Parliamentary Standards

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The right hon. Gentleman will understand that, while it is clear from past court cases that the expenses system does not constitute parliamentary proceedings, and that parliamentary privilege does not extend to them, other aspects of the regulation of Members’ conduct clearly do. An important practical consideration is that, if the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards did not report to the Standards Committee as a Select Committee of the House and was instead established as an entirely separate and independent entity, parliamentary privilege would not extend to her investigations. That would make it much more difficult to proceed with those investigations and to get them completed, because they would be subject to legal and procedural challenge. The Commissioner has the power to undertake all the investigations required.

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

It is enormously important that the House should maintain its right to regulate itself, because we do so on behalf of the British people, to whom we are democratically accountable in a way in which no bureaucrat can be. It is therefore for the British people that we maintain our rights. May we therefore do one of two things? Either we should have a proper, direct system of recall to allow the electorate to determine these matters, or we should use our powers, as set out on Page 855 of “Erskine May”, that would allow the whole House to come to a decision by returning a decision of the Standards Committee to that Committee and making our own recommendations, which might be more robust.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is right to make that point. In a debate on 12 March 2012, the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), agreed with the proposal for the appointment of lay members to the Standards Committee, which was happily approved by consensus. She recognised that the Committee would

“be a Committee of the House, and the Members of Parliament who serve on it will be able to do so first and foremost because they successfully stood for election. Therefore, they are ultimately accountable to their constituents for their actions”.—[Official Report, 12 March 2012; Vol. 542, c. 79.]

Indeed, it is an important aspect of this House that we are accountable in that way. It is from that that our fundamental authority here is derived. My hon. Friend has also raised the point about recall. I cannot anticipate the contents of the Queen’s Speech and the future legislative programme, but the House will know that, as indicated in the coalition programme, the Government remain committed to the implementation of a system of recall, and we continue to look forward to introducing proposals in that respect.

Amendment of Standing Orders

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hollobone]

I know for a certain fact that my hon. Friend is not a charlatan and a fraud.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to refer even to himself, who is by virtue an honourable Member, as a charlatan and a fraud?

[Mr Speaker]

It is not disorderly, but it is an example of unwarranted self-flagellation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hollobone]

I strongly encourage my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne to withdraw his motion at the appropriate point and to come back to this matter on another day.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

As I understand it, Mr Speaker, for a motion to be withdrawn, it requires the consent of the whole House, and one Member opposing it can stop that withdrawal taking place. It is too late for my hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, to withdraw his motion.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman’s understanding is correct. The motion is now owned by the House, and withdrawal of it would require the assent of the House. It cannot be summarily withdrawn.

Business of the House (2 December)

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Indeed, I tried to limit my remarks to those two issues: the length of the debate and its timing next Monday. I look forward to hearing an explanation from the Leader of the House.

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

I am puzzled by my hon. Friend’s view that after 10 pm on Monday is not a good time for debating these issues. What on earth else would anybody rather do than come to the House and debate these important matters?

[Mr Chope]

I would be happy, as I am sure my hon. Friend would be too, to debate these issues until 1, 2 or 3 o’clock on Tuesday morning, should the need arise. That is why, as I said, the more serious of my concerns is the time limit rather than the timing. Obviously, he and I will participate in the debate at whatever time is set down, but we need to think about how easily people outside can follow our proceedings.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

Madam Deputy Speaker, the sooner you are able to participate fully in our debates, the better. I invite you to come down and join the throng.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am simply concerned that, at that late hour, some Members might be tempted to go to nightclubs and things like that. It would be distressing if we were to have the debate at a time when that might happen.

[Mr Chope]

I hope that when the debate takes place, it will be allowed a longer period of time than the motion currently provides for, and that it will have a similar spirit of good humour to the one that is prevailing in this short debate. I see no reason for extending this debate; I am making only a short point. Why does the Leader of the House need to close down debate on these issues and limit the discussion to 45 minutes on each of the two subjects, one of which has been the subject of a Government amendment to the motion tabled by the Procedure Committee? If we are going to encourage Members to participate to the full in the work of the Select Committees, including the Procedure Committee, the least we can do is allow proper time for colleagues to debate and question the proposals of those Committees.

I do not think that 45 minutes for each subject is sufficient, and I would be interested to hear why the Leader of the House thinks that those time limits are sufficient and appropriate, particularly as we have quite a lot of surplus time available now. I was talking to a journalist earlier, and he suggested that the business for next week seemed extremely light. I put these questions to the Leader of the House in a spirit of friendship. I know that, even though he does not always succeed, he tries hard to accommodate the needs of Back Benchers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I point out to my hon. Friend that I have said two things. I have said, first, that I do not think that the debate requires more time than one and a half hours, and it is Government time that we have found for the purpose. I have said, secondly, that I would not wish it to go for more than one and a half hours beyond the moment of interruption. It does not follow that I think it requires three hours—in any circumstances.

Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch questioned the need for the Standing Orders to be amended. He knows that this motion exempts the business from both the moment of interruption and the Standing Order relating to deferred Divisions, and he will understand that Standing Orders are amended regularly for such purposes. The motions for debate next Monday result from the work of the Procedure Committee, and it is right that the House is given the opportunity to resolve those issues.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

To follow up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, it would be a pity if we went home early on Monday, would it not? If the earlier debate were to finish well before 8.30 pm, it would be a shame if the House’s business came to an end before the normal hour of closure.

[Mr Lansley]

In scheduling business, my purpose is to ensure that there is time available for all the business. My objective is not to fill time. I say gently to my hon. Friends that they could have raised the matter when I announced provisional business at business questions last Thursday. They have done so in the past. They have raised issues after business questions and, on occasions, I have taken those issues away and we have amended the timing and the character of business. In this particular instance, I have to say that the motion relating to Back-Bench business has been on the Order Paper since before the summer recess. It relates to a report published by the Procedure Committee in November 2012. It has taken us more time than we would have wished to bring it forward. The Procedure Committee was rightly keen that we should schedule that business. We have done so, and we have given it adequate time. From my point of view, I hope that the House will allow the business to go forward as proposed in motion 9, which I moved yesterday.

Question put and agreed to.

Amendments to Bills (Explanatory Statements)

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2013 Commons Chamber

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

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), and it is one of my parliamentary ambitions that, one day, when speaking after her in a debate, I shall actually agree with her. Sadly, that day has not yet dawned.

There are extremely good arguments for requiring the Government compulsorily to make explanatory statements. The Government have legions of civil servants who are able to draw up their explanations; they have all the resources of a Rolls-Royce Whitehall system that is able to provide the explanations to everything that goes into legislation. Crucially, the amendments proposed by the Government usually do end up in legislation, so not only are the resources there, but an invaluable purpose is served in making clear what the Government are trying to do.

If the hon. Lady’s amendment (a) had said that the Government always and invariably had to put down explanatory statements, I would have agreed with it, because that would have enhanced our ability to legislate. When, however, it comes to requiring every Member to do so and to giving exceptional discretion to the Speaker or the Speaker’s deputies to decide whether these explanatory memorandums are sufficiently in order, I cannot agree. Let me explain why briefly, because I know many want to go off and have their dinners or conduct Adjournment debates and things like that—the Adjournment debates are probably more attractive than dinners for most of us.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a compelling case for attaching explanatory memorandums to Government amendments. Does he think that the same should apply to official Opposition amendments, and that a distinction should be made between amendments in those categories and amendments tabled by individual Back Benchers?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

No, I would not go as far as that. One of the great divides in parliamentary life is represented by the fact that the Government always have officials beside them. We see in the Box this evening three extremely distinguished gentlemen who are there to advise the Government and help them to plan their legislation. The Opposition have some Short money, which helps them with their parliamentary activities, but, unlike the Government, they do not have the depth of resources that would enable them to provide the explanations that might be needed.

It is assumed that we live in a perfect world in which legislation is presented after pre-legislative scrutiny and there is much time for consideration and deliberation, but that is unfortunately not true. A great deal of legislation is quite rushed, and comes to the House at quite a late stage. The Opposition sometimes have to trawl through many hundreds of clauses in a Bill, and, while they may have just about enough time to write out their amendments, even if each amendment takes only five minutes to explain, 100 Opposition amendments will mean 500 minutes that Opposition Members may not have when a Bill is due to begin its Committee stage within a week or two—or sometimes a day or two—of being presented to the House. I therefore think that the burden placed on the Opposition would be unfair and disproportionate.

