Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 28th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Robertson]

Yes.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that holding the Olympics in London inspires youth participation in sport across the whole country?

--- Later in debate ---

The Leader of the House was asked—

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

1. If he will bring forward proposals to implement the recommendations of the Procedure Committee relating to ministerial statements.

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

I have sent the Government’s response on its report to the Procedure Committee, which will be published in due course. It would be for the Backbench Business Committee to find time to debate proposals to reform ministerial statements.

[Mr Bone]

Under the last Government, it was routine for ministerial statements to be leaked to the press. There was a media grid and they were leaked, before a statement was made, in a routine manner. Unfortunately, that has continued under this Government. Until we have sanctions against Ministers for leaking, we will never get the problem under control. Will the Leader of the House tell us whether he thinks the proposals of the Procedure Committee go far enough?

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 28th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I very much hope that the Opposition choose the subject of the NHS for their half-day debate on Monday week. I commend to my hon. Friend’s attention the document I have here—the 2010 annual report—which has the statistics, and the press release that was put out earlier this week which brings waiting times up to date. He will also see in a separate publication that there are more cataract operations and more hip replacement operations, and I hope that his constituents will find that reassuring.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

May I urge the Leader of the House seriously to consider having a debate on Libya? The circumstances have changed, as we are now talking about regime change rather than a ceasefire. It would be helpful to the Government to have that debate and to have the support, or otherwise, of the House.

[Sir George Young]

I have listened to the representations that have been made in all parts of the House for a further debate in Government time. Without giving any assurances now, I would like to share that strong feeling in the House with my colleagues and reflect on whether it might be appropriate to have another debate in Government time on Libya and related matters.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 31st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

As the hon. Gentleman has said, he has just had an Adjournment debate, and I am not sure that it would make sense immediately after that to repeat it at the Dispatch Box. I will pass on his concern to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and see if there is any way he can add to the information he was asked for in the debate.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Yesterday, I made some comments in the House for which I must unreservedly apologise to the Leader of the House, because I gave the impression that he had done a good job and I understand that that has affected his career prospects. To make up for that, would he make a statement next week about having another question time in the House? Would it not be a good idea to have the second most powerful Minister here to answer questions: the Chief Whip?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s earlier comments. I think that my career has peaked, so he need not be too worried about jeopardising my future. I am not sure that there is time in the congested programme for ministerial questions to squeeze in my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip, but his door is ever open, as my hon. Friend knows, and he is always particularly pleased to see him.

Private Members’ Bills

Peter Bone Excerpts

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I am very grateful to Mr Speaker for having selected my amendment, but having heard what the Deputy Leader of the House said in his powerful speech, with your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will not move the amendment. I should instead like to speak to the main motion.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

We thank the hon. Gentleman for the clarification. The amendment is not moved.

[Mr Bone]

Ooh, my pager has just pinged.

I do not know whether to cheer or boo—I have heard some booing tonight. I was slightly disappointed that the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) wished to carry on the old Executive’s way of controlling private Members’ days and having as few as possible. The enlightened view of the Deputy Leader of the House has encouraged me to support the motion, and I am looking forward to the reform of private Members’ business.

[Helen Jones]

Can the hon. Gentleman quote back to me anything I said that suggests I want the Executive to have control of private Members’ Bills?

[Mr Bone]

I cannot—I do not have that sort of memory—but I got the impression that the hon. Lady was saying, “No more extra days,” whereas the previous Government did not support Standing Orders and reduced the number of private Members’ days in a Session, and I shall talk about that briefly later on. That is a key issue. I was hoping she would stand up and say, “Actually, the previous Labour Government got it wrong on that particular point.”

While I am dealing with the hon. Lady’s remarks, I wanted to talk about the process and the number of Members who have tabled private Members’ Bill. She gave the impression that only three Members had tabled Bills.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

What does my hon. Friend think would have been the attitude of our late, great friend, Eric Forth to all this? He killed more private Members’ Bills than most of us have had hot breakfasts. Would he have welcomed more days for private Members’ Bills so that more people could indulge their fantasies of adding to the nanny state?

[Mr Bone]

Eric Forth was perhaps one of the best parliamentarians ever, and I rather think he enjoyed Fridays, so he probably would have liked more.

I saw a wonderful quote from the Leader of the House, who is not in the Chamber, about how wonderful it was to be selected in the ballot. The main obstacle to getting his Bill on the Order Paper was Eric Forth. Eric will probably be looking down now and saying, “Yeah. Actually, we would like more power for Parliament”—he certainly believed in that—“and therefore more power for Fridays.”

[Helen Jones]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman needs to search his memory, because what I remember most about Eric Forth, for whom I had a great deal of admiration, is that he spent most of his time on Fridays killing off private Members’ Bills rather than allowing them to get through—[Interruption.] As the Deputy Leader of the House says, he would certainly have enjoyed that.

[Mr Bone]

The hon. Lady has misunderstood my comments. Eric Forth killed off hopeless Labour private Members’ Bills, which he did with great relish. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) has now taken on that role, and does it extremely well indeed—no doubt we will see some more Bills killed.

