Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 31st January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House. I think she asked one question relating specifically to future business.

Of course, it is absolutely our intention and that of my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary that the House should be regularly and appropriately informed about our engagement in Mali and in north-west Africa. On the issue of a statement or an urgent question, the circumstances were that EU agreement had not yet been reached on the EU training mission, and in my colleague’s mind was the intention to update the House in the light of the EU training mission as well as the bilateral agreements that were entered into. I make no bones about that—it was absolutely fine for the urgent question to be responded to and we will keep the House informed. I cannot promise an oral statement in every case, for reasons of the progress of business, but I am sure we will keep the House fully informed through a combination of written ministerial statements, oral statements and answers to questions.

The hon. Lady asked a number of questions. It is interesting—the Leader of the Opposition made almost exactly the same point yesterday—that the Opposition try to argue that the economy requires the Government to spend more money, but complain, at one and the same time, that the Government are borrowing too much. They cannot have it both ways. They have to decide. Not only does their position represent utter confusion on the part of the Labour party, but, to be frank, it carries no credibility outside Parliament—that is the essential point. As the Prime Minister rightly said, the public will not trust the people who crashed the car last and put them back in the driving seat. It is not going to happen.

I listened to yesterday’s debate on Europe, but did not hear the confusion regarding the Labour party’s position remotely clarified. As far as I can see, the Opposition’s position now is that they are not in favour of an in/out referendum today, but they might be at some point in the future; yet, at the same time, they manage to be opposed to the idea of making a future commitment to the public that a new settlement with Europe should be the subject of a referendum. If they, like us, do not want a referendum now, why can they not just agree with us that there should be a referendum in the future on the basis that the public have the right to decide on the character of the settlement that we seek to negotiate with Europe?

On the question of powers in Europe, the Foreign Secretary has made it clear that, through the review of competences, we are looking at that negotiation with specific objectives for the return of powers. The hon. Lady and the Leader of the Opposition talk about returning powers, but the shadow Foreign Secretary has said that the Opposition are talking not about repatriation but about reform and a flow of powers to and back from Europe. I thought that the Opposition had just agreed to the referendum lock on powers to Europe, yet they seem to be reopening that question. There is utter confusion on their part.

Finally, the hon. Lady referred to collective ministerial responsibility. It was my happy duty to lead from the Dispatch Box on the debate on the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill. She was very kind about that. In fact, she was so kind that she did not observe that, although I was defending a sticky wicket—though I did make the odd stroke here and there—the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), who is not in his place, took the bails off my stumps later on. He was rather good—I give him credit for that.

The point is—the hon. Lady has to give the Government credit for this—that the mid-term review shows that we are very clear about where we are going and we are doing it together as a coalition. We have entered into not only a coalition but a mid-term review. We understand that we have a collective responsibility. I wish that the shadow Leader of the House and her colleagues would stand at the Dispatch Box and take either collective or individual responsibility for the mess they left this country in—for the debt and the six-and-a-half per cent. collapse in the economy. The reduction in GDP was not 0.1% but 6.3%. It was a bust like we had never seen before, after her then leader had promised that there would be no more boom and bust.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

On collective responsibility, paragraph 2.1 of the ministerial code says that the way the Liberal Democrats behaved on the boundary review would have required them to cross the Floor and leave Government unless the Prime Minister had signed an explicit waiver from collective responsibility. How was the House informed of the waiver? Was it by a press release to the BBC or an e-mail to Lobby correspondents, or has a yellow flag been run up over Downing street?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will recall, because he was in his place, that the House was informed that one of the reasons why I addressed the House from the Dispatch Box on Tuesday was that the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith) spoke on behalf of the Government on the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill. I spoke as Leader of the House in order to facilitate debate and to speak on behalf of my party in circumstances in which the Prime Minister had explicitly set aside collective ministerial responsibility. The House was informed by me then.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Peter Bone Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes his point very well. I will come on to the substance of the issue, but if he will forgive me and the House will bear with me, I wish first to make certain that hon. Members understand the structure of the debate and what the implications of each vote might be.