Given that I am speaking partly from personal experience as a Back-Bench Member of Parliament, I want to pay particular tribute to the Clerks of Legislation, who are incredibly helpful and patient in explaining to Back Benchers how to formulate an amendment so that it is in order. However, to ask them then to write an explanatory memorandum when so many hundreds of us could be calling on their time would be to place an unreasonable burden on them. Their patience, courtesy, capability and knowledge of the history of Parliament are an absolute joy to behold, and every dealing that I have had with them has been a real pleasure, but I do not think that it would be reasonable to impose that extra burden on them.

This takes us to the heart of the way in which the Government are held to account through the legislative process. Those of us who table amendments know that our amendments will almost certainly not pass into law. Indeed, on most occasions when I have tabled amendments I have not pressed them to a Division, because I have known that the massed serried ranks on the Government Benches will not be sufficient to get one Back Bencher’s amendment through, however well thought out it may—or may not—have been.

Members table amendments to ensure that the issue is debated, that the Minister is able to think about it, and that it is considered in proper detail by the Minister and the Minister’s officials. The Opposition do exactly the same, in the knowledge that the points that they raise will be considered during the overall process. That process would be weakened and made more difficult if the explanatory memorandums were compulsory. If they were compulsory, the Opposition would perforce table fewer amendments, and Back Benchers would be deterred from tabling amendments because of the extra burden that it would place on them, and because of a certain diffidence about putting more pressure on the Clerks of Legislation.

In an ideal world, everything would be spelt out and there would be a few more pages of printing. I am delighted that the Greens seem to be in favour of that: it appears now to be their official policy. Normally a desire for more printing reflects my view of the world rather than theirs. The reality of legislating, however, is that it is often done in a hurry because the necessary time is not available. It is a matter of holding the Government to account, and anything that obstructs that process makes it harder for Members to do their jobs.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2013 Commons Chamber

Changes to existing limits

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

I beg to move amendment 101, page 13, line 31, at end insert—

‘( ) In section 94(1) of the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act 2000, after subsection (1) insert—

(1A) During a regulated period no controlled expenditure is to be incurred by any third party that is in receipt of public funds in the 12 month period prior to the start of the regulated period.”.

( ) In section 94(2) after “schedule 10” in line 3, insert “or by (1A) above.’.

[The Temporary Chairman (Sir Edward Leigh)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 66, page 13, leave out lines 32 to 35.

Amendment 165, page 14, line 2, at end insert—

‘(3) Subsections (1) and (2) may not come into force until such time as the Electoral Commission has placed before Parliament a report on the impact of subsections (1) and (2) on relative controlled expenditure by political parties and non-parties in regulated periods.’.

Clause stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

It is a great pleasure to speak while you are in the Chair, Sir Edward, on the feast of St Pulcheria, who died on this day in 453 AD. It is the 1,560th anniversary of her death.

[Helen Goodman]

Having read the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, I wonder whether he is trying to take us back to the politics of those years.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Even this Parliament did not exist under the benign reign of the Empress Pulcheria, so I am afraid that I am unable to propose doing that.

The purpose of my amendment, which I think fits very well with the clause, which I support, is to limit the ability of people in receipt of public funds to intervene in elections, particularly general elections. In this country we do not have state-funded political parties. We have Short money and Cranborne money to help the parliamentary activities of Opposition parties, but we have consistently decided that the state would not fund political parties and that they would instead be funded by private donations, trade union donations and business donations. It therefore seems to me to be completely wrong for third parties that might depend on subventions from the state for a large part of their income to be able to campaign as third parties in general elections.

[John Mann]

Will the hon. Gentleman let us know what he has against the Church of England, because this brutal amendment would particularly hurt the Church in its desire to host election rallies, hustings and so on?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

It would not in any way affect the Church of England and, anyway, should the Anglican Church intervene in elections, that would be a constitutional impropriety. It has long been the case that it is thought improper for peers to involve themselves in general elections. Members will recall that Lord Salisbury would not intervene for that reason; he let others campaign for him. It would not be constitutionally right for bishops to intervene in general elections. The Church of England is not affected by my amendment and it is not, as a general rule in its putting forward of the gospel, getting public money.

[John Mann]

I am sorry to disabuse the hon. Gentleman, but if the Church of England or other religious bodies host any kind of hustings and exclude, say, a fascist from them, they will be caught not only by the Bill, but even more so by the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, because those bodies receive public funding. Local church buildings were given specific amounts in the last Budget.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. We heard during the debate on the previous clause that if a third party invites some but not all of the candidates to a hustings meeting, that may be part of the election expenses of the people involved. The Bill makes no change to that situation. It has always been a difficulty. It is an issue at every election and rightly so, because it would be entirely arbitrary for third parties to decide which party they liked and which they did not.

[John Mann]

Remarkably and unusually—perhaps uniquely—the hon. Gentleman has not done his homework. This Bill expands the definition of what constitutes expenditure and his amendment worsens it further and particularly and brutally picks on the Church of England more than any other organisation by hitting it with bureaucracy and the inability to host political events.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Again, I am in disagreement with the hon. Gentleman, who, surprisingly, I often agree with about many things. The amendment does not change in any way the definition of election expenditure. It leaves it as it is set out in the rest of the Bill. As I have said, that definition leaves unchanged the situation for people hosting hustings meetings. What I am doing makes not one iota of difference—not one jot of change—to the Church of the England. It will still be able to host meetings in churches and it would still be in difficulties if it decided not to invite particular candidates. That is quite right, because at the heart of democracy is the notion that candidates should be treated equally.

[Helen Goodman]

The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that British Telecom, Arriva, Stagecoach, Heathrow, Virgin Care, Tata Steel and farmers in his constituency are all in receipt of large amounts of public money. Is he really saying that none of them may make statements that could be taken as interventions in a general election?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady is ignoring the detail of the Bill and carrying on with the absurd scaremongering to which we have been listening for more than a week. A farmer in my constituency who is in receipt of subsidies would have to register as a third party and, according to the terms of clause 27, spend more than £5,000 to be in any way affected by my amendment. If only the farmers in my constituency were so rich that they were scattering £5,000 hither and yon, my own campaign might be the beneficiary of such largesse.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman famously campaigned with a notable third party—his nanny—in the Glenrothes by-election. If she was in receipt of payment from the hon. Gentleman, would she have been in contravention of what his amendment suggests?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

That is a gloriously roundabout way of examining this issue and it gives me an opportunity to pay tribute to a wonderful nanny who campaigns for me and who is now hard at work looking after my four children, which is a great thing for her to be doing. She was a volunteer when I campaigned in Glenrothes and therefore would in no sense have been caught by this clause. Although any payment that is made to her does come from me, it is not money that I receive from the public.

[The Temporary Chairman (Sir Edward Leigh)]

Order. We will go back to the amendment, thank you.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Thank you, Sir Edward.

In response to the point made by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), British Telecom and Arriva are not going to establish themselves as third parties in a general election. What is the idea—that British Telecom is suddenly going to send us messages saying “Vote Labour” or “Vote for a particular candidate”? That is an absurd suggestion. Is Heathrow airport going to focus on a particular candidate?

[Stephen Doughty]

On Second Reading, the hon. Gentleman said:

“A lot of campaigning organisations, including the NCVO…receive a lot of money directly from the Government, and they are now spending that Government money lobbying the Government. That seems a terrible waste of public funds.”—[Official Report, 3 September 2013; Vol. 567, c. 236.]

First, that creates a somewhat misleading picture because obviously the majority of an organisation’s funds are not spent on lobbying the Government. Secondly, will he concede that he has a wider agenda on this?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am more than happy to say that this is the tip of the iceberg and that as the Titanic steams towards that iceberg, it is about to emerge to cut a swathe through its side. I firmly believe that it is absurd for the taxpayer to dish out money that is then spent paying lobbyists to lobby the Government. That is not why hard-pressed taxpayers pay income tax, VAT and other duties.

[John Mann]

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is relatively new to the House. Let me point out to him that British Telecom provides assistance to the established political parties that it does not provide to independent candidates. Passing clause 27 with his amendment would therefore mean that British Telecom would be caught by the provisions of the Bill.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

As an established candidate before I was elected in the last election, I did not receive any help from British Telecom. I had no idea that British Telecom was funding the campaigns of candidates up and down the country. If that were a purely commercial activity, it would be mistaken in doing so because it would alienate half its customers who would dislike the party that it decided to support.