As legislators, MPs have the opportunity only on a Friday—on a private Members’ Bill day—to put forward their Bills. I should like to counter the view of the hon. Member for Warrington North. She said that only three Members put down private Members’ Bills on the days that we are discussing. In fact, on 9 September, my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) will promote the Consumer Protection (Postal Marketing) Bill and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) will promote his Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulation Bill. On 14 October, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) will promote the Police Terms and Conditions of Service (Redundancy) Bill.

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman will admit to slight support for the case of the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones). Of the 112 private Members’ Bills before the House, 51—nearly half—are in the names of the hon. Members who are signatories to the amendment. In fact, their legislative programme is about twice the size of the Government’s.

[Mr Bone]

There are two things wrong with that. First, when Front Benchers agree on something, it is almost certain not to be the correct way forward. Secondly, the alternative Queen’s speech proposed by certain Members had a reason behind it beyond thinking that all those Bills would be debated.

There are three ways in which private Members’ Bills get debated. Most people think that that happens only through the ballot, but there are also ten-minute rule Bills—they must be debated in the Chamber, when they get an opportunity for Second Reading as a private Member’s Bill—and, of course, presentation Bills. I shall not speak to my amendment, which was not moved because of all the wonderful things that the Deputy Leader of the House said. That is a shame, because I could have quoted what he said in his previous guise as an Opposition spokesman. I will not do that, but he was certainly much more in favour of additional days then than he is now that he is in the Government.

[Mr Hollobone]

In his intervention, the Deputy Leader of the House seemed to imply that the large number of private Members’ Bills was a bad thing, but actually, it is a very good thing. Parliamentarians are coming forward with proposals for legislation to improve our country and the way of life of our people. Having only four days in the extended programme in which to cram all those Bills is a totally inadequate allocation of parliamentary time.

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend puts that argument much better than I could have done.

I want to go back to the list of Bills, to give the House a flavour of the matter and to show that it is not just three or four Members who are involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who has not been mentioned so far, has a non-controversial Equality and Diversity (Reform) Bill before the House on 21 October. The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) has his Master’s Degrees (Minimum Standards) Bill, and my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) has his Waste Recycling (End Use Register) Bill. I could go on and on, but my point is that these Bills are important to the Members concerned, and they might well be important to their constituents and to the country. They should be heard, and we should not try to restrict debate on them.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I hope that my hon. Friend will be good enough to note that if a Member introduces and prints a presentation Bill, that will demonstrate to the country what they intend to do. My Prevention of Terrorism Bill, for example, would unwind the application of the Human Rights Act 1998 and give us a proper terrorism law. Does he also appreciate that it is possible to attach signatures to such Bills by tabling an early-day motion? On one occasion, there were as many as 350 signatures attached in that way. That provides ample evidence of the support that a Bill has, even though the Government, by their continuous diminishing of the opportunities for the House to vote on matters that are important to the people at large—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Just to cheer him up, I can tell him that if Friday 18 November had been one of the days selected by the Government, there would have been a Referendums Bill introduced by hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, which he might have been interested in.

Sometimes, private Members’ Bills serve the purpose of getting the issue discussed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) has just demonstrated. They also serve the purpose of getting the matter into law. There are a great deal many difficulties involved in getting a private Member’s Bill through the House, and that is why we should not reduce the number of days available on which to debate them. I shall give the House an example of someone who knew how to do all this. Anthony Steen, the former Member for Totnes, got his Anti-Slavery Day Bill through in the dying days of the last Government when no one was watching what he was up to. That was a very important Bill, and we now celebrate anti-slavery day on 18 October. He has changed the national law, and well done to him, but that was only possible because he used the procedures. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) will agree that this is all about knowing the procedures, and that that is what we, as parliamentarians, should be doing.

I must tell the House why I have a problem with the Deputy Leader of the House. He knows of my admiration for him. We have, in the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House, two superb parliamentarians, supported by an equally superb Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell). Selfishly, I hope that they will remain in their posts on 6 May, or whenever the next reshuffle is going to be. We are lucky to have them, and that is why I am slightly disappointed. I cannot remember what the Deputy Leader of the House did before he came to the House. I had the unfortunate problem of being a chartered accountant, and I am therefore used to adding sums up and getting wrong numbers. I think that the hon. Gentleman might have been a chartered accountant, too, because he has added the sums up and got a wrong number. Standing Order No. 14(4) clearly states:

“Private Members’ bills shall have precedence over government business on thirteen Fridays in each session to be appointed by the House.”

There is no question about that.

Now this is where I was a little disappointed by the hon. Member for Warrington North, who I guess is shadow Deputy Leader of the House. In the last Session of the last Government, there were only five private Members’ days. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady mutters—she could have acted properly and intervened—that that is because it was a short Session. She well knows, however, that that is not allowed for in the Standing Orders. We must have 13 days.

If I were to be generous to the last Labour Government, as I always am, I would say that they quite properly argued that the eight days lost because it was a short Session should be added on to the longer Session that would run from the election in May—not to the November of that year, but to that of the year after. I am happy to accept this argument, which gives us eight more days for a start.

