Peter Bone MP: Religious institutions should not be under attack from the Charity Commission

Peter Bone is the Member of Parliament for Wellingborough.  Follow Peter on Twitter.

The issue of the state interfering with religion has raised its ugly head once more.  It is not the redefinition of marriage or interfering with the ability of the Church of England to run its own affairs.  No it is a much more dangerous issue that threatens not just the Christian Church but all recognised religious groups in this country, the dwindling recognition by the state that religious institutions are a public benefit and should be considered charities.

The Charity Commission has recently removed the charitable status of the Preston Down Trust, a member of the Plymouth Brethren, claiming that they are not a public benefit and therefore cannot have charitable status.  A religious group that has been classed as a charity for decades, that has raised money for good causes and supported its local communities has had its status removed because the Charity Commission does not see access to worship and the advancement of religion as a public benefit anymore.  This is another sign of a growing secular movement against religious groups in this country and another example of the state interfering with the church.  The Charity Commission does not and should not have the power to decide what religion is good or bad, its role should be to assist religious groups in fulfilling their charitable roles not condemning them. 

Today, Wednesday 19th December, I will be presenting a 10 Minute Rule Bill on the floor of the House to amend the Charities Act 2011.  This will reintroduce the presumption that religious institutions are of a public benefit and therefore eligible for charitable status, as they have been considered for hundreds of years dating back to the Charitable Uses Act of 1601.  The Charities Act 2006, which was consolidated into the Charities Act 2011, removed the presumption that religious institutions should be considered a public benefit. 

Peter Bone MP: A case for a Conservative Minority Government

Peter Bone is Member of Parliament for Wellingborough.

Yesterday the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister announced the re-launch of the Coalition government, again! Dave and Nick would have us believe that there are only two options, a Coalition government or a snap General Election. However, I believe that there is a Third Way: a Conservative Minority Government.

The last minority government in this country was a Labour administration between March 1974 and October 1974. After 7 months governing as a minority government, Harold Wilson went to the country and was returned with an overall majority. Labour then continued to govern until May 1979.

It is currently argued that minority governments cannot get laws passed, however the Wilson minority government passed at least 27 new laws in 7 months. Not only did it govern effectively, it led to 5 years of Labour majority government.

There are three key reasons why a Conservative minority government is the best way forward:

Peter Bone MP: Redefining marriage threatens the liberties of Christians, teachers and parents

In today's Sunday Telegraph Cardinal Keith O’Brien, the leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland, poured scorn on Coalition plans to introduce gay marriage. Peter Bone, Conservative MP for Wellingborough, joins the debate in this article - agreeing with the 97,129 people who (at the time of blogging) have signed the one man, one woman equals marriage petition.

Later this month Lynne Featherstone, the equalities minister will announce a consultation to redefine traditional marriage to allow gay marriage.

To many this might seem like a trivial matter, indeed since the introduction of Civil Partnerships in 2004 same sex couple already enjoy the same rights that married couple do.

So why are so many people concerned about this change, well, firstly there is a democratic deficit. This change was not in my own party’s manifesto, or indeed in Labour’s or the Lib Dems and the proposed consultation, will be about how to make the change, not if.

Then there are the dozens of questions, which despite being asked continue to go unanswered. It’s as if those centred around the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister believe that redefining marriage is a simple task, one that can be done at the stroke of a pen - It cannot be.

The institution of marriage is woven into the fabric of our nation - it affects our courts, inheritance rights and even our schools.

And it is the effect on our schools, children and teachers that is worrying so many.

Peter Bone MP: My Parliamentary Bill to temporarily withdraw from the ECHR so we can immediately deport Abu Qatada

Peter Bone MP introduces a Parliamentary Bill to temporarily withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights and to allow Abu Qatada to be deported forthwith!

Today I have introduced a presentation bill to temporarily withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, under Article 58.

This bill is being presented as a response to the situation caused by the European Court of Human Rights refusing to sanction the British Supreme Courts ruling that the extremist Abu Qatada should be deported back to Jordan and face trial in his home country.

The aim of this legislation is to allow the United Kingdom to temporarily withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights so the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Abu Qatada can be upheld. Once this is done there will be the option for the United Kingdom to go straight back in to the European Convention on Human Rights.  This course of action is in line with Article 58 of the convention, so the deportation would not only be legal it would also not put us in conflict with the European Court of Human Rights.

Of course I would ideally like and in the future I will campaign for a British Bill of rights and a complete withdrawal from the European Convention on Human rights. This would allow the United Kingdom Supreme Court to be the ultimate decision maker not the European Court of Human Rights.

