Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Gentleman outlines some of the options that may be taken forward. What we have to do at this stage is ensure that the inquiry runs its course. Those both within and outside the House have noted in great detail the evidence that has been given, and we will need to look at the report in detail.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Does the new Secretary of State agree with the Prime Minister that successive Governments have got too close to the media? Does she also agree that this Government, like previous ones, are still leaking information to the press before statements are made to Parliament? Should that not end immediately?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. All Secretaries of State would want to ensure that the House is kept informed first and foremost. In you, Mr Speaker, we have somebody who we know keeps an eye on that very closely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

As the House will know, I have the greatest admiration for the reforms introduced by my predecessor, including the creation of the Backbench Business Committee, which has provided substantial opportunities. The hon. Lady rightly drew attention to the Government’s commitment in the coalition programme, and I look forward to constructive discussions about it.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The Leader of the House could improve the quality of scrutiny immediately by making the post of Chairman of the Committee of Selection an elected post. Would it not be totally absurd if an independent Chairman of that Committee were replaced overnight by a former Whip?

[Mr Lansley]

Again, I pay tribute to my predecessor. The introduction of elections to membership of Select Committees represents a considerable step forward in terms of Members’ ability to determine the shape of decision making in the House. However, it is also important for the Committee of Selection to reflect the interests of the parties—

[Mr Bone]

Of the House.

[Mr Lansley]

Both sides of the House have an interest in getting business through, as well as respecting the rights of Back Benchers.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I was very impressed by the announcements that were made just before the summer on the future rail network, which were substantial and wide-ranging. I do not know the answer to that particular question, but I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to respond.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

May I congratulate the Leader of the House on how he has answered all these difficult questions? May I ask him a gentle and easy one? Will he confirm that, as is political convention, the only business on tomorrow’s Order Paper will be private Members’ Bills?

[Mr Lansley]

So far as I am aware, yes.

Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards

Peter Bone Excerpts

Monday 16th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[John Mann]

My hon. Friend makes the point that I have been stressing—that we do not know and cannot predict them, but we know that there will be a lot more scandals emerging, as we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg at present. [Interruption.] I appreciate that this is not good listening for those hon. Members trying to work out how to respond to this, but if this House is to set up arbitrary ad hoc committees at random every time there is a problem, it will potentially undermine itself. Which Select Committee will be next to give away some of its powers to an ad hoc committee? Is this the appropriate way to determine such matters?

If some of the powers set out in the motion were reinforced not just in respect of the Treasury Select Committee but of other Select Committees, that would reinforce the scrutiny of this House over what goes on both in government and in the country, so there are some good proposals here. The good proposals, however, are bespoke to this particular Commission—for example, the ability to call in a QC and the ability to take evidence on oath. If they are good enough for this new Commission, they should be made available to any Select Committee looking at any issue. The House is ducking this problem.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I think the hon. Gentleman is making some powerful and important points. Does he share my surprise that the Treasury Select Committee was not given this role? He is absolutely right: these powers should be given to all Select Committees to make Parliament more powerful.

[John Mann]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point and I agree with him, but I do not intend to go through all the previous debate on this issue—interesting though it would be to do so—because I am sticking to the detail of what is in front of us, however badly worded it is. There is, however, clearly a case for saying that if the Treasury Committee had been allowed to carry on this work, it could have done so as effectively as this Joint Committee. I am sure that the five Members from the House of Lords who are as yet unknown and unnamed will bring great wisdom to this Joint Committee, but if the House of Lords wants to look into matters, it can look into them. This is the elected Chamber, and for this elected Chamber to hand over some of these powers of scrutiny to an unelected Chamber seems a retrograde step, which will come back to haunt us in future.

Once a precedent has been established and it suits the Government, it is likely to happen again—and this was a Government initiative. I am rather surprised that the Opposition Front-Bench team, perhaps looking forward to being in government themselves, have been seduced into accepting this way of undermining the historic, developed and improving role of this House to scrutinise. That, I think, is partly what is at stake here, if this becomes the way of doing business in this House.

