Proceedings during the Pandemic
Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
I beg to move,
That the resolution of the House of 21 April (Proceedings during the pandemic) be rescinded and the following orders be made and have effect until 7 July 2020:
(1) That the following order have effect in place of Standing Order No. 38 (Procedure on divisions):
(a) If the opinion of the Speaker or the chair as to the decision on a question is challenged, the Speaker or the chair shall declare that a division shall be held.
(b) Divisions shall be conducted under arrangements made by the Speaker provided that:
(i) Members may only participate physically within the Parliamentary estate; and
(ii) the arrangements adhere to the guidance issued by Public Health England.
(2) Standing Order No. 40 (Division unnecessarily claimed) shall not apply.
(3) In Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions):
(a) At the end of paragraph (5)(a), insert “, provided that (i) Members may only participate physically within the Parliamentary estate; and (ii) the arrangements adhere to the guidance issued by Public Health England”.
(b) In paragraph (5)(b) delete “two and a half hours” and insert “at least two and a half hours”.
(c) In paragraph (5)(c) delete “after the expiry of the period mentioned in subparagraph (b) above”.
(4) The Speaker or chair may limit the number of Members present in the Chamber at any one time and Standing Orders Nos. 7 (Seats not to be taken before prayers) and 8 (Seats secured at prayers) shall not apply.
(5) Standing Orders Nos. 83J to 83X (Certification according to territorial application etc) shall not apply.
The rationale for returning to physical proceedings is a straightforward one. Parliament is the assembly of the nation. The public expect it to deliver on the mandate provided by last year’s general election, and they expect it to conduct the kind of effective scrutiny that puts Ministers under real pressure. Neither expectation can be fully realised while we are not sitting physically. That is why we are returning to work safely at the first opportunity in order fully to conduct the essential business not possible from our homes. This assessment is based on the facts. The stopgap of a hybrid Parliament was a necessary compromise during the peak of the virus, but, by not being here, the House has not worked effectively on behalf of constituents. Legislating is a key function of Parliament, yet there has been no ability for legislative Committees to meet since 23 March. This means that, for 10 weeks, there has been no detailed line-by-line consideration of Bills that will affect people’s lives. I remind Members that, in the week commencing Monday 11 May, we had no debates on secondary legislation, no Public Bill Committees, and no Delegated Legislation Committees. There was significantly less time for debate—just 216 minutes of debate on primary legislation compared with the example of 648 minutes in a normal sitting week—and far less flexibility to ensure proper scrutiny of the Government.
I should also like to remind Members that much of the business under the hybrid proceedings was deliberately arranged to be non-contentious. The time limits on scrutiny and substantive proceedings were also heavily restricted. This was to facilitate the smooth running of what was always a technically challenging arrangement. What was acceptable for a few short weeks would have proved unsustainable if we had allowed the hybrid proceedings to continue. This House plays an invaluable role in holding the Government to account and debating legislation, which can only properly be fulfilled when Members are here in person.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I was just about to talk about Members intervening time and again, so it is the perfect time for me to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Chris Bryant
The Leader of the House will know, because he is an historian, that one of the ancient liberties of all Members of Parliament has been to attend. Such a liberty has been asserted even when the Crown has wanted to arrest people. The House has insisted that people should be allowed to attend, but at the moment, by law, there are many MPs who are banned from attending Parliament because they are shielding either themselves or others in their household. How can it possibly be right to exclude those people? How can it be a Conservative motion to exclude those MPs and thereby disenfranchise their communities?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Nobody is banned from attending Parliament by law. The ancient right of MPs, which dates back to 1340, entitles Members to attend. However, I accept that, for some Members with particular health conditions, it is very difficult to attend—
Chris Elmore
I am extremely grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way. Yesterday, in the public proceedings of the Procedure Committee, the question was asked directly of the Clerk, and the Clerk confirmed that Members are bound by the law outside of the particular Act to which the Leader of the House is referring. If, for example, a county, a part of the United Kingdom, or a nation was put into lockdown, the Member of Parliament would have to abide by that law, unless they were specifically exempt within that law—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. We might have gone back to having interventions, but that does not mean that we can have long interventions.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The ancient right to attend Parliament goes back to 1340, and, as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) pointed out, this is something that has been used against the Crown in the past. It is a most important and long-standing right. There must always be an exemption for Members to attend Parliament. What I was going on to elaborate is that I will be bringing forward, as I promised on 20 May, a motion tomorrow to allow Members who, on medical grounds, are unable to attend to continue to appear for scrutiny—questions, urgent questions and statements—remotely. That will be brought forward tomorrow, as I promised on 20 May when we discussed these matters in response to an urgent question.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