The Government have given us the 13 days that we would normally have in a Session—there is no argument about that; they are absolutely correct—but there are, of course, the eight that have been missed. That takes us up to 21 already. Because the Government are moving towards a five-year, fixed-term Parliament, which I agree with, and there will be one-year parliamentary Sessions, they have added from November 2011 to May 2012—I reckon that is six months—and assumed that to be half a year. What we need, the Government have said, is half of 13, which seems to come to four.

Now I reckon half of 13—as an accountant, I have to round up—comes to seven. What we should have, then, are the 13 days the Government have given us, the eight that the previous Government took away, plus the seven for the additional term. If I add seven and 13, I get 20 and if I add eight, I get 28. This is my problem; I think we should have 28 days.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is, as ever, making a very powerful speech. Does he agree that, on that basis, the amendment—I fully understand the reasons why it was not moved—is a compromise? It might almost be described as the third way.

[Mr Bone]

As always, I was trying to be helpful and considerate towards the Government. In fact, on the day before yesterday, I had a fine meeting in private with the Leader of the House. After our conversation, he was very clear. I had impressed him so much that he said, “Peter, I have not given you a wink, nod or any indication that the Government have moved from their current position”, which is, of course, exactly what happened. They did not move and they slapped this motion down for tonight.

Let us get back to the number of days: the 13 plus the seven that we should get under the Government’s own very generous thought, as they are extending the Session. If we add the eight, we get 28 days. I would have accepted 28 days, but I thought, “Let us look at it another way, as accountants always do it twice”. If we are moving towards one-year parliamentary Sessions—from May to May— we are going to have 13 private Members’ Fridays in each year. That is very clear, and that will kick in in May 2012. From May 2010 when this Parliament started—on 18 May, I think—to May 2011 would provide us with 13 days. From May 2011 to May 2012 would provide another 13, making 26. As a chartered accountant, I have done the sums and come up with two different answers. We should have either 26 days or 28 days.

Unfortunately, when the Deputy Leader of the House came up with his calculations, he came up with 17 days, which is the 13 days that we had to be given, plus the extra four. That is why I wonder whether he is another chartered accountant. He has clearly come up with a completely different result from that most people expected.

On a serious note, I just think that this was a great opportunity to fix broken promises. I re-read the Prime Minister’s excellent speech of 26 May 2009 when he said he wanted to return powers to Parliament and to Back Benchers. He wanted MPs to be independent. I have taken that to heart and tried to be independent and tried to be a parliamentarian, but the lack of days will restrict my ability to do that.

I encountered another difficulty today when I received a text message from a constituent saying “If you do not get this amendment through, it will mean that you will be at home more often.” I want to know what the Deputy Leader of the House will say to Mrs Bone about that, because it seems to me that parliamentarians should be here scrutinising the Government. The provision of a private Members’ day once a month—which is what this amounts to—is surely not a problem, and I feel that we have missed an opportunity.

I know that there are pressures on those in government, I know that the Executive want to control everything, and I understand that that is the old way. I also know that the Prime Minister wants to get away from that, and wants a new politics that will make the House of Commons more important. I did not move my amendment for precisely the reason given by the Deputy Leader of the House: we are moving towards the establishment of a Business of the House Committee, and once we have such a Committee, none of these problems will arise. Everything will be sweetness and light, because Parliament rather than the Executive will allocate the days.

I was so encouraged by the fact that reform of the private Members’ Bills procedure was being considered seriously that it would have been absurd for me to argue for the provision of 13 extra Fridays. In a few months’ time the Leader of the House will stand at the Dispatch Box, announce that private Members’ Bills will be debated on Wednesday evenings, and say “We have thought about this, and we are going to grant such-and-such a number of extra days.” I see this as a holding debate in anticipation of those reforms. I am encouraged by what has happened today, and I will therefore support the motion in the hope of seeing the reforms introduced a little later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

It is a matter of balance. It is about looking at the time available and the competing pressures on Members. We came up with a proposal that the House could consider this evening and that proposal is certainly a lot better than anything that has been suggested before. I think the hon. Member for Wellingborough accused me of being an accountant, but I really am not.

[Mr Bone]

You might be a lawyer.

[Mr Heath]

Neither am I a lawyer—that is even worse. I was formerly an optician, which is perhaps why I want to focus on the interests of all Members of the House in finding what suits them best.

Let me deal with an issue that the hon. Member for Kettering raised, which is not directly related to private Members’ Bills but is within the same context—the time allocated to the Backbench Business Committee. He said there was some arcane or obscure formula, but there is not: the formula was determined by the Wright Committee. The Government were committed to introducing the reforms proposed by the Wright Committee and that is exactly what we did. We have been clear throughout that we will continue to allocate time to the Backbench Business Committee to enable it to do its work and to provide time for Back-Bench Members of the House. We have done so throughout this Session on the basis of about one day a week. We will continue to do exactly what we have done, and most people believe that the allocation is fair and has been used sensibly.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 24th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I understand the hon. Lady’s concern. It strikes me that this would be an appropriate subject for a Backbench Business Committee debate or an intervention during the pre-Easter recess Adjournment debate, but she has just made her case very effectively.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

If passed, motion 7 on the Order Paper would have the effect of cancelling all currently scheduled private Members’ sitting days and replacing them with four new days. Instead of getting the additional 13 days we should have because this is a two-year parliamentary Session, we would finish up with only four days. I think that is more cock-up than conspiracy, but may we have a debate on the matter next week?