In practice the bill would be passed in Parliament first. Then the council of Europe would be given six months notice that the United Kingdom would withdraw from the convention, this is in line with the requirements under Article 58. In this six month period it is highly likely that the Council of Europe would fight tremendously hard to keep the United Kingdom in the convention. They would move heaven and earth to find a solution to allow Abu Qatada to be deported back to Jordan. Therefore, in practice the United Kingdom would not actually withdraw from the convention as the threat of doing so will be enough to force the court to allow the extremist Abu Qatada to be sent back to Jordan. However, if some sort of compromise like this does not occur then the United Kingdom would legally be within its rights to send the extremist Abu Qatada back home.

Peter Bone MP: Would Nick Clegg take over if Cameron was killed?

Peter Bone is Conservative MP for Wellingborough.

For a government that is so very keen on transparency there is a strange reluctance to say who would take over in a national emergency if the Prime Minister was incapacitated or killed. Yesterday I asked the Secretary of State for Defence who would take over as head of the government if the Prime Minster was killed in a terrorist attack, yet again a Minster of the crown refused to answer this simple but important question.

This is not the case in other countries. For instance if the American President is assassinated the Vice President takes over immediately and if he is incapacitated as well then there is a line of responsibility which is clear and known. With the United Kingdom on a ‘substantial’ terror alert, it is not too farfetched to envisage a situation where the Prime Minister is assassinated and at the same time there would be ongoing terror attacks around the country. The cabinet cannot be summoned, a discussion takes place and an acting Prime Minster elected, there just wouldn’t be enough time. The military would want instant decisions on what response to take. There should be a pre determined succession, so everyone would know who the acting Prime Minster was. There may of course be a secret plan of who would be in charge but in a democracy we should know in advance. By nature of any secret plan confusion would reign in the immediate aftermath of a severe terrorist attack.

The Parliamentary Conservative party is moving from Euroscepticism towards supporting withdrawal from the EU

Peter Bone is Conservative MP for Wellingborough.

Jonathan Isaby's article earlier today on Conservative Home accurately recorded that twnety Conservative MP’s defied a heavy three-line whip and voted for an in/out referendum on the European Union last night. Of those twenty, seven were from the pre-2005 intake, five were from the 2005 intake and eight were from the 2010 intake - clearly showing that there is concern over European Union across both experienced and new Conservative members.

But what is more interesting is the hidden detail behind the headline. First and perhaps most obvious, is that not a single Liberal Democrat MP supported an in/out referendum, which was in line with their party’s manifesto at the last election. The 2010 Liberal manifesto entitled Change that works for you, building a fairer Britain, stated:

“The European Union has evolved significantly since the last public vote on membership over thirty years ago. Liberal Democrats therefore remain committed to an in/out referendum”

Despite this pledge of principle, 43 Liberal Democrats voted against an in/out referendum and fourteen abstained. Not a single one voted in line with the party’s general election pledge.

However, what is more interesting still is the hidden detail behind the Conservative vote.

Peter Bone MP: The Government whips may live to regret stifling debate on the detail of the European Union Bill

Peter Bone is Conservative MP for Wellingborough.

Yesterday on ConservativeHome the Minster for Europe, David Lidington MP wrote:

"This week the new European Union Bill will go through intense scrutiny by MPs as its details are debated, and rightly so. The EU bill is the most radical piece of legislation on how we handle the EU since Britain joined the then EEC in 1973."

Having waited yesterday for six and half hours in the chamber of the House of Commons for my amendment on an in/out referendum to be called, only to see a government filibuster which resulted in only one set of amendments being debated, I find this statement difficult to believe.

Perhaps the Minister for Europe should have said in his ConservativeHome article:

"This week the new European Union Bill will be rushed through the House of Commons, with as little scrutiny as possible by MPs. Its details will not be debated and rightly so. The EU Bill is the most irrelevant and unimaginative piece of legislation on how we handle the EU since Britain joined the then EEC in 1973."

My amendment 48 to the European Union Bill was always going to be a controversial amendment, as it asked for an in/out referendum on the European Union if certain criteria were met. I know my amendment was going to attract substantial support from the Tory benches; unfortunately, so did the whips. Having found out that many Conservative MP’s were happy to support and vote for the principle of an in/out referendum despite all the whips' pressure, they took an alternative course of action.

In a classic whips' operation, they arranged for pliable backbenchers to speak at length on the opening group of amendments to stop debate on mine or any subsequent amendments. In all, the whips managed to stop any debate on four clauses and twenty five amendments.  Hardly intense scrutiny by MPs.