As usual, the Leader of the House is making a strong statement, but on this particular point on voting, surely, as this is a recall of Parliament, every Member should have the right to vote today on whether to accept the new proceedings. Why, therefore, is today’s vote not being done remotely?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is right. Every Member does have the right to vote. Members accepted that these measures would be temporary—that they would continue until they expired. One has to deal with these matters in good faith. It was put to Members, some of whom were very reluctant to accept remote voting, to agree to it on the basis that it was temporary. It expired, and therefore we come back automatically, without any motion, to physical voting.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that today there are low-paid clinical staff working in the NHS who are free of the surcharge as a result of this House having its voice heard? Does he therefore understand my incomprehension that Opposition Members want to continue with this “Coke Zero” Parliament for one more day, when we could resume our job of holding the Government to account?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend puts it extremely well. Lots of people are going back to work, and we have a role, as leaders within the country and within the community, to do that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Will the Leader of the House outline his intention with regard to ensuring that minority parties such as mine, the Democratic Unionist party, are able to speak directly from their constituency through the present system in this House on matters such as the upcoming debate on abortion? I would like to assume that at least some Northern Ireland MPs will be able to speak on this Northern Ireland legislation in Committee, as I understand it will be, ever mindful that this week the Northern Ireland Assembly will deliberate on this matter. Ministers, right hon. and hon. Members of this House want the Northern Ireland Assembly to make the decision, but if it has to be made in Committee here, it is important that we have an opportunity to have Northern Ireland MPs on that legislative Committee.
Mr Rees-Mogg
That is not really a point for today’s debate. I completely accept what the hon. Gentleman says about representation on Committees for minority parties, but that is really a matter for business questions rather than today’s debate. I might add that the voice of Strangford is always heard in this House, and that is our good fortune as Members of Parliament.
Just before the hon. Member for Rhondda intervened, I was talking about having Members intervening, and we have seen in the past few minutes how that enhances, develops and evolves the debate. It ensures that Ministers are held to account, and allows the debating of amendments clause by clause in the Chamber, so that constituents’ views can be represented to Ministers; then to vote physically ensures that we are here, coming together as a single Parliament.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The Leader of the House is, of course, a strong advocate of the Union. He must appreciate that at the present time it is incredibly difficult and not at all straightforward for Members from Ulster to get here to the British mainland. As a result, I wonder whether he accepts that the social distancing queueing arrangements that are now to be trialled actually defeat to some degree the purpose of our having those debates, because they will eat so much into parliamentary time that we are eager to use for debate and cut and thrust.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The temporary measures that are to be used will mean that voting takes a little bit longer than using the ordinary Division Lobbies. That is true, but it will depend to some extent on how many Divisions right hon. and hon. Members demand—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] I note a certain amount of caterwauling in the background, but I point out that a Division is not demanded on every item that comes before this House. If it were, the Budget resolutions would take a day to be passed. That is a perfectly routine matter. Members decide what they wish to vote on, and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, asked if notice could be given beforehand. Of course we will look for faster ways of providing for Divisions to take place.
Why should Divisions be physical? Why is it important for votes to be physical? It is because we are coming here together as a single Parliament and voting on things that have a major effect on people’s lives. Every piece of legislation affects people’s lives one way or another. We should not vote quietly and secretly. Some people tweeted that they were doing it while going for a walk and things like that. Is that really the way to be voting on laws?
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The principle in this House is that votes follow voices. The Leader of the House is telling us that tomorrow he will bring a motion to allow those who are medically not able to be here to have a voice. Why should they not have a vote to follow that voice?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The vote following the voice is the tradition that if you shout one way, you then cannot vote the other way. That is all that means in terms of that tradition. It means that if you shout “Aye”—
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Rees-Mogg
I will just explain this point and then of course I will give way. The votes follow the voice, in that if you have shouted “Aye”, you must not then vote No. You are allowed to move a motion and then vote against it, as long as you do not shout in favour of it. The hon. Member for Rhondda may be looking quizzical, but he might remember that the former leader of the Labour party—of Her Majesty’s Opposition—did exactly that within the past couple of years. This is a fairly routine procedure.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
What we have seen from the Leader of the House’s performance today so far is the characteristic we have seen from the Government since the start: bending the rules to fit their own purposes. Anybody watching this debate impartially will now be confused about what this means for their own behaviour. He has said that tomorrow people can enter these debates virtually. If they have a medical reason not to be here but they can be here virtually, can he say precisely what is preventing their being able to vote virtually as well?