[Sir George Young]

I am not sure that my hon. Friend has interpreted the motion correctly. The Government want to provide four more days to debate private Members’ Bills. My hon. Friend has blocked that by tabling an amendment which means that, as of today, that extra time will not be given. I very much hope we can resolve the matter. We have a bit of time, because we have announced the dates up to the end of the summer. I hope that between now and then we can find a satisfactory solution, and that my hon. Friend will not stand in the way of what the Government are trying to do, which is to give more time for private Members’ Bills.

Members’ Salaries

Peter Bone Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I say to the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) that that is exactly the process that we are moving towards, although it will disappoint the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell). I will now come to what happens next.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

What I do not understand from the Leader of the House is, if this increase is based on an average of public service salaries, are we not simply getting what the rest of the public services are getting?

[Sir George Young]

If my hon. Friend looks at the comparator, he will see that it includes a number of people who earn less than £21,000 and that, crucially, it includes settlements that were made before the last election. To that extent, it lags behind the public sector pay freeze that we announced in the Budget.

To answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham North, the 2008 resolution also requires the SSRB to conduct a review of Members’ salaries in the first year of each new Parliament. By rescinding the resolution in its entirety, the motion removes the requirement for the SSRB to conduct such a review this year. The review of Members’ salaries will instead take place following the commencement of section 29 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which will transfer the determination of our salaries to IPSA on a statutory basis. As I said at business questions last week, the Government intend to commence that section shortly. If, in future, the House wants to overturn any recommendations, it will require primary legislation, not a 90-minute debate such as we are having this evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Field]

I shall adhere to your ruling, Mr Speaker.

If we pass the motion on salaries tonight, amidst a self-satisfied blaze of glory, it will be essential that we also resolve that, whatever changes are made to the IPSA allowances scheme, none will come into effect until April 2013. In short, it must be a two-year freeze on both salaries and all allowances.

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that the best thing that could happen tonight would be for the Deputy Leader of the House to withdraw the motion? We have been talking about a really important matter tonight, and it is absurd that we start talking about Members’ salaries and expenses. It should be done on a different day.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Following on from my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), I agree that we should not vote on this issue tonight, but from a different perspective. I do not think it is for the Executive to bring forward this motion. If such a motion is to be brought forward, it should be done by the Backbench Business Committee so that it is Parliament bringing it forward and deciding whether to accept the pay increase.

I have a second reason for thinking that the motion should not be proceeded with tonight, and I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will not force it to a vote and will instead come back with a different motion—or, better still, let the Backbench Business Committee bring forward a motion. We have had such an important debate today and I have been agonising over the weekend about which way to vote; in the end I did not vote at all. It seems absolutely absurd to the British public that we are wasting one and a half hours on this tonight when we could have continued with the main debate, which is what we should have done. I urge the Deputy Leader of the House to withdraw the motion.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Friday 18th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

It might be appropriate to raise that matter in the debate on Monday; it seems wholly relevant. The right hon. Gentleman may have heard the reply that my right hon. Friend gave, I think, at Prime Minister’s questions last week on the issue of compensation. The Ministry of Justice is considering the matter and hopes to come to a decision very soon.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Although I would have liked the debate to take place tomorrow, given that it will now be on Monday may I ask why we are having any other business on Monday? The debate on Members’ salaries, which now seems completely irrelevant, should be removed, and we should have the maximum amount of time to discuss this very important issue.

[Sir George Young]

I can assure my hon. Friend that the debate I have just announced will carry on until 10 o’clock, and the motion on Members’ salaries, which is protected business for 90 minutes, will happen after that.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. Business questions are an occasion for requests for statements and debates in the following week, and not for prefacing questions with lengthy descriptions of things that have happened to another party. That is not an orderly way to proceed. I hope I do not have to say that again. We will move on to someone else.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Recently in business questions, the Leader of the House was unhappy with the idea of confirmation hearings for Ministers. On reflection, I was clearly not being radical enough. Can we have a statement next week on whether we can reintroduce the procedure whereby if someone is appointed to be a Minister, they must resign their parliamentary seat and fight a by-election?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend is correct that that was the procedure until some time around 1920. I detect no particular appetite from those on either Front Bench to revert to that procedure. On reflection, I am not convinced that it would serve any useful purpose.

Bill of Rights

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

This very important debate is about articles 9 and 13 of the Bill of Rights and the role of Parliament in dealing with all grievances and the importance of freedom of communication between constituents and Members, and I know that it is very important, because the Leader of the House trailed it earlier. I remind Members of the importance of privilege, which we have here in Westminster Hall as in other parts of Parliament, but Members should always exercise their rights with care, particularly when naming individuals, and should avoid intrusion into areas that are within the jurisdiction of the courts, particularly things that are active before the courts.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Hemming]

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is completely wrong to be made to agree not to talk to one’s MP. I also think that that process of bullying is a contempt of Parliament and that action should be taken by Parliament to deal with it.