If the motion to disagree with the Lords in their amendment were agreed, we would go on to vote on the Government amendments in lieu, which would have the effect of proceeding with the boundary review without further votes in Parliament. If, however, hon. Members vote against the motion to disagree, the Lords amendments will be held to have been agreed with, and no further votes will take place on this group. There are therefore three potential outcomes: to agree with the Lords; to disagree and put the Bill back as it was when it left this House; or to settle the boundaries review issue now through the amendments in lieu.

I should make it clear to the House that while as Leader of the House I am enabling the debate, I will also set out my view and that of my party. In doing so, I will not be setting out formally the view of the Government, as there is not a settled coalition view. Accordingly, and as happened in the Lords, collective ministerial responsibility has been set aside for this debate.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I do not quite understand what the Leader of the House has said. On 6 September 2010, the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill received its Second Reading, and the Deputy Prime Minister—Nick Clegg, as he is listed in Hansard—voted for it, and Mr Peter Bone voted against it. On Third Reading, on 20 November 2010, Mr Clegg again voted for it and Mr Bone voted against it. Surely it must be the settled view of the Government? It has gone through all its stages: how can it not be the settled view of the Government?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will recall very well that that Bill was the Government’s view and the Government’s policy, and the House agreed with that Government Bill. The issue is these Lords amendments, and as I told the House, the ministerial code explicitly allows for ministerial responsibility to be set aside in particular circumstances, and it has been set aside in relation to the debate and votes on this particular point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sadiq Khan]

May I begin by congratulating the Leader of the House on the sheer audacity of his speech? His criticism of the House of Lords is breathtaking. Only six months ago, he and his party were saying that—I paraphrase—the House of Lords was so perfect that it did not need any reform, yet here he is today, arguing that it is so inept and incompetent that it cannot be trusted with this issue, despite all the Lords’ experience and the impartiality that the Conservatives claim comes from being unelected. You really could not make it up.

[Mr Bone]

I am not quite following the shadow Minister. Is he not aware that the biggest majority for any Government Bill in this Parliament was achieved on Second Reading of the House of Lords Reform Bill?

[Sadiq Khan]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the Leader of the House is in charge of the timetabling of legislation in Parliament, and that it is for the Government to decide whether to proceed with a Bill. The Government chose to abandon that Bill, not the Opposition. The chairman of the Conservative party has now left the Chamber, but I have never known him to be a scholar of political and constitutional matters. We know why he was here. It is his job to ensure that the largest possible number of Conservative MPs are returned at the next general election. That is why he was here, taking an interest in this matter. It was not because he is interested in political and constitutional reform or because he is trying to reduce the cost of politics.

The House of Lords is a self-regulating Chamber. The Clerk’s advice on the admissibility or otherwise of an amendment is non-binding. By voting in favour of the amendment, the Lords have made clear their view that it is within the scope of the Bill. I am afraid it is hard luck if the Conservative part of this Government does not like that. When it comes to House of Lords reform during this Parliament, the ship has sailed.

Before us today are two groups of amendments made in the other place to the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill. I want to put on record our recognition of the work done by colleagues in the other place, from all parties and none, who spent four days debating, revising and improving the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I rise to ask the House to agree with their lordships in the amendment, and to disagree with the motion to disagree. Let me, however, begin on a note of agreement with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. It is important for us to deal with this matter, and to deal with it today. It is before us now, so let us deal with it.

I want to touch briefly on what I consider to be the three main questions that confront us: the admissibility of the amendment, the substantive issues surrounding it, and what I might euphemistically refer to as the wider issues for the coalition.

Let me start with the question of admissibility. The other place is self-regulating; it is completely different from this House in that regard. Because it is self-regulating, all matters of order reside with the House collectively, not with any individual. The Clerks give advice, and it is given on the understanding, and in the belief, that it will be accepted. That is the convention, but it is a convention, not a rule. The rule is that anything their lordships decide collectively is in order. As they have so decided, that settles the matter as far as order is concerned. If anyone wants to revisit the debate, however, may I suggest they look in particular at the remarks of two Cross Benchers, both of whom served this House well as Speaker? They made very plain their reasons for voting for this amendment.

[Mr Bone]

Can my hon. Friend tell us the last time the Lords did not take the advice of the Clerks?