We have heard throughout these debates Opposition scaremongering about all these third parties lined up waiting to support individual candidates, with the question of whether that is against charities law or constitutionally improper being cast to one side. That is being brought back in the context of this clause. It is absolutely clear from the Bill, from what the Minister has said and from the law as it currently stands that these bodies—charitable bodies, in particular, but also firms such as British Telecom—are not going to be third parties because they do not and, indeed, should not intervene directly in the election of individual candidates or in supporting individual parties.

[Helen Goodman]

I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman is talking out of his hat. The fact is that a lot of large private-sector businesses are donors to political parties, and that is an intervention. Is he saying that if they had been in receipt of public money, they should not be making these interventions? When they give money they are also making statements, not only about individual candidates but about parties.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady is wrong to say that I am talking out of my hat because if I did, Sir Edward, I would be out of order and you would therefore not allow it to take place. Third parties that merely donate to other political organisations are not third parties under the terms of the Bill. To be a third party under the terms of the Bill one needs to be campaigning in such a way that one is advancing the campaign of an individual in a particular constituency or a political party across a number of constituencies. Under the terms of the Bill, giving £10,000 to the Conservative party does not require registration with the Electoral Commission as a third party. All it requires is for someone to register their donation and be a legitimate British company, as covered by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The Bill is limited in scope. It cuts the amount that third parties may spend, and my amendment would ensure that people receiving Government funding do not become third parties. That seems not only reasonable but something that the Opposition in particular should support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman]

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. There is public support for candidates in this country. We have a mixed economy because we all get free delivery of our manifestos to households in our constituencies.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady is right that there is a free post, but parties are not publicly funded. They receive no cash for the free post; it is done without any cash transfer to parties, and they have no control of the money that comes to them. My point that parties are not funded by the state is right. There is Short money and Cranborne money, which I mentioned, but that is specifically for parliamentary activities, not campaigning.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Is there a larger purpose here? Public funds—taxpayers’ money—are given to organisations to execute a social purpose. For that money to be used to interfere in elections is nothing short of an abuse of taxpayers’ money and trust.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

[Helen Goodman]

What about the British Legion?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The British Legion will not become a third party in a general election because it is against charity regulations for it to do so. It would be an outrage if one of the most admired and apolitical bodies in this country suddenly started saying that people should vote Conservative—let alone say that people should vote Labour, heaven forfend! Charities are not there to intervene in general elections. They have specific tax benefits and their ability to fundraise is dependent on them being charitable, not political, and there is a clear difference. There is no question of the Royal British Legion becoming a third party in a general election. That is the classic scare story that we hear again and again from the Opposition, who wish to obfuscate and confuse matters because they are worried that their trade union masters will, under this clause, have the amount they can spend reduced. They hide it; they camouflage it under this complaint on behalf of the Church of England, the Royal British Legion, and so on.

We should be concerned about third parties spending money in a way that is less regulated than political parties themselves, or having the ability to spend more and with lower effective limits on what they are able to do. The clause succeeds in doing that and would make no difference at all to charities or the Church of England. My amendment would further tighten the clause. As I have said, the Opposition should be enthusiastic about it, because it is wrong for Government money to be used by third parties when they have received it not for political activity but for their general activities of whatever kind.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful and interesting speech, and perhaps he can help hon. Members who, like me, are concerned about this aspect of the Bill. Will he give us examples of organisations that tread the fine line of political campaigning that would be caught by amendment 27?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The Government and the taxpayer hand out very large amounts of money to third parties. Therefore, those parties should say either, “We will not take those funds,” or, “We want to be free to campaign.” They have the choice.

[Helen Goodman]

The hon. Gentleman reveals to the Committee that he does not understand how voluntary sector finances work. Voluntary sector organisations have restricted and unrestricted money. When organisations such as Shelter get money for public sector contracts, it is restricted and must be used on the service. The money used for campaigning comes from voluntary donations.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady is not entirely accurate. If she were to trouble herself to look at the NCVO accounts, she would see that the largest contribution of non-allocated money—£500,000—is from the Government. When the NCVO spends unrestricted money on campaigning, there is a very good chance that it is Government money, which seems improper. I am well aware of the distinction between restricted and non-restricted money. Unfortunately, many Government grants are not sufficiently restricted and therefore can be used to lobby the Government. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) challenged me on that—I am concerned about that too, but it is not the specific point I am making.

[Stephen Doughty]

Does the hon. Gentleman believe that charities in receipt of public money should be able to campaign outside election periods?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Charities should be able to campaign for their fundamental beliefs, but lobbying the Government with the Government’s money—taxpayers’ money—is a suspect activity. We do not pay our taxes to allow bodies to oppose or support the Government.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will my hon. Friend confirm that, under amendment 27, companies such as Atos, which does considerable work for the Government, would be prohibited from indulging in campaigning?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I would be shocked if Atos wanted to campaign. The idea that it should become a third party and campaign in seats is a monstrosity. Atos would be covered if it wanted to register as a third party, which is highly unlikely.

[John Mann]

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, if he attends and is photographed at a garden party hosted by a landowner who is also a farmer receiving public funds during an election period, the expenditure will be caught by the amendment and the Bill?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman has a wonderfully vivid imagination and conjures up increasingly absurd scenarios that will obviously not be caught by the Bill.

[John Mann]

The hon. Gentleman would have been caught by his amendment. Is it not the case that he took great pleasure in being photographed repeatedly at such events held by major landowners when fighting, quite legitimately, for his seat? Those who host such events would be caught by the amendment, so his proposal is almost suicidal.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman assumes I have a much more salubrious social life than I have. I wish I constantly enjoyed a round of garden parties during general election campaigns. I am sorry to disappoint him that that is not how life is in North East Somerset. I am afraid that the picture he conjures is false. That situation does not arise under the Bill. Ingenious though his vision is, it does not get away from the fundamental point that Governments have a duty to spend taxpayers’ money carefully. They also have a duty of trust to ensure that taxpayers’ money is not misspent on purposes for which it was not intended. The Government, who are very powerful when in office, have a particular obligation not to fund their friends who can then use the money they receive to support the Government’s efforts to remain in office. That is a risk that the Opposition have pooh-poohed, but it is a real risk.

[Mrs Main]

My hon. Friend is being generous in giving way, but he did not really answer the question of what problem he is trying to fix. If there is no proof of that happening, then it is a bit like me saying that I will stop kicking my dog when I do not own a dog. I am concerned that he is coming up with a complex and technical solution to a problem that may not even exist, although it may, in theory, potentially exist.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

If my hon. Friend had been listening to all of the debate outside the House, which I am sure she has been, she will have seen that many bodies contributing to it are publicly funded. They receive money from the state that they are now spending on lobbying the state. It is therefore not the greatest leap to assume that there are bodies in receipt of money from the state that might be interested in elections. Why? Because they are the ones complaining that the Bill is so unfair on them. If they are complaining that the Bill is so unfair on them, it must be because they intend to spend some of that money on elections. My hon. Friend must therefore see that the case is made by the people she is oddly supporting. They have given a warning about what they intend to do. Having been warned, it is surely sensible to stop this happening and to say that it is wrong for taxpayers’ money to be used to fund third parties’ election campaigns.

[The Temporary Chairman (Sir Edward Leigh)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is starting to go around in circles, albeit in an elegant way, so he might now bring his remarks to a close.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

If I had not taken so many interventions I would have finished. The key point is immeasurably simple. There is a duty of care with taxpayers’ money. There is a risk of impropriety if it is spent by third parties on elections. That impropriety is a greater temptation to a sitting Government who control the purse strings than it is to the Opposition who do not. It is something that ought not to be allowed. We do not fund our political parties for their campaigning. We ought not to fund third parties. We ought to make it illegal.

[Angela Smith]

May I start my comments on clause 27 by declaring a non-financial interest in organisations in the third sector? I am the chair of the conservation and wildlife all-party group, the secretariat for which is provided by the Wildlife Trusts, and I am a vice-president of the League Against Cruel Sports. I am proud to be associated with both organisations.

Clause 27 depends for its validity on clause 26, which we have just discussed. In my opening remarks, therefore, I want to make it absolutely clear that if the Government’s intention is to rewrite clause 26 at some point—as they have indicated this afternoon that they will—the Opposition are justified in not supporting the subsequent clauses that depend on it. The Electoral Commission made this point in its latest briefing notes:

“We recommend that once the definition of controlled spending is confirmed, the Government and Parliament should consider again what spending limits will provide the appropriate balance between freedom of expression and controls on undue influence.”