The note continues:

“I explained to Father to think carefully about his actions especially the impact on the child”.

It goes on to talk about other children getting hold of this and causing difficulties, but talking to one’s MP does not inherently mean that something will enter Parliament; it merely means getting additional support and explanations. The note goes on:

“Father said that he went to the media because he wanted to clear his name”—

which is fair enough—

“having suffered negative coverage in the media at the time of his trial. I stated that I understood why he did it, but stressed it was the potential impact on his child that he must give consideration to.”

He has been portrayed by the media as a rapist and wants to get publicity that says that he is not. I find it odd that it is thought that trying to get publicity to clear his name would cause problems for his child.

The note continues:

“Mr Grove joined me, whilst I was speaking to Father in the waiting area, and reiterated the danger in Father in having any contact with John Hemming. I advised Father that he must have faith in his legal team, and that contacting 3rd parties such as John Hemming, would not be consistent with working alongside his legal team. I stressed that John Hemming would not assist him any better than his legal team, at the fact finding hearing. I urged him against such further contact and sought his confirmation as to whether he was agreeable to the preamble to the order. Father at first said that he would agree to it but was not happy about it. I stressed that I needed to be certain that he was in full agreement to it, and after Mr Grove had spoken to Father about this, as mentioned above, Father stated clearly that he would agree to it, and appreciated the point that I was making.”

The essence of it is that he has no real choice. If he does not agree to it, the local council, of which I used to be deputy leader, would take action to take his child into care.

On the processes of councils, it is interesting that I have discovered that their senior management and councillors have no knowledge of what is really going on in social services departments throughout the country on a day-to-day basis. There is no real scrutiny in the councils, and the fact that elected officials are in charge of them does not result in any proper scrutiny.

That is one example where it is obvious that action was wrongly taken to bully somebody into agreeing not to contact me. I have to be very careful with the example of another of my constituents, because proceedings are continuing, so I shall have to refer to historic information. It may be best if I do not name this constituent, because it will save difficulties. She is 26 years old and has mild learning difficulties. She came back to Birmingham, having been separated from her family 10 years ago. A consultant psychiatrist’s report quotes the police in relation to the situation faced by my constituent, who was on the electoral role in my constituency for the general election. I should also add that Acocks Green is part of my constituency and it has an Iceland shop.

The report states:

“Police records made available to me via the instructing Solicitors provide details of the incident on 8/10/09, reported as an abduction.”

They say that she was abducted by her family. The report states that the description from the police was that she was

“out shopping in Acocks Green Village, with 2 other residents”

from her home. It goes on to say that, while in Iceland, she

“saw one of her sisters. The sister asked the carer for contact details but this was refused. She left the shop in tears. In the aftermath of this incident”

she

“and her party were walking away from ‘Iceland’ a silver car pulled over, containing”

her “two brothers.” The report goes on to say that

“it is described in the Police report that when the silver car pulled over”

she

“ran and hugged one of the males believed to be her brother, before getting into the car and being driven away. A history of”

her

“being the subject of an allegation of forced marriage was mentioned. Concerns were mentioned in the Police report that family will try to take her out of the country,”

which is refuted by the family.

The report continues:

“It was stated ‘the Airport Unit at Birmingham Airport was informed so that any immediate attempts to remove”

her

“from the country could be identified.’

It goes on to say that she

“was found by the Police at her mother’s home address in Sparkhill, Birmingham. A large number of family members were present and a party atmosphere was described. It was stated that”

she

“‘was unequivocal that she wished to remain with her parents’ and when it was explained by police that it was not possible but she could remain with her sister she was very excited. It was also stated ‘it was established that there was no legal authority to remove”

her

“to the care of Social Services and no authority to use force to do so.’”

She was separated from her family for 10 years and found them near where they live. She ran into the car with her brothers, went to her parents’ house and there was a party because they had found her after 10 years. They went to court and a social worker from Birmingham—

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I just want to make sure that this is not sub judice and not active before the court.

[John Hemming]

This particular part is not active. It is a distinct proceeding that relates to a decision taken in 2009. It is important that hon. Members gain an understanding of the basis on which these decisions are taken. It is said in the Court of Protection that decisions are taken via the judge, who relies on an expert witness. I will read out the expert’s report that empowered the local authority to get a decision from the judge to put my constituent in a home. The report has a heading and includes the names of a social worker and the witness, but I shall not mention them. The specific question was: where does she want to live? It went on:

“Does the service user understand the information necessary to make the decision at this time?”

The answer given was “Yes” and the report said that she had

“listened and quickly responded that she had heard but wanted to stay with her family.”

It is clear, therefore, that she had a view of what she wanted.

The report also asked:

“Can the service user retain the information for long enough to make this decision?”

The answer given was that she

“is quickly stating yes, she is not giving reasoning or considering risks which she herself has previously expressed relating to potential forced marriage and not wanting contact with family members.”

The report went on to ask:

“Can the service user weigh up the information in order to make this decision?”