I do not see how a Select Committee, denuded of half its members, can in any way work as effectively as a Select Committee operating with all its members. That is the reality of what will happen, and we need to be aware of the unintended consequences that might come from a potential eurozone crisis and other problems emanating from Europe that conflict across the work of this Joint Committee—and are wrongly not referred to within it—because proposals from Brussels are, rightly or wrongly, a fundamental part of the equation, affecting decisions made by this House and by the banking industry in this country and across the world. That aspect has been ducked by the creation of the Commission, which will create unhealthy confusion in the debate.

What should have happened? The remit given to the investigation, which should have been carried out by the Treasury Committee, should have been far broader—[Interruption.] An hon. Gentleman says “Boring” from a sedentary position, but this is not boring. For example, seven investment banks colluded to rig the price of the Kraft takeover of Cadbury’s. That is the real scandal that underpins the profits in investment banking. In some areas, there is ferocious competition, but in the vast majority of investment banking, there is no competition whatever. That is the scandal that created the culture that led to the LIBOR rigging. An investment bank called in by a company to advise on a sale or takeover has so much knowledge of the workings of the company that it has the ability to manipulate the market to determine how things will go. That is the fundamental weakness in the system of investment banking. The implications for British manufacturing and manufacturing elsewhere in the world—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), who is always worth listening to, but I have to say that on this occasion I disagreed with many of the points he made. I think that this is a chance for Parliament to assert itself. I think that it is a new adventure for Parliament. If the Commission is successful—if it produces a report that is unanimous and not split along party lines, and if it uses all the additional powers that it is being given—that will be a great step forward, and the arrangement may be repeated in the future. I take a much more optimistic view than the hon. Gentleman. The fact that so many Members are in the Chamber late at night shows how interested they are in the issue.

I have just two questions to put to the Leader of the House. One concerns paragraph (3), which names the members of the Commission. I am not sure how they were selected. I would have found it understandable for all the members of the Treasury Committee to be members of the Commission, because they were elected to their positions, but how did these particular names come to be here? Certain other Members’ names are not here although perhaps they should be. I am surprised, for instance, that a certain lady Member’s name is not included. Was it purple smoke, or was it, as I fear, the usual channels? Perhaps the Leader of the House could clear that up.

I welcome the Leader of the House’s announcement of an open-ended commitment from the Treasury to provide money for the counsel to the Commission. Does he hope, like me, that the counsel will act rather like a congressional committee and will grill the witnesses, and that members of the Commission will then be able to ask questions? I think that if we set up that sort of arrangement, we shall be moving Parliament forward.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Let me begin by reiterating the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), who said that we had voted for a judge-led inquiry. We are setting an onerous task for the Commission. I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) who said that it would be looked at very closely by members of the public, who now have very little faith in our banking system, whether because of national scandals or because of their dealings with their own local banks.

The terms of reference are set out clearly in paragraph (1)(a), which mentions the

“professional standards and culture of the UK banking sector”.

I should be interested to know how “culture” is defined in the context of banking. Does it refer only to banks, or to building societies as well? We should bear it in mind that the banking industry consists of not only high-street chains but, for instance, mutual societies. Will they be included in the Commission’s investigation?

LIBOR was the catalyst for the establishment of the Commission. Paragraph (1)(b) refers to

“lessons to be learned about corporate governance, transparency and conflicts of interest, and their implications for regulation and for Government policy”.

You pulled up my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw on the issue of corporate governance, Mr Speaker, and I accept your ruling. However, many of the matters that the Commission will consider will not relate purely to banking. As my hon. Friend said, they will relate to lending and takeover bids for companies. Will the Commission look into the culture of, for example, the Kraft takeover, which my hon. Friend mentioned? If it restricts its consideration to the banking sector, will not the inquiry be of limited use, not just in view of the vehicles involved in events such as the Kraft takeover but—I hasten to add—in view of some of the things that have been going on in local government? I have raised the issue of the refinancing of Newcastle airport, for example, which was a huge scandal in the north-east two years ago. That was driven by the idea that we could get a better deal for the local council tax payer by refinancing. In fact, it got them a worse deal. Will the Commission look at such situations?

Turning to transparency and governance, Government Members had strong opinions about private finance initiative deals when they were in opposition, and they still hold to those views now. Will such financing arrangements fall within the remit of paragraph (1)(a) and (b), as they are clearly part of a new culture that has emerged, and they are a new mechanism for funding Government policy? Paragraph (1)(b) refers to

“implications for regulation and for Government policy.”

