Risk-based Exclusion
Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
I accept and believe that it is important that we have some means of protecting people in this House. This is something that we have been trying to do, and the introduction of the ICGS has helped in that process, making people confident that there is a route through which they can complain and where they can have their best interests assured and safeguarded.
The problem with this motion is that it is simply unconstitutional. If we want to go down this route, we need to legislate for it. From time immemorial—actually since 1340—unmolested access to this House has been the right of every Member and that is for a very good reason. These privileges are not for us as individuals, but they are, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Sir Liam Fox) said, because of the 80,000 people whom we represent.
The ability to take away that right of attendance has always been held exclusively by the whole House. There is one exception I can think of to this and that is in 1648 with Pride’s purge—[Interruption.] We have some chuntering from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) as we so often do. Yes, the Speaker may name somebody and ask them to withdraw, but any suspension requires a motion—a divisible motion. We have expelled Members historically. We have suspended Members and continue to do so. That involves a vote of the whole House. If we expel a Member, that Member has the right then to stand for Parliament and be sent straight back again. That is a fundamental right not of us, but of the people who sent us here.
The John Wilkes case is famous. The House disliked an individual Member and expelled him, but he stood and he succeeded and he was returned. Politically, that is of great importance. In this instance, we are suggesting that a small committee will have the power to deny constituents representation. That is not within the power of this House, unless it acts as a whole. A small committee cannot deprive Members of the right of attendance. It is a right, as I have said, that goes back to 1340. The only way to override such ancient rights—this is the whole basis of our system of common law—is by legislation, not by motion.
Mr Carmichael
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is of course right about the constitutionality of this, but we all know that, in practical terms in recent times, things have been done differently and that people have been excluded by agreement however obtained from the Whips. Surely what we have here is something that would be more transparent and would apply with equal measure to everyone?
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg
The right hon. Gentleman says that a Member agreeing not to come in is the same as banning a Member from coming in. That is clearly not true.
It would not take very long to turn this motion into legislation, and that would be the proper constitutional way of doing this.
The proposal is, to my mind, entirely ineffective. We know that the powers of arrest of the Serjeant at Arms are pretty much phantasmagorical. I am sorry to embarrass the great Serjeant, who is sitting in his place. He is a most distinguished figure, but the idea that he could turn up and arrest somebody for failing to appear at a Select Committee is pretty much theatre rather than an effective threat. Our ancient powers of imprisoning are no longer there, so what happens when this person, excluded by a small cabal, decides to turn up? What are we going to do? We will have a vote of the whole House to expel him—the proper process in the first place.
Sir Chris Bryant
Notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman’s previous remark, I mostly agree with what he says. There is a problem here. When the Standards Committee reported on this, we made the point that exclusion is the very last thing that should be considered. In most cases, a Member in this kind of situation would choose to accept the decision voluntarily. However, we also said that if a Member chose not to, the House should vote on whether the Member should be excluded. Would the right hon. Gentleman be happy with that process?
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman: any exclusion must be a decision of the whole House. That is our most ancient constitutional right. The idea that it can be stopped by three people—even, Madam Deputy Speaker, one as distinguished as the Chairman of Ways and Means—is not in the spirit of our constitution.
Sir David Davis
Is the substance of what my right hon. Friend says that if we enacted this procedure, it would be subject to challenge in the courts?
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg
I am saying that it would be ineffective because a right hon. or hon. Member would simply maintain the right to turn up. There would be no power to arrest that person when turning up, therefore what would we do next, and what would we do if a person so outraged by the allegation said, “Well, I’m going to call a by-election, stand for Parliament and be returned”?
A general election is coming in the next few months. What would we do if a Member subject to this procedure were reselected by his constituency association and returned? By ancient principle, a Member who is returned cannot then be barred for something that happened in the last Parliament. Are we going to start saying, “The people of constituency X have duly voted in somebody who we suspended in the last Session, and who we are going to re-suspend”? Just before the last general election, Keith Vaz was subject to a report that was not entirely in his favour. Everyone recognised that that suspension could not carry over a general election.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I have immense respect for my right hon. Friend’s knowledge of constitutional matters. As an excellent former Leader of the House, why does he think that the Government have introduced an unconstitutional measure, rather than apply the due court process by having the House of Commons make the decision?
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg
It is because we have become confused about the limits of exclusive cognisance. The House has exclusive cognisance about its own affairs, but acting as the whole House. Look at the case of the exclusion of Bradlaugh. That was an action of the whole House. What did we do when Bobby Sands was elected to Parliament? We changed the law so that people subject to a criminal sentence could not stand for Parliament. We did not try to set up some approvals committee that would decide who could put their name forward; we followed a proper constitutional process. To answer my hon. Friend, I am astonished that our learned Clerks, who must have advised on this, have allowed such an extraordinary power grab by Standing Orders to undermine a fundamental of our constitution.
I know that when Members of Parliament talk about privilege it sounds as if they are talking about themselves, but it is about our constituents’ right to be represented. They are not represented only by votes. Indeed, most of the time they are least represented by votes, which go the way of the Government majority, with one vote more or less not making a hap’orth of difference. They are marginally represented by written questions, but not much. I have given answers to written questions; sometimes they seem to be as unilluminating as possible. I always tried to improve the illumination where I could. The real representation is in this very room. It is not even in Westminster Hall or in Committee; it is in this great cockpit of debate. A cabal taking away that right is against the constitution.
I will make a couple of little points about the proposal. I do not have a strong view on whether the term should be “arrested” or “charged”, as long as the process is proper and constitutional. I think that it would be perfectly fair even if it was automatic, if it were done by a proper constitutional process. That is not really the issue, but I think that what is proposed is deeply unfair. I will point to two things.
First, the panel will not be given the name of the Member being risk assessed. Dare I say, tell that to the marines. We know in this place that it is inconceivable that a panel of two Deputy Speakers and a panjandrum would not know the name; we would all have been told it by the Lobby correspondents. That is how I find out everything that goes on here, usually from The Mail on Sunday, which has a hotline to what is going on. Those on the committee would know very soon, so that seems to me to be phoney, and not recognising reality.
Secondly, the report states that
“Members must not lobby the Panel…We carefully considered whether a Member subject to risk assessment should have the right to make representations”.
If someone is being risk assessed, how can they maintain that they are low risk if they are not allowed to represent themselves? I think it is extraordinarily unfair that they will be tried in absentia by a cabal, undermining the rights of their constituents. If we want to do this, let us find time for legislation, and let us do it properly.
Sir Philip Davies
I will not, because others want to speak and I do not want to take their time.
I will raise two other points. My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) is absolutely right about the fact that when this motion was originally tabled, it was about arrest, and the Government have just changed the wording to “charged” but kept the rest of it in place, which is completely unsatisfactory. Personally, for the reason that I have given, I would get rid of the panel altogether, because I suspect that the outcome would be the same on every single thing, whether arrest or charge, to be perfectly honest. I am not entirely sure what the point of the panel is. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that when the matter relates to a charge, the panel is completely unnecessary, and we should get rid of it.
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg
I think the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) is more constitutional—although still far from perfect—because whether to exclude under certain circumstances is a decision for the House, rather than a decision for the House to delegate. His amendment to this rather bad motion is at least an improvement.
Sir Philip Davies
There is no better endorsement than that, as far as I am concerned, so that will do for me and, I am sure, for my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley.