The answer given was that she

“is not weighing up information about different options for her accommodation. She will only state she wants to live with her mum and dad or sisters. She said that she likes to make people happy and that she will be happy if her family are happy. Her family will be sad and angry if she leaves so she would like to stay with them. I suggested she could have continued contact with her family even if living elsewhere but”

she

“said this would make them angry.”

The report concluded:

“The result of this Capacity assessment is that in relation to deciding accommodation”

she “does not have Capacity.”

That is not really a long assessment in terms of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Where in the assessment is there an attempt to assist her in making her decision? There is no record of it whatsoever. The assessment is given as a sufficient basis to, basically, imprison her. It was in secret and there was no accountability and no second opinion at that stage.

I wrote to a Minister who told me to write to the Care Quality Commission, which told me to write to the solicitors, who did not respond. I wrote to the council, which told me: “The judge has banned us from talking to you.” I wrote to the Official Solicitor—this is a mental capacity case and the Official Solicitor has been appointed to deal with her best interests—and I got a letter back that said:

“You are correct when you suggest that I take the view that I am not accountable to you as an MP for the way in which I act in individual cases.”

We have a sort of vacuum here. There is no proper accountability in this area whatsoever. Her sisters were talking to me and were threatened that they would be in contempt of court if they continued to do so. One of the sisters is a constituent and another one lives just outside my constituency. We have here another contempt of Parliament, where effort is being put into stopping external scrutiny of the processes.

In the case I am talking about, a large sum of money has been spent on keeping this particular girl in the custody of the state—she is effectively a secret prisoner. The family has expressed the view that the true reason she was taken into care some 10 years ago was to prevent the investigation of an allegation of sexual assault against a member of staff of the city council. They think that the reason this kicked off is that, when she came back to Birmingham, someone did not want the investigation of the sexual assault from 10 years ago to kick off. I have seen some of the police records, and the family have a reasonable case for saying that that might be the motivation underlying such a massive expenditure of public money. Whatever way we look at the matter, this is a dreadful case and it is very clear what is going on. It has been said that her father is a risk to her. However, he died last July—possibly partly as a result of the stress of the case—so he is not much of a risk now. It is therefore difficult to understand what the justification is for what has been done.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Hemming]

The Official Solicitor’s answer is that he is accountable to the court. However, I cannot see where the real scrutiny of that process is. Let us consider the case I mentioned earlier—the £37,000 case—which also involved the Official Solicitor. Obviously, Alastair Pitblado does not trundle around the country like Father Christmas, visiting every court for a few seconds. We are talking about members of his staff, who will vary in calibre. As far as I can see, there is no real scrutiny of the Official Solicitor. Yes, the court may spot something, but it is very difficult. Who is actually acting to protect somebody against what the Official Solicitor does? That is a very difficult question. In addition, I have asked if I can go and see the constituent concerned and have been refused. So, someone is being held incommunicado from her Member of Parliament.

On the issues surrounding what can be done as a last resort, I shall discuss another constituent: Michael Singleton. His mum was very surprised that he had been jailed for five years, given that the allegation was that he had intentionally set fire to the house they were living in and had gone back to bed in the same house. She came to see me and we filled in the forms for him to appeal to the criminal Court of Appeal as a litigant in person, after which he was released. That shows the importance of having the last resort because the state would have wasted a lot of money keeping him locked up when there was nothing to be gained from doing so. It was lucky that that case was not covered by any confidentiality and that no one was trying to ban him from talking to me or his mum or anything like that, and he was therefore released.

The other person I have mentioned is still basically in the power of the state, and the people concerned are banned from coming to talk to me. Therefore, I cannot give them any advice on how they might be able to appeal the process and challenge things. I do not have a degree in law, although I have a certain amount of experience with it. My degree is more science-based. I shall also mention another, more recent constituency case. I will not name the person concerned because it might be sub judice. We are trying to get it to be sub judice.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. May I just say to the hon. Gentleman that it is quite proper to refer to cases to illustrate the general debate, but this is a wider debate? He should not spend too much time on any single case because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak.

[John Hemming]

I will speed up a bit. Dr Waney Squier is another example of someone who, to clear her name, needs access to secret material that does not affect any children or parents. However, she cannot get access to that.

We should consider again the wider questions of court decisions in respect of contact with Members of Parliament and others. I have here a case from 2005—folio No. 773. It is an injunction that says that if someone disobeys this order, they may be found guilty of contempt of court and may be sent to prison or fined or their assets may be seized. I am not going to name the parties in that case because more research needs to be done into it. However, without me putting this into parliamentary proceedings, I cannot even write to the people involved. Obviously, an ordinary letter not connected with proceedings in Parliament is not covered by the Bill of Rights. Paragraph (1) of the document concerned states:

“Neither the Defendant nor any third party with notice of the Injunction may communicate with any third party regarding these proceedings in general and the potable water tanks or system referred to in the Injunction in particular.”

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt again. I want to go back to my previous point: we must not deal with active cases. Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that this is not active?

