but—as my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire says from a sedentary position—that is not what this motion will do, and that is why we will support the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael).

Members on this side of the House will get to go home with our heads held high, because we know that we are standing up for our constituents and respecting the result of the election. I sometimes think Members on the other side of the House think we are kidding when we say people from Scotland are paying close attention to what goes on here and what their MPs are doing, but we are not kidding. They are paying attention, and they see this place for the archaic institution that it is. They see the power grabs of a desperate minority Government, and they may begin to think, wonder whether and sense it is perhaps time to invest all their sovereignty in a different Parliament—one 400 miles up the road—and to complete the journey that started with the devolution referendum 20 years ago.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 7th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Lady raises an incredibly important point. It is not something that I am particularly aware of, but if she would like to write to me I will certainly raise it with the Ministry of Justice.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I used to serve on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which is little known in this House but which looks at statutory instruments to advise on whether they fall within certain criteria. When EU directives came before the Committee, even if they made no sense at all and did not so comply, we still had to recommend to this House that they were passed. Will the Leader of the House confirm that if we are going to use Delegated Legislation Committees to discuss important EU matters, those Committees will, as usual, be open for any Member to attend and speak at, the instruments will be voted on, and, more importantly, will then come to the whole House to be voted on, so that, whatever the Opposition like to believe, there will be proper scrutiny?

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend, as ever, makes a really important point, which is that this House will scrutinise all legislation relating to EU withdrawal and to our future policies post EU in the usual way, and that that democratic oversight will be continued for the duration of this period.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 20th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, in this place, we absolutely do not interfere with matters of criminal justice. If someone is involved in breaking the law, it is very important that it is the police who decide what happens to them. On the substantive point about nuclear disarmament, I do not share his view. My personal view, and the view on the Government Benches, is that a nuclear deterrent is exactly that—a deterrent. It is an ultimate insurance that protects our people, and the security of the people is the first duty of any responsible Government.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I am sure that Members on both sides of the House are aware of this behaviour, but, over the past year, I have had to dial 999 three times in my surgery to remove people. I have had death threats—a gentleman was convicted of harassment. Only a week ago, walking down a high street, someone swore at me. What really has annoyed me, though, is what happened last Friday. I had a surgery in which three people were being disruptive. I asked them to leave. One stood face to face with me, like a prize fighter, threatening to hit me, and he called me a monkey. That sort of behaviour is not acceptable. What would have happened if a Member of Parliament had done that to a constituent? I absolutely urge the Leader of the House—I know that Members on both sides suffer from this—to ensure that we have this debate on abuse. In the general election, I was assaulted when defending a female Conservative candidate. This sort of behaviour has to end.

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; this has gone beyond any reasonable level of disagreement. The intimidation, death threats, violence, abuse and disgusting acts, as well as the lower level anti-democratic pulling down of posters and putting graffiti on them and so on, were at unprecedented levels in the recent general election. As my hon. Friend knows, we scheduled a debate for Monday. Unfortunately, it could not take place because of an emergency debate on procedure that was called by the Opposition. It is fully our intention to reschedule that debate as soon as possible, because I know that many Members on the Government Benches, and some on the Opposition Benches, have suffered utterly unacceptable abuse. We need to have that discussion. The problem needs to be aired, and if people are involved in criminality, they need to be prosecuted.