The Order Paper indicates that amendment (c) is expected to be pressed to a Division, and I hope that it is. It was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), who cannot be here because of all the parliamentary business that he is engaged in today, but I have signed it, Madam Deputy Speaker, and would be prepared to move it. It comes back to the point—one that my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands made—about this motion being sort of cobbled together with a different original purpose.
Amendment (c) is about removing proxy voting from somebody who is subject to a charge. I do not think that there is any justification at all for somebody who has been charged with a serious sexual or violent offence to be given a proxy vote, when people with far better reasons for being absent from the House are not given that privilege. It would be an outrage, in my opinion, if they were treated more favourably than other Members who had just as good a reason for not being here. I very much hope that the Leader of the House will accept the amendment, which I think reflects the mood of the House. Proxy voting is a step too far, and it is a consequence of not amending the motion when the decision was made to change the wording from arrest to charge.
I would like to say a lot more—I said last week that this debate was not long enough, given the seriousness of the issue, and I maintain that view—but I want to allow others to speak. I completely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset when he says that this is an unsatisfactory process, and if he were to vote against the whole motion, I would have a lot of sympathy with him, but I hope that colleagues accept that “charged” strikes the right balance by being fair to everybody—including our constituents, who are the most important people for this House to think about—and in terms of safeguarding the people who work here. I also hope that Members will accept amendment (c), tabled by hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and me, to scrap proxy voting in that situation. That would at least make the motion better than it would otherwise be.
Jess Phillips
The trouble is that that is what is currently happening. The hon. Gentleman, or anybody else who does not want there to be a two-year wait between arrest and charge, might like to join me in all my advocacy. When I worked in this field before I was in this building, it was not two years between arrest and charge, so maybe the Leader of the House could reflect on her party’s own record in that regard. Of course it should not take that long. I think it was the hon. Member for Amber Valley who said, “If it was quick”—well, we all want to see that for everybody involved, but there is this idea that we are superior beings who should not have to be concerned about safeguarding laws that are totally standard practice across the whole of the country. Do you know who gets excluded now? It is the person who got raped. We say, “This magical being has to be able to stay because in 1348, blah, blah, blah.” What about the person who got raped who works here?
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg
My point was that this should be done properly. The hon. Lady makes a compelling case for arrest, but only if it is done in a proper and constitutional manner.
Jess Phillips
Like, I say, I am often right on these things. I am going to err to the right hon. Gentleman’s judgment on that point. What I am saying—I do not mean to besmirch him—is that we seem to act like we are superior beings. The people who currently get excluded are often young women—I have dealt with cases where it was young men—who never work in politics again. The woman I spoke to first thing this morning has never set foot in this building again. She has given up politics—we have extinguished that light. We gave it up, we excluded her, and we allowed the person she alleges did that to her to walk around in this place. Everybody who votes against arrest would be willing to allow that person to walk around, possibly being a danger to somebody else, for another two years.
Penny Mordaunt
I will come to the hon. Gentleman, but let me crack through the other points.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg) gave some examples that slightly misunderstood what the scheme is doing. We are not talking about a Member being expelled from the House, or losing their place as a Member of the House, but being excluded from the estate for a limited period. It is for Parliament, in accordance with the principle of exclusive cognisance, to organise its own affairs. It is orderly therefore for this House to consider the proposals in the way that it is. He invites us to consider a scenario where a Member of Parliament resigned as an MP and then stood for re-election and asked whether this process would still apply to them. If they were still under charge, yes, it would.
Penny Mordaunt
I will come to my right hon. Friend once I have been through the points that have already been raised.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) for his attention and for giving the House the option to vote on his amendment. When the Commission was looking at this matter, we looked at potential scenarios—not at charge, but at arrest—where someone might be arrested for a violent offence, but it would not be deemed appropriate to exclude them from the estate. One example we looked at was someone who was a victim of domestic abuse. That is where that particular line comes from.
The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), who has great experience in this area, and the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and others talked about a raft of issues related to arrest. One issue that did arise when people were looking at this matter is an obvious question: if bail conditions have not been applied to an individual, is it right for a panel to impose its own? The panel could face a small number of situations where bail conditions and restrictions had not been placed on an individual, but the panel felt that further restrictions would need to be looked at with regard to the estate.
The hon. Member for North East Fife raises an important point about charge versus arrest. I will offer the arguments forwarded for consistency on charge for the sake of thoroughness of debate. A criminal investigation is commenced where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence has been committed. A person can be subject to a criminal investigation right through to the point of charging without having been arrested. The police will only arrest if it is necessary to do so, but they do so in a whole variety of cases. The argument put forward against the amendment is that it would create a distinction between on the one hand an MP who has been arrested because the police considered it a necessary procedural step—it should be kept in mind that arrest does not indicate that the allegation is more serious or credible—and on the other, an MP who has been investigated for an offence at the same level of seriousness, but where the arrest was deemed unnecessary.
I will come to the point that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) raised, although I am afraid she will find some of my answers depressing, and I ask her to brace for that. The first is that—my fellow Commissioners will back me up that I have raised this—the House of Commons Commission, which is asked to bring forward motions of this nature, is not fully sighted on all the problems. Commission members do not have a 360° view of all the issues on the estate. Clearly, cases are going on that are in complete confidence. There is a problem in asking the Commission to do work of this nature—the people who are doing that are best sighted on the whole of the problem.
The hon. Lady and others raised the charge that we consider ourselves in this place to be somehow different from other members of the population—and our staff. I think that is wrong, in part because of arguments that the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) made, which I agree with, and because Members of Parliament can be victims in this situation, too. Historically, women MPs have been victims. It is not helpful to say that there is a divide between how Members of Parliament see themselves and others—I do not think that is true.
Even more concerning for the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley, and myself is that some of the most serious cases that we are aware of—and that I find most disturbing and worrying from a safeguarding point of view—would not be covered by any of the proposals, including at arrest. This is not a comprehensive solution to the problem, though it is a step towards part of the answer.
Penny Mordaunt
No, it is not, with all due respect to the hon. Member. The Commission originally proposed arrest. We brought that to the Floor of the House. There were concerns before it arrived, and therefore we decided to have a debate, not a vote on it. Three key issues were raised in that debate, and charge versus arrest was one of them. All three issues have been dealt with by the Commission. The House has the chance tonight to vote on proxy voting, the panel, arrest versus charge and the scheme itself. It is for the House to decide that. It is a sorry situation that the hon. Gentleman would paint this to be something it is not. It shows a distinct lack of situational awareness.
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg
On exclusive cognisance, as was established in the Bradlaugh case, this House has the right to determine its own procedures, but it has never had the right to delegate the exclusion of a Member to a panel. That has always been the responsibility of the whole House, otherwise we have a right dating back to 1340 of unmolested attendance. Exclusive cognisance cannot override our ancient rights in that way. We can, of course, expel individual Members. That is the flaw in this proposal.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his helpful point. In addition to what I said earlier, the Commission’s choice was between retaining the confidentiality of the situation—the advice that it received on not jeopardising an investigation in an ongoing case was very compelling—and ignoring that and bringing this to the Floor of the House. The Commission decided that the former was the better course of action.
Business of the House (13 May)
Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Christopher Chope
One issue is that people can be arrested and not know whether they will be charged for months, if not years. During that period, they are in limbo and under suspicion, but are, under the principles of justice in this country, innocent until proven guilty. I think it is reasonable, if somebody is charged with an offence, that the matter is moved on, and that their identity is known. However, quite often, people may be arrested and their identity will not be known.