[John Hemming]

The case has not been active to my knowledge since 2006. It is definitely not active now. I think the case ended in 2006—the date of the injunction—partly because of the trap that the individual concerned has found himself in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

It might be helpful to say how the debate may proceed. I intend to call the Back-Bench Members who want to speak. I will then go to the Front Bench and, at the end if we have time, let Mr Hemming sum up.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today, Mr Bone. I was about to say that your career has peaked by your elevation to your present job. However, that would not be true, because your career peaked when you were running a business in my constituency. Any move from being a businessman in Newport to a Conservative MP is a descent rather an ascent. However, we wish you well.

The case being presented today is one with which I am familiar. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) on securing the debate. We all listened in fascination to the surprising facts he detailed. I hope that there will be a positive outcome. The Backbench Business Committee has allowed me to have this micro-debate within a debate on a subject of parallel interest, although that might not be obvious. They are, however, connected by the rights and duties of Members of Parliament.

I want to talk about the conduct of our trade representative, Prince Andrew. There are difficulties. I was told on Monday that it might be unfair to say anything that might be derogatory of a member of the royal family, on the grounds that they cannot answer back. Indeed, the person involved has been defended very adequately by both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, and he has the 24-hour support of the generously taxpayer-funded royal spin machine working on his behalf. If he is not defending himself, he is being more than adequately defended by others. I believe that he can without any problem defend himself if he so wishes, if he thinks he is being criticised unfairly.

The question of parliamentary convention has been discussed; whether there is a convention that nothing disrespectful or derogatory is said about members of the royal family. There is nothing, as far as I can see, in “Erskine May” on the matter. If there is some spectral convention that we are not allowed to speak on the matter, I believe it should have a stake driven through its heart, and should be buried today. These issues have been debated at great length in the media, in blogs and everywhere else. Why on earth should the only people to have their mouths bandaged into silence on the issue be elected Members? Why on earth should we not be free to talk about this matter, which is of considerable interest and importance? I will be very selective in what I say today. I will certainly not quote the salacious tittle-tattle that has been in the press and I will not quote from sources that appear to be ill-founded rumours. What I want to speak about are the comments made by serious people making serious criticism.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

I am determined that this debate will be as wide as possible, but it does have to be within the framework of the motion before us. It is entirely right for the hon. Member to talk about the convention and whether it should apply, and whether there even is a convention, but we cannot have a long debate on the substance. As I said to Mr Hemming, it is right to mention an individual case in illustration, but we cannot have a debate purely on that subject.

[Paul Flynn]

I previously had difficulty when I wished to have a debate on the subject of the misrepresentation of the swine flu pandemic by Governments throughout Europe. I was told that I could bring the subject up in a debate on the general issue of health. There is a real problem of order, Mr Bone, because of the view taken by the Backbench Business Committee. I communicated my problems with the previous debate to the Committee, where the previous Chair and the Minister involved did not think that the swine flu issue should be considered in such detail, although that was what was in the mind of the Backbench Business Committee. We are in the area of new procedures in the House and it was the suggestion of the Backbench Business Committee, including the hon. Member who secured this debate, that the debate should be allowed. If it is not going to be allowed, well so be it, but I wish to—

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. I have the slight advantage of chairing the debate and also being a member of the Backbench Business Committee. In granting the debate, it was thought appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to speak, but not that there would be a substantive debate in relation to what the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about. He can talk about the principle, but he would have to apply elsewhere if he wanted a substantive debate on what I think he was leading to. I would also say that there is something in “Erskine May” on that.

[Paul Flynn]

Well, I have looked at “Erskine May”. Perhaps we could have a ruling. I believe these are points of order, Mr Bone, between you and me. There is clearly no point in continuing if I cannot have the debate that I applied for. That was the understanding of the Backbench Business Committee. I was clear at the Backbench Business Committee that I wished to raise the conduct of Prince Andrew and the harm that many people believe it is doing. If I am to be denied the chance of doing that, I will end my speech now and apply in different circumstances.

[Paul Flynn]

I do not know if I can proceed on those lines, because the subject is one of—

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

That may well be a point of order. [Interruption.] It was. Right. Just to help the House, “Erskine May” states on page 384:

“Unless the discussion is based upon a substantive motion, drawn in proper terms, reflections must not be cast in debate upon the conduct of the Sovereign, the heir to the throne, or other members of the Royal Family.”

Therefore, while it is possible to talk about the principle and the convention, the hon. Gentleman cannot talk about the substantive issue, because it is not a substantive motion on that point. That is my ruling.

[Paul Flynn]

In those circumstances, there really is no point in continuing. We are clearly in a position where there is censorship on hon. Members discussing an issue of great importance, where our country’s interests and business may be damaged. The view of the House, however, seems to be that MPs have a rule of omertà and we cannot discuss it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. What the hon. Gentleman is saying now is absolutely in order, because he is referring to the principle of whether we should be debating it or not. What we cannot do is actually have the debate.