Would today’s announcements on the investment in the railways fall within the remit? That is being financed in part through Network Rail, which is a completely separate organisation and is off the Government balance sheet. The Commission’s remit could lead to such areas being investigated. There are some wider implications here, therefore, and it will be interesting to see if the Commission resists going down certain paths. If we do not have a full inquiry that looks at all these areas, the public may well think we are just concentrating on a small part of the banking and finance industry, when there are many other concerns that directly affect them, too.

I have great respect for the Chair of the Treasury Committee, the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), who will chair this Commission, but the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) mentioned the absence of any women on the nomination list from this House. Are we saying that there are no able hon. Ladies from either side of the House who could sit on this Committee? We have in the past tried to ensure that all Committees in this House included women Members. This is an omission, therefore. It may be possible that all the members from the House of Lords will be men, too. We would therefore have a Committee made up entirely of males, which would be very wrong. It would be right to include a certain—female—member of the Treasury Committee on the Commission. Obviously that hon. Lady did not fit the loyalty criteria set by the usual channels, however. Her inclusion could have been useful, especially in the light of her previous life in the banking industry.

We are going to agree this motion tonight when we do not know who the Lords members of the Commission will be. I agree with the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw: this is a slippery slope as we are agreeing to have a Joint Committee to scrutinise and make recommendations with some members who have never been elected—and some of whom are, perhaps, unelectable.

Another interesting question is what the powers of this Commission will be. Paragraph (7)(a) states that it will have the power to

“send for persons, papers and records”.

What will happen if an individual says, “No”? Will the Commission have the full powers of Parliament to enforce its will in this regard?

It is also stated that witnesses will be under oath, and also that the Commission will be able to appoint special advisers. That is very important in respect of the expertise it will bring to the Commission. There is a question to be asked about a possible declaration of interests by those individuals, however. Many of the people who have expertise in this field will have had direct involvement in the culture that this Commission will be examining. So what will be the restrictions on the appointment of those advisers in respect of either their past lives or any future involvement they may have? That needs to be spelt out from the beginning. We need to make sure that they have not got their fingers in any of the pies that this Commission is investigating.

I do not wish to cast aspersions on any members of the Commission from this House, but we do not know who its members will be from the other House. How are we to define declarations of interest? Are these interests that those individuals hold now or in previous lives? If they are commercial interests, that will raise questions about the impartiality of those individuals, and anything that does that will damage the Commission from the outset.

Paragraph (7)(d) has already been mentioned. It states:

“to invite specialist advisers (including Counsel appointed as specialist advisers) to examine witnesses”.

I am not sure what that means. The normal procedure that Select Committees follow is that the members ask the questions, and questions and briefing notes are clearly written in advance by advisers. This arrangement, however, is very different. This is about having special advisers being able to cross-examine witnesses. So what is the status of those individuals? As the hon. Member for Wellingborough has said, that is a huge change from the way in which Select Committees have operated in this House. When I served on the Select Committee on Defence we had some very able advisers, but the idea that they would cross-examine witnesses is a strange one. We need clarification on that matter.

What about specialist advisers and conflicts of interest? If they are going to be counsel, we need to ask whether they have ever acted for banks or financial institutions. Would that debar them from being appointed as an adviser to the Commission? It is important that we have those things laid out clearly right at the beginning. I do not think it is right to leave them up to the Committee or the Chair to determine. [Interruption.] Government Members may well think that this is frivolous, but to many of our constituents it will be very important, in terms not only of how their money is looked after, but of trying to get credibility back into a sector that is vital to this country’s economy. This is very important in terms of making sure we get it right and of the reputation of the Members of this House who are going to be serving on the Commission.

The other thing I wish to discuss is how the Commission is going to be financed. Paragraph (13) says that

“the costs of the Commission shall be assessed by the House of Commons Commission from time to time and shall be paid by Her Majesty’s Government for the credit of the House of Commons (Administration) Estimate.”

We all know that, if someone wants to control the activities of a committee or any organisation, they can starve it of money. Are we saying that this Commission has a blank cheque? Unless it has, the Government will be able to starve it of money and limit the scope of its activities.

Paragraph (7)(e) states that the Commission can

“adjourn from place to place”.

If a lot of foreign travel is involved, as may well be the case, that will create an expense. Who makes the determination on that in terms of the work the Commission does? Will the Treasury at some point try to limit it by saying, “I am sorry, but you have spent too much and so you cannot undertake that foreign travel or employ that expert witness to interrogate and produce the report”?