In that context, the Opposition will find it difficult to support clause 27 as it stands. Indeed, we still fail to understand how the Government can support their own clause 26 when they considered in the previous debate that it needed rewriting, but there we are. We will listen carefully not only to the Minister but to the esteemed Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen).

We support taking the big money out of politics and we support sensible controls on the money spent by third parties. That is why we introduced the cap on third party spending, ensuring that we would never be like the United States, where unaccountable organisations can spend vast sums of money. We have no objection to a tough cap on third party spending.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke]

I thank the hon. Lady for that clarification. I think it is important that we represent our constituents. Following my direct responses to the 38 Degrees e-mails, many constituents replied and said that they saw that as a matter of great concern and that they agreed and had considerable sympathy with the position I had taken. I must say that I was surprised by that support. Having been forthright in my response, I did not expect to find much support from that particular quarter. I think that there is a message for Opposition Members to take away and consider, just as there is for Government Members. State-funded activists are engaged in direct lobbying of politicians and indirect lobbying of the public using taxpayers’ money, and I think that blurs the distinction between private and public action.

I also think that we all have a trust to uphold, in relation to the votes of supply and the impost we put on our constituents for the funding of Government and public money, to ensure that it is spent in a way that is targeted at particular social purposes and need. My concern is that if taxpayers’ money then finds its way back into arguing for more money to be spent on particular things, or indeed on the election of particular candidates or parties at an election, that is an abuse of the public trust that we are sent here to represent.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. I wonder whether he thinks that it would be a good idea to table a tougher amendment on Report to ensure that lobbying money cannot be spent when it is public funds.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making a case that I have made in the past. Government Front Benchers are listening and I hope they will consider introducing tougher restrictions on the abuse of public funds, so that all of us who care passionately about taxpayer value and reducing taxes, cutting the deficit further and faster, and reining in waste and excessive public spending are able to ensure that our constituents get better value for money from the Government and that their money is not misspent, but spent on the social purposes for which this House votes.

--- Later in debate ---

On the substance of the hon. Gentleman’s proposals, amendment 101 would amend clause 27 so that third parties in receipt of public funding would, 12 months before the commencement of a regulated period up to an election, be prohibited from incurring controlled expenditure in that regulated period. It would be an offence for them to do so. Many individuals and organisations receive public funding to undertake work—for example, providing services or carrying out research—that also further the Government’s aims. Preventing such individuals or organisations from campaigning during the regulated period for parliamentary elections, as the amendment requires, would be an excessive and unnecessary restriction. We have been clear that we are not seeking to stop organisations campaigning on policy issues, and we are not seeking to stop them campaigning politically, although we are seeking to reduce the cap in the way referred to by other Members. The intention of the Bill is to bring greater transparency to third party campaigning. It will not prohibit campaigning altogether, as the amendment seeks to do. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

My amendment would not prohibit them from campaigning; it would merely mean that they could not be registered third parties. They would still be able to campaign.

[Tom Brake]

The fact remains that, from a Government perspective, we do not want to be in a position where organisations currently assisting the Government are not able to campaign in election campaigns.

Amendment 66 would amend clause 27 so that it no longer lowers the expenditure threshold that third parties may exceed only after they register with the Electoral Commission. Clause 27 proposes that those registration thresholds be set at £5,000 in England and £2,000 in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Government are seeking to do that because we believe in greater transparency. We believe it is important that people understand who is campaigning in the course of election campaigns. It has been said, possibly by the Chair of the Select Committee, that that will have a huge impact on a very large number of charities. The Government’s assessment of how many extra charities will be included as a result of dropping the threshold is 30—just 30 charities would be affected. I accept that potentially 30 charities may be affected, but in practice the overwhelming majority of charities will not be affected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Having listened to this debate and the wonderful speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), I have discovered that all the wit and wisdom of this House would like me to bring forward a more stringent amendment on Report to ensure that no money is ever spent from Government funds and coffers on lobbying. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ms Eagle]

As always, my hon. Friend puts his finger on an extremely relevant point.

The Leader of the House made much of his personal commitment to the pre-legislative scrutiny of Bills, and I will be the first to praise him for that. However, his commitment is ringing pretty hollow now. The Government promised that there would be pre-legislative scrutiny on the lobbying proposals in part 1. In May 2012, when he was the Minister responsible, the present Minister for Immigration, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), told this House:

“We are going to . . . publish our proposals and put them up for pre-legislative scrutiny”.—[Official Report, 22 May 2012; Vol. 545, c. 972.]

There has been none, and the Government have deliberately chosen to preclude it by taking the Bill so quickly and on the Floor of the House.

Let us remind ourselves of what the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), who is now the responsible Minister, told the House in April this year—

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

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ms Eagle]

I will give way in due course to the hon. Gentleman, but I am in full flow making a particular point. If he will let me finish it, I will come back to him.

The current Minister in the Cabinet Office stated earlier this year:

“Cabinet Office Ministers have had no meetings with interested parties on the Government's plans for a proposed statutory register of lobbyists since September 2012.”—[Official Report, 26 March 2013; Vol. 560, c. 1057W.]

The hon. Lady appears to be completely unperturbed by her lack of consultation and engagement on these important matters.

The Leader of the House has regularly praised the work of Select Committees since the Wright reforms were implemented, and claimed the credit for their increasing power and influence. Why, then, has he chosen to ignore the impressive piece of work on lobbying done by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, which his Government have had in their in-tray for nearly a year? We had an apology from the right hon. Gentleman today, but does he really think that a two-paragraph response from the Government after this Bill was published is the way his Government should treat a serious piece of work by a well-respected Select Committee? He can hardly be surprised that the Committee believes that the Government have shown

“a lack of respect for Parliament and for the many people who contributed to our inquiry.”

The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee is so concerned about the Bill that it has been forced to hold emergency hearings during the recess. The right hon. Gentleman gave evidence to the Committee this morning. The Chair of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), spoke for many in this House, I know, when he said last week that the proposals on lobbying in the Bill amount to a “dog’s breakfast”. The hon. Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell), who I see in his place, immediately objected to the use of the term “dog’s breakfast” because in his words,

“Far more thought has gone into pet nutrition than into this Bill.”

As a Member whose constituency once contained a Spillers dog biscuit factory, I can tell the hon. Gentleman from my personal experience of pet nutrition that he is absolutely right.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who is always interesting, although I am afraid I fundamentally disagree with him on this occasion.

In fact, this is an excellent, measured and balanced Bill. It is the right Bill to introduce at this time. Every aspect of it makes me admire the Lord Privy Seal more than I have ever done before. He is right, in part 1, to have come to this approach for regulating lobbyists, because lobbying is an important part of our constitutional settlement. It is a right of individuals to come here to lobby us. Indeed, the petitioning of the Crown is a specific right in the Bill of Rights. It is why Parliament was assembled in the first place: people were able to petition for redress of grievance. Anything done to regulate or control lobbying has to be done with exceptional care and thoughtfulness, and to be as minimalist as possible while maintaining the proprieties we seek to achieve.

[Paul Flynn]

One of the most reliable and enthusiastic lobbyists in the country has had 53 meetings with Ministers in this Parliament, including 35 meetings with members of the Cabinet, to lobby for some sensible causes, some eccentric causes and some barmy causes. Should we not put this most influential lobbyist, Prince Charles, into the orbit of the Bill?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

We are so fortunate to have a Prince of Wales who is able to train properly for the job he will have as our sovereign in due course, and to have access to Ministers. Of course, that should be confidential. Compared to some princes of Wales we have had in the past, how fortunate—how blessed—is this nation to have one who does his duty so diligently? I am glad that he does, and I think we can admire His Royal Highness for that—almost as much as we admire the Lord Privy Seal.

[Chris Bryant]

I am slightly worried that the hon. Gentleman’s respect for the Lord Privy Seal is based on a fundamental misconception. I do not think he has read the Bill, because it does not say anything about regulating lobbying Parliament, only about lobbying Government. That is one of the Bill’s flaws.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Oh dear, the hon. Gentleman gets so over-excited on these occasions that he intervenes far too early. What I was going to come on to say is that the matter of what happens in Parliament is, rightly, not covered in the Bill. It is the duty of Parliament and the House of Commons itself to regulate its own affairs. If the Bill interfered in the procedures of this House I would oppose it. We have an absolute right, under the Bill of Rights, to freedom of speech in this House, and members of the public have the right of access to Members of Parliament. That absolute right must be defended. Members of the public must be free, whether individually or collectively, to express their views to Members of Parliament. If MPs fall foul of the high standards that are expected of them, then that is a matter for the Privileges Committee to deal with. We have powers not only to expel Members if necessary, but to imprison them, and they have no right of appeal to any court in the land.

That is how we should proceed in terms of Parliament. Government is another matter and that is why it is right that part 1 deals with the lobbying of Ministers of the Crown and of civil servants. That is a matter rightly confined to legislation.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but he just mentioned civil servants. In fact, the Bill does not cover civil servants, just permanent secretaries. Is that not a failing and an oversight of the Bill?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I do not think it is. It is important to deal with the senior figures who will be important in decision making, and the Bill is right to do that.

The Bill is also absolutely right to confine itself to professional lobbyists. It is surely reasonable that when a public company—for example, Coca-Cola or Shell—has a meeting with Ministers, we know and understand that they will be promoting their own business. However, when an obscure lobbyist wanders into Downing street, we want to know who that obscure lobbyist is promoting. [Interruption.] Bing Crosby? I do not think he has been going to Downing street recently. As far as I am aware he is no longer alive. It is right that regulation should be at ministerial level. Crucially, the Bill defends the liberty of people to lobby, so it has got that difficult balance right. There has been talk about the long gestation period of the Bill. That has been because it has not been easy for the balance, between the protections of freedom of speech and the need to regulate lobbying, to be correctly aligned. The Government, in their wisdom, have succeeded magnificently in doing that.

Part 2 is even better—it is the highlight of the Bill. It is so sensible that we should regulate third parties in the same way as political parties. The idea that a third party in a general election should be subject to less regulation than a political party that is openly fighting an election is the height of absurdity. The panic that we have had from the Opposition Benches and some in the charities section is glorious to behold. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) said that there was a firestorm—a literal firestorm—in Hampstead. I was hoping that London’s noble fire brigade was not going to go out and be disappointed—that it would not react as when it was summoned by Matilda, as you will remember, Mr Deputy Speaker: it came out in all its glory and, of course, there was no fire, because Matilda called the fire brigade when there was not a fire to be seen. Eventually, there was, and she burnt to death. That is the danger of saying that there are firestorms, when in fact this is a perfectly sound Bill.

[Lady Hermon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is so enthusiastic about this Bill. May I invite him to come to Northern Ireland, where I am sure everyone listens to every word he utters and takes it seriously? This Government are passing legislation in Northern Ireland to continue giving anonymity of political donations to political parties, yet we have wonderful charities in Northern Ireland that will be criminalised under this Bill if they happen to organise a rally or campaign in the run-up to an election. How can he square those two things?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady has been taken in by the scare story and this absurd idea of firestorms. That is not what is happening. Charities are not allowed to campaign in general elections, and quite rightly so. Political parties fight hard to raise their money, whether it comes from unions, business or individuals. Why should they not have charitable status, when charities may intervene in elections using the tax they have reclaimed—the extra funds and the status they have as charities—but without standing for election fully? And they cannot: the law does not allow charities to be directly involved in general elections.

That is quite correct, and it will be maintained by this Bill. There is no change in the status of charities: they are not allowed to promote particular candidates in elections. That is surely right, and it is why this Bill has caused a storm that is quite unnecessary, because charities will be able, as they are now, to put forward the views they hold dear, but not to back individual candidates. With all the tax and fundraising advantages that charities have, they should not be involved in the election process. That is the standard of the Charity Commission as it is today; it should remain so. The controls that are in place are not being changed.

What is being changed is the position on third parties—those organisations that lack the courage to stand for election, but wish to intervene in the election process by spending money up and down the country. They should be subject to the same requirements as political parties. If we are to have a cap on total spending for political parties that openly stand for election, a lower cap should be applied to third parties that do not have the courage to put their names forward to stand. If we do not have that, the alternative is to go down the American route, for which I have some sympathy, of completely unlimited spending—people can spend as much as they can raise. Opposition Members would not like that, because I can tell them that we on the Conservative side would raise a good deal more money on that basis than they do. We would outspend them a great deal, so they should be pleased about the caps, which are given by benign Conservatives to level the playing field with our socialist friends. That is a good way of ensuring that the democratic process is fair and is not skewed by money.

A lot of campaigning organisations, including the NCVO—the National Council for Voluntary Organisations —receive a lot of money directly from the Government, and they are now spending that Government money lobbying the Government. That seems a terrible waste of public funds. I hope that the Bill will be amended in Committee to make it even more perfect than perfect—to gild the lily—and prevent that wastage of public money.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, because I intended to come to the point she made. It is an important point and one that I raised this morning. I had a meeting with the Deputy Leader of the House and the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith). It was very civil and I got a cup of coffee out of it, but I do not think we made much progress in agreeing on very much.

The problems with the Bill are so fundamental that even the impact assessment is wrong. The civil servants who drafted the Bill—who, ironically, would not be covered by the lobbying Bill they are seeking to introduce—have failed to understand the lobbying industry. That is not surprising, given that they failed to meet anybody, from either side of the argument, in the last 12 months. They have not met Spinwatch, Unlock Democracy, Charter88, the charities or the Association of Professional Political Consultants—I could go on. Those civil servants have met nobody. They have stuck their fingers in their ears and produced a Bill that no one in the industry or on either side of the argument is prepared to support. That is a shocking state of affairs.

The civil servants who drafted the Bill have also misunderstood how to calculate the number of lobbyists. Their impact assessment claims that there are between 800 and 1,000 lobbying firms, but the evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee shows that there are fewer than 100. So the £500,000 that it will cost to set up the register, and the £200,000 a year running costs, will have to be met by 50 or 60 firms. Great free-marketeers and defenders of business such as the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) should join us in the Lobby tonight, because the burden that that will place on the companies caught by the legislation, many of which are small businesses, is ridiculous and disproportionate. The Bill will do nothing to solve that problem.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

If one takes a free-market view, the conclusion is not that we should have more regulation of many more people, as the hon. Gentleman wants to have.

[Thomas Docherty]

I believe in a level playing field. It should not matter whether someone works in-house or elsewhere, or whether they work for Rio Tinto or Oxfam, for Bell Pottinger or CAFOD. The same set of rules should apply equally to all of them. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not think that the rules should apply to all those who are paid—handsomely in some cases—to carry out this work.

I want to return to the point raised by the hon. Member for St Albans, and to take it slightly further. As I said to Ministers this morning, there was a case recently in which a Minister of the Crown met a third-party consultant—a commercial lobbyist, as I think they are called—to discuss a planning application in their constituency. The Government seem to define that as a private discussion. If that consultant had chosen to raise other issues at the meeting, that activity would not be covered by the Bill because the consultant would say, “I am meeting the Minister not in their role as a Minister of the Crown but in their role as a Member of Parliament. I just happened to raise a general issue of Government policy that might be of interest and over which the Minister might have some influence.” That would be ludicrous.

For that reason, if for no other, the rules should apply to all parliamentarians. Ministers of the Crown—whether in the House of Lords or the House of Commons—are all parliamentarians. Extending the rules would avoid any double standards. Many Members of Parliament are members, and chairs, of influential Select Committees. They have a greater amount of influence in shaping the early stages of Government policy than those who serve as Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State. Anyone who has read Chris Mullin’s excellent book, “A View from the Foothills”, will remember the ceaseless slog of the life of an Under-Secretary. I see a Parliamentary Private Secretary smiling at that suggestion. Select Committee Chairs are hugely influential. Similarly, Members of Parliament who sit on Bill Committees help to shape our legislation. They are the people who should be protected from unscrupulous lobbyists, and if we did that we would provide the public with far greater confidence in the process. The rules have to apply to all those who exert influence.

The rules cannot only be about those who directly communicate with those in a position of power. In all of my eight years as a lobbyist, in the House and in consultancy, I met a Minister on two occasions, at most. I used to advise others on who in the Government, in Parliament and in the Scottish Parliament it was best to go and see, on the correct issues on which to press them, and on what their arguments should be. The Bill does not cover any of the people who do that.

The Bill is so narrow that it does not even cover those consultants who sit in the room during meetings, because a person has to actually communicate with a Minister or permanent secretary in order to be covered. The consultant might have done all the preparatory work and the strategy, and we have all taken meetings that have been facilitated by the consultant, but they might not actually be in communication with the Minister or the permanent secretary. For example, if a consultant were to contact the diary secretary of the Leader of the House, that would still not be covered by the Bill.

This is a dreadful Bill. It is not worthy of further progress and I hope that the House will reject it and ask the Government to come back and do their homework correctly.