Peter Bone MP: It's time for an ‘in’ or ‘out’ referendum on Europe

Peter Bone is Conservative MP for Wellingborough.

Today I am writing the article not in my normal position as a right-wing Conservative but for the first time as a coalitionist. I am writing it not as a Eurosceptic, but as someone who is trying to bridge the gap between Euro-enuthusiasts and Eurosceptics.

It has been nearly 36 years since the last referendum on Europe. This means that no one under the age of 54 has had their say on the European Union. This referendum however, was not on whether we should stay in or come out of the European Union; this was to see whether or not we stayed in the Common Market. The exact question was ‘Do you think the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?’ In other words, the question was wholly about trade, not in any way about the European Union. The British people have never been consulted on the European Union.

If my amendment 48 to the European Union Bill is passed tomorrow, there would have to be a binding ‘in’ or ‘out’ referendum on our membership of the European Union, if two hurdles are first cleared:

1. A referendum is triggered under the European Union Bill due to a proposed transfer of competency; and
2. The British people vote against such a transfer of power.

My amendment will give people the chance of what we have been deprived of since joining the European Union. That chance is to vote for whether or not the British people in fact want to be in the European Union. This would be a momentous occasion and finally put an end to the debate onc and for all. Whether the people vote to stay in or to withdraw from the European Union, at least they would have a choice. This would also allow Euro-enthusiasts and Eurosceptics to unite in allowing the British people the final say.

Peter Bone MP: What we can learn from the Philippines about how to tackle human trafficking

Peter Bone is Conservaitve MP for Wellingboorugh and Chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Human Trafficking.

I thought I would break from tradition and tell you a rather unusual Christmas story, by the young girl who was lost and then found. It occurred during my recent fact-finding trip to Asia in relation to Human Trafficking.

Being a parliamentarian with one of the highest voting records, it is extremely rare that I would miss one day at Parliament, let alone five, but that is exactly what I did at the end of November. I am the Co-Chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Human Trafficking and at the Conservative Party conference, I was approached by a gentleman from the Love146 charity. This charity specialises in aftercare for trafficked girls who’ve suffered sexual slavery and their re-integration into society - an issue that is sadly overlooked here in the UK.

My ambition and the group’s ambition is to stop human trafficking altogether, until this is achieved we must look after the victims. They first must be rescued, given secure safe accommodation and then helped back into society.

Love146 has established a safe home in Manila, Philippines. This safe home was established to take care of girls who had been trafficked and to give them enough confidence and self belief to re-integrate them back into society and, most importantly, make sure they will not be re-trafficked. With no project like this in the UK, I was invited out to the Philippines to see if the UK could adopt a similar project like this for the trafficked victims in the UK. (The cost of my trip was not funded by British taxpayers, it was partly paid for by the charity and partly paid for by myself.)

However, before arriving in the Philippines I took a brief detour to Shanghai, China. As we are all aware, China is one of the fastest growing economies in the world. This was very apparent on arrival, with skyscrapers galore and transport infrastructure that would do any modern day city proud. However, the reason for going there was to see the darker and less known about side of China, their Human Trafficking issues. Trafficking is a huge issue in China and I went to see Katherine Dixon, the British Consul (Political, Economic & Press) to Shanghai.

I was told that during a year, just to the UK from the Shanghai area, there are 60,000 visa applications; this is fundamentally where the trafficking occurs, in particular on student visas. The immigration office in Shanghai is doing a fantastic job. They described one scenario in which a businessman who travelled a great deal was applying for visas for women who had never travelled before to work within his office. The immigration officers noticed this anomaly and informed the Chinese authorities. Here the Chinese investigated and found the man to be trafficking these women, and he was later sentenced to 10 years on the charge of trafficking. I believe this is vital that the border control is aware of a situation and act upon a scenario that looks suspicious. This is very important in the prevention of trafficking which I believe will help eradicate the problem of human trafficking. 

Peter Bone MP: Can the Big Society Help Fight Modern Day Slavery?

Peter Bone is MP for Wellingborough and co-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Human Trafficking.

Anthony Steen, when Chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Human Trafficking which he founded in 2006, not only raised awareness of the scale and effects of human trafficking into the UK and the EU, but also put forward practical solutions to reduce supply and demand, and to improve welfare provisions for victims. 

The European Commission estimates that a minimum of 100,000 people are trafficked into and around the EU each year, with at least 5,000 victims arriving in the UK. Unfortunately, the UK statistics are inconsistent and unreliable; the Metropolitan Police believe that as far as sex trafficking in London alone is concerned, there are some 4,000 women trafficked annually into brothels, massage parlours, and the like. Human trafficking is now the second most profitable criminal activity in the world, netting $32 billion per year to traffickers. 