Mr Rees-Mogg
There are well-established procedures for people who cannot be here being paired, so that their opinion and that of their constituents has exactly the same effect as if they vote in person. The votes through pairing balance out, so the decision of the House remains identical.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I assure the Leader of the House that right now there are lots of voices of Scottish National party Members he cannot hear because they are not in this Chamber and they will not be happy at all at the disenfranchisement of their constituents through what he is proposing. The Procedure Committee makes it clear that people should not have to disclose their medical condition in order to be able to participate in this House. What he is doing is embodying what people have seen as the practice of this Government in recent weeks: it is one rule for them and one rule for lots of other people.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman says that lots of SNP Members will not be happy. I have a nasty feeling that that is often the state of SNP Members, and I wish them every happiness. It is important that people follow the rules, and we are following the rules, because we said that people ought to go back to work if they cannot work effectively from home and that is exactly the position we are in.
Jim Shannon
Let me provide Members with an example. Flights for us from Northern Ireland to here are restricted. Two weeks ago, there were three flights out on a Monday but that was then reduced to two, and on other days there are no flights. Can Members have notice of when there will be debates in this House and when there will be votes in this House, because it is important that we are here to participate and actively vote when we can, and we need to know this in advance so that we can get a plane? The only plane over here for us yesterday left early in the morning, and that is to get us here for today.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Now that we are back to normal sitting hours, we will be sitting on Monday to Thursday with the usual sitting hours. A recess is scheduled, but I would not like to confirm that that date will be set in stone. It is at the end of July, so there will be plenty of notice if there is any change to it. We will have our normal sittings on Monday to Thursday. We are getting back to work. It is becoming business as normal.
The temporary Standing Orders for remote voting were only ever temporary, and I do not think they would have been agreed had the scheme been put in place for longer; many people have always been opposed to remote voting, and we got a consensus for a brief period. I do not believe I would be acting in good faith if I were to extend it beyond the time that people understood when it was first introduced. It is important that we treat decisions of the House with the importance and accord that they deserve, and the decision was to do this on a temporary basis.
Peter Kyle
I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, and this will be the last time. When the right hon. Gentleman introduced the motion that delivered the virtual Parliament—the hybrid Parliament—did he know then how long the coronavirus crisis would last?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am not a prophet, so I would not dream of predicting those sorts of things.
I have taken lots of interventions. In some ways I think this is a beneficial; it partly illustrates my argument about why Parliament needs to get back, and I appreciate that in a short debate interventions are sometimes just as useful for Members to be able to get in as getting half a minute at the end. If there are interventions, I will, by the leave of the House, carry on taking them.
Every Division is important, and I would underline that. We should be confident that we are all individually doing the right thing and voting openly under the eyes of others; voting while enjoying a sunny walk or watching television does democracy an injustice. The solemn decisions we take together affect the lives of millions of people in this country. We ask Members to vote in person for a reason: because it is the heart of what Parliament is about.
It remains essential that our work in this House is carried out in line with Public Health England advice. The Palace of Westminster we have returned to today is greatly changed from early March. The House authorities have carried out a risk assessment of the parliamentary estate to ensure it is a covid-19 secure workplace, in line with PHE guidance. Both its staff and its leadership, including particularly Mr Speaker, should be thanked and congratulated for the rapid progress that has been made.
I understand the concerns of some hon. and right hon. Members about returning physically. Many Members have already passed on their views, but I want to make it clear to all those in the House, and those who are not here but are listening and maybe shielding at home, that I am always available to discuss and hear their concerns, and I will as far as possible—which is why I will be bringing forward the motion tomorrow—do what I can to help. It will be tabled today for approval tomorrow. Anyone who feels that they are required to shield because of age or medical circumstances should not feel under pressure to attend Parliament, and pairing and other mechanisms will be in place informally to facilitate this.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
I agree with the Leader of the House about the nature of debate and response and making a decision at the end of that debate, but what argues against that is the practice of pairing, where the decision is taken before the debate. Many hon. Members want their constituents to know where they stand on issues. Why do we not put the pairing records on the record? [Interruption.]