The point I am making is that this is a controversial subject. The new motion that the Leader of the House has brought before us is more in line with what is proposed in the other place, which probably has even more legal wisdom than this House. It decided in a similar debate that it would be wrong to exclude Members from the parliamentary estate on the basis of suspicion or mere arrest, and that a charge was needed. I submit that it is desirable to have consistent rules across the whole parliamentary estate, because people can move freely between the different parts of the estate, so if somebody in the other place is subject to a different regime from somebody in this place, that will create extraordinary anomalies.
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
However many hours we spend debating this, is the fundamental problem not that the aim is to do this by motion, rather than by legislation, and that any exclusion of a Member except by a specific vote on that Member needs to be a legislative requirement for attendance of the House, not a mere motion?
Sir Christopher Chope
Madam Deputy Speaker, I absolutely agree. My purpose in speaking to this motion today is to try to illustrate by example the scope of the motion that is down for debate on Monday, and why two hours, in my submission, is an inadequate amount of time in which to discuss such a motion.
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg
The motion before the House today suggests that Standing Order No. 41A, on deferred Divisions, shall not apply. I wonder whether my hon. Friend thinks it is wise to put before the House motions that randomly suspend Standing Orders, or whether it is not important to maintain the integrity of Standing Orders, which, Madam Deputy Speaker, is clearly a legitimate part of today’s motion.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)
The motion before us this evening protects time for the debate on risk-based exclusion on Monday 13 May. It also ensures that any amendments selected by Mr Speaker can be dealt with at the conclusion of the debate. It is an important debate, and we have had a little rehearsal of some of the issues that may come up, and I do listen to colleagues from all parts of the House about the substance, as do my fellow Commissioners, and how much time is allowed for the debate. As I announced last week, the House will be considering secondary legislation earlier that day. The effect of this motion is to ensure that the debate on risk-based exclusion can take place no matter how late it starts, and it will have a guaranteed amount of time.
Turning to the specific points that have been raised, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg) mentioned the integrity of Standing Orders. I hope, as recent history shows, that I put great emphasis on that point, having stood at this Dispatch Box and withdrawn my side of this House from taking part in an Opposition Day debate to protect the integrity of our procedures and processes and how Standing Orders operate.
I remind colleagues that this is the second time that the House of Commons Commission has brought this motion forward. I have tabled the motion on behalf of the House of Commons Commission, and this scheme has been arrived at by the House of Commons Commission with input from different political parties and a great deal of consultation. We have already had one debate on this matter that we did not bring to the Floor of the House for a vote. That was a lengthy debate, and we wanted to listen to all sides, and we took forward the issues that had been raised, put them back to the Commission and addressed the points of concern. That is why this amendment has come back in this form. In addition to that, all members of the Commission—the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), who is in her place opposite me, and others—have taken time to talk to many colleagues both in this place and in the other place about concerns and suggestions they have for the scheme.
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg
I do not think that what the motion aims to do is wrong, but I am concerned that we are using Standing Orders as a means of determining who can attend the House. We have never done that before. Either attendance at the House has been set out in legislation or an individual Member has been excluded from the House. Therefore, however much time we allow for the debate, we are allowing time for the wrong thing. If my right hon. Friend wants to go down this route, she should bring forward legislation, with a timetable motion for that legislation, rather than using Standing Orders in this way.
Penny Mordaunt
My right hon. Friend makes an extremely important point, which he has taken the time to make today and can of course make in the debate on Monday. He has not previously raised that point with me—I do not know whether he has spoken to the usual channels or other members of the Commission—but we have consulted and spoken to many colleagues about the motion.
This is the business of the House, and we are going to bring forward the debate. My right hon. Friend will know that this topic has been raised frequently at business questions and that Members are eager that the motion is brought forward. We have the debate on Monday. This motion will protect the time. I look forward to hearing from other colleagues. As the hon. Member for Manchester Central and I, along with Mr Speaker and other members of the Commission, have demonstrated, we will always listen to colleagues’ concerns.
Question put and agreed to.
Petitions
Speaker’s Statement
Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It was quite clear from the level of noise when the Question was put that the view of the Deputy Speaker was being challenged. I think it is absolutely extraordinary that that noise level was deemed to be “Aye”. It is inconceivable that anybody hearing it would have thought it was “Aye”. It is quite clear from all our Standing Orders and all our traditions that when the Speaker or Deputy’s decision is challenged, it should go to a Division.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am extremely sorry. I took it on the voices. I was quite clear where we were. [Interruption.] The whole thing would have been considerably clearer if the Government had not withdrawn at that position.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I think that the hon. Lady heard what Mr Speaker said—that he intends to talk with people. I also understand that the—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Excuse me, I am answering this point of order. The right hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.
I also know that the Chair of the Procedure Committee will look at some of the issues that have been raised, at Mr Speaker’s request.
Retirement of the Clerk of the House
Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts(8 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
One of the great virtues of the Clerks—and particularly of the Under Clerk of the Parliaments—is that whether we are the most junior, most recently elected Member or the Leader of the House, we get the best, cleverest advice confidentially. During that difficult time of the 2017-19 Parliament, which Sir John handled brilliantly, people were going in to seek advice to do completely opposite things. Some wanted to smooth Government business through, and others wanted to obstruct it, and each one of us was given good, professional, thoughtful advice and treated without any difference according to seniority or recent appearance in this House. That is a true mark of a good Clerk and of fairness.
To give an example of the complexity of the issues, one that came up was whether a Humble Address fell at Prorogation or not. The first edition of “Erskine May” says that it does. A subsequent edition of “Erskine May”—about the 12th, I think—says that it does not. After that, nobody mentioned it, because we had not had Humble Addresses for 150 years. The Clerks had to work out which it was and how it was, and advise accordingly. Although this is not the occasion for paying tribute to you, Mr Speaker, because I hope you are going to stay in office for a very long time, it has to be said that you then made the very important statement that you would stick to clerkly advice or give a written reason as to why not, reinforcing the importance and independence of the role, because it is a key constitutional role.
Others have mentioned covid and what Sir John did to ensure that the House sat. He turned the whole House around; it was a really remarkable thing. We went away for the Easter recess having no idea how this House would sit when it came back—none at all. We had no idea whether the technology would possibly work, and yet the Clerk was being told that he had to get Parliament back. It was our democratic requirement that this House should sit and sit safely. That was perhaps easy for some of us to say, because it was the Clerk who had the legal responsibility. We must bear in mind the uncertainty of that time; nobody knew how serious or how dangerous the disease was or what its effect might be, but we knew we had to have Parliament back. As we said to him from time to time, “It is all very well, but you, Sir John”—or Dr Benger, as he was then—“are the one who goes to prison if you get it wrong.” He took that responsibility and ensured that democracy carried on.
He has been an innovator and has introduced things in this House. We have mentioned the ICGS, which he was a great driver behind and which has been hugely to the benefit of the House. He also got rid of the wigs. That came as a great surprise to me. I had always known that the Clerks are some of the cleverest people in the world. We know that whenever we go to see them to ask a question on some procedural point. Their wisdom is phenomenal. I thought that this was because they kept their brains warm by wearing wigs, and that without that warmth, the brainpower would not carry on as it had. But I confess, I turned out to be wrong; their brainpower continues without that warmth.
I should have known what a radical our Clerk really is at heart. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) pointed out, his specialist subject was the Marprelate tracts. One of the things that Marprelate was so against was clerical dress—he ridiculed the clothes worn by the clergy—so it is no surprise that, in a radical act, Sir John simplified the dress of the Clerks. We all wish him enormously well. He has been a model of clerkly wisdom and service to this House.