Despite its relative youth, the Group has garnered widespread recognition and praise across Government for its commitment to its cause and far-reaching work.  Immigration Minister Damian Green MP described the APPG as “an absolute model of how one can use an all-party group to shift public policy forward an inch or two.”  Reconvened in July 2010 under the joint chairmanship of myself and Baroness Butler-Sloss, it now boasts 12 officers representing in both the Commons and the Lords and is one of the largest all party groups in parliament.

ECPAT UK (coordinating Anti-Slavery International, Jubilee Campaign, NSPCC, Save the Children UK, The Children’s Society, UNICEF UK, and World Vision UK), a leading charity dedicated to combating child trafficking, provides information to the Parliamentary Group members, whilst Anthony Steen (now chairing the Human Trafficking Foundation) is the Group’s Special Adviser.

Through its pan-European campaign, the APPG has established similar cross party parliamentary groups in Spain, Germany, Bulgaria, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, Denmark, Italy, Poland, Greece, Cyprus, and Estonia. Creating a network right across European parliaments is the aim.

The group’s biggest challenge now is how to guide the new government on how best to address this hidden and growing scourge which presents itself in many different guises and how better to help victims cope with their situation. There are a number of issues which need urgent consideration. Should the scope of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Authority be extended to include the hospitality, tourism and agriculture industries, and so better tackle the growth of labour exploitation?

Peter Bone MP: NICE was right to U-turn on allowing wet eye treatments on the NHS

Peter Bone MP is the Member of Parliament for Wellingborough. He is a Member of the Health Committee and part of the Cornerstone Group of Conservative MPs.

Today NICE has at last issued its final guidance on the treatment of Wet Eye Age Related Macular Degeneration (Wet AMD) on the NHS. However, why has it taken over two years for NICE to make this decision and therefore allow thousands of people in England and Wales to go blind unnecessarily? Around 24,000 people contract Wet AMD a year in this country and unless treated promptly, will result in blindness in as little as three months.

The question of finance has always been at the forefront of NICE's decision making. However, by not providing the proven drug Lucentis on the NHS, neither it nor the Government has taken into account the millions of pounds spent on rehabilitation and care for Wet AMD sufferers who do go blind.

One of several constituents who contacted on this issue me was in her eighties and was going blind in both eyes from Wet AMD. She was the main carer of her 93 year old husband who had a number of serious ailments and could not manage without her. She was told that the NHS would not treat her and she would have to pay thousands of pounds to save her sight. If she had not paid, and consequently went blind, the state would have to pay hundreds of thousands of pounds on social care for her and her husband. Not only was the government's policy on treating wet AMD morally evil, it was also financially stupid.

This is typical of a Stalinist, centralised and nationalised system which is our National Health Service. Anti-VEGF drugs have been freely available in other European countries for some time. Perhaps this is why our health service has tumbled down the league tables to 17th out of 29 European countries, only beating the poorer eastern European states.

If this sad episode shows us anything, it is that the NHS must be radically reformed so that proven drugs are no longer denied to patients because of a slow and bureaucratic system which makes decisions based on finance rather than clinical need.

In my pamphlet 'The NHS at 60', I suggest that patients in this country, those who have paid in to the NHS through taxes all their lives, should have the right to go to an independent provider for a drug that has been proven elsewhere to work, without the fear of having to pay privately.

We need to have more independence for clinicians, the removal of state controls, the increased use of independent health providers and more choice for patients. Only then would we have a comparable health service fit for the 21st Century.

Peter Bone MP: Why I believe we should leave the EU superstate

Peter Bone, MP for Wellingborough, explains why he announced yesterday that he was publicly supporting the Better Off Out campaign.

When I voted to join the European Economic Community I, and millions of other Britons, thought we were voting to create a large European free trade area. As free trade has always benefited mankind and boosted the economic wellbeing of millions and millions of people it appeared to be the right thing to do. 

Recently I asked my six year old son Thomas “what do you call something that has a flag, has a president, has a parliament, has its own currency, has its own courts, makes laws and raises billions of pounds through taxation?” Thomas’s reply was “daddy that’s easy! It’s called a country”. 

The European Union is, without doubt, a superstate. It makes laws which are imposed on British subjects which can not be altered by parliament, it takes billions of pounds each year from British tax payers and redistributes it to continental Europe, and it allows hundreds of thousands of European citizens to come into our country without any regard to the interests of the United Kingdom. At no time have the British people been asked whether they want such a superstate. The Labour government, despite their election pledge, will not even have a referendum on the European Treaty, which is merely the European Constitution re-spun.