Mr Rees-Mogg
I hear mutterings around the Chamber saying that that is a good idea. Unfortunately, neither the Chief Whip from the hon. Gentleman’s side or from my side is in the Chamber at the moment, and I think it might be useful to consult them before I make an off-the-cuff suggestion, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman, who is a wise and experienced parliamentarian, that I will pass his views on to the Chief Whip. Perhaps he would be so kind as to do the same to his own Chief Whip, and perhaps there could be a meeting of minds in that area.
I have been working with the House authorities to see how MPs with underlying health conditions who have been told to shield or are receiving specific Government advice about their health may be able to continue to contribute to proceedings in this House. I mentioned this on 20 May and reconfirm that I will table a further motion later today on some virtual participation by hon. Members. As it happens, for this motion I have used some of the language in the amendment tabled by the shadow Leader of the House, to whom I give my thanks, and other Opposition Members to ensure that such participation is available for Members unable to attend Westminster for medical and public health reasons related to the pandemic.
Turning to the motion itself, it may help if I briefly set out the Government’s approach. Today’s motion is the necessary paving step that gives the House the opportunity to signal how it wishes to conduct proceedings in the coming weeks. In response, I hope the House authorities will be able to complete the work already undertaken over the Whitsun recess, and I hope that hon. and right hon. Members will also find the explanatory note published alongside the motion helpful.
The motion updates the House’s procedures relating to Divisions and attendance in the Chamber to ensure compliance with social distancing restrictions. These temporary changes to Standing Orders will be in force until 7 July 2020. The motion rescinds the resolution of 21 April, which provided an overarching framework for the temporary Standing Orders relating to hybrid proceedings. This resolution is no longer needed as the Standing Orders have now lapsed and we are returning to physical proceedings.
Paragraphs (1) to (3) of motion 2 set out an approach to Divisions. If agreed by the House, Division arrangements will be set out by the Speaker and will adhere to Public Health England guidance—and I wonder if I may, through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, congratulate Mr Speaker on the work he has done to ensure and test a system for voting that meets the requirements of PHE; he has invested a lot of time in it to make sure that we have a system that will operate.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
On this rather vexed issue of voting, could further consideration perhaps be given to the use of deferred Divisions? I understand the argument about consequential votes, but that could be dealt with quite simply by allowing them to drop away, and we would avoid any scenes that might bring us into a certain degree of disrepute.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the points that he has made. I assure him that the Government will listen carefully to any ideas that come forth from the Procedure Committee and from hon. Members in relation to how things can be improved and made more fluid in these difficult circumstances.
The Government wish to ensure that the House continues to function in line with Public Health England advice. Paragraph (4) therefore ensures that the Speaker may limit the number of Members present in the Chamber at any given time, and disapplies the Standing Orders relating to the prayer card system. The Standing Order will be discontinued in order that the flow of Members in and out of the Chamber can be managed, but I reassure Members that Prayers themselves will take place at the start of each sitting day. Finally, paragraph (5) disapplies Standing Orders relating to English votes procedures, as double majority voting is likely to be incompatible with the arrangements for socially distanced Divisions.
Let me now turn to the amendments tabled by the Opposition parties and the Procedure Committee. I reiterate my gratitude to the Procedure Committee—particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley)—for its and her swift work, and welcome continuing discussions with that prestigious Committee. I used to be on it, which is why I think particularly highly of it; it is one of the most interesting Select Committees in the House.
I hope that my commitment to bring forward tomorrow a Government motion to allow some participation in hybrid proceedings for those who are shielding demonstrates my commitment to ensuring safe participation for as many Members as possible, and that those amendments which seek to require some hybrid participation can be withdrawn on that basis.
I have already set out the case against remote voting, but let me address the argument made by some Members that if a Member is not able to vote, they will be entirely disenfranchised. I do not accept that. There are many other ways in which MPs represent their constituents in Parliament, including through tabling written questions, writing correspondence, tabling amendments and attending hearings of Select Committees, which will continue. Select Committees can continue to meet remotely under the resolution that I brought forward in March and will continue to carry out their important work with Members participating from around the country. It is worth noting that the Liaison Committee very successfully quizzed the Prime Minister in this way, so scrutiny carries on in other ways too.
