Oral Answers to Questions

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Wednesday 13th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Vernon Bogdanor called the noble Lord, Lord Hailsham’s amendment, which we rejected yesterday, a “constitutional absurdity”. While it is essential that this House should hold the Government to account and have meaningful votes on many things, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely essential that the separation of powers should be observed, and that it should be made clear in any compromise amendment that the job of the Government and the job of Parliament are different?

[The Prime Minister]

I am happy to be clear about this situation. We have seen concerns raised about the role of Parliament in relation to the Brexit process. What I agreed yesterday is that, as the Bill goes back to the Lords, we will have further discussions with colleagues over those concerns. This morning, I have agreed with the Brexit Secretary that we will bring forward an amendment in the Lords, and there are a number of things that will guide our approach in doing so.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the separation of powers and the different roles of Government and Parliament. As my right hon. Friend the Brexit Secretary made clear in the House yesterday, the Government’s hand in the negotiations cannot be tied by Parliament, but the Government must be accountable to Parliament. Government determines policy, and we then need parliamentary support to be able to implement that policy.

The other aspect of this that I am absolutely clear on is that I cannot countenance Parliament being able to overturn the will of the British people. Parliament gave the decision to the British people, the British people voted to leave the European Union and, as Prime Minister, I am determined to deliver that.

Military Action Overseas: Parliamentary Approval

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn]

It is about democracy, it is about accountability and it is about making very serious decisions. That is what MPs are elected to do. It would bind this Government and future Governments to this basic democratic principle on the most serious and crucial issues of public policy that we are ever asked to take a decision on. As I said earlier, all those who were here during the debates on Iraq in 2003 remember them very well, just as they remember very well the questioning from the public about what they did and how they voted. That is why we are elected to Parliament.

I hope that the House will approve this motion on the principle that it is an assertion of the great tradition of the advancement of democratic accountability of this House on behalf of the people of this country.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Just before I call the Prime Minister, I will hear a very courteously articulated point of order from the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Mr Speaker, could you give your ruling at this early stage that the vote must go with the voice? There are rumours that the Opposition are thinking of voting against their own motion, but the Leader of the Opposition has just moved that motion. Would he therefore be entitled, under normal procedures, to do so?

[Mr Speaker]

The answer to that question is yes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Parliament has done its correct duty—admittedly assisted by you, Mr Speaker—in ensuring that there were six hours of debate yesterday and a further three hours of debate today, but these constitutional issues are not new. Indeed, this matter is at the heart of the Glorious Revolution, and one of the clauses of the Bill of Rights, which is still our law, states that

“the raising or keeping a standing Army within the Kingdome in time of Peace unlesse it be with Consent of Parlyament is against Law.”

That is why every five years an Armed Forces Bill is passed—to ensure that the armed forces that are available to the Executive are approved by Parliament.

This last happened in 2016 when the Armed Forces Act was renewed. On that occasion, the Bill passed Second Reading without a Division, and it passed Third Reading without a Division. There was uniform consent in this House that the armed services should exist on a similar basis to that on which they have existed since 1689. The Leader of the Opposition did not choose to put down an amendment to put any limits on how the armed services could operate. He did not choose to put down an amendment to say that the Government could not act without the specific consent of Parliament. At every stage, the Bill was passed, and it recognised the proper constitutional settlement and the separation of powers. An Executive and a legislature are different things and have different responsibilities.

As hon. Members know, I have the highest respect for the leader of the Scottish National party in this House—the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford)—but I think that he made an error in his speech when he suggested that this House ought to give pre-approval, because the job of the House is to hold the Executive to account, not to try to run the Executive by remote control.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

If it is the Executive’s idea to go to war or engage in military action, should not this House hold the Executive to account for their thoughts, ideas and policies?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Executive are being held to account today. The Prime Minister spent six hours yesterday being held to account in this House and a further hour today.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

rose—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I give way to the hon. Lady—my neighbour.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I am very grateful to my neighbour for giving way. Surely this debate is about not a collective decision on the action that has been taken and on putting the armed forces at risk, but a process that we in this House are collectively happy with and agreed on. Clearly the fact that we are having this debate means that there is not a collective agreement about the process.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right, as the Leader of the Opposition was earlier, to say that today’s debate is about process. What I am trying to say is that the process is established, has been established for centuries and is highly effective. The Executive are only the Executive as long as they command the confidence of this House. It would have been open to the Opposition, instead of going for a Standing Order No. 24 debate, to have asked for a vote of confidence in Her Majesty’s Government. I think that that would have been the right thing to do, having listened carefully to the Leader of the Opposition’s speech. The Opposition fundamentally do not have confidence—or their leadership does not—in the making of this decision. We would then have seen whether this House had confidence in the Executive to make the decisions that are the legitimate business of the Executive.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

rose—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I will not give way again because time is short.