[John Thurso]

I am sorry, but, as a matter of fact, I cannot. All sorts of things have happened in their lordships’ House, however, and I can tell Members the last time that the asperity of speech motion was moved. I was there when the late great Lord Conrad Russell moved it, and I do not think it had been moved for 300 years before that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Wiggin]

I am deeply sorry that my hon. Friend will not have the chance to say more this evening. He deserves to.

The economic and other damage left by the Labour party, and the need for equality in votes, shows the greatest good to my county and my country although it may cause me the most harm personally. Putting aside all temptations and fears, my conclusion is that the sacrifice made by the loss of my seat must be worth it for my constituents. They deserve promises to be kept, fairness and justice to be paramount, and for their vote to count as equally as any other. I therefore support the Government and disagree with their lordships.

[Mr Bone]

I want to make a few brief points. I voted against the original Bill on Second and Third Reading because I wanted to see boundaries equalised but not a reduction in Members. I lost that debate and that vote, and I accept the will of the House. I also accept that Labour Members have been consistent in their views.

I thought today that I would be speaking in support of the Government, but I have since learned that I am speaking in support of Conservatives in the Government, which makes me feel a little better. My problem is very simple. If one reads the debates on Second and Third Reading, the Deputy Prime Minister, who led for the Government on this issue, made sensible remarks about equalising the size of constituencies, with which I thoroughly agree. However, when something is said as a matter of principle—this is where I think politics is brought into disrepute—whether it is about an in/out referendum on the EU or voting against tuition fees, and when a deal is done and a pledge made in coalition that there will be a vote on the alternative vote and in return the boundary review will be supported, that pledge must be kept.

The only honourable thing the Liberal Democrats can do tonight if they do not vote with Conservative Members is resign from the Government and cross the Floor of the House. If they have any principle, any honesty, that is what they must do. I remember when the aspiring new Prime Minister spoke to the Conservative party in the 1922 committee when the coalition came into being. The only issue that the party had to decide on was whether it would allow a vote on AV in return for Liberal Democrat support on boundary reviews. That was the deal. The Conservative party kept to that deal but the Liberal Democrats have gone back on their part of it. They are a disgrace and should be on the Opposition Benches.

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

I rise briefly to express my regret on three points. First, I regret that the other place has seen fit to ride through the conventions that have held it secure in its position for many centuries. It has done so on the basis of Members who have gone to that House, precisely—Opposition Members have referred to this—through a packing of the House of Lords under the previous Government. Those Members have then ridden through their conventions in order to place us in this position, with a constitutional change foisted on this democratically elected House.

I also regret that we will not have boundary review until 2018 if we disagree to the motion. That will mean that many Members will not be equal. Mr Speaker, you said in response to an earlier point of order that all hon. Members are equal, but they will not be equal in the representation they bring to the House.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 24th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure that, from now on, questions and answers will relate exclusively to the business of the House for next week and the provisional business for the following week.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Does the Leader of the House have any views on what will happen in next week’s local government by-elections following the Prime Minister’s speech on Europe? I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend has granted a debate on Europe so that all the party leaders can make their position quite clear—with the Prime Minister saying we want an in/out referendum, the Leader of the Opposition opposed to it and the Liberal Democrats facing both ways.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It seems to me that next week’s business, including as it does a general debate on Europe, affords an excellent opportunity for the Foreign Secretary to set out the Government’s position—and in so doing, he may well refer to the Conservative party’s policies for beyond the next election. That should provide a real opportunity for the Conservatives to maximise the Conservative vote at any by-election.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that a written ministerial statement was laid before the House this morning—[Interruption.] He says that he wants an oral statement. The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice laid a written ministerial statement that is very full and detailed, and there will, of course, be opportunities in future, for example during Justice questions, for Members to ask questions on that.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

In the past half hour my hon. Friends the Members for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) have all questioned the length of time there will be for discussions on the Bill to equalise marriage, and it seems to me that a Committee of the whole House is the answer. Previously, when the Leader of the House, as shadow Health Secretary, was involved when a conscience issue came before the House, it was considered in a Committee of the whole House, so will he reconsider his position and ensure that the Bill is considered in a Committee of the whole House?