Lobbying

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Tuesday 25th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jon Trickett]

My hon. Friend makes an important point and does so more succinctly than I have been doing.

The Government’s strategy has been clear: to kick the whole issue into the long grass for as long as possible and then to try to confuse and obscure the true issues. Only last month, we had the Queen’s Speech in which there was no mention of lobbying reform. It is only now, because of recent unfavourable headlines, that my opposite number finally said that he wanted to see some lobbying reform. We shall have a look later at what sort of lobbying reform that might be.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jon Trickett]

I will, but will the hon. Gentleman tell me whether there will be a lobbying Bill before the summer recess?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

If the hon. Gentleman took the trouble to read Hansard, he would have noticed that a lobbying Bill was introduced yesterday, so there is already a lobbying Bill on the Order Paper from his hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). However, if this issue was so pressing at the time of the Queen’s Speech, why did the Labour party not raise it then or table an amendment to that effect? Or has it just jumped on a bandwagon?

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Jones]

I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once, so I hope that he will forgive me if I continue.

The fairly shabby little proposal before us is a reaction to a particular story, rather than an attempt to get things right. It is important that we have proposals that command cross-party support in the House and that, if possible, they are subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny. In my time in the House, a lot of bad legislation has been passed in a hurry, but a lot of legislation has been made better as a result of pre-legislative scrutiny, so I do not understand why the Government are shying away from that process. We need to get the proposals right for not just this Parliament, but future Parliaments, and we need a clear definition of “professional lobbying”, a clear code of conduct and strong sanctions for breaches of that code. Why on earth are the Government so reluctant to go down that road?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am in almost entire agreement with the hon. Lady that we need to move at a steady and sensible pace so that we reach a proper conclusion. Can she explain why Government and Opposition Front Benchers—as expressed in the motion and the amendment —want to get everything done by the summer recess?

[Helen Jones]

I do not think that Labour Members are arguing for that at all. We want a full and comprehensive proposal, not a half-baked one that covers only part of the industry and that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) said, could damage part of the industry. If a register is to end bad practices, it has to be backed by proper sanctions. We know that transparency is essential, so why on earth are we not going down that road? After all, the Prime Minister kept saying that sunlight was the “best disinfectant”—I wonder what happened to that phrase.

Even those involved in the industry are unenthusiastic, to say the least. The director general of the Public Relations Consultants Association called the proposals “unfit for purpose”. The chair of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations said:

“Basically it’s so weak now there’s no point in us joining it”.

Surely that is not good in the long run for the Government —of any colour—for Parliament and for the reputation of politicians as a whole, so I urge the Government to think again. They need to understand what is at stake, which is no less than the reputation of politicians and the political class as a whole.

If we are to get it right, we must try to come to an agreement. It has been said from the Front Bench that we have no problem with regulating trade union lobbying activities. However, the Government should not confuse the regulation of lobbying with the funding of political parties. By all means let us have a debate on that, but it will have to include the role of commercial companies and their donations, organisations such as the Midlands Industrial Council, and so on. To try to push the two together to attack one lot of political funding but not another is not a sign of serious government; it is a sign of a Government wanting to score cheap political points, rather than to sort out the problem, and I hope they will not do that.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a great pleasure, as always, to follow the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris). I learned that the Morning Star still exists. I confess that I was unaware of that. I thought that it had gone with the Berlin wall and all that.

As so often in this Chamber, we are not discussing a new problem. The issue of lobbying and undue influence goes back into the mists of time. Delving back not too far, who can forget Sir John Trevor, a former Speaker of the House who was expelled both from the speakership and from Parliament for accepting a 1,000 guinea bribe from the City of London to promote a Bill on orphanages? Interestingly, the Chairman of the Bill Committee, Mr Hungerford, received only 20 guineas for his service. He, too, was expelled from the House. I reflect that the Speaker was worth almost 40 times as much as the Chairman of a Committee. I wonder whether the relativities have changed in this more modern age.

Sir John Trevor and Mr Hungerford were expelled by this House for being unduly lobbied. Interestingly, they were unduly lobbied by another arm of the state: the corporation of London. It is worth bearing it in mind that, contrary to what the hon. Member for Easington said, it is not only wicked businesses that are involved in lobbying; it is something that happens across society. Everyone has an axe to grind regarding the issues that face this House. They therefore come to us to lobby. In and of itself, that is a perfectly legitimate activity.

As my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) so rightly said, it is an historic right of every one of our constituents to come to Central Lobby, demand our presence and tell us their views on whatever subject is important to them. That is a wonderful historic right. It is a pity that people do not know about it and do not use it more. We ought to encourage our constituents to come and lobby us in that way. There is a nobility in lobbying that must not be lost in the midst of the discussion about what is, in effect, corruption. Let us try to use the terms differently and not allow lobbying to become a polite term for criminality, dishonesty and corruption.

Within British politics, there are essentially two types of lobbying. There is the lobbying of Members of Parliament, which is perhaps the triumph of hope over experience, whereby people come to see somebody such as myself, a junior Back-Bench MP, and say that they want me to do this, that and the next thing and to change legislation, thinking that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House hang on my every word. Sadly, I have to tell such people that that is not quite how it works. MPs have the ability to debate and argue, but not necessarily to change the course of the world. Then there is the lobbying of Ministers, who have a much greater and more direct Executive power—a decision-making power, rather than merely an influencing power. The two types of lobbying need to be regulated differently and separately.

There is a difference between those on the Opposition Front Bench and the Government Front Bench. Opposition Front Benchers have the hope and possibly the expectation of power. Those on the Treasury Bench have the reality of power and lobbying them can have a direct influence on what is happening. They should therefore be subject to a higher standard of openness and transparency than Opposition Front Benchers, who ought to be entitled to their smoke-filled rooms, although as they are socialists, the rooms will have no smoke in them, because they do not approve of that sort of thing. You know what I mean, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Given the difference between Government and Parliament, we need to legislate only for Government. Parliament has all the powers that it needs to regulate its own affairs, if only we had the courage to use them. We have a Committee of Privileges and a Committee on Standards. We are entitled to expel Members who misbehave. We may do so not according to a detailed set of rules, but according to whether we believe, as a House, that they have undermined the reputation of the House and have not behaved like honourable Members. Such a decision is not justiciable in any court in the land because we are the High Court of Parliament. The regulation of our own affairs is not challengeable in the other House, as was established by the Bradlaugh case, when an atheist was refused the right to sit in Parliament.

We have the right as a Chamber to admit and expel Members. When Members abuse the rules, we ought to exercise that power and clear up politics directly ourselves. That does not require legislation to come through before the summer recess; it simply requires us to have the willpower and the backbone to do what we are able to do already.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman’s flow. I compliment him on his speech. Will he clarify what the consequence is in the other place when peers commit a similar offence?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The House of Lords, when considering what it could do about the expenses scandal, discovered that it had the right to imprison a peer for a Session. It decided that it must therefore also have the power to suspend a peer for a Session. However, it may only do that Session by Session. It cannot expel a peer because a peerage comes from the sovereign, whereas our position in this House comes from the people to whom we can be sent back. To get rid of a peerage requires primary legislation. That was done in 1917 to remove a group of peers who were fighting for the Germans and the Austrians during the first world war. It is open to this House to do that with the other place. We may pass an Act of Parliament to remove a category of peers who have committed offences. The House of Lords itself can suspend peers Session by Session. It can repeat such a suspension if it believes that the offence is egregious enough.

This House also has the power to punish individuals outside the House. If people are in contempt of Parliament, we have the ultimate power to imprison them. I am not proposing that we should use that power extensively, but if lobbyists try to bribe or corrupt Members of Parliament, it is not unreasonable that Parliament herself should impose the punishment on those lobbyists. That would be a matter of us regulating ourselves, using the power given to us by the British people, rather than farming it out, through legislation, to the courts to decide whether parliamentary privilege has been breached.

[Damian Collins]

When the Culture, Media and Sport Committee took evidence during the phone-hacking inquiry, we found that many of Parliament’s powers to summon and even imprison people for misleading Parliament or for being in contempt of Parliament are historical. It is not certain what their legal status is and whether they have been superseded by subsequent legislation.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The power of the House to regulate its own affairs is one of the fundamental building blocks of the constitution. That power cannot be given up, except by this House voluntarily surrendering it, which it has not done. No court in this land can question a decision made by this House to regulate its own affairs. It is arguable that the European courts could, but we can take away their right to do so by a simple piece of legislation. If we are to legislate, therefore, it should be to reinforce our self-regulatory powers and to remove the possibility of challenge. That would clarify what we can do, and we should then go ahead and do it.