Points of Order
Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that raising this takes up time in itself, but I am concerned that we now have just about three hours, including for the ten-minute rule motion, for the final stages of a Bill that runs to 328 pages, plus 145 pages of amendments, which include 68 new clauses and at least 240 amendments. This House has not been overrun with business lately—we had many days before the recess when we were going home early—and it seems to me that it is not respectful to this House to try to shoehorn such a large piece of legislation into such a short period of time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for giving notice of it. I know that he, as a former Leader of the House, will be very aware of the procedures for organising business in the House. He also knows that it is not a matter for me. I would remind him that I said on three occasions during the previous statement that there was a lot of business to get through, that it does not have protected time, and that therefore short questions and answers were required. I have tried my best to reflect the fact that there is pressure on business, because he is quite right that many colleagues want to contribute to the next debate. The Leader of the House is present and may wish to respond, so I will allow her to do so.
Liaison Committee
Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts(10 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Christopher Chope
Absolutely. I do not know—perhaps we will find out later—the extent to which the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee has been consulted on this and has agreed that, on Government strategic thinking, it will have its role usurped by the Liaison Committee. I am sure that all will be revealed in due course. If my hon. Friends want to intervene on these issues, I will be happy to take interventions.
The next item of the terms of reference is:
“What additional machinery of Government, knowledge and skills are necessary to support strategic thinking and effective strategy and delivery, both within individual departments, and across two or more departments, and how strategy and strategic thinking can be sustained by building consensus between the main parties”.
The fourth item on which evidence can be given is:
“Which governments around the world demonstrate best practice in strategic thinking”.
That is an opportunity for some overseas visits, no doubt, to go and see which Governments across the world are demonstrating best practice in strategic thinking.
The next item of the terms of reference—the sixth—contains the first reference to Select Committees:
“How Select Committees consider strategic questions, including any recent examples of scrutiny of Government strategic plans and/or their delivery; and elements of Government strategy- and delivery that are repeatedly identified by Select Committees as effective or as deficient”.
At least that item on which evidence is sought is relevant to the purported nature of the inquiry. The next item in the terms of reference is:
“The engagement of individual departments, and Whitehall as a whole, with Select Committees on strategic challenges, including through the provision of information necessary for effective scrutiny.”
The next one is:
“What additional resources”—
more taxpayer’s money is going into this, I can see—
“parliamentary procedure, knowledge and skills are necessary to support effective Select Committee scrutiny of strategic thinking and effective strategy-making, as well as monitoring implementation of any Government action in response”.
This is a great one:
“How other parliaments around the world are engaging with the strategic thinking of their respective governments.”
Well, what an inquiry. It could take years, could it not? Woe betide whoever is appointed a special adviser under the terms of the motion before us. They will need to be handsomely remunerated, will they not, for the time and effort they put into the inquiry? They will have a global remit.
I speak as a member of two Select Committees—the Procedure Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee. The Environmental Audit Committee is cross-cutting and looks at the effect of the Government’s environmental policies across a whole range of areas. The Liaison Committee seems to be creating a new cross- cutting Select Committee covering public administration, strategic thinking, oversees democracy and so on. I want to hear the justification for that, what the cost is likely to be and how this idea ever got a start. Was it discussed by the Liaison Committee? Did it agree those very wide terms of reference? Did it think through the implications? In supporting the motion, has the Leader of the House thought through exactly what that strategic thinking is all about?
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
I apologise for not being in the Chamber for the start of the debate, but I have been listening to my hon. Friend carefully on the television.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Can I just say to the right hon. Gentleman that it is absolutely customary to be in at the start of a speech if the right hon. Gentleman is going to intervene?
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg
This is such an important debate and my hon. Friend is raising such an important point about the fundamentals of the Liaison Committee. Do I understand from what he is saying that the Committee would need to change its name if it takes on those responsibilities, because its job is simply liaison, not to go further than that?
Sir Christopher Chope
Absolutely. That is why I am worried about the mission creep. We have the Liaison Committee proposal set out in the press release to which I have been referring, but it bears little resemblance to the motion on the Order Paper, which states that
“the Liaison Committee shall have power to appoint specialist advisers in relation to its inquiry on Strategic thinking in Government.”
Its inquiry purports to be on the ability of Select Committees to scrutinise strategic thinking across Government, which is completely different. As anybody who has been listening to the terms of reference will know, it is not limited to strategic thinking across our Government, but restricted to strategic thinking across all Governments that are members of the United Nations. So it has an enormously wide remit.
I must say that I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex, the Chair of the Committee, on his imagination and breadth of vision. He could have a job for life fulfilling this important role. But our job in questioning matters like this, which are put on the Order Paper and would otherwise go through on the nod, is to say, “Well, hang on a minute, what are we about? Have the members of the rest of the Select Committees thought about the implications, the costs and the dangerous precedent that is being set?” It is only in this Parliament that we got the exception to have a Chair of the Liaison Committee who is not already a Chair of another Select Committee, but how will the members of the Liaison Committee be able to give their time and devotion to this particular subject?
Privileges Committee Special Report
Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
There are some issues with this report, beginning, as it happens, with its title referring to a “Co-ordinated campaign of interference”. As was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), there is no evidence that it was co-ordinated. Speaking on my own account—I may get support on this from the Whip on duty and, indeed, the 10 Downing Street press office, were it able to comment—I am not often co-ordinated with the official line to take. Indeed, I have always thought it politically important that Members should be independent in what they say and how they vote. Therefore, to make an assertion of co-ordination without evidence is a problem with this report, but it is not the only problem.
I question footnote 1 on the bona fides of this report. It states:
“The Committee of Privileges is not able to initiate inquiries on its own initiative, but once matters are referred to the House it has ‘power to inquire not only into the matter of the particular complaint, but also into facts surrounding and reasonably connected with the matter of the particular complaint, and into the principles of the law and custom of privilege that are concerned’ (CJ (1947-48) 22, 30 October 1947).”
However, that is surely superseded by the vote in 1978 on how privilege matters should be dealt with. Paragraph 15.32 of “Erskine May” sets out the procedure and explains why it is as complex as it is. It states:
“The procedure is designed to prevent frivolous complaints of breach of privilege. The following safeguards are in place: the Committee of Privileges does not have power to inquire at will, but can only deal with complaints which are referred to it; decisions as to whether to refer a matter of privilege to the Committee of Privileges are taken by the House as a whole; and Members require the permission of the Speaker to raise a matter of privilege.”
That was not done, and the 1947 Commons Journal entry was preferred to the 1978 motion. That seems to me to have been a mistake. That is not to say that this is necessarily not a serious matter, but the whole reason for the procedures is to ensure that only serious matters are subject to these reports. Why did the Committee not follow the procedure properly set out by the House in 1978? Why were the safeguards ignored?
That is before we come to the matter raised by others about individuals being named and referred to without any ability to answer. I am not too worried about that. I have said things on the public record, and if people want to quote me and wish to refer to my television programme on GB News, which they may be jealous of, or whatever other concerns they may have, that is absolutely fine. I do not mind that personally, but I do mind that people say they are following the procedures of the House when the procedures seem to be rather different in “Erskine May”.