There are a lot of—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray) is chuntering from a sedentary position, but she has only just come into the Chamber. I know that she did not have a very good week last week, but I wish her all the best for the future.

The financing of the Commission will be very important, so we need some assurance that we will not have interference by Government in the Commission’s work by stealth—that is, by starving it of the resources it needs.

[Mr Bone]

The hon. Gentleman is making serious points about parliamentary scrutiny, and it is great that so many Government Members are present to support him. Does he welcome this new initiative? If there is unlimited funding, if there can be counsel and if the Commission can cross-examine in the same way as congressional committees, is that not a good thing?

[Mr Jones]

It is—[Hon. Members: “Ah!] Hon. Members have not heard what I am going to say yet. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but we have seen this problem with Select Committees, whose travel was limited in the previous Parliament, hampering their work. As the Commission will be subject to the Government’s decision on whether they can fund it or not, that is a very important point. If the situation will be that suggested by the hon. Gentleman, we should have the same arrangements for Select Committees. That would ensure that Select Committees could not only employ the proper advisers—and perhaps more of them—and see expert witnesses but undertake the detailed travel that is sometimes required.

My other concern is paragraph (12)(b), which concerns the setting up of sub-committees. There is no detail about how sub-committees will be set up or about their composition. Paragraph (12)(b) states that a sub-committee will have a quorum of one, but how big will the committees be?

I am very uncomfortable with the idea of a sub-committee of one person making decisions or taking evidence. It should include at least one person from each House: a Member from this House and one from the other House. Likewise, on the question of political balance, it could include a Government Member and an Opposition Member. If we are going to have sub-committees, surely it would be right to increase the quorum to at least two, one from each House, and, potentially, to try to get political balance.

There are many provisions in the motion that prompt many questions. The hon. Member for Wellingborough made a very good point, in that it sets a lot of precedents and, I hope, sets a way forward that Select Committees can follow to draw down more resources and increase their powers.

I also want to raise the issue of the Commission’s reports. The motion states that it will

“report from time to time.”

Who will decide? If the Commission as a whole decides to produce interim reports or short reports throughout its life, some of them will be very market sensitive. Will not the Commission have to be very cautious in what it releases? I am sure that many finance houses, banks and other parts of the financial sector will be looking very closely at what the Commission recommends, and it could affect the share prices of those organisations. There is no guidance in the motion about how those reports should be produced, according to what time scale and for what reasons.

The other question that was mentioned earlier is whether we are happy now that we have basically set up a new type of Select Committee. Personally, I am not. I think that this inquiry would have been far better done by the Treasury Committee. Obviously, those on the Front Bench from my own party argued strongly for a judicial-led inquiry, which was the right approach to get confidence in the banking system. In the absence of such an inquiry, the Treasury Committee would perhaps have been a better vehicle. I worry about the precedent that this sets and whether it will allow the Government of the day to dictate to Select Committees or hybrid Committees. That goes to the heart of the independence of those Committees and their accountability to Parliament. The Commission will have a huge job to do and I wish it well in its deliberations, but we should undertake a serious examination of the new system and the precedent that that sets for our Select Committees.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

(1) That a Committee of this House be established, to be called the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, to consider and report on—

(a) professional standards and culture of the UK banking sector, taking account of regulatory and competition investigations into the LIBOR ratesetting process;

(b) lessons to be learned about corporate governance, transparency and conflicts of interest, and their implications for regulation and for Government policy;

and to make recommendations for legislative and other action.

(2) That Mr Andrew Tyrie be Chair of the Commission.

(3) That Mark Garnier, Mr Andrew Love, Mr Pat McFadden and John Thurso be members of the Commission.

(4) That the Commission have leave to join with any committee appointed by the Lords to consider the said matters.

(5) That the Commission may hold meetings under the provisions of paragraph (4) of this order at any time after the Lords has agreed to appoint a committee.

(6) That the Commission shall, except as provided for in this order, follow the procedure of a select committee of this House.

(7) That the Commission shall have power—

(a) to send for persons, papers and records;

(b) to examine witnesses on oath;

(c) to appoint specialist advisers;

(d) to invite specialist advisers (including Counsel appointed as specialist advisers) to examine witnesses;

(e) to adjourn from place to place;

(f) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; and

(g) to report from time to time.