[John Cryer]

Of course, technically it is not actually an offence for an MP to accept a bribe. A motion was passed—I have not got the information in front of me—in the 17th century that specifically condemned MPs who accept bribes, but it has never been enforced.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. My point about Sir John Trevor is that we should use the power this House has to expel a Member for taking a bribe. That is not the same as a criminal offence. Sir John was entitled, had he wished and had his electorate wanted him back, to stand for Parliament again. As it happened, the King promoted him to become Master of the Rolls, so he did not do too badly out of it in the end.

There is a difference between the penal power of Parliament and statute law and the requirement of an offence for a statutory punishment. There is no need for a specific offence for Parliament to act, which is a benefit because it is easier for us to expel a Member, and it leaves the person expelled with a right of appeal to his constituents. The British people would then be the ones to make the final decision. They would be entitled to decide whether the lobbying the Member had been caught up with was of a kind that they approved or disapproved of. Ultimately, it is right that we should trust the democratic forces of the electorate to judge our behaviour rather than parcelling it out to the judiciary, who I think are in a less strong position to judge whether what has happened is acceptable, right and proper in the political context in which it has taken place.

It is important to remember that we can also punish those who are in contempt of Parliament. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) that we need to use those powers to remind people that they still exist. By allowing them to wither on the vine, we have weakened the ability of Parliament to clean up its own Act. Had we done so over the expenses situation, we would not be in the sorry state we are now in with politicians being held in very low esteem.

I urge the Government, rather than rushing hastily to legislation, to consider whether the powers that already exist can be used to clean up our own act, and can be used in a way that overcomes the difficulties of definition that the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), the shadow spokesman, spoke very clearly of in his speech. That is the centre point of legislating, but it is the hardest point to define.

I will leave hon. Ladies and Gentlemen with this thought: what happens when a constituent comes, accompanied by his accountant, as happened to me last week, to complain that he has been defrauded and wants me to do something to help him? His accountant is paid, is representing his views, and might be the only member of his firm, but he is clearly lobbying me. And then, what do we think of the Whips, who lobby me on an almost daily basis on whether I am to vote Aye or No, and are often successful in their desire to get me going in the right direction? Should we have a register of them to ensure that their behaviour is even more proper, benign and pious than it already is?

Sittings of the House (Wednesday 17 April)

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Tuesday 16th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[George Galloway (Bradford West) (Respect)]

I have never heard such tosh.

This House of Commons continued its adversarial, bear-pit, unarmed political combat throughout the darkest days of the second world war. Mr Churchill did not ask for Parliament to be silenced and for confrontations across the House to be forbidden when our soldiers were being laid waste. In the Norway debate, the House of Commons rose perhaps to its finest 20th century moment. Nobody said, “Our armed forces have suffered a disaster. The House of Commons cannot meet. The clash of ideas cannot be heard. We must muffle the drums and silence ourselves.” At Dunkirk, the House clashed without pause. Real war leaders like Mr Churchill understood that the whole point of our being here, the whole point of democracy, the whole point of elections is that we do not suspend normal political activity.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[George Galloway]

Happily; I have a lot to say and I may take some time to say it.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He has missed the rather important point that between 1939 and 1945, general elections were suspended, so democracy was suspended during the war and his history is faulty.

[George Galloway]

Actually, there were many by-elections, some of which produced spectacular results—as spectacular as the one in Bradford West just over a year ago.

In any case, is anyone suggesting that Aneurin Bevan did not stand from these Benches and lacerate real war leaders about their conduct of the war? The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) is a scholar and a gentleman. He knows well the words that came from Mr Amery on his side at the darkest hour in the Norway debate, which brought about the defenestration of the Prime Minister and the coming to office of Mr Churchill, about whom more, much more, later. We did not suspend our democracy in our darkest hours; why are we suspending it now?

It was said by one of those in the iron-clad consensus on the Front Benches that this is a national funeral. I am sorry, but it is not a national funeral. There can be a national funeral only when there is a national consensus about the person being buried. That consensus does not exist in relation to Mrs Thatcher. No matter how oft people from the Front Benches fawn upon her, pour honeyed words upon her or even—outside this House, of course—tell lies about her and her record, that will not change. The British establishment, and the Opposition parties in particular, are making a profound misjudgment if they imagine that there are not tens of millions of people in the country, all of whom have votes, who are very angry about a whole range of issues that have arisen. With your permission, Mr Speaker, I hope to adumbrate some of those issues in relation to the motion this evening.

If I were to speak shortly, it would be with that great New York phrase, “Enough already.” We have had enough of this; it has gone on too long and gone too far, and this—the idea that we should suspend a vital part of our democratic process for a party political, and private, funeral—puts the tin hat on it.

Do not get me wrong. I will not be demonstrating at the funeral tomorrow; I believe it is wrong to demonstrate at someone’s funeral, but I will not agree to suspend our democracy so that some of the friends of the deceased do not have to make a choice between attending Prime Minister’s question time or going to the funeral. That choice is up to them to make, and it is of course clear that they could do both, although they would—tender sensibilities though they may have—have to come into the bear pit immediately on their return to the House. But that is what they are here for; that is what they were elected to be here for.

Harold Wilson, who won four general elections and did not receive a scintilla of the treatment that the British establishment has rolled out for the deceased on this occasion, said that a week was a long time in politics. This week has been a very long time. We were told at the beginning of the week that it was disrespectful to speak of someone so recently dead. I was told on the BBC yesterday that I should hold my peace until Thursday. How much national mourning, without consensus and without justification, are we supposed to observe?

You know, Mr Speaker, how much personal respect I have for you, so I hope you will accept that I mean nothing personal by this point. However, the decision to muffle Big Ben, just after the BBC muffled “Ding Dong!”, summed the whole thing up. It has become farcical. There is no national consensus around the deceased, and there was no justification for muffling Big Ben because that puts the deceased on a par with Mr Churchill—a very divisive politician. My grandparents helped overturn his car after the count in Dundee in the 1930s when he was thrown out of Parliament in the city.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Galloway]

I would much prefer to give way to the hon. Gentleman than for him to cackle and wobble his ample girth from a sedentary position.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you rule whether such turns of phrase are parliamentary?

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer is that what has just been said was distasteful, but was not disorderly. It does not seem to have evoked any great display of misery on the part of the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke), but I know that when the hon. Member for Bradford West rises to speak again, he will do so with the degree of calm and measurement of his words for which I know, in future years, he will want to be renowned.

Draft Voting Eligibility (Prisoners) Bill (Joint Committee)

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Tuesday 16th April 2013 Commons Chamber

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

Let me reassure the hon. Lady that I am not an anarchist, although I serve on the Committee, and that, actually, we follow my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) very carefully.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I just say that the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention was demonstrably superfluous?

Sittings of the House (22 March)

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ms Eagle]

The hon. Gentleman should hear me out, because I have a few other things to say about the trends we on this side of the House have perceived. Perhaps when he has listened to me he might form an opinion, rather than having an opinion before he has heard what I have to say.

Both last year and this year the Government decided to sit on a Friday and begin the recess on a Tuesday, and this year that means the Prime Minister will next have to appear at Prime Minister’s questions and justify the Budget to the House fully 28 days after the date of the Budget. Perhaps it takes him 28 days to plough through all the Budget documentation, but the rest of us have to react instantly, and so should he.

Let me readily acknowledge that when the original sittings motion suggesting this arrangement was put to the House on 17 December last year, the Opposition did not vote against it, and before any Member on the Government Benches leaps up to point this out, I also acknowledge that six days earlier, on 11 December, the Chancellor had announced that the date of the 2013 Budget would be 20 March. I must confess that I was perhaps guilty of feeling a little too much pre-Christmas spirit towards the Government and might even have been lulled by the season into a false sense of security that they were not being Machiavellian with the parliamentary timetable. I now know I was wrong to be so generous to them.

I often worry about the adversarial nature of our parliamentary system putting people off politics, so I considered the possibility that the observation I have made about our current Prime Minister’s strange aversion to the House sitting on Wednesdays might just be partisan criticism on my part.

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

Would it not be perverse of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to avoid Wednesday questions when he is so much better at them than the hon. Lady’s right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition?

[Ms Eagle]

With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is a matter of opinion, and he and I may disagree about the judgment he has just presented to the House.