I know that there has been concern about the operation of evidence sessions for Public Bill Committees. I hope that the House will welcome the fact that some specific witnesses to the Domestic Abuse Bill have been told that they will be able to give evidence remotely on Thursday, should they wish to. I was keen to ensure that this was possible. Some had assumed that it was not, but this concern turns out to be misplaced. The House has confirmed that under existing rules, witnesses can indeed give evidence remotely to Public Bill Committees in the same way that they have long been able to with Select Committees. It can therefore happen with no changes to the Standing Orders.
I ask that the House agrees the motion today and considers the further motion that I will bring forward tomorrow. I have no doubt that the Procedure Committee will continue to keep our ways of working under review, and I welcome that. For my part, I very happily commit to continuing to do the same, in order that we can ensure that the House can continue to go about its business effectively and safely.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I apologise for not being here right at the beginning of the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks, but I did not know whether I would be able to get into the Chamber. If proxy voting is acceptable for somebody on maternity leave in principle, why is proxy voting not acceptable for somebody who is shielding in this extraordinary crisis?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Procedure Committee is currently holding an inquiry into proxy voting and whether it is suitable to be extended. I am aware that the hon. Gentleman is asking me this question, but obviously this is a matter for consultation with the Procedure Committee. The drawback of proxy voting immediately is that the temporary system that we will be having will take longer anyway, and that would be particularly complicated by proxy voting. But is it a solution that is ruled out full time? No, I would say that it is not.
It is important to emphasise that, with the hybrid Parliament, the commitments the Government made to the voters in December were clogged up. The Domestic Abuse Bill was not making progress—no Bill Committees were sitting—nor were the Fire Safety Bill, the Northern Ireland legacy Bill, the Fisheries Bill, the Trade Bill or the counter-terrorism Bill. What we do in this House is important and that we do it at a reasonable and efficient pace matters, and to do that we need to be here physically. I know, I understand and I sympathise that those Members who are shielding face difficult times. They are following advice that may prevent them from being here to vote, and that is difficult for them.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Could the right hon. Gentleman therefore confirm to me that the constituents of those MPs who have to shield are worth less and it is expected that they will be less well represented by this place?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I think the right hon. Lady makes entirely the wrong point. Parliament meets to represent the nation as a whole. We come here together not as ambassadors representing various powers; we come here as a United Kingdom Parliament. That is the nation— the United Kingdom—that we come here to represent, and we come here together. As a collective, we are a single United Kingdom Parliament and a strong legislative body that represents the whole people of the United Kingdom, and we each participate in that in our different ways on a daily basis.
Ian Paisley
The Leader of the House is absolutely correct on that point, but where it falls down is when Members are obstructed from actually getting here because there are not sufficient flights to bring Members to the House. That is where it falls down from Northern Ireland’s point of view. Will steps be taken, through the Government, with the airports and the airlines to ensure that Members from Northern Ireland can get here? Frankly, the issue of shielding, as far as I am aware, does not affect the eight Members who attend from Northern Ireland.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman in his place, and I absolutely appreciate that it is harder for some Members to get here than for others. I am very glad to see the Westminster leader of the SNP in his place, because his constituency is particularly far away from Westminster. I think he had a 16-hour journey to get here, and I think it shows a proper commitment to our parliamentary democracy that he is here. [Interruption.] Perhaps he is a secret Unionist, but it is a pleasure to see him here because we bring a Parliament together to have debate on the matters that are of concern to our constituents, and I absolutely accept that it is more difficult for some than for others.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Does the Leader of the House accept that we should be an exemplar of best practice, and when we are deliberately excluding people from portions of their responsibilities because of their disabilities we are in no position to tell employers who breach equalities legislation that they are in the wrong?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I have obviously looked at the equalities considerations in relation to this, and the Government and Parliament are completely in accordance with them, because it is necessary for us to meet here physically to do our business. That is in line with the Government’s guidelines. Which Bill does the hon. Gentleman not want us to have? Does he want to give up on the Domestic Abuse Bill? Does he want to give up on the Fire Safety Bill or the Northern Ireland legacy Bill? Are we going to get these Bills through?