(8) That the Commission shall have power to appoint sub-committees to consider matters specified by the Commission within the terms of this order and a subcommittee shall have—

(a) the powers in paragraph (7)(a), (b), (e) and (f); and

(b) the power to invite specialist advisers appointed by the Commission (including Counsel appointed as specialist advisers) to examine witnesses;

and the quorum of a sub-committee shall, subject to paragraph (12)(b), be one member of this House.

(9) That the Chair may report to the House an order, resolution or Special Report as an order, resolution or Special Report of the Commission which has not been agreed at a meeting of the Commission if he is satisfied that he has consulted all members of the Commission about the terms of the order, resolution or Special Report and that it represents a decision of the majority of the Commission.

(10) That the quorum of the Commission shall be two members of this House.

(11) That, whenever this House shall stand adjourned other than to the next day, any report, Special Report, order or resolution agreed to by, or evidence taken or received by, the Commission, including any under paragraph (9) of this order, may be published or printed under the authority of this House, shall be deemed to have been reported and shall be reported when this House next sits.

(12) That, when the Commission operates under the provisions of paragraph (4) of this order, the following provisions shall apply—

(a) the quorum of the Commission shall be two members of this House and two members of the House of Lords;

(b) the quorum of any sub-committee shall be one member from either House;

and

(c) the power of the Chair to report under paragraph (9) may also be exercised with the Chair’s agreement by a member of the Commission who is a member of the House of Lords.

(13) That the costs of the Commission shall be assessed by the House of Commons Commission from time to time and shall be paid by Her Majesty’s Government for the credit of the House of Commons (Administration) Estimate.

(14) That the Commission shall report on legislative action no later than 18 December 2012 and on other matters as soon as possible thereafter.

(15) That a message be sent to the House of Lords to desire their concurrence.—(Sir George Young.)

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I will certainly ensure that the Palace is aware of the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion. He will know that in the last quarter, youth unemployment was down by 29,000, and I hope very much that we can maintain that downward trend. He will also know that there are a range of initiatives on apprenticeships, the youth contract and the Work programme, which we hope will further reduce the rate of youth unemployment.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I know how much the Leader of the House hates programme motions because on constitutional matters when in opposition he always voted against them. May I make a suggestion that will be helpful to him, the Chief Whip and Parliament? The problem on Tuesday night was not caused by the programme motion; it was because there was not a business of the House committee. If there had been such a committee, with members who were not part of the Executive or the shadow Executive, it would have made time available. Surely in September we should bring in a business of the House committee, and that would solve all the right hon. Gentleman’s problems on programme motions.

[Sir George Young]

I am not sure that my hon. Friend has got that one absolutely right. The Wright Committee recommendations make it absolutely clear that the Government have an entitlement to get their business through. My hon. Friend’s suggestion is that the Government’s business should be subjected to a regime that might put at risk the likelihood of the Government getting their Bills through. It was always envisaged that the House would set up a Backbench Business Committee, which we have done, but it was always recognised that the Government should be entitled to get their business through.

Local Services (Planning)

Peter Bone Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable local planning authorities to require the granting of planning permission prior to the demolition or change of use of premises or land used or formerly used as a public house or local independent shop, to enable local planning authorities to require the granting of planning permission if premises or land will be used for a supermarket; and for connected purposes.

I am sure that the whole House would agree that we all seek to protect local communities, and the essence that holds them together and makes them different from other communities. We know that our villages, towns and cities are becoming ever more alike. There are ever more chain shops and supermarkets, progressively turning every high street into a clone town, and those vital community hubs, the British pubs, are closing down across the country. It is vital that we keep and support our pubs and local independent shops; otherwise, we risk losing them for ever.

The Bill that I seek to introduce today would help local communities to protect their shops and pubs. It would tweak planning law—only slightly—to rebalance the playing field in their favour. Technically, it would allow the use of locally determined use classes to separate local independent shops from chains, and supermarkets from other grocers, as well as placing new constraints on changing use away from pubs. Critically, it would be up to the local council to use the measure if it wished to do so. Every area is different, and no council would be forced to use it if it was not appropriate for its area.