[Mr Lansley]

I reiterate that in the past conscience issues, including those that have been the subject of free votes by virtue of that fact, have not necessarily been considered by a Committee of the whole House. There is a job to be done in scrutinising legislation, which can sometimes be best achieved in Committee, and all Members have an opportunity to participate in the debate on Report, particularly if sufficient time is available. I am not prejudging the question of the equal marriage Bill at all, as it has not been introduced and I have not announced how we propose the business should be taken forward.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 20th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

On the first point, we in this House have a responsibility to look after the House staff, and I think we discharge it properly. Speaking as a recent addition to the membership of the House of Commons Commission, I know that it takes that responsibility immensely seriously, and ensures the staff who look after us are employed, and looked after, on the best and most favourable conditions.

The PAC report into the BBC is a matter for the BBC Trust and the BBC itself, not for me or Ministers directly. Such reports are important, however. As I know as a former head of a Department, when the PAC issues reports and recommendations, they must be responded to and taken very seriously.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

May I wish the Leader of the House a happy Christmas—and, as it is Christmas, thank the Whips for looking after us, because that has not been said yet? Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Bill on the redefinition of marriage will have its Second Reading on 28 January, and that there is no truth in the outrageous suggestion that Whips are slipping Members who do not want to support that measure and calling people back from overseas trips who want to support it?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I cannot confirm the timing of business beyond what I have announced to the House, and it is not my place to comment on the characteristics of any whipping operation. However, we have made it clear, as I believe all parties have, that votes on the equal civil marriage Bill will be free votes.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that schools must make arrangements for access to sporting facilities, including sport outside and in the open air, which is important. I very much share his view: we know that there are long-term health benefits associated with giving children access to green space, not just in the countryside, but in urban areas and new developments. As Secretary of State for Health, I had conversations directly with, for example, Natural England about precisely these issues, which have also formed part of our work in the coalition on finding ways to deliver our public health objectives right across Government. Using their new public health responsibilities, local authorities will be able to combine that work with their planning responsibilities in a helpful way.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

May we have an urgent statement from the Leader of the House on how he plans to deal with the redefinition of marriage Bill? As I understand it, his plan is for it to have its Second Reading in the new year, right at the end of the Session. The Bill was not in the Queen’s Speech or in any party’s manifesto. It is unique to bring in a Bill in this way. Will he guarantee to the House that he will introduce it in the next Session, after it has been announced in the Queen’s Speech, and that its Committee stage will be held on the Floor of the House?

[Mr Lansley]

I can give my hon. Friend a statement on this point. It is our intention to introduce the equal marriage Bill in the new year. The situation is not remotely unprecedented: we have recently introduced a number of pieces of legislation that were not anticipated in the Queen’s Speech. Our intention is to introduce legislation, based on the response to the consultation, and I am sure that when we do so, he and many other Members will find it helpful to enable the House to express its view on how we can ensure equal access to civil marriage in this country.

Committee on Standards (Lay Members)

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That, in accordance with Standing Order No. 149A, Mr Peter Jinman, Mr Walter Rader and Ms Sharon Darcy be appointed lay members of the Committee on Standards.

In December 2012, the House endorsed a recommendation from the Committee on Standards in Public Life that the Committee on Standards and Privileges should include at least two lay members who have never been parliamentarians. The proposal was supported by the Committee on Standards and Privileges, whose then Chair, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young), suggested it to the Committee on Standards in Public Life.

The Procedure Committee was asked to consider how that recommendation might be best implemented. It recommended that the Committee on Standards and Privileges should be divided into two, and that the lay members should sit only on the Committee responsible for standards. If the House accepts the nominations today, the two new Committees will come into existence on the first sitting day in January, following on from Kathryn Hudson taking up her appointment as the new Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards on 1 January.

The lay members will not be co-opted as full voting members of the Select Committee. There was some doubt over whether a committee partly composed of non-members with equal voting rights would in law be a parliamentary Committee and thus entitled to the normal protections of parliamentary privilege. Draft legislation to permit the House to give lay members of the Committee on Standards the power to vote is included in the Government’s Green Paper on Parliamentary Privilege, which has been referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses and is due to report in April next year.

The lay members will participate fully in evidence taking and the consideration of draft reports, although they will not be able formally to move amendments or take part in any votes. There will be two specific protections for their position. The first is that the Committee cannot conduct any business unless at least one lay member is present. The second is the requirement that any written opinion of a lay member present at the relevant meeting on a report agreed by the Committee must be published as part of that report.