[Paul Flynn]

I am grateful to you, Mr Bone. I shall apply to the Backbench Business Committee for a full debate entirely on that subject so that we can test whether the House is under censorship.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

On a point of order, Mr Bone, it might help the hon. Gentleman to know that there is nothing to prevent him from bringing such a matter forward on a substantive motion. The problem is that he cannot do so, according to “Erskine May”, in the context of another debate, or other than in the context of a substantive motion. That is a very clear way in which he must proceed if he wishes to carry on with the comments that he wishes to make.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

I say again that the way the hon. Member for Newport West was speaking just now, when he was talking about the principle and the convention, is absolutely what this debate is about. What we cannot go into, because of that convention, is the detail of what he wants to do. By all means, the hon. Gentleman should carry on and talk about the principle and whether he thinks it is right or wrong, but we cannot actually go into the substance because we are not allowed to.

[Paul Flynn]

I can only describe what the position is, as far as I understood it. I understood that these were new procedures under the Backbench Business Committee. I had an e-mail from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), the Chair of that Committee, saying—because I anticipated this difficulty—that she had communicated with you, Mr Bone, and the Minister responsible. I understood that under the new procedures, micro-debates of this kind, which are not entirely within the boundaries of the motion before us, would be allowed. If that is not so, I must seek a further opportunity to debate the matter elsewhere.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I totally and absolutely endorse what my hon. Friend is saying. I was much involved in the Damian Green affair—

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member. I know that we sometimes refer to the Damian Green affair, but we should refer to the hon. Member for Ashford.

[Mr Cash]

I accept your point, Mr Bone, and will refer to the matter of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green). Does the Minister worry that there are moves afoot to adjust, in the light of political correctness, the so-called role of the Member of Parliament and degrade it? Are they not missing the biggest wood for the biggest trees by not realising that the Member of Parliament, who is elected by voters and who, if given privilege and using it responsibly, is the best possible defence for the right of the individual to obtain the protection that they need through that privilege, not for our sake but for theirs?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

I was going to come to the hon. Gentleman’s points at the conclusion of my other remarks, but I will answer them now.

I am loth to usurp the authority of the Lord Chancellor, which I suspect would be lèse majesté on the part of a junior Minister. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for me to second-guess the Lord Chancellor’s views, in particular as he had the opportunity recently to set out some concerns in a Committee, as the hon. Gentleman said.

The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government are setting up a commission to look at the case for a UK Bill of Rights. He knows that the announcement has been made and that that will happen. He knows what is in the coalition agreement in respect of the issue, and I do not need to remind him of that. He also knows, because I heard him recently ask the question of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe, that the Government strongly support reform of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. There is a package of considerations and I will not pre-empt any conclusions, but I hear what the hon. Member for Stone has said. I am sure that other colleagues in the Government will have heard his comments as well. It is probably safest if I leave it at that. He understands that there is a limit to how far I can expand on the subject.

Returning to a perhaps slightly safer area for which I do have some responsibility, the Government intend to bring forward a draft parliamentary privilege Bill. As we have heard this afternoon, it is a complex subject. We have the report from some years ago to which the hon. Member for Warrington North referred. We need to revisit it, to ensure that it meets all our present circumstances, but we hope that we will soon be able to provide a draft Bill on which every hon. Member will have the opportunity to comment. In particular, I hope that Members involved in this afternoon’s debate will make their views well known as part of the consultative process, because they will have the opportunity to shape the content of the Bill.

I was intrigued by the suggestion of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) that we should do away with “privilege” altogether and call it something else. I make no commitment that that will form part of the Bill, but “privilege” is sometimes misinterpreted, deliberately or purely by ignorance, and assumed to mean that we somehow place our interests, and ourselves, above those of other people, rather than what it does mean, which is that it enables us to do our job on behalf of the people we represent.

Such interpretations were perhaps exaggerated by the recent court cases involving former Members of the House. The proposition before the court was that parliamentary privilege somehow prevented them from facing due criminal proceedings in the courts. Of course, privilege did not do that; we said so at the time and I am pleased that the courts held it to be the case. However, that message simply must go out: parliamentary privilege is not about privileges for Members, it is about privilege for our constituents to have a Member of Parliament who can stand up and speak without fear or favour on their behalf in the House, and to do so on whatever terms that Member feels fit, and without the threat of court action or the actions of the Executive preventing them from acting in the fullest capacity as a Member of Parliament. We intend to produce the draft Bill by the end of this Session, in spring 2012. That will provide us with a further opportunity for these matters to be discussed.

I am grateful to you, Mr Bone, for chairing this sitting and to the Backbench Business Committee for providing us with the opportunity to debate the subject. I am grateful too to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley for bringing forward matters of considerable importance, which have now been given an airing in the House.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

With the leave of the House, I call the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

There will be a debate in Westminster Hall on 24 March, when there will be an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to share his concerns. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was at the Dispatch Box earlier, and there was a question about the coastguards.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has quite rightly made tackling human trafficking a key priority of his Government, and I say these next words with some trepidation. I urge the Government to opt into the European directive on human trafficking. That would show real leadership to the rest of Europe on trafficking.

[Sir George Young]

I welcome the work that my hon. Friend is doing in that area, taking on the mantle of Anthony Steen, our colleague in the former Parliament. As my hon. Friend knows, last June the Government decided not to opt in at that stage to the directive. We have reserved the right to opt in, now that the directive has been finalised, and he might have heard my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary deal with that on an earlier occasion. We hope to come to a decision quite soon on whether to opt in.