I certainly do not claim that the measure will fix every problem faced by local shops and pubs. Independent shops face many wider problems, some of which have been identified in the Portas review. For example, they face institutional landlords who will, in some cases, deal only with national chains and not even consider renting premises to an independent shop. This is affecting a start-up in Cambridge, Caffè Sicilia, at the moment. Supermarkets have the economic might to drive out local shops, and pubs face challenges from the sale of cheap alcohol in those supermarkets, as well as from predatory pubcos, demand for housing and much else. We can take a stand, however, and hand local people the power to separate independent shops from chains, supermarkets from grocers, and pubs from estate agents.

What exactly is the scale of the problem? Let me start with pubs, many of which are at the core of their communities. I believe that Cambridge has some of the greatest pubs in the country, such as the Eagle, where Watson and Crick announced that they had discovered DNA, the secret of life. In reality, it is the local community pubs, those that do not have a famous story to pull in the punters, who will benefit the most from local control. Many fleeting conversations over a drink between academics and entrepreneurs who have created partnerships and founded companies have made Cambridge into the city it is today.

There are more than 80 pubs in Cambridge, serving very different communities: some local, some attracting people from across the city. We have great pubs such as the Maypole, the Empress, the Cambridge Blue, St Radegund and the Devonshire Arms. Over the last three years, however, more than 20 pubs have closed in Cambridge. This is replicated nationally, with 12 pubs closing every week. This is not simply some cold fact of life that our constituents should have to accept and deal with.

Many of these pubs are profitable. The Flying Pig, near Cambridge station is immensely popular and is doing better every year, especially since becoming a free house. Built in 1832, it was one of the first buildings on Hills road, but it is threatened with demolition to be turned into flats. In my old ward of East Chesterton, the Green Dragon is now the only trading pub. The local Penny Ferry, Dog and Pheasant and Haymakers are all boarded up, and local councillors struggle to find planning grounds to protect them.

Rural pubs face similar threats. When the only pub in a village closes, that is a huge blow for the residents there, as well as posing a risk in respect of drink-driving. Pubs are, ultimately, a responsible place to drink: landlords can control excessive drinking, and rural pubs can quite literally keep whole villages on the map. Pubs are valuable economically, too—each pub injects an average of £80,000 into a local economy, and pubs in Cambridge alone employ just under 1,500 people, many of them young—as well as promoting the intangible “well-being” that local councillors must be able to protect. So pubs provide a valuable service to local communities, beyond just the purely economic. The Government’s national planning policy framework recognised that fact, but still more is needed. We should help local people to protect their pubs.

Much the same is true when it comes to independent local shops and the high streets they create. Nationally, 12,000 local shops closed in 2009. On every high street across the country, we can see many of exactly the same shops—chains of coffee shops, clothes shops, betting shops. Now chains have many advantages—economies of scale, for example—and they can afford better lawyers and get cheaper rent. There is nothing wrong with having some of them. If there are too many, however, our high streets become identikit clones of each other. We lose the variety that makes our towns and cities special and different from each other. Our shopping options become ever blander and the range of options available diminishes more and more, as we see the demise of the specialist, the different, the quirky.

Some high streets have already succumbed, and could be anywhere in the country. Others fight on: Bridge street and Mill road in Cambridge are good examples, well worth visiting. They work together to look after their areas, and have strong local groups to help each other; but across the country, the traffic is largely one way. Independent shops turn into chains, but they rarely go back the other way. This has economic effects, as well. The proliferation of chain shops is often a false economy for local residents. At their worst, they can temporarily sell below cost to force independents to close, but when they are the only shop in town, prices can go back up again. More of the takings get sucked away from local people. A 2009 report by the New Economics Foundation found that twice as much money is kept in a local community if people buy locally than if they buy from a chain.

There is, of course, a particular issue around supermarkets, which are growing strongly in number. In Cambridge alone, there are no fewer than 15 branches of Tesco. In and of themselves, supermarkets are not a problem—people choose to shop there—but an individual supermarket or supermarket chain can utterly dominate a local economy. Monopoly powers apply nationally, but the residents of Mill road in Cambridge care very little about whether a supermarket holds a national monopoly. They care immensely, however, if it is the only local place to shop and if a supermarket has a local monopoly that eradicates a local high street much loved for its diversity. Currently, planning law simply does not allow for a discrimination between Abdul Arain’s Al-Amin grocery store and the Sainsbury’s planned for the other side of the road, but residents know that they are a very different proposition.