I wondered whether this strange aversion to Wednesdays might be randomly generated happenstance or unsupported by any evidence. I was even beginning to chide myself a little for developing such unworthy thoughts about Machiavelli or anybody else, so I decided to check the evidence. I looked back at the record to see how often the House has risen for recesses on Tuesdays, and it turns out that during the period when Tony Blair was Prime Minister the House rose on Tuesdays 22% of the time, and when my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) was Prime Minister the House rose on Tuesdays 29% of the time, but since 2010 while the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) has been Prime Minister the House has risen on Tuesdays a whopping 58% of the time.

These figures prove that this Prime Minister is categorically no heir to Blair in his desire to be answerable for the actions of his Government in this Chamber. They prove he truly has an aversion to Wednesdays and a reluctance to let the House sit on Wednesdays if he can possibly avoid it. What on earth can the Prime Minister be scared of?

--- Later in debate ---

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

Of course, many of us wish the House to sit at every possible opportunity, because it is the debating chamber of the nation and its sitting gives us an opportunity to represent our constituents and hold the Executive to account in a way that keeps them properly on their toes. When I read the amendment, I must confess that I was struck by the nobility of the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) in wishing to offer up the Leader of the Opposition as a sacrificial lamb. He is put out weekly and then resuscitated, only to be brought back again and laid on the Dispatch Box of slaughter before our great Prime Minister, who week in, week out—

[Thomas Docherty]

I had the pleasure of being in the hon. Gentleman’s company last night at Buckingham palace, where fizz was available. May I suggest that if he thought that the Prime Minister won earlier today, he might have had a glass or two too many?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because his intervention allows me to inform the House that I am observing my Lenten abstinence and, therefore, took great delight in nothing stronger than Her Majesty’s Sandringham apple juice.

On occasions such as this, one’s mind always turns to cricket, because there is a great similarly between Prime Minister’s questions and cricket. The Leader of the Opposition has six questions, and those Members who are up on their cricket will know that there are six balls in an over. That takes us back to 1968, to the great occasion at Glamorgan when one Malcolm Nash came on to bowl. I see the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) as the Malcolm Nash of Prime Minister’s questions, but I see our Prime Minister as the Garfield Sobers. Malcolm Nash runs in to bowl and the Prime Minister smites the ball for six. The next ball goes over Big Ben. The next goes over the Victoria Tower. The fourth ball is in the Thames, and the fifth is at the London eye.

[Thomas Docherty]

As a member of the all-party group on cricket, I understand the hon. Gentleman’s metaphor. Surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be Geoffrey Boycott, because he simply runs his colleagues out?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

It is a great joy to have a Scotsman in the Chamber who is knowledgeable about cricket. It is a triumph of English civilisation spreading north and is extraordinarily welcome. Mr Geoffrey Boycott is one of the most successful cricketers of all time. If the Chancellor is like him, a man of noble dedication to his task, the only batsman to have averaged over 100 in a season twice in his career, one of the highest-scoring batsmen in the history of cricket, and that is what a socialist thinks of him, what then will a Conservative say of a man of such aplomb, ability and foresight?

Let us get back to the issue of Wednesday and what I think is the Christian charity of the Leader of the House, who feels that it is unfair to put the Leader of the Opposition through the torment of Prime Minister’s questions on an additional unnecessary occasion and that it would be showing off to allow the Prime Minister to smite him to the boundary once again. Therefore, we will come back on a dutiful Friday, a proper working day, rather than one for doing other things. I cancelled my commitments with pleasure so that I could be in the House, not necessarily to speak, but for the pleasure of listening to others debate the Budget, enumerating the triumphs of Conservatism, the success of the proposals that will have been brought forward and the enthusiasm we will have for the way this Government are boldly, satisfactorily and rightly marching forward to get the economy back in shape after the horrific errors made by the socialists. I must therefore oppose the amendment.

[Thomas Docherty]

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that Tony Blair was a socialist?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

His party was socialist, his Government were socialist and his successor was a socialist; I think that there is a lot of socialist still left in the Labour party.

We will have that Friday, a day of jubilee, to come in and praise the Government for what they have done and for their wisdom and foresight. We are being kindly and charitable—nice, really—to the Opposition by not inflicting upon them the terrible experience they must have every week. None the less, I must confess that I admire the nobility of the hon. Member for Wallasey in bringing forward her amendment. For the Labour party to take this on puts one in mind of the charge of the Light Brigade. How does it go?

“Cannon to right of them,

Cannon to left of them,

Cannon behind them”

[Mr Spellar]

rose—

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will volley and thunder.

[Mr Spellar]

Does the hon. Gentleman not care about the employment prospects of the fact checkers for Channel 4 and various journals who are regularly employed every Wednesday, including today, when the Prime Minister claimed that the bedroom tax did not apply to those with disabled children? Does he not feel for them in that they will have less work to do because the Prime Minister—I would never accuse him in this Chamber of misrepresenting the position—does not understand his own policies?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I believe it is orderly, Mr Speaker, to say that the right hon. Gentleman is guilty of terminological inexactitude. The Prime Minister said nothing about a bedroom tax, for there is no bedroom tax. The Prime Minister is somebody who deals in truth, right and justice, and therefore does not talk about things that do not exist.

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend has convinced me that the only thing properly to do if one wants to support the Prime Minister in allowing him to have another crack at the Opposition is to support the Opposition’s amendment.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am delighted that, as always, my hon. Friend has come up with a novel argument. I hope that it is approved of by Mrs Bone, although I would have thought that she would like to have him back for Easter by Holy Wednesday, which does seem a little late to be sitting.

Let me remind the House of my admiration for the nobility of the Opposition in offering themselves up as sacrificial lambs. Perhaps it is appropriate, in the context of Holy Wednesday, for them to be thinking of sacrificial lambs. However, it is better to save them the embarrassment and humiliation of having to watch, and save the nation its pity at having to watch, the poor Leader of the Opposition being filleted by our noble, illustrious and great Prime Minister, who on every Wednesday comes forth and ensures that there is success, a spring in the step of Conservatives, and joy across the land.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Spellar]

My hon. Friend rightly draws me back to the immediate topic, tempting, interesting and attractive though it is to discuss the broader issues of parliamentary sovereignty and procedure. He is right that most of the factors, including the date of the Budget, were well known when the motion was laid. The number of days that we traditionally take for the Budget debate was known, as too was the date of Easter. In fact, the date of Easter could have been known several decades, if not centuries, ago. The procedure for calculating Easter was decided at the Council of Nicaea in 325. At that time, they could probably have calculated when this Easter would be.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Was it not St Wilfrid and the Synod of Whitby that settled the date of Easter in England?

[Mr Spellar]

The date of Easter is the first Sunday after the full moon following the March equinox. I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to ask me whether this was under the Julian or Gregorian calendar, but he did not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

I will not speak for long, Mr Speaker, as I am sure that you, like many other Members, are keen to hear Fatboy Slim, who is on the Terrace this evening. I know that is why so many Members are present. Some of us remember Fatboy Slim from The Housemartins. For the benefit of the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), The Housemartins were a popular beat combo from the ’80s—the 1980s.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

What on earth is a beach combo?

[Thomas Docherty]

Perhaps my broad Scottish accent is to blame, but I said beat combo. The hon. Gentleman is, of course, very familiar with a Fife accent. We had the pleasure of his company in central Fife in 1997. He mentioned cricket earlier, and was slightly surprised that cricket is played in Scotland. Dunfermline Knights are a very good cricket team. I am sure he will recall that central Fife, which is now ably represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Lindsay Roy), has also got a useful local cricket club. Perhaps we could arrange a visit.

First, may I commend the Leader of the House on the Government’s relatively early U-turn and the fact that we are having this debate early in the month? Some other U-turns have tended to come much closer to the date. I also want to pick up on the valid point made about Cambridgeshire’s finest parliamentarian. I think the Leader of the House has made a pretty good start to his tenure in his current distinguished and important role. I was going to suggest he was probably going to be the finest Cambridgeshire parliamentarian since Cromwell. I am conscious that we have colleagues here from across the water who will tempt me into debating Oliver Cromwell. Whatever his faults, Oliver Cromwell was always a great believer in the rights of Parliament to hold the—

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Oliver Cromwell used his troops to stop Members voting the wrong way in a Division—even the Whips do not try that one.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. These exchanges are most entertaining but they are somewhat wide of the mark. I cannot encourage the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) to dilate any further on the matter of Cromwell. He must dilate, if he has to dilate, on the terms of the matter before us, which I feel sure he will now do.