There is also a modest discourtesy to the House of Lords. The House of Lords has exclusive cognisance, and implied criticisms of peers are against the practice of this House, and that is unfortunate. That is unfortunate more from our point of view than from theirs. Why do we have this idea of exclusive cognisance so clearly in mind? It is because in the days of the Supreme Court being the House of Lords, ultimately membership of this House would have been determined by the other House. We have therefore always jealously guarded our right of exclusive cognisance, but, in return, we have given it to their lordships. I am concerned that the report has touched and trespassed on that.
Dame Angela Eagle
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has referred to the Privileges Committee—it notes this in the report—as a kangaroo court. He said:
“I think it makes kangaroo courts look respectable.”
He also referred to the members of the Privileges Committee during its hearings as “marsupials”. On reflection, might he like to apologise for that use of language?
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady kindly leads me to what I was going to say next. I had absolutely no desire to impugn the integrity of individual members of the Committee, some of whom I hold in very high regard.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree, or will he at least acknowledge, that comments made by Members named in the special report raised the risk significantly of harm to members of the Privileges Committee, to the extent that the Parliamentary Security Department felt it necessary to carry out an urgent review of their personal safety, constituency offices, constituency events and homes?
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg
Many Members of this House have faced issues with security. I do not believe that criticising the actions of a Committee has that effect. If the hon. Gentleman really takes that route, we will have to agree with each other the whole time. Admirable though I thought the Leader of the House’s request was that we should get on better, I am afraid that was knocked for six by the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), in her rather cantankerous comments that followed.
I want to make it clear that I had no intention to impugn the individual members of the Committee. I do indeed hold many of them in the highest regard. I served on the House of Commons Commission with my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) and on the Privileges Committee, under his chairmanship, with the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue). I have always thought it is important to get on well with people across the House and to be courteous to them, as the Lord President of the Council suggested, but that does not mean that one cannot criticise them. It was legitimate and it is legitimate to question the position of the Chairman of the Committee. We must be clear about that.
In the previous debate, I quoted at some length the House of Lords setting aside the Lord Hoffmann judgment because of his association with Amnesty International. That made it very clear that the question was the risk of the appearance of partiality. It did not question Lord Hoffmann as a man of honour and integrity, and I certainly do not question the honour and integrity of the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who is a most distinguished Member of this House, but I do not think that she was wise to serve as Chairman of a Committee when she had tweeted her views. We have just heard from the shadow Leader of the House how shocking it is to tweet anything, but it is all right for someone to tweet something when it prejudges a case they are about to hear. That seems to make no sense.
I question the report further. As the Father of the House noted, paragraph 8 sets out how we may question the Committee. However, footnote 10 in paragraph 15 seems to object that I did exactly that in the debate that followed the Committee’s report. The previous Prime Minister used to get accused of cakeism, but that seems to be an extreme level of cakeism. The position of the Chairman was fundamental. As it says in Galatians,
“A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.”
Sir Peter Bottomley
I am listening with interest, although at times the precision could be greater. The Privileges Committee matter mentioned in the footnote referred to Mr Johnson being referred to the Committee rather than this report, which followed subsequent events. I also read footnote 10 on page six, to which my right hon. Friend refers, as explaining the answer to the question he raised over Hoffman, not supporting what he said about Hoffman. Was I wrong?
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg
I was pointing out that, from a reading of paragraph 15, what I said is seen as part of a sustained attempt to undermine and challenge the impartiality of the Chairman in the very debate in which, under paragraph 8, we are allowed to make criticisms once the report has been brought to the House. It is a very odd footnote at the very least, and unclear about what it is trying to achieve.
The problem with the Chairman’s position was that it undermined the whole validity of the Committee, because it is well known that if a body comes to a conclusion, with one person on it whose partiality is questionable, the whole process is then nullified and needs to start again. There is also, as we know, currently an investigation into my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), but that was not known during the course of the Committee’s deliberations. Therefore, nobody could raise that as a question of impugning his integrity until, as I understand it, the report was completed. There may have raised questions and there may have been valid questions to raise, but they were certainly not raised by me or by any others.
Let us delve into the details of the report. It bases its privilege claims on “Erskine May”, but I have a nasty feeling that the Committee read just the headline of “Erskine May” without reading the relevant footnotes and examining the Commons Journal to see what they refer to. I have done that, with considerable help from the Library and the Journal Office. Footnotes 5 and 6 of the report point to “Erskine May”, 25th edition, paragraph 15.14. That paragraph has 35 further footnotes. The House may be relieved to know that I will not go through them all, because many are irrelevant to the report.
The footnotes deal with matters such as assaulting Members en route to Parliament, which is deemed a breach a privilege—one that seems to happen most days to some, but never mind. It is a breach of privilege of great antiquity that the Committee seems unconcerned about. The footnotes deal with reflections on the Lord Chancellor or allegations of corruption—none of that applies. However, notes 4, 7, 21, 22, 26 and 27 are worth looking at. Note 4 concerns “insulting or abusive language”. The first example cited comes from 1646. We are making a claim for privilege based on a time when this House was at war. And what was it? The claim was that one Francis Godolphin—a turncoat who had been ruling on the Isles of Scilly—should not in future be criticised because he now supports the House of Commons. The House of Commons was protecting one of its own in a time of war. That is hardly the greatest precedent for Committee members not being able to withstand a little criticism today.
In 1660, there was rudeness in the Lobby—an outsider was rude to a Member in the Lobby, and Members were very shocked. In 1877, Dr Kenealy was rude to another Member in the Lobby and was forced to apologise. Likewise, in 1887, Dr Tanner was rude to another Member in the Lobby. On that occasion, the motion of censure was withdrawn. There is a clear precedent, I accept, that we are not allowed to be rude to fellow Members in the Lobby. I was very careful throughout this whole process—had I done other, there would have been grounds for complaint—not to talk to any members of the Committee about what was in front of their Committee. That, it seems to me, would have been improper and private lobbying that should not take place. I was careful, as I say, not to do that, in spite of the fact that inevitably I met one or two of the Conservative members on many occasions during this process. That seems to me to be covered in broad terms by what is set out in footnote 4.
We come now to footnote 7. Footnote 7 is why I think the Committee did not bother reading the footnotes, because—if this is not my proudest achievement in Parliament, I do not know what is—I have actually discovered a mistake in “Erskine May”. I see the Clerks at the Table almost swooning with horror at that thought. I thank the Commons Journal Office for pointing this out. The footnote quotes the 1862-63 Journal; it is in fact the 1863-64 Journal when a Mr Reed was summoned to apologise to the House for writing a rude letter to a Member of Parliament. Madam Deputy Speaker, what a pity the Privileges Committee has not got on to that! Just think how busy it would be if it looked into every rude letter sent to a Member of Parliament by a constituent. Perhaps it should have done a rolling report, with powers accrued to itself to do that. I might have one or two I could send in myself. One or two remainers write to me in the most excoriating terms, but I am afraid I have always taken that as part of the flotsam and jetsam of political life.
If we go to 1890, a Mr Atkinson was suspended for seven days for offending the Speaker, both on the Floor of the House and in correspondence. Epistolary offence was given to Mr Speaker. That is a much more serious matter—surely, Madam Deputy Speaker, you would agree with this—than it is to argue with a member of a Committee, or indeed even the Chairman of a Committee. In 1781, the wonderfully named Theophilus Swift was called to the Bar and had to apologise for causing offence, and a couple of duels were claimed by Members against Members. In 1845, Mr Somers, the Member for Sligo, challenged Mr Roebuck, the Member for Bath; and in 1862, a rude letter was sent to Sir Robert Peel by The O’Donoghue, the MP for Tipperary. These were considered to be great breaches of privilege, though only apologies were required—no further sanction. There was a challenge from Mr O’Kelly, who apologised to Mr McCoan for another duel.