The process of recruiting the lay members fell to the House of Commons Commission. The posts were advertised on the parliamentary website through the outreach service, with a search by recruitment consultants and through Twitter. There were 86 applicants for the post, reduced through sifts and interviews to a short list of 12 for interview. The interviews were undertaken in September 2012 by a board that included the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron), Chair of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, John Horam, who is now a member of the Electoral Commission, an external assessor and senior officials.

That board put forward six candidates for final interview in October 2012 by three members of the Commission: the Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) and me. On the basis of our assessment, the Commission agreed to make the following three nominations to the House this afternoon: Sharon Darcy, who is a member of the national board of Consumer Focus and a board member of the National Employment Savings Trust; Peter Jinman OBE, who is a former president of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons; and Walter Rader OBE, who is independent chair of the Youth Council for Northern Ireland appeals panel.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making a clear statement. However, will he tell the House what sort of hours those people will be expected to work and what their remuneration will be?

[John Thurso]

My hon. Friend anticipates my next two points. Let me deal with them in order, and if he is not satisfied, he can have another go.

Brief CVs of the candidates are set out in the paper that is available in the Vote Office. The Commission believes that, together, the three candidates represent a combination of experience and qualities that should increase public confidence in the robustness and independence of the House’s disciplinary process. The appointments will initially run until the dissolution of Parliament at the next general election, but they can be extended for up to two years in the new Parliament. Once appointed, a lay member could be dismissed only following a resolution of the House.

The Committee’s work load is variable and it is not yet known what exactly it will be. The lay members will therefore be remunerated on a daily rate for each day worked. That rate is to be £300 per day plus any modest travelling expenses.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will know how my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has sought to act as quickly as he can, as he has explained. I am sure that when he has anything further to add, he will make the House aware of it.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The lady in my house says that it is always a miracle getting to a wedding anniversary. Does the Leader of the House agree with me that section 1.2.a of the ministerial code calls for the “principle of collective responsibility” to apply to “all Government Ministers”? May we have a statement next week from a Conservative Minister explaining what it means to Conservative Ministers and a statement from a Liberal Democrat Minister to say what it means to Liberal Democrat Ministers?

[Mr Lansley]

It would be rather easier to reply to my hon. Friend if he asked a question rather than making an allusion.

The principle of ministerial collective responsibility is precisely as it has always been. Ministers speak on behalf of the Government, and, as my hon. Friend knows perfectly well, if it is clear that Ministers have not had an opportunity to complete their scrutiny of an issue, in the circumstances of a coalition Government it is entirely proper for Ministers—more than one Minister; in this case, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister—to reflect ongoing considerations within the Government. It is an accurate reflection of the policy of the Government at that time.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The right hon. Gentleman will have noted when I announced the forthcoming business that the Backbench Business Committee has allocated time next Thursday for a debate on defence personnel. I completely understand that the breadth of issues that will need to be encompassed in that debate is very wide, but he might recognise that there is an opportunity there, not least to recognise past service.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Later today we will have what I think is a unique event. The Deputy Prime Minister, whose main responsibility is to support the Prime Minister, will make a statement opposing the Prime Minister. Will the Leader of the House make an urgent statement so that the Deputy Prime Minister knows from which Dispatch Box he is to speak?

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that. Hon. Members have often asked me about it, and I could quite properly say nothing about it that would be prejudicial to continuing contract negotiations. But now that the contract has been won, I am pleased to say that we can really celebrate the fact that the Post Office has won it. I think Members across the House will appreciate it, and as we made clear in the past, it allows us to ensure that the Post Office can not only secure business from Government, but maintain its offer of business in many communities across the country that were threatened under the last Government.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

May we have an early debate on the Charity Commission in England, with a view to reviewing the Charities Act 2006 to ensure that previously accepted religious charities, such as the Plymouth Brethren, are not threatened with the removal of their charitable status?

[Mr Lansley]

I will, of course, discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. I have had occasion to meet, by way of example, members of the Plymouth Brethren in my constituency, who have raised these issues with me, and I will of course discuss them with my colleagues.