People know what it means to live in a free-market economy, and they appreciate that if shops are unprofitable, they cannot stay open. What I am talking about today is giving councils the power to stand back, if they wish to, and ask, “Would this supermarket represent a local monopoly? Would it actually decrease choice and competition? Would it ultimately produce a worse place to live?”.

I asked my constituents, and others more broadly via Twitter, to suggest which Bill to propose today, and this issue was suggested by very many of them. The Bill has received support from many residents, from local independent shops in Bridge street, Mill road and elsewhere, and from pub landlords in Cambridge. An online and a paper petition have received hundreds of signatures. Nationally, the Bill has secured the backing of CAMRA, the Campaign for Real Ale, which has been immensely helpful throughout the process; the all-party parliamentary Save the Pub group; the Local Government Association, which represents all our councils; and a strong cross-party group of MPs.

The Government have shown some commitment to localism. It has been observed in the past that Britain is one of the most centralised countries in the western world, and it has been a pleasure to welcome some of the devolution that we have seen over the last few years—including that provided for by the Localism Act 2011—but there is still far more to do. When the Localism Act was working its way through both Houses, I fought for more local power along with a number of colleagues. The so-called Cambridge amendment tabled in the other place, to which I have referred in this place, would have granted powers comparable to the power that I am proposing today. It was not accepted—much to the disappointment of Cambridge city council, which had proposed it—but perhaps this approach will be more successful. In the words of CAMRA,

“we need to give communities a much greater say over the future of valued local services such as pubs.”

CAMRA also says that the

“proposed Bill would go a long way to protecting local pubs and the communities they serve.”

This is, appropriately, independent retailer month. Let us in Parliament do something to mark it. I urge all Members to support the motion, and also to shop locally and sample their local pubs.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Dr Julian Huppert, Caroline Lucas, Tim Farron, Greg Mulholland, Simon Wright, Mr John Leech, Sir Peter Bottomley, Grahame M. Morris, Jim Dowd, Andrew Stephenson, Nicola Blackwood and Jonathan Reynolds present the Bill.

Dr Julian Huppert accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 October and to be printed (Bill 58).

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The media have announced that there will not be a programme motion. According to Standing Order No. 63, by rights the Bill should not be committed to the whole House, but should go to a Public Bill Committee upstairs. Will that procedure apply in this case?

[Mr Speaker]

I do not think that Standing Order No. 63 applies in this case, given that the programme motion has been tabled. I am happy to take further advice on the matter, and to consider whether the hon. Gentleman’s point is valid—

House of Lords Reform Bill

Peter Bone Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful point, but it should not be up to the Executive or the shadow Executive to determine how much time the House takes to debate the matter; that should be for the House to decide. The Bill should not be programmed in any way whatsoever.

[Ms Eagle]

We look forward to seeing what proposals the Government actually bring forward. I tried earlier to get a few hints from the Leader of the House, but he seems not to know the answer yet. I hope that we will know soon what the Government intend to do, but the principle that the entire Bill must have adequate scrutiny and that when it leaves this place, it must be fit for purpose is the one that is in our minds.

Business of the House (11 July)

Peter Bone Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. His speech today made the case that the Government should think again, withdraw the Bill and make a fresh start.

The business before us relates to our discussions on Wednesday, and I want to make sure that Members who might wish to debate Wednesday’s business on the sitting hours of the House recognise that if they support this motion, they will be limiting the time for discussion to two hours. If they want to do that, that is fine, but I think it is right and proper that Members should have the opportunity to consider whether they wish to limit that debate to two hours.

My other point is that it has been a long-standing tradition and convention in this House that a specific period of time is set aside for the consideration of private business: three hours, between 4 pm and 7 pm on a Wednesday or between 7 pm and 10 pm on a Tuesday. Nowadays, however, the Government almost invariably seek to introduce a motion undermining that principle. The consequence is that Members are left in doubt as to what the order of business will be and, if they are concerned about private business, whether they will have their special three-hour slot allocated to them, or whether it will be interfered with by the business managers. There are some important principles at stake, therefore.