A Mr France was admonished at the Bar in 1874 for being rude about the Chairman of a Committee, but in 1968-69 it was deemed that criticising the impartiality of the Chairman of a Sub-Committee was not contempt of Parliament, when it was thought the issue faced by the Chairman of the said Sub-Committee was one where he had a constituency interest and therefore could not be impartial. So I would say—it is unlike me to be such a modernist—that the more modern precedent is on the side of being able to challenge the position of a Chairman of a Committee.
In 1900, there was a letter written by a non-Member about a Select Committee on Government contracting being partial. It was deemed a breach and motions were put, but what did the House decide? The House decided not to vote in favour of the motion, or on the amendment to the motion, but that it now proceed with the business of the day. Once again the House in recent centuries, let alone decades, has become less and less prissy about this type of privilege, because it risks ridicule when it stands upon its honour in this way.
In 1901 and 1926, there were arguments with the Daily Mail—some things never change. It was suggested that the editor of the Daily Mail be brought to the Bar of the House. I believe the Bar is the gift of Jamaica. If we pull it out—which we are not meant to do, because it usually has a sign on it when the House is not sitting saying, “Please do not touch”, although I confess I have pulled it out and it is very interesting to see—it says it is the gift of Jamaica. The editor of the Daily Mail was not called in. In 1901 he said that had a Member of Parliament criticised him outside of the House in the way he had been criticised in the House, he would have sued for libel. That was deemed to be threatening, but he was not called in.
Perhaps my favourite case is from 1880. It is a very interesting case. A certain Mr Plimsoll put out a leaflet to the electors of Westminster wherein he said that Sir Charles Russell, the Member of Parliament for Westminster, had used a parliamentary tactic to stop a vote on a Bill. Some of us who come on Fridays—I am looking to catch the eye of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope)—may think that using tactical efforts to stop Bills is not such a bad thing altogether, but Mr Plimsoll took offence at it and put out a rude leaflet. This was brought to the attention of the House, and the House voted:
“That, in the opinion of this House, the conduct of the honourable Member for Derby in publishing printed placards denouncing the part taken by two honourable Members of this House in the proceedings of the House was calculated to interfere with the due discharge of the duties of a Member of this House and is a breach of its Privileges:—But this House, having regard to the withdrawal by the honourable Member for Derby of the expressions to which the honourable Member for Westminster has drawn its attention, is of opinion that no further action on its part is necessary.”—[Official Report, 20 February 1880; Vol. 250, c. 1114.]
I wonder whether hon. Members have worked out what the Bill was that Mr Plimsoll was bringing forward, for which he had to apologise to the House—a precedent quoted indirectly by this report, favourably. Mr Plimsoll was trying to get a Bill through to put the Plimsoll line on ships to save hundreds of lives, and this House criticised him for breach of privilege.
We should be very wary of standing on our dignity, because this House is the cockpit of freedom of speech. It is where democracy must run. When we try to silence people because they say things that we do not like, we risk looking ridiculous.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Committee of Privileges.
Business of the House
Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts(11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for what she said. The media have highlighted this week cases such as she described. Whether it is the Windrush scheme or other compensation schemes that are administered by the Government, it is very much understood that the payments need to be swift. We do not want to add further injury to the damage already done. I know that the Home Secretary takes the matter very seriously, but I assure the hon. Lady that I will do all I can from my office to ensure that people get their compensation in the shortest possible time and to facilitate any cases that hon. Members have where that is not happening.
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
With the prospect of the Victoria Tower being refurbished on the exterior, will my right hon. Friend assure me that the interior will be done at the same time? I have heard that there may be a quirk in the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 that means that we can do only the outside, and that we will have to do the inside later, which may add considerably to the cost.
Penny Mordaunt
My right hon. Friend is very knowledgeable on those subjects. I can tell him that that argument has been put forward to me by other quarters, but I have looked at it and there is no impediment to the outside and the inside of the tower being done at the same time. I know that I speak for Mr Speaker and others when I say that we want the work to be done well, with the least disruption, while also ensuring that there is value for money for the taxpayer.
Privilege: Conduct of Right Hon. Boris Johnson
Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts(11 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
It is a privilege to follow the serious and important speech of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), every word of which I agreed with.
The evidence on which our conclusions are based is fully set out in the report. I want to place on record the great debt of gratitude that I believe the House owes to the Clerks of the House, to Speaker’s Counsel and to Sir Ernest Ryder. The quality of their work and their dedication to the House is extraordinary. They are public servants of quite remarkable calibre.
The evidence shows that, on a matter that could hardly have been of more importance, Mr Johnson deliberately misled the House, not just once but on numerous occasions. The evidence shows that he denied what was true, asserted what was not true, obfuscated and deceived. It is clear that he knew the rules and guidance: as Prime Minister, he was telling the country about them nearly every day. He knew that there were gatherings: he was there. He knew that the gatherings breached the rules and the guidance. Yet he told the House that the rules and the guidance were followed in No. 10 “at all times”.
Misleading the House is not a technicality but a matter of great importance. Our democracy is based on people electing us to scrutinise the Government, and, on behalf of the people we represent, we have to hold the Government to account. We cannot do that if Ministers are not truthful. Ministers must be truthful; if they are not, we cannot do our job. It is as simple and as fundamental as that. The House asked the Privileges Committee to inquire into the allegations that Mr Johnson, who was then Prime Minister, misled the House. That is the mechanism—the only mechanism—that the House has to protect itself in the face of a Minister misleading it. We undertook the inquiry, scrupulously sticking to the rules and processes laid down by this House under Standing Orders, and following the precedents of this House.
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
I wonder whether the right hon. and learned Lady could say something of her own position in relation to the precedent set by a judicial Committee of the House of Lords, when a decision in which Lord Hoffmann was involved was set aside not because he was biased, but because of the perception of bias. In relation to her famous tweets, how does she think she met the Hoffmann test?
Ms Harman
I am happy to answer the right hon. Gentleman. I was appointed by this House in the expectation that I would chair the Committee, with no one speaking against it. After the tweets were brought to light and highlighted, as I am concerned about the perception of fairness on the Committee—I agree that perception matters—I made it my business to find out whether it would mean that the Government would not have confidence in me if I continued to chair the Committee. I actually said, “I will be more than happy to step aside, because perception matters and I do not want to do this if the Government do not have confidence in me. I need the whole House to have confidence in the work that it has mandated.” I was assured that I should continue the work that the House had mandated, and with the appointment that the House had put me into, and so I did just that.
Our report was based on two things: the evidence and our keen awareness of the seriousness of misleading the House. The Committee was unanimous that a sanction that would trigger the Recall of MPs Act was justified in the light of our conclusion that Mr Johnson deliberately misled the House and the Committee. We then felt it necessary to increase the sanction to 90 days to reflect the seriousness of his breaching of the confidence of the Committee, his impugning of the Committee, thereby undermining the democratic process of the House, and his complicity in a campaign of abuse, attempting to intimidate the Committee, to stop us from carrying out our work and to discredit it.