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
To introduce another subject, does the Leader of the House have a view about call lists during statements and urgent questions? Right now, it seems to me that they prioritise those who sit browsing MemberHub 24 hours a day, which I have to confess is not for me, to submit a request in a short window to be part of an urgent question or statement, as opposed to being here and persisting to catch the Chair’s eye.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I think the system of catching Mr Speaker’s eye is a preferable system, but needs must, because we can have only 50 Members in the Chamber at any one point. However, this is a temporary expedient, and some of the other courtesies and normalities are being suspended.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
The Leader of the House just said that this was a temporary expedient, and that is absolutely right; we are living through a crisis. Difficulties have been expressed by our friends from Northern Ireland, myself—from Skye— and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), and we should put that in the context of our having been able to participate over the course of the last few weeks and get on with our job of representing our constituents, when our mailbags have never been fuller. The likes of myself and the right hon. Gentleman are now having to give up 30 hours to get here and go back—what a waste of time when we could be acting professionally, staying at home, doing our job and questioning the Government remotely.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The problem is that we are not doing our full job. We are doing an important part of our job in dealing with constituents’ inquiries, but we are not doing the important job of legislating—of getting through the business that the Government committed to deliver in the general election. The right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) says—[Interruption.] Don’t worry, I am saving up the hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Lady says that we are getting it done, but I remind her what I said at the beginning of the debate: we have had 216 minutes of debate on primary legislation compared with 640 minutes in a normal sitting week. We have been running at a third of normal legislative capacity. The job of Parliament is to deliver for the British people, and I ask again which Bill the hon. Lady would wish to sacrifice.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Just before the Lord President answers the intervention, I am also concerned about the rights of as many Members as possible to participate this afternoon. Several Members have intervened more than once. Let us have a bit of restraint.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Sometimes the hon. Member for Rhondda makes the point for me more eloquently than I could have made it myself: there is an absolute right of Members to attend Parliament. It is a most antique right. It predates the Stuarts and, as I keep on saying, it goes back to 1340. Members may attend if they wish to.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Has the Lord President done an estimation of the number of additional Members who will be kept away from this place if, after today, one of the people in this Palace tests positive? Therefore, any one of us—maybe all of us—may have to stay away for up to two weeks. Has he done that calculation and does he have a plan for what happens in that instance?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Well, the answer to that is: look around—if you seek a monument, look around. We are sitting six feet away from each other so that we are socially distanced, and therefore, if one right hon. or hon. Member has the coronavirus, in the track-and-tracing process we would not be notifying them about the people that we are sitting six feet away from. That is the whole point of social distancing. If we look on the floor, we see it says, “Please wait here until the person in front has moved forward”, and that goes back and back at six feet intervals all the way through, so that this can be done on a socially distanced basis, in line with Public Health England guidelines. I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for pointing out how well the House service has done in setting this out in a way that can continue to ensure that Members may turn up.
Let me continue my conclusion. There are many things that make the lives of MPs difficult, and I am not trying to pretend that this is not the case, but we none the less have a duty to the country and voters to fulfil both our collective constitutional function and our individual roles. The collective of Parliament requires that we return physically so we can allow proper redress of grievance, hold the Government to account, deliver on the mandate provided at the election and pass the important Bills that I have listed. I have no doubt that there will be some teething problems with the voting system today. It may be some time until—
Liz Saville Roberts
The Leader of the House said earlier that witnesses giving evidence to the Domestic Abuse Bill Committee could attend from afar. I have contacted the witness I invited, who told me that he could not attend from afar because he could not contribute through video, which he takes as discriminating against people who have to travel to London because he cannot stay in a hotel here. I would like the Leader of the House to be clear on what the situation is.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The House authorities have made possible virtual participation in the Bill Committee’s proceedings, and it is up to individual witnesses whether they wish to take that up or not. That was always available under the ordinary systems used for some time by Select Committees. It applied to Public Bill Committees as well.
As I was saying, I do expect some teething problems with the voting system today, and it will be some time before our proceedings are fully restored, but in the meantime we must act to minimise the disruption.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Indeed I have—I took my sister Annunziata there many years ago. [Interruption.] Anyway, enough of my reminiscences. It is important that we protect, preserve and prioritise our parliamentary democracy. It has to continue, regardless of the disease that is afflicting the nation.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I thank the hon. Gentleman, but I do not need his point of order. I have been trying to move the debate forward, but Members are so excited at being back here and being allowed to intervene that they are doing it far too often. No more interventions.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The interventions prove my point: we need interventions to make Parliament work properly. We need proