Business of the House (Today)

Debate between Peter Bone and Philip Davies

Monday 20th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Go on, Peter.

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend may want to bring this up afterwards, but the motions are very complicated and it might take the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), at least an hour and a half to explain to the House what on earth they mean. Perhaps he does not know—I do not know—as they are extremely complicated.

This is not about that, really. I am trying to complain about the Government’s habit of tabling business of the House motions to eat into the time for debate so that anyone with a concern about the procedure who speaks to the business of the House motion is hurting the people who want to talk about the actual issue.

Will the Leader of the House tell us that, in future, the Government will stick to the Standing Orders and allow a proper one and a half hour debate after the business of the House motion has been decided upon? It is a small but important part of our democracy that the Government do not tweak our Standing Orders to their own advantage.

We have a great Leader of the House, and he does not need to detain the House much longer. Will he just say that this will not happen in future?

Health and Social Care (National Data Guardian) Bill (Money)

Debate between Peter Bone and Philip Davies

Money resolution: House of Commons
Monday 21st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), for what he has said about the Bill. I completely understand his closing remarks, and I will try to deal with that dilemma later. It is very strange that a money resolution should be proposed for Bill No. 94 before one has been proposed for Bill No. 9. I also thank the excellent Minister—I think that we may be meeting tomorrow to discuss the Bill—for introducing the motion.

We had a long debate earlier today, which was technically about money resolutions following Second Readings. It was not particularly concerned with the Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill, but Members became carried away on that subject. What we should be doing tonight is deciding whether the expenditure for my Bill justifies a money resolution, but I can understand why Opposition Members—and, perhaps, some Conservative Members—feel that we should not pass the motion because it would leapfrog a Bill on which there was a substantive debate in the House and a very large vote. My Bill was given a Second Reading only because of the widespread support that it had attracted; there was no debate on it whatsoever. I therefore find myself in something of a dilemma over what course I should recommend to Members later.

Let me, however, explain what the Bill is about. The role of health and social care national data guardian has already been established, but the Bill would put it on a statutory footing. I thought that the need for a money resolution was a little arguable, as the Government were already paying for the same services, but the excellent advice from the Clerks was that we did need one, and the amount of money involved is reasonably substantial.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said because I am, as he knows, one of the supporters of his Bill, so I am very grateful that we have got to this stage, too. It is said that the cost will be approximately £700,000. Does my hon. Friend think that is a fair estimate, or does he have a different view of the cost of the Bill?

[Mr Bone]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention, but I would like to deal with that later in my remarks.

There is the following deferred Divisions motion on the Order Paper in the name of the Prime Minister:

“That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motion in the name of Mel Stride relating to the Health and Social Care (National Data Guardian) Bill.”

That is interesting because under Standing Order No. 49 automatically there has to be a debate of up to 45 minutes on a money resolution, so I am not sure why that motion is on the Order Paper. The new version of Standing Orders published on 1 May is in the Vote Office today, and consideration of such a resolution automatically can go through the moment of interruption.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bone]

No, the Department has estimated that these costs will be approximately £700,000 per year, so actually I suppose they could exceed that. To me, that is quite a lot of money. We have to make sure we know what we are doing tonight and I will leave it to Members to decide.

It is only fair to say that I can understand why Members might want to oppose this money resolution. It is not necessarily because they are against this Bill, but it does stop the Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill having much chance of making progress. That is because on certain Fridays private Members’ Bills have priority if they have come out of Committee, and if we pass the money resolution on my Bill tonight I will probably take 26 October while another Bill that has already gone through will take the November slot; there are no more dates available for private Members’ Bills. I can therefore understand why Members might want to vote against this money resolution tonight, and if they did, I would respect that.

[Philip Davies]

Is my hon. Friend saying that if we vote for this money resolution this evening, the Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill of an Opposition Member would not be able to proceed?

[Mr Bone]

That is exactly what I am saying, because it would come on as a second Bill and therefore, as it is quite a complex Bill, would not get through. I think that some people who may have been involved in rearranging when money resolutions come through—this new idea of having a choice in relation to money resolutions—were aware of that fact, but I am not sure that everyone in this House was. I considered standing up and recommending that Members should not support this money resolution. However, if I did that, I would be playing into the Government’s hands, because that would stop a private Member’s Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bone]

I do apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I think that we have 45 minutes, whatever happens.

I have lost my thread a bit, but the fact is—

[Philip Davies]

Start again if you have lost your thread.

[Mr Bone]

Well, what I am trying to say is that, yes, there is £700,000 of expenditure but we are already paying £700,000 so I am not actually asking for any more money.

I also have a gripe about the time it has taken to get this money resolution here. I am not going to thank the Government for doing this, because I think that that is wrong. This should happen automatically. It is weeks and weeks since the Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill had its Second Reading, and that was on exactly the same day that my Bill had its Second Reading. Mine was afterwards. I think there is something a little bit shifty here. I know that other Members want to speak, so let me just say that I want a money resolution and I want my Bill to move forward, but I will quite understand if the House divides tonight as a matter of principle.

Wind Farm Subsidies (Abolition) Bill

Debate between Peter Bone and Philip Davies

Friday 6th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bone]

There are very many good reasons to vote Conservative in the general election, and that is one of them.

The issue of onshore wind farms has infuriated rural communities the length and breadth of Britain and provoked much debate in the House. Like so many other issues, it is yet another on which I fundamentally disagree with our coalition partners. The arguments against onshore wind are well rehearsed—and they are not what this debate is about—but they should not be dismissed as mere nimbyism, as they go so much deeper. Case studies suggest that wind turbines have an adverse impact on property values, and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has written to the Government on that point. The institution is clear that the Government need to provide evidence that house prices are not directly affected by nearby wind turbines.

A growing body of evidence also suggests that wind turbines have an adverse impact on health and that ETSU-R-97, which regulates noise produced by turbines, is not fit for purpose. I assumed that that was a European Union directive, but unfortunately it is not. Still, it is the sort of thing that would come out of Europe, if it had the opportunity. I know that the Department of Energy and Climate Change is looking into the issue of amplitude modulation at present, though it needs to get a move on, as I am planning to abolish the Department on 20 March in another private Member’s Bill. Leading experts in the field are also looking into that issue, independently of that process, and it will be interesting to see whether those studies reach the same conclusions. This is one of those issues where the evidence tends not to get in the way of fervent belief.

Resentment in many rural communities is growing. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) mentioned Yorkshire, but Northamptonshire in particular has been hit hard by wind farm proposals in the past few years. Indeed, the Watford Gap—the place where some believe the north meets the south—is perhaps one of the best examples of where the impact that wind turbines are having on our national scenery is visible. The sea of wind turbines has created a semi-industrialised vista, with no regard for local views or for the landscape desecration they cause. Thankfully, people in the area have been well represented in fighting against those monstrosities, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), not only for all that he has done to highlight this issue locally, but for galvanising support in this place to bring about real national policy change.

We saw a high-profile battle in Northamptonshire over the Barnwell manor wind farm proposal, which, if approved, would have had a ruinous impact on the historic Lyveden New Bield, which the National Trust describes in these terms:

“Set in the heart of rural Northamptonshire, Lyveden is a remarkable survivor of the Elizabethan age. Begun by Sir Thomas Tresham to symbolise his Catholic faith, Lyveden remains incomplete and virtually unaltered since work stopped on his death in 1605. Discover the mysterious garden lodge and explore the Elizabethan garden with its spiral mounts, terracing and canals. Wander through the new orchard, containing many old varieties of apples and pears, or explore the Lyveden Way, a circular path through beautiful meadows, wooodland and villages.”

With its Elizabethan architectural quirks, accompanied by the tranquillity of rural east Northamptonshire, this really is a beautiful spot and absolutely not somewhere for wind farms.

I pay tribute to East Northamptonshire council, led ably by Steven North, along with Councillor Sylvia Hughes, the ward member representing Lyveden New Bield, for their personal efforts to ensure that the local authority courageously battled against these plans. The development had been approved by the Planning Inspectorate on appeal after the council initially refused planning permission. At that stage, it would have been easy for the council to say, “Well, it’s one of those things. It’s been overruled by the Planning Inspectorate”, but it fought on. Working closely with the National Trust and English Heritage, the council opposed the development every step of the way, and finally High Court proceedings quashed the Planning Inspectorate’s approval. To erect a wind farm on the site would have been an utter travesty, and it is staggering that local people, along with their local authority and the organisations mentioned, had to go to such lengths to stave off this threat.

With all that in mind—I am in no doubt that these frustrations are mirrored in communities up and down the country—is it surprising that people have had enough? That said, credit where credit is due: Conservative Ministers have sought to tighten planning controls to give local communities greater power over deciding these matters and, I hope, to give them more protection against unwanted wind farm plans. In July 2013, Ministers unveiled planning practice guidance for renewable and low-carbon energy that was replaced in March 2014 by updated guidance. The aim was to make it clear that the need for renewable energy did not automatically override environmental protections and local communities’ planning concerns, while ensuring that sufficient weight was given to landscape and visual impact concerns. It also included guidance on how local planning authorities should assess impacts such as noise, safety, interference with electromagnetic transmissions, ecology, heritage, shadow flicker, energy output and cumulative landscape and visual impacts.

One of my constituents and a keen member of my listening campaign, Brian Skittrall, is working hard to ensure that the north Northamptonshire joint core strategy provides the greatest possible protection against unwanted wind turbine developments. Along with Tom Pursglove, the excellent Conservative candidate for Corby, I am working hard to support Brian’s efforts, and I very much hope that common sense will prevail and that those responsible for the document will adopt his recommendation.

The protections are in the national policy, but it is important that they are fully represented in local planning policy documents. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has taken an even greater interest in these matters by calling in a considerable number of wind turbine applications and ensuring that the Planning Inspectorate gives sufficient weight to guidance. I have strong views on the Planning Inspectorate, but those are for another day, and perhaps even a future private Member’s Bill.

While that is welcome, it addresses only part of the problem. For example, turbines often do not work and require regular carbon back-up. They also drive up households’ and small businesses’ energy bills, pushing many into fuel poverty.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his Bill, which I wholeheartedly support. Does he agree that it is quite bizarre for the Labour party to complain that energy bills are too high while supporting this kind of energy, which is doing as much as anything to put up people’s energy bills unnecessarily?

[Mr Bone]

I am not sure my hon. Friend is being fair to the Labour party. Yes, it claims that energy prices are too high but wants more and more wind farms—in Northamptonshire, there are wind farms everywhere—but actually its policy is to freeze energy prices, which means, given that energy prices are falling, that prices would be artificially high. The reason for this policy must be the subsidies it wants for wind farms.

House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Peter Bone and Philip Davies

Friday 27th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is right. He shows why the Bill is unnecessary and perhaps dangerous. He returns me to my initial fear, which is that people will be expelled for doing things that do not warrant expulsion, just because the tide of public opinion has gone in a different direction.

In an intervention, I mentioned tax avoidance. Somebody might have taken part in activities that were perfectly legal at the time and, in fact, seen as acceptable behaviour. Their actions might not have attracted any controversy at all at the time but, as public opinion changes, they might subsequently be seen as unacceptable. The person will be judged on that basis and may well be suspended or expelled from the House of Lords not because they did anything illegal or anything that was seen as unacceptable at the time, but because they did something that had become unacceptable. I worry that that is the dangerous route we are going down with the Bill. I predict that we will be in that situation at some point if the Bill is passed in its current form, so amendments 8, 14 and 15 are important safeguards that I hope my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire will consider.

I promised to touch on amendment 20, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), and I do not intend to break that promise. Because he was being even more brief than normal, he did not expand on it in any detail. It states that “nothing in this section”—clause 1—

“shall authorise the expulsion or suspension of members of the House of Lords on the grounds of age, health or length of service”.

I would like to think that all Members agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiment that people should not be expelled or suspended on that basis. He is right to be alert to the fact that if we do not tightly define the rules under which people can be expelled or suspended, we will open up the possibility, whether or not it is intended or likely, of people using the Bill as a Trojan horse to pursue a different agenda from the one that Members currently envisage.

My right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire is a very reasonable man, and I am sure that he would not countenance anybody being expelled or suspended on the grounds of age, health or length of service. I am absolutely sure that that is nowhere near his mind. However, the point is not what is in somebody’s mind now, even the mind of the promoter of the Bill; it is how the Bill could be used at some future date if we do not define the rules tightly.

It may well be that because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said, the size of the House of Lords has become completely ridiculous, people will look for an easy way to reduce the numbers. Of course, one of the easiest ways of reducing the numbers at a stroke would be to say, “Anybody above a certain age—you’re out. We’re going to take a particular point in time, draw a line, and if you’re on the wrong side of it, you’re out. If necessary, we’ll use these powers we’ve now got to enforce that new rule, because the public mood is that the House of Lords has got too big, and we’ve got to do something about it. This is the easiest way.” I really do fear that that could well happen. I am not saying that it will happen in the short term, but I can certainly see it happening in the medium term. People may pooh-pooh my hon. Friend’s amendment at the moment, scoff and say, “It’s absolutely ridiculous—that would never happen.” Well, let’s see.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. I suppose it could also be argued that if society moved forward and thought that legislatures had to have an equal balance of men and women, there could be a cull of male peers.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he highlights potential unintended consequences of the Bill—it could be a useful vehicle for people to use in future for purposes that were never envisaged. People can scoff and pooh-pooh the points that are being made, but who knows what decisions people might want to come to in the future and how they might use the Bill as a Trojan horse to pursue that agenda?

Amendment 20, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, is certainly worth considering, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire will examine it and see that there is a legitimate fear about how the Bill could be used in future. Nobody is trying to scupper the Bill; people are trying to improve it and make it what we all intend it to be. I would like to think that my right hon. Friend will see that we are trying to deliver what he envisages the Bill doing. I have not heard him disagree with any of the points that have been made; he just seems to think that the things being described will not happen. That is where we might have a slight disagreement.

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 3)

Debate between Peter Bone and Philip Davies

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bone]

I hate to criticise the Whips Office, but it was clearly not doing its job properly when it let hon. Members such as my hon. Friend—serious parliamentarians who want to scrutinise the Bill—slip through.

[Philip Davies]

I think that what my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) was trying to say was that every Government member of the Committee was critical of the Bill because it did not go far enough and they wanted it to be strengthened. In effect, that is what the Government wanted them to say, because they could then say, “We’ve had so much pressure put on us that we’ve had to strengthen the Bill.” Those Government Members were put on the Committee not to be unhelpful, but to be as helpful as possible.

[Mr Bone]

I am afraid that that rings true. On occasion, I myself have been asked to do things on behalf of the Whips and I am afraid that sometimes I have succumbed and made noises that appeared to be contrary to the Government’s views but that turned out to be what they thought all along. The European Union Act 2011 is a fine example of that.

I want to make a brief point of principle. The problem with the timing results from the fact that the programming of Parliament is controlled entirely by the Executive. Parliament has already agreed to a timetable motion, which in my opinion it did not need to do. It does not need programme motions; we should be able to scrutinise Bills for the time that Parliament thinks necessary. The programme motion, which went through on Second Reading, gave a whole day to consider the Bill and give it its Third Reading. That is what we should be doing today. The only reason why the debate is being restricted—again, the shadow Minister let this slip out—is that amendments have been tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for Christchurch. The Government are trying to restrict scrutiny.

The Deputy Leader of the House is back in his place—

[Philip Davies]

The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) is not the Deputy Leader of the House— he is a Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs now

[Mr Bone]

Oh, sorry. Good God! I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister. I now understand entirely why he has to be here—had he been Deputy Leader of the House, he would not have been present. I understand that he is now part of the great Government machine and that when someone on a sofa in Downing street decides something, it has to be forced through. I apologise for misunderstanding why he is sitting on the Front Bench today.

The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) is a very good Minister and she is doing a fine job, but if she believes her own arguments that the Bill is uncontroversial and that three hours is enough to debate it, why not withdraw the programme motion and let the House take its own course? She would then be a star of Parliament—she already is a star, but she would be an even greater star—and that would show the public that the Government are not afraid of scrutiny.

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords]

Debate between Peter Bone and Philip Davies

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he seems to have indicated—I will take it as such—that he will support my new clause 1 or new clause 2. He gets to the nub of the point, although I suspect he has not even bothered to read the new clauses, because if he had he would not have led with his chin in the way that he just has.

I wish to make it clear at this point that, with your permission, Mr Speaker, I would prefer to press new clause 2 to a Division than new clause 1, but I will be guided by you later on that.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He has been exceptionally generous throughout his speech.

I have been looking at new clauses 1 and 2, and they seem to be the same except for the level of turnover specified in them. Is that the case, and will my hon. Friend go into some detail on that?

[Philip Davies]

As ever, my hon. Friend is eagle-eyed. The amendments are the same, but the purpose of tabling two was to give the House a choice, because as it happened, I envisaged the interventions that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) has made.

At Asda, we found huge reluctance on the part of suppliers to stop special offers. They lobbied Asda for ever to do more and more of them to promote their brands, and an everyday low price did not offer them the same marketing opportunity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful, Mr Speaker, but people ought to be aware that the Bill leaves great scope for the adjudicator to decide what to do. People should not have too much faith. The Bill deliberately gives it massive power and freedom.

[Mr Bone]

We have very limited time, because the House agreed to the programme motion, so perhaps we could speed things up. I notice that the Minister has been deep in conversation and looking at the new clauses. I wonder if she might intervene and accept new clause 2, because then we could move on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bone]

I am considering whether to support new clause 3. Am I right in understanding that if, in seven years’ time, the post of adjudicator turns out to have been superfluous, it would just fade away, whereas if it has been a good measure, Prime Minister Cameron would, in his 21st year or whatever, be able to reintroduce it?

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is right. He knows as well as I do that if such a sunset clause is not introduced, and if the Bill is shown to be a completely unnecessary waste of time and an expensive bit of bureaucracy that we could well have done without, it will carry on endlessly. Nobody will have the guts to do anything about it. The provision will provide a mechanism for getting rid of the legislation if it is seen to be unnecessary. If it were seen to be necessary—who knows, I do not think it will, but it might—people could bring it back and would be anxious to get the legislation in place again. My new clause 3 will stop some ridiculous white elephant carrying on in perpetuity, when it is seen to be unnecessary. I say in passing that it would be sensible if more Bills had sunset clauses included in them, so that we can analyse whether they have been worthwhile and have done what was said on the tin.

My intention in this group of amendments has been to focus on new clauses 1 and 2. With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to divide the House on new clause 2, which would put the same £1 billion threshold on suppliers as applies in the Bill for the retailers themselves. There seems no good reason to me why the same figure should not apply to both sides of the equation. A Division will enable us all to see who has gone into the Lobby to look after the interests of big multinational suppliers and who effectively wants their constituents to pay more for their shopping to benefit the bottom line of those companies.

I do not believe I was sent to Parliament to boost the profits of Heinz, Mars or Nestlé, who are perfectly capable of looking after their own interests. I want my constituents to pay the lowest price necessary for the products they buy in the supermarket. They are already struggling with the cost of living. How ridiculous it would be if we were to put legislation in place that made them pay more than they would otherwise need to pay for their shopping. I hope that the Government will see sense and realise that the same equation should apply on both sides of the supply chain—to retailers and suppliers. I hope they will think about that and listen to reason. If they do not, I hope the House will force them to do so.

Canterbury City Council Bill

Debate between Peter Bone and Philip Davies

Thursday 31st January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

I take my hon. Friend’s point, but I trust that police and crime commissioners have bigger fish to fry.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey will support my amendments. As was made clear earlier, they also apply to the other Bills with which we are dealing today. We are not picking on Canterbury in particular, but it is the first Bill on the Order Paper.

[Philip Davies]

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) not just for his speech, although it was of the customary calibre, but for his dedication in ensuring that, if the Bill ever leaves this place, it will leave in a much better state than the state in which it arrived. Without my hon. Friend’s personal dedication to this issue, and his determination that we should do what we ought to do in this place—that is, defend people’s freedoms and defend enterprise—the Bill would have passed through Parliament in a much less satisfactory manner.

Like my hon. Friend, I am grateful for the work that was done by their lordships. I do not know whether my hon. Friend felt the same, but I feared that the Bill would go through on the nod in the House of Lords. Their lordships should be commended for going through it in great detail and considering the arguments properly, and, consequently, tabling some amendments with which I think we can be particularly pleased.

I agree with what my hon. Friend said about many of the amendments. He focused on the subject of seizures, and on the Lords amendments that proposed the omission of various clauses relating to it. He may recall that the issue caused great controversy when it was debated for the first time in this place. It struck me as unacceptable that local authorities should employ authorised officers to go around seizing people’s goods willy-nilly. As my hon. Friend will recall, we argued the case vehemently for many months. We were told that the clauses were essential to the Bill, and that without them it would be unworkable and meaningless. We were also told that the proposals in the amendments would be unenforceable, and that they were in effect wrecking amendments: that, if I remember rightly, is what my hon. Friend was accused of when he tried to persuade the promoters that what they were saying was over the top.

I should be interested to know why the promoters thought that removing those clauses then would wreck the Bill, whereas removing them today apparently does not wreck it all. It seems that it will still be fit to proceed into law. It is difficult for us to consider the merits of the amendments until we are given some satisfactory answers to the question of how important the clauses are to the Bill as a whole.

I have the impression that we have reached a stage at which the promoters are determined to produce an Act of Parliament, irrespective of what is in it and whether anything that is in it will ever be applied. This seems to have become a war of attrition, a battle of wills. The promoters seem merely to want an Act of Parliament to hang their hat on. I certainly support the removal of all these clauses—page after page of them—and I think we should be grateful for the fact that the promoters may have come round to my hon. Friend’s way of thinking.

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend has made a good point. Is there not a chance that because so much council tax payers’ money has been wasted on Bills that were not thought through thoroughly to start with, the promoters are determined to drive through a Bill to justify that waste?

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is right. A similar attitude was taken by the previous Government. The idea is to waste a lot of money on something that is clearly not working, and then, instead of drawing stumps and cutting your losses, to keep spending more and more, just so that there is something to show for all the money spent. All that happens, though, is that even more money is wasted.

[Mr Bone]

Is that not what the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) said in his autobiography about the Dome? The last Labour Government were affected by exactly the same syndrome.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is far better read than I am. The right hon. Gentleman’s book is gathering dust on my shelf, and I have not got round to reading it. However, I will look out for that section when I do get round to it. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch had to say about seizures, and our comments about seized items are on the record from the previous debates. I stand by what I said then and I am sure that he also stands by what he said, and I am delighted that their lordships have agreed.

Scrap Metal Dealers Bill

Debate between Peter Bone and Philip Davies

Friday 13th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

I am sure that the police are reassured to know that the hon. Gentleman is not wholeheartedly behind them, but I am sure that they still welcome his move in their direction on this issue. As I made clear just before you arrived in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, I must press on as I have to go to an engagement in Yorkshire, which will be a huge relief to all Members in the Chamber.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Before my hon. Friend concludes his opening remarks, will he confirm that the real question the House has to decide on this afternoon is whether this is being done because the Government have to be seen to be doing something or because it will actually move the issue forward?

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is right.

In summary—I reiterate that I mean no discourtesy to anyone by having to leave pretty smartly after finishing speaking and hope that no offence is taken—we all agree that there is a problem and that this is a terrible crime that needs to be tackled robustly. What we have to consider today is whether the Bill will actually bring about the kind of change we want to see that will stop the outrages that we have all seen in our local communities. I am not entirely persuaded.

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South for raising the issue and know that his intentions are absolutely honourable. In many respects, I hope that I am wrong, that he is right and that these changes will bring about the difference we all want to see, but I am not necessarily convinced. It is very easy on these occasions for us all to say, “This is absolutely marvellous, so let’s rush headlong into this and go along with it.” It is the duty of this House occasionally to pause, think and ask, “Are we absolutely convinced that this will do what we hope it will do?”

I hope that the Bill gets a fair hearing today on Second Reading and do not intend to cause my hon. Friend any problems in that respect, but I hope that he will think about it so that in Committee and on Report we can look again at some of the issues and think about whether we can do something that will make a real difference, not just something that sounds good, looks good, reads well in the local media but which, in a few years’ time, will not have sorted out the problem that we need to tackle.

Taxation Freedom Day Bill

Debate between Peter Bone and Philip Davies

Friday 25th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is very kind. I would not be so bold as to say that my amendments would improve his Bill, as it is perfectly good in its current form. I am merely using this opportunity to suggest some ways in which it could, perhaps, be strengthened. If my hon. Friend is seeking cross-party consensus and therefore does not entirely share my agenda, I could, perhaps, be persuaded to ditch some of my more strident amendments in order to get the basic measures through. I merely offer these amendments up now to show that the Bill could be improved.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

My hon. Friend was making a very good speech up to that point; the idea that he should retreat or give in on any issue is appalling, but when he is absolutely right, as he is on this one, I must ask him to press it very firmly in Committee.

[Philip Davies]

Again, my hon. Friend is very kind. I am probably more strident than my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) is clearly more strident than I am, so I invite him to take part in more debates that I am involved in to show what a moderate I am. His presence is very helpful in that regard and I thank him for that.

The country is in a massive financial hole. I want to stress that I do not think that the Bill is simply something that will add transparency to the situation so that people can see where they stand; I think it has the potential to be much better and more radical than that. It will give an opportunity for people in this country to start questioning seriously why our rates of tax need to be so high, given that other countries, often ones doing better than us, seem to manage with a much lower rate of tax. If we can get that agenda discussed in politics, we can do something that will transform the British economy—it does need transforming.

We cannot carry on as we are, trying to get ourselves out of huge debt by scoring a few quick singles here and there. We need to go for some boundaries—we need to go for some fours and sixes if we are to get ourselves out of this. Quick running between the wickets, on its own, is not going to make any impression. The Bill has the potential to change radically the way we think about taxation in this country, and about how we press our Governments to do the right thing and be more efficient in the way they do government.

I do not want to overstay my welcome, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I will close on that point, but I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering that, once again, he has put a vital issue on to the political agenda. Although my speech will certainly not have persuaded the Government to support his Bill, I still see no reason why his speech would not have done so. I look forward to the Government supporting the Bill and at least allowing it to go into Committee.

Employment Opportunities Bill

Debate between Peter Bone and Philip Davies

Friday 17th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

The point is that if an employer is considering two candidates, one who has disabilities and one who does not, and if they have to pay them both the same rate, which is the employer more likely to take on? Whether that is right or wrong and whether my hon. Friend would or would not do that, that is to me the real world in which we operate. The people who are penalised are those with disabilities who are desperate to make a contribution to society and who want to get on the employment ladder, but find time and again that the door is closed in their face. If they could prove themselves earlier and reassure the employer who took them on that they would not cause a problem in the way the employer might fear—I am sure that there are a lot of myths out there and that many of these people would be just as productive as those without a disability—they might well move up the pay rates much more quickly. At the moment, they are not getting any opportunities at all.

We all know that some employers break the law and pay below the national minimum wage, but it strikes me that the only way employers are likely to get away with that is if they employ illegal immigrants. If an employer is employing a British citizen or someone who is here legally and tries paying them below the minimum wage, legal action can be taken against them, they will face a huge fine and the employee can do something about it. If that employer is employing an illegal immigrant, the power rests with the employer, because they will judge that the illegal immigrant will not take up the case officially. If they do, their illegal status in this country will be exposed and they will be turfed out of the country.

One consequence of the national minimum wage is that it encourages illegal immigration into this country. Illegal immigrants know that they can get employment below the national minimum wage and are happy to do so because it is probably higher than the wage they would earn back in their country. They also know that they will have no problem getting a job because some employers will be crying out for someone whom they can pay less than the national minimum wage. I am not sure whether any research has been done on this, but I would be interested to know how much illegal immigration into this country has come about as a result of the introduction of a national minimum wage.

Whatever the effects on employment of a minimum wage are in general, its effects in a recession must be worse. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch may well have made this point before I entered the Chamber, as I was a few minutes late, but people will recall that at the start of the credit crunch, or recession, a couple of companies—my hon. Friend, who is more knowledgeable on this than I am, will correct me if I am wrong, but I am sure that those companies were JCB and Corus—told the people working there that the wage bill needed to be reduced by 20%, so either 20% of the staff could be made redundant or everyone could take a 20% pay cut. One way or another that wage bill had to be reduced. If I remember rightly, the workers in those places—JCB sticks in my mind in particular—got together and voted to take a 20% pay cut. They made that choice themselves. Rather than being made redundant, they chose to take a pay cut.

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech, but does he agree that a 20% pay cut is not a 20% cut in take-home pay for those people who take the cut, because they save on the tax, and is more than a 20% saving for the employer because there is not the same on-cost? It helps both ways, but it is not quite the same.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is right and reinforces my point. Those people decided they would prefer a 20% cut to risking a 20% chance of being made redundant.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity in trying to debate his own Bill before it gets the chance to get off the ground. I will not incur your wrath, Mr Deputy Speaker, by debating that other Bill.

[Mr Bone]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Philip Davies]

I will in a second.

Where the hon. Member for Manchester Central and I disagree is that I think that reducing taxation stimulates the economy and ends up giving more revenue to the Exchequer. I know that he has been about a long time. He will find that, in the golden age when Mrs Thatcher was Prime Minister, she proved beyond all doubt that, if we cut the rate of tax, we can increase the receipts from tax, because it stimulates the economy.

[Philip Davies]

As ever, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am grateful for your guidance. I am sure that you are right that I was in danger of being taken away from the main issue by the hon. Member for Manchester Central. I am happy to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), unless he feels that he will also incur the wrath of the Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Bone]

I am afraid I am stumped by the Deputy Speaker’s comments.

[Philip Davies]

We are all grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your guidance.

Prisoners (Voting Rights)

Debate between Peter Bone and Philip Davies

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) in this debate. I congratulate him on his knighthood. Perhaps one reason why he got it is that he is an independent Member of Parliament who has always been willing to go against the popular tide. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on introducing this important debate. I must say that I am on his side on this issue.

I am aware that the winding-up speeches will start in nine minutes’ time, so I will be extremely brief. Three members of the Backbench Business Committee are in the Chamber today, as are 24 coalition Members and a number of Members from Her Majesty’s Opposition. It is wholly inappropriate that this issue should be left to a Westminster Hall debate, as Members speaking on all sides of the argument have said, so I will not discuss the issue itself, as it should be debated in the main Chamber under a substantive motion. I urge hon. Members to go along to the public sitting of the Backbench Business Committee next Tuesday and argue the case for having this debate in the main Chamber on a substantive motion.

The only thing that I will say on the issue is this. We have discussed the coalition Government’s four-year rule. It is a classic case of the Government saying something and then caving in later—by reducing it to a year, for example—and saying, “There we are; we’ve listened to Back-Bench Members of Parliament, and we’re complying.” To me, the issue is straightforward: either no prisoners should have the vote, or all prisoners should. The arguments are clear. It either is or is not a good thing for society that prisoners should have the vote. If it is a bad thing, then no prisoners should have the vote; I take that view. The other, crucial matter is parliamentary sovereignty and who decides the laws of this country. That issue must be developed in much greater depth during a longer debate.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend says that the Government have gone too far in order to be seen to be scaling back. Is not the other alternative that they have gone so far as a sop to our coalition partners? Does my hon. Friend agree that if that is the case, the Government have forgotten once again that they are in coalition with the Conservatives as well as the Liberal Democrats? It is rather ungrateful of the Liberal Democrats that only one has bothered to appear to support the Government’s sop to them.

[Mr Bone]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. There may well be some truth behind it. I will conclude so that other Members can speak. Again, I hope that hon. Members will go along on Tuesday and urge the Backbench Business Committee to hold a debate on this subject in the main Chamber.

London Local Authorities Bill [Lords] (By Order)

Debate between Peter Bone and Philip Davies

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

If somebody is legally able to park their vehicle on a particular part of the street, it does not matter to me whether it is my next-door neighbour’s car, a car somebody is selling, or an ice cream van. My suggested solution to the hon. Gentleman, to which he may not have given any consideration, is that if he does not think that cars should be parked in a particular location, his local authority should put down double yellow lines so that people are not allowed to park there. If people are allowed to park at a particular point, what on earth does it matter whether it is my next-door neighbour’s car or somebody else’s car with a small sticker saying, “For sale: £500”. It seems to make a big difference to the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot see why. I ask him to reflect on why he decides that he is a Liberal when he has such an illiberal approach towards people selling their property.

I wish to concentrate on the licensing aspects of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Minister made a perfectly good point about clause 23, which is wholly unnecessary. A couple of years ago, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, on which I serve, undertook a report on the Licensing Act 2003. We took evidence about certain clubs, including lap-dancing clubs, and we made recommendations about how best they might be licensed. As my hon. Friend made clear, the previous Government, in the last throes of the last Parliament, created new legislation enabling lap-dancing clubs to be licensed as sex encounter establishments—something that people may or may not agree with. As he said, the job has been done. The last thing anybody needs is a London Local Authorities Bill to start trampling all over the licensing regime dealt with by the previous Government and which does much of what the Bill seeks to do. I seek confirmation from him that he will strike out clause 23, which even the biggest supporters of the Bill would concede is completely and utterly unnecessary.

My main point concerns the seizure of goods. I cannot emphasise enough how absolutely outrageous the Bill’s provisions are in this regard. The only fair way to do this is to quote a small section of the explanatory notes. I would be astonished if people who read it were not completely outraged by what is proposed. It says:

“Westminster City Council officers already have power to seize items used in unlawful street trading where the items are required for evidential purposes, or where the items are subject to forfeiture by the courts. On a street trading prosecution, if there is a conviction, the magistrates’ court can order the forfeiture of any goods seized in relation to the offence.”

So the provision is already in statute. It continues:

“Authorised officers cannot exercise their powers of seizure unless they suspect that a street trading offence has been committed.”

The London local authorities are complaining that they cannot exercise their powers of seizure unless they suspect that a street trading offence has been committed. That is not good enough for them: they want to be able to seize these goods even when they do not suspect that an offence has been committed. They say that Westminster city council officers already

“use the powers regularly in the West End”

to deal with

“unlawful sales of hotdogs and other hot food from portable stands.”

But they complain:

“City council officers are unable to seize hotdog trolleys until the vending begins.”

That is not good enough for the poor local authorities—they cannot seize these things until an offence has been committed and somebody actually trades. So they want, through the Bill, to

“enable City Council officers”—

pettifogging bureaucrats in the local authority with, no doubt, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset said, their peaked caps—

“to seize receptacles which are in a street and which the officers have reasonable cause to suspect are intended to be used in connection with a street trading offence.”

Can Members imagine where we would be if the police started arresting everybody who was walking down the street because they might go into the nearest shop and start shoplifting? We are giving such a power to council officers, which is totally unacceptable. Any hon. Member who supports a Bill that provides such powers should be ashamed of themselves if they believe that they support freedoms in this country.

[Mr Bone]

I have to make my mind up whether to support the Bill if there is a Division. Is my hon. Friend suggesting that we should vote against it?

[Philip Davies]

I certainly am. I would urge any right-minded person, particularly with a conservative philosophy, to do so, because nothing in it supports such a philosophy.

It gets worse than local authorities wanting the power to seize things they have reasonable cause to suspect are intended for some kind of offence. Let us imagine that I am walking down the streets of Westminster trying to take home a hot-dog trolley that I had just bought. What would I do if a local council bureaucrat came along and said, “Hold on, you might use that to sell hot-dogs illegally, so I’m going to take it off you”? Is that really the type of country we want to live in, and are we happy to pass such legislation? Not only would local authorities be able to seize the hot-dog trolley that I had bought legitimately and was transporting home, but they would be able to seize any vehicle used to transport it where they found it in the street. Are we going to give council officers that power? We must be stark raving mad even to think about giving the Bill a Second Reading.

The Minister and the shadow Minister say casually, “Oh, well, of course there are some deficiencies in the Bill, but let’s just iron them out in Committee.” On that basis we may as well not bother with the Second Reading of any Bill. If we are saying, “We all know the Bill’s a load of drivel, but we’ll pass it now so we look as if we’re being supportive and then fillet it in Committee”, we might as well just let every Bill go into Committee and see what we can do from there on.

The point of Second Readings is that Members may not like certain legislation in principle. I do not like this Bill or the philosophy behind it, which is anti-small business and anti-freedom, and I do not like the draconian powers that some council officers seem to think are theirs by right—not in the country that I want to live in.

Use of the Chamber (United Kingdom Youth Parliament)

Debate between Peter Bone and Philip Davies

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

I do not accept the premise of that argument; the basis on which Youth Parliament members are elected is not exactly the same.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech as usual. I had not intended to intervene, but on the last point I should say that the difference between the Youth Parliament and this Parliament is that we are allowed to stand under party labels, whereas Youth Parliament members cannot. It is not the same as this Parliament.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is right about that technical difference between the Youth Parliament and this one. I am not sure that that negates the point made by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood); any Parliament should be made up as it sees fit. However, I do not particularly accept his premise to start with. He is scrabbling around trying to find what is different about the UK Youth Parliament as opposed to any of these other worthy bodies.

I will tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, what is different about the UK Youth Parliament and its relationship with this Chamber. What is different is that we have, in my opinion, the sight of a lot of very sad people trying pathetically to ingratiate themselves with young people in their constituencies, which is absolutely painful to behold. They think that this is a trendy course to follow. If they want to try to look trendy with their constituents, they will argue that they want to have the UK Youth Parliament sitting here so that they can go back and say, “I’m trendy, I supported you.” It is frankly rather pathetic. That is the only difference between the UK Youth Parliament and all these other bodies, however hard hon. Members scrabble around for differences between it and anything else.

City of Westminster Bill [Lords]

Debate between Peter Bone and Philip Davies

Monday 5th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

That may well be true.

I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), without whose dogged pursuit of the issue we probably would not have reached this stage this evening. We all owe him a great debt of gratitude—certainly, genuine pedlars do, because without his persistence, many bad bits of legislation would have been passed to their detriment. I am sure that we are all grateful that he is here keeping people’s feet to the fire to ensure that unworthy legislation is not sneaked through the House.

The Minister’s contribution to the debate was especially helpful, although, inadvertently I suspect, it questioned whether the Bill and related Bills are worth reviving. He seems much more determined than the previous Government to see progress on national legislation in this field. If we are to move quickly towards such legislation, it is utterly pointless for local authorities to pursue their own private legislation, which, as he seemed to indicate, may shortly be trumped by a national framework.

[Mr Bone]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point, but national legislation might just be enabling legislation to allow local authorities to make their own decisions. Therefore, there might be some reason to revive the Bills.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend might be right, on this as he is on most issues. The Minister was at pains to stress that he would not prejudge what the national framework and legislation would be. The question is whether the Bills are worth reviving in light of the fact that the Government will push on with some kind of national legislation. The matter would have been more clear cut if the Government had said that they have no intention of pursuing national legislation, and that it was for local people to make up their own minds through local authorities. The Minister has slightly muddied the waters.

We all believe in the principle of localism. No one argues with that. My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) made a forceful defence of localism, and I would tend to share his enthusiasm. However, it is difficult to expect people to know the different legislation relating to peddling as they move from one local authority to another. Certainly, when I am in London, I find it difficult to know which local authority I am in, because there is no obvious boundary between one London local authority and another. It might be clear if one is a resident and can benefit from the low council tax that Westminster city council provides, but otherwise it is difficult to know which part of London one is in.

Canterbury City Council Bill

Debate between Peter Bone and Philip Davies

Monday 5th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bone]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for that most helpful intervention.

[Philip Davies]

I hope my hon. Friend agrees that we might allow Nottingham the same benefit as that given to Canterbury, in the light of the hon. Lady’s extremely helpful intervention, of the constructive nature of the comments of both Nottingham Members, and of the willingness to negotiate and discuss this issue in more detail.

[Mr Bone]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention; I was actually coming round to that view myself. The interventions have been most helpful, and it does show that argument in this House can win the day.

I have to commend the Liberal Democrat Minister; I think he is almost now a Tory Minister, given the way he is performing. He is doing exceptionally well. I point out, just so the House knows, that it is a credit to this coalition Government that there is no whipping on this side of the House. We are entirely free to do what we wish—on almost everything, but certainly on tonight’s business. That is in contrast with what happened in the last Parliament, on occasion, when private business was discussed here, when I felt that the heavy hand of the Government Whips was behind some of the things that happened.