Like the right hon. Member for Maidenhead, with whom I share a great deal—including, it turns out, a necklace—I thank every member of the Privileges Committee. Over the course of the past year, they have considered thousands of pages of evidence and participated in more than 30 meetings to do the job that the House asked them to do with outstanding dedication and commitment, particularly the Conservative members of the Committee, who have also had to be extraordinarily resilient. They have had to withstand a campaign of threats, intimidation and harassment designed to challenge the legitimacy of the inquiry, to drive them off the Committee and thereby to frustrate the intention of the House that the inquiry should be carried out. Yet through all that, they have not given in to the intimidation. They have been unflinching in their duty to the House, and we owe them a huge amount.
We need Members to be prepared to serve on the Privileges Committee. They must be free to base their judgments on the evidence, free from pressure one way or the other. If the House wants its rights to be protected in the future, it must act to stop intimidation of members of the Privileges Committee.
Attacks by hon. Members on other hon. Members designed to pre-empt the Committee’s findings frustrate the will of the House, erode public confidence and thereby undermine our democracy. They may themselves be contempt of the House, because they are attempts to impede the functioning of the House. We will make a further report to the House on that shortly, inviting consideration of what could be done to prevent it from happening in the future.
None of that is a threat to the free speech of Members. Members can engage in the process throughout: they can speak and vote against a referral to the Privileges Committee; they can speak and vote against the appointment of any member of the Privileges Committee; they can bring to the House proposals for changes to the procedure; and they can speak about a report’s conclusions, but what they must not do is interfere with the work the House has mandated.
The report does not create a chilling effect on what Ministers say at the Dispatch Box. If Ministers make a mistake, which inevitably happens, and inadvertently say something that is misleading, they are expected to correct it at the earliest opportunity, and that is done routinely. Inadvertent misleading, promptly corrected, is not an issue; it is the system working. The House understands it if Ministers decline to answer, for example, on matters of national security or market sensitivity.
Too many members of the public already think that we are dishonest, but hitherto I have found in my 40 years in this House that most Ministers, in all Governments, are at pains to tell the truth. The sanction in the report reinforces and upholds Ministers’ high standards and shows the public that that is the case.
Sir Chris Bryant
I am going to ferociously agree with the hon. Gentleman. I said earlier that Mr Johnson knowingly lied to Parliament and that is what the Committee has concluded. There was a point at which people thought they would only consider “recklessly” but they found that he knowingly, with knowledge aforethought, misled Parliament and was deliberately duplicitous. I think the hon. Gentleman’s point is destroyed—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I think the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) is giving way to Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg.
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg
I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). The hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) is absolutely right—we must maintain exclusive cognisance—but that does not mean we should not follow a proper process and a fair process, or admit that this is ostensibly political.
Sir Chris Bryant
The word “political” can cover a multitude of sins, can’t it? We are talking about the politics of the nation. I would argue that trying to defend the constitutional principle that Ministers always tell the truth to Parliament and that, if they have inadvertently misled the House, they correct the record as soon as they possibly can, is an important part of ensuring our political health in this nation, but I do not think that the process was unfair. Most of our constituents, if they go to a tribunal nowadays, have no representation paid for by the taxpayer. Mr Johnson had, I think, more than £250,000-worth of representation provided by the taxpayer.
The membership of the Committee was agreed by the whole House when—I think I might be right in saying this—the right hon. Gentleman was Leader of the House.
Sir Chris Bryant
I am wrong; I apologise. However, it is certainly the case that the whole House agreed that membership, fully knowing everything that had been said up until that moment. Three members of the Committee had sat on a previous case in relation to Mr Johnson that came to the Standards Committee. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards had found against Mr Johnson, but we, the Committee, found in his favour. I therefore do not think that this was in any sense a biased Committee. Let me also say that anyone who thinks that Speaker’s Counsel, or, for that matter, Sir Ernest Ryder, who ran the whole of the tribunals service in England and Wales, would not stand up for a fair hearing and due process is misleading themselves, and doing so almost recklessly.
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
It is perfectly reasonable to challenge the views of Select Committees of this House. It is neither eccentric nor, indeed, rare, so I should like to start with some of the things that I think are most contentious in the report, bordering on erroneous.
Let us start with paragraph 48, which makes reference to the fixed penalty notice received by Mr Johnson for the birthday party. It seems to think that the fixed penalty notice is, in fact, an admission of guilt. But in R v. Hamer, Lord Chief Justice Thomas said:
“It is quite clear that the issue of a notice is not a conviction. It is not an admission of guilt nor any proof that a crime has been committed. The scheme of the Act makes that clear. Any person reading the form would plainly understand that it is not to be regarded as a conviction and will not be held against him save in the respect mentioned. It seems therefore clear, both as a matter of the statutory scheme and as a matter of what a person accepting such a notice would reasonably be led to believe, that he was not admitting any offence, not admitting any criminality, and would not have any stain imputed to his character.”
Yet this report, against what a Lord Chief Justice says and against what is a principle of our criminal law, decides to impute a stain upon his character. It seems to me that this is quite clearly a deliberate attempt to take the most unfavourable interpretation of Mr Johnson’s activities, but this is not the only contentious paragraph.
Let us go to paragraph 83, which decides, as if it were an Elon Musk chip, to insert itself in the brain of Mr Johnson to work out what he must have thought at a particular moment. Well, I am glad to say that, as far as I am aware, Mr Johnson does not have one of these little chips stuck in his brain for the Committee’s benefit. Paragraph 83 says
“we conclude that Mr Johnson is unlikely to have been unaware”.
That is an obscure use of a double negative to try to impute malfeasance to somebody where the Committee cannot prove it. The Committee assumes something and imputes something because it wants to come to a particular conclusion.
Sir William Cash
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the very word “disingenuous,” which is used in the context of this report, is in the same category as the things he has just mentioned?
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I refer him further to paragraph 182, on the line to take. Mr Johnson, as Prime Minister, was advised before Prime Minister’s questions to say that the rules had been followed at all times, and the report goes into great detail as to the authority for that advice—who had told him, whether they were senior enough and whether it was right—but it does not ask whether other Ministers were given the same briefing. Was this the cross-Government line to take, approved, as far as I could be aware, by all officials? Well, I can tell the House that, prior to business questions for the weeks when this was at the forefront of public interest, I was given the briefing that the rules had been followed at all times, with “at all times” emphasised. The only reason I did not say this to the House is because the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), the shadow Leader of the House, never had the wit to ask me the right question. If she had, the cross-Government line to take was absolutely clear, yet this report concludes that the Prime Minister, as he then was, was not advised by senior enough people—that they were involved in the press office. The idea that Ministers are not advised by people who work in communications shows quite how long the Opposition have been out of government.
Based on this tendentious reading of the facts, we come to the 90-day sanction. It is a vindictive sanction, it seems to me, that the Committee cannot implement because Mr Johnson has left Parliament, so the Committee goes from the vindictive to the ridiculous by not allowing him a parliamentary pass. Of all the trivial sanctions that could be imposed, that seems to be the most miserable. But the Committee emphasises in paragraph 229 that this sanction has been made more savage, more brutal and more vindictive because Mr Johnson impugned the Committee and undermined the democratic process.
On what basis? Is it thought that this House, when it comes to a conclusion, must be obeyed? Is it the case that we must not criticise the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 because it was passed by this great and noble House, or are we, in fact, allowed to criticise, as a fundamental of free speech, that which happens to us, that which is reported about us and that which is said of us? When a person is in court, they are allowed to say that the court has made a mistake. The protections of the junior courts, in which juries sit, are rightly very strict, but we can still say that the court has got it wrong. Indeed, we are allowed to say a court has got it so wrong that we may go to appeal. We do not have to kowtow but, for some reason, the Privileges Committee thinks it is in communist China and that we must kowtow. The report goes on to say that Mr Johnson was
“complicit in the campaign of abuse and attempted intimidation of the Committee”
without a single, solitary shred of evidence. It is pure assertion.