What I am saying is: when it comes to discussing these issues on Wednesday why can we not say that between 4 pm and 7 pm, if it takes that long, we should be able to discuss the private business, as set down under Standing Order No. 20? Why do we need to say that the business of the House starting with the September sittings motion and followed by the debate on VAT on ambulance services should be able to force the private business much later on in the agenda, perhaps until 11 pm or later?

The consequence of that is that some hon. Members will stay behind because they are told that, although it is private business, it is very important and the Government want them to be here. They feel that they have to hang on in there late because the Government have told them to do so. The Government then blame me or somebody else; they say, “The reason you are staying late is that the hon. Member for Christchurch has required that you should stay late by talking this business long.” All I am saying is that we have a three-hour slot on Wednesday, so can we not keep that for private business?

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is being very unfair to the Government. The suggestion that this Government would try to whip private business is absolutely outrageous; they would not require Members to stay behind.

[Mr Chope]

Of course my hon. Friend is right to say that ultimately it is for hon. Members to decide whether they are willing to be whipped by the Government into supporting or opposing private business and whether we should allow some things in this House—private business—to be decided by Members on an individual basis, using their own judgment. So be it.

I can recall strongly opposing a private Bill that would have resulted in a substantial destruction of the amenities and environment in Southampton. I was grateful that a lot of then Government Members, including the then Home Secretary, supported me in the Lobby against the Bill; he wondered afterwards what he had been voting for, but I explained that it was in a really good cause.

I admit that there are precedents, but why should we want to oppose having a proper discussion of why we should be carrying on with certain private legislation that has been hanging around in this House for not just one or two years, but for two Sessions or more—for two Parliaments or more? I believe that one of the motions we will be debating on Wednesday goes back to 2007, when it was first introduced in the House.

I need elaborate my remarks no further. All I need to say is that, having raised this debate, it is right and proper that the Deputy Leader of the House should try to make a better job of responding to this debate than he did to the previous one.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments. At the meeting of the Backbench Business Committee this morning, representations were made to her for a debate on the banking industry, so there is an appetite for that. In response to her request to make good the two half days, as I have said the Committee already has a half day earmarked for sittings motions next Wednesday, and I hope it will also have the last day before we rise for the recess. I will use my best endeavours to find another half day between now and the time the House rises. I cannot go further than that at this time.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

This is an outrage, Mr Speaker. This is the Executive imposing their will on Back-Bench time. I invite the Leader of the House to change his decision, as there is some irrelevant business on Monday and we could hold this debate in Executive time then.

[Sir George Young]

Far from there being irrelevant business on Monday, it is business that I think is so important that it warrants two days of debate. The issue we will be debating on Thursday is also very important. It arose since the last business questions, and there is a debate in the country about the banking industry. I think it is important that this House should also be part of that debate, which is why we have rearranged the business.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 21st June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I know that the Leader of the House is extremely keen that Members should hear new Government policy first, or at the earliest opportunity. As Ministers cannot make statements here first—they seem addicted to going to television studios and newspapers—would it be possible each week to publish in which television studios, programmes and papers these statements are going to be made?

[Sir George Young]

I think that the first debate chosen by the Backbench Business Committee was one on ministerial statements. There was then a report by the Select Committee on Procedure, which we debated. I have consistently made it clear that Ministers take seriously their obligation, when the House of Commons is sitting, in the first instance to announce major changes of policy to the House. That is the policy of the Government, of which I constantly remind my Cabinet colleagues, and we intend to adhere to it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 14th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

I am happy to act as a conduit for that invitation, and I hope it will be accepted.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

6. What progress he has made on introducing a House business committee.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)]

As I said in my answer to my hon. Friend on 19 April, we plan to honour our commitment in the programme for Government to establish a House business committee by the third year of this Parliament.

[Mr Bone]

By decentralising power and reforming Parliament, we can redistribute power away from an over-mighty Executive. The House of Commons should have power “over its own timetable.” Those are not my words; they are the words of the Prime Minister. Why is the Leader of the House dragging his feet? Surely he should be supporting our wonderful Prime Minister.

[Sir George Young]

We have not dragged our feet. As my ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), has just explained, at the first possible opportunity in this Parliament we introduced a Backbench Business Committee, which had been obstructed by the previous Administration, and we also made a commitment, which Labour never made, to introduce a House business committee by the third year. As I said in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) in April, we propose to honour that commitment, and I reject his suggestion that we have dragged our feet.