If that were to happen, we would know that the use of force had not been agreed by this House, but it is a retrospective agreement. This is established in our constitution and has been for the longest time, and that is very important, because Executives have the confidential information that allows them to make decisions. The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber asked why the Cabinet was called when Parliament was not. The obvious reason is that we have Cabinet government in this country. The Prime Minister cannot act on her own; she has to act with the consent of the Cabinet. That is how our constitution functions.

[Ian Blackford]

Would not the hon. Gentleman concede that in the case of any military action since the Iraq war, the consent of Parliament has been sought on every occasion before troops have been engaged?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That is not correct. With the bombing raids on Libya, retrospective consent was given by this House; it was not sought in advance. That is the issue that goes to the heart of this matter. Yes, we have a flexible constitution, but it is not right to say that we have no constitution. The flexible constitution allows a Government to come to this House when they are considering certain types of action, when no secret information needs to be given out, and when there might be a long-term plan for an invasion or whatever there is. It also allows the Government the flexibility to act when times are urgent and business is pressing, and when the information is of the greatest sensitivity. That was why I made the point that it was right and inevitable that the Cabinet should be consulted, as that is where power rests, but it is absurd to suggest that the House of Commons could give its consent. In fact, the only way that the House of Commons can consent is by legislation, and then we would need to go to their other end of the Palace and ask their lordships as well. By the time we had passed a law saying that we could engage in conflict, the whole conflict would be over.

The issue is that the Armed Forces Act 2016 already covers this question, and that Bill was passed unanimously. This House gives confidence in the Government and controls supply. The armed forces cannot go to war not only if the Armed Forces Bill has not been passed, but if supply is not voted to allow the Army, Navy and Air Force to go about their business. That is where we have control every year over the actions of our military. We have it quinquennially and we have it annually, and we have confidence or not in the Government.

That is our correct and established constitutional situation. There are ways for the Opposition to deal with a Government of whom they do not approve, and that is through a vote of confidence. That they have not chosen to go down that route shows that the opposition is of a pacifist tone. That might be honourable, and it might be noble, but it is different from upsetting our constitution merely to entrench inaction.

European Council

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

If the hon. Gentleman looks back at my statement, he will recall that I said that it is our intention that this House, when it comes to look at the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill and to vote on that Bill, should have sufficient detail of what that future relationship is going to be, and that will take place before we leave the European Union.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Many of us are concerned that, in the transition period, most of the red lines have gone, but we can live with it on the basis that they will be restored when we finally leave. What reassurance can my right hon. Friend give me that when we leave, we will be out of the single market, out of the customs union and out of any jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice?

[The Prime Minister]

I am happy to reiterate what I have said before: we will be leaving the single market, we will be leaving the customs union, and we will be leaving the common fisheries policy—we will be ensuring that we take back control of our waters. My hon. Friend asks me about the European Court of Justice, and we are clear that we will take back control of our laws. However, with his attention to detail, my hon. Friend will know that, within the December joint report, in relation to citizens’ rights, there was, as part of that, for a period of time, for those EU citizens who are here, where cases are taken about those rights to UK courts, the possibility for the UK courts to have due regard to the views of the European Court of Justice.

Salisbury Incident

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

That is an important point and it has been raised. We will be looking at the movement of materials and indeed, as I indicated in my statement, at any further action we can take on the movement not only of materials, but of people. We will of course be discussing that with our allies.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has such widespread support because she has learned the lesson of history that tyrants must be stood up to. May I encourage her to impose a freeze on assets, so that people do not have the opportunity of taking them out of the country in the short term, and to boost the military resources in Estonia, where we already have 800 troops, to show very tangibly that we will support our friends and allies who might also be at risk from Russia?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. As I said in my statement, we will freeze Russian state assets wherever we have the evidence that they might be used to threaten the life or property of UK nationals or residents. I was pleased to be able to visit our troops in Estonia last September. We are of course there with other allies, and I was pleased that at the Anglo-French summit in January President Macron committed to a continuing contingent of French troops joining our troops in Estonia. That is an important collective symbol of our determination to protect the west against Russia.

UK/EU Future Economic Partnership

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Monday 5th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Ah yes, a very well-behaved fellow—I call Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that compliment.

Does my right hon. Friend, having made such a generous offer to the European Union, expect more generosity than it has shown so far? I think particularly of the aggression in the draft legal text of suggesting a solution to the Irish problem that would have been in contradiction to the confidence and supply agreement with the Democratic Unionist party, threatening the existence of the Government. Does my right hon. Friend think that it is right for the European Commission to behave in such a high-handed fashion?

[The Prime Minister]

We are in a negotiation. Both sides put their positions at various stages. Just as the European Commission chose to put that position forward, so it was absolutely right for this Government to be clear—I repeated it last week in Prime Minister’s questions and I am happy to do so again—that the suggestion that there should be a border down the Irish sea separating Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom is completely unacceptable to this Government and, I believe, to any Government in the United Kingdom.

Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland: Border Arrangements

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Wednesday 28th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

The mechanism is that which is set out in the joint report and in the Government’s various speeches and publications over the past 12 months, the latest of which the Prime Minister will deliver this Friday.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has pointed out to the Irish Government that the biggest loser if there is not a sensible agreement and tariffs are imposed on Irish goods coming into the United Kingdom will be the Irish economy. There would be huge devastation to the Irish agricultural economy in particular. I wonder whether he has suggested to the Irish Prime Minister the question of whether he is willing to sacrifice the interests of the Irish economy on the high altar of European political integration.

[Mr Lidington]

The economies of Ireland and the United Kingdom are indeed intertwined, but I reassure my hon. Friend that the Irish Government and the Taoiseach are committed to trying to resolve these matters through option A, as set out in the joint report—namely, through the means of an overall economic agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union.

European Council

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Monday 18th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We are bringing those rights into UK law though the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. I have said that we will maintain, and indeed enhance, workers’ rights.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend clearly reject the negotiating mandate handed out by the European Council, paragraph 1 of which undermines the principle of nothing being agreed until everything has been agreed, and paragraph 4 of which would make the United Kingdom in the transition phase no more than a vassal state, a colony, a serf of the European Union—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I want to hear the hon. Gentleman, who is in full flow. I want to hear the fullness of the flow.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I urge my right hon. Friend to model herself on her predecessor, the late noble Baroness Thatcher, and to show real mettle and steel in rejecting the EU’s rather hostile negotiating terms.

[The Prime Minister]

The negotiation is between two parties. We will be very clear about the future partnership we want to have with the European Union on both trade and security matters, and I set out the framework for that in my Florence speech.

My hon. Friend has asked me before about the relationship between the UK and the European Union during the implementation period. As I have just indicated in response to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), the purpose of the implementation period is to ensure that businesses and individuals can continue to operate, and to be reassured of the basis on which they operate, while the necessary changes are put in place that will lead to the future trade agreement that we will have achieved.

I have also said before in this House, and in my Florence speech, that there may be elements of the arrangement that we will be able to bring forward. For example, if we are able to bring forward a dispute resolution mechanism during that period, we will look to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I will ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to look at this issue. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are working on how universal credit is rolled out and how it is dealt with in relation to individuals. I am sure he will understand that if particular things within universal credit apply to people in particular circumstances, they can be applied only if the jobcentres are aware of those circumstances. I will ask the Department for Work and Pensions to look at the matter.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Before my right hon. Friend next goes to Brussels, will she apply a new coat of paint to her red lines, because I fear that on Monday they were beginning to look a little bit pink?

[The Prime Minister]

No, I happily say to my hon. Friend that the principles on which the Government are negotiating were set out in the Lancaster House speech and in the Florence speech, and those principles remain.

UK Plans for Leaving the EU

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Monday 9th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I was going to call a fellow, but he has beetled out of the curtilage of the Chamber so I cannot. He may beetle back again, but we will see.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm unequivocally that after 29 March 2019 the European Court of Justice’s writ will no longer run in any way in this country and that any new laws agreed under the acquis communautaire after that date will not have effect here unless agreed specifically by Parliament?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend has actually raised two separate issues but elided them together. The first is about the European Court of Justice. As I have just said in answer to a number of questions, we want to have a smooth and orderly process of withdrawal with minimum disruption. That is why we want the implementation period. We will have to negotiate what will operate during the implementation period. Yes, that may mean that we start off with the ECJ still governing the rules we are part of for that period, but we are also clear that we can bring forward discussions and agreements on issues such as a dispute resolution mechanism. If we can bring that forward at an earlier stage, we would wish to do so.

The second issue my hon. Friend referred to was the question of new rules brought in during the implementation period. Given the way things operate, it is highly unlikely that anything will be brought forward during that period that has not already started discussions through the European Union to which we are party until we leave and about which we would have been able to say they were a rule we would sign up to or one we would not. Any new rules put on the table during the implementation period, given the way these things operate, are highly unlikely to be implemented during the implementation period.

G20

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Monday 10th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be aware from his chairing of the Select Committee that membership of Euratom is inextricably linked with membership of the European Union. As was signalled in the Queen’s Speech with reference to a future Bill on this issue, we want to ensure that we can maintain those relationships—that co-operation with Euratom which enables the exchange of scientists and material. Countries throughout the world that are not members of the EU have that relationship with Euratom, but we need to put that Bill in place, and I look forward to the right hon. Gentleman’s support for it.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that free trade will be one of the great Brexit dividends, and that it will provide cheaper food, clothing and footwear, to the greatest benefit of the poorest in our society?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is free trade that enables us to grow economies, increase prosperity and provide jobs, and there will be benefits from the trade agreements that we want to negotiate throughout the world. But we also need as a country to defend the concept of free trade because, sadly, it is under too much attack from protectionists around the world.