This leads me on to the issue of partiality. I was most intrigued by the response of the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) to my intervention. She said that she had told the Government, that it had all been approved and that it was fine and dandy. I refer her to paragraph 12 of her own report:
“Our guiding principles included being transparent.”
We suddenly discover, in this transparent approach, that there was a secret agreement that her involvement was all right. Well, I was in the Government at the time, and I never heard that this had happened, so it seems to me that it is important to examine the position in which the right hon. and learned Lady found herself. I note that the Committee does not do this in annex 1, which purports to answer appendix 3. I am sure the House is listening and following very carefully, but appendix 3 is the letter of Mr Johnson in response to the draft report. Fascinatingly, although paragraph 6 of appendix 3, on page 100, questions the impartiality of the Committee, annex 1 ignores that. Annex 1 answers lots of other points, but it rushes over this point, perhaps because the Committee thought it was on relatively thin ice.
Sir Chris Bryant
The right hon. Gentleman called for me to recuse myself from the Committee. Did he ever ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) to recuse herself from the Committee before Boris Johnson started demanding it?
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg
I said it very publicly, and it is a matter of record that I said it. I assumed people were aware, and people clearly are aware of what is said publicly. I will come to paragraph 14 in due course.
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg
No, I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman, which seems to me to be sufficient.
Paragraph 9 of the report says:
“we leave our party interests at the door of the committee room”.
That is all very good, and it is to be encouraged, but it does not meet the Hoffmann test, which is important because the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, like the Privileges Committee, was a Committee of Parliament following a judicial or, in this case, quasi-judicial process. I quote from its judgment:
“The contention is that there was a real danger or reasonable apprehension or suspicion that Lord Hoffmann might have been biased, that is to say, it is alleged that there is an appearance of bias not actual bias.
The fundamental principle is that a man may not be a judge in his own cause. This principle, as developed by the courts, has two very similar but not identical implications. First it may be applied literally: if a judge is in fact a party to the litigation or has a financial or proprietary interest in its outcome then he is indeed sitting as a judge in his own cause. In that case, the mere fact that he is a party to the action or has a financial or proprietary interest in its outcome is sufficient to cause his automatic disqualification. The second application of the principle is where a judge is not a party to the suit and does not have a financial interest in its outcome, but in some other way his conduct or behaviour may give rise to a suspicion that he is not impartial”.
That is the fundamental point, and it led to the Judicial Committee—for, I believe, the only time in its history—overturning a decision it had made. It is reasonable suspicion.
The judgment of Lord Nolan runs to only four lines. I will read out only two of them:
“I would only add that in any case where the impartiality of a judge is in question the appearance of the matter is just as important as the reality.”
This seems to be fundamental: the Judicial Committee followed a proper process, which the Privileges Committee did not.
I have slightly exceeded the time limit, but I will finish relatively swiftly. Fortunately, the previous two speakers were brief, which is encouraging.
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg
I will not give way. Let us come to paragraph 14, on a special report, because this is important. Paragraph 194 cites the 1978 resolution of this House that its “penal jurisdiction” would be used
“sparingly…in order to provide reasonable protection for the House, its Members or its officers from improper obstruction or attempt at or threat of obstruction causing, or likely to cause, substantial interference with the performance of their respective functions.”
That does not mean criticism; it is absolutely legitimate to criticise the conduct of a Committee or its members—that is politics. Our politics is adversarial, which is one of the great strengths of our political system. It is open to us, within this Chamber, to accuse people, within the bounds of good order, of saying things that we disagree with. Outside this Chamber, freedom of speech is paramount; we are allowed to say what we like.
The House has historically tried to call people to the Bar—indeed, in past times it even imprisoned people—and it made the House look ridiculous. When John Junor was called to that Bar of the House because he had said in the Sunday Express that Members were fiddling their petrol coupons, it was not he who looked ridiculous but the House. We must defend the right of freedom of speech. Frankly, if politicians cannot cope with criticism, one wonders what on earth they are doing with a political career.
I have one final question, which arises from annex 1 and the answer to question 7, where it says that Sue Gray’s report was not important in this case. When the witnesses have come from Sue Gray’s report, it is odd then to say that her report was not important. It might also be interesting to know, in the interests of paragraph 12-style transparency, quite how many communications, private and public, the Chairman of the Committee had with Sue Gray.
Members of Parliament: Risk-based Exclusion
Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts(11 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the House of Commons Commission Report, Risk-based exclusion of MPs: consultation response and proposals, HC 1396.
I welcome the opportunity for the House to consider the publication of the House of Commons Commission report on risk-based exclusion of MPs, and for all right hon. and hon. Members to see and discuss the proposals. It is important for all Members to have a chance to express their views on the proposals. Hon. Members from all parts of the House have requested such an opportunity, including the Chairs of the Liaison Committee, the Standards Committee and the Procedure Committee.
I will also close the debate, so I will keep my opening remarks brief. Hon. Members will have seen the details in the papers provided by the House, so I do not intend to outline the scheme in detail. It has been consulted upon, and I and other Commission members want to hear colleagues’ views today. However, I want to set the scene, not so much for our sake as for the public’s sake.
Seeing this debate and thinking about events in the media and swirling around outside the Chamber, the people of the United Kingdom may be thinking, “Why the heck are the talking about themselves again today?” In comparison to many issues we could be debating at this hour, what happens on the parliamentary estate may seem rather irrelevant, but as well as making legislation to make the laws of the land, we also make the laws that govern this place.
No Committee or the work it undertakes in the service of the House happens without the permission of the House; no standards framework or Standing Order is born without the House giving consent; and no process an hon. Member is subjected to can be done without the will of the House. This is House business—it is important, which is why we have made time for it. For Parliament to be effective, it must be as good as it can be, so from time to time we need to hold debates such as this one to formulate these narrow points of process. The process in front of us today is so narrow that it may well never be used, but it is still important. However, there are other matters that rarely get an airing and are just as relevant to this, and arguably more important.
When I met the Standards Committee recently, its members suggested there were more than a dozen different bodies that oversee the conduct of Members. There is the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards; the Committee on Standards, upon referral by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards; the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme, which as Members will know is subject to a review; the Independent Expert Panel, upon referral by the commissioner; the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority; Mr Speaker and his deputies, relating to conduct in the Chamber; the Committee of Privileges, upon referral by the House; the Electoral Commission; the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, covering Ministers, peers, special advisers and senior civil servants; the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests; the Committee on Standards in Public Life; and internal party mechanisms for investigation. I could go on, but I will spare the House.
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
My right hon. Friend makes the very important point that there are lots of bodies, but there is no body that can suspend a Member from this House without a vote of this House. The constitutional problem with the proposals before us today is that they would allow a suspension by bureaucracy, rather than the democracy of this House.
Penny Mordaunt
I expect many Members will focus on that point, and it is a trade-off. I reassure my right hon. Friend that no rule that we will make in this place will be arrived at without the consent and the will of the House. It is we who govern ourselves, and that is why we are having this debate and have made time for it today. He makes an important point of principle that will sway many Members, but there will be other Members who will be more concerned with confidentiality. These are the points that we should discuss this afternoon, and I thank my right hon. Friend for being here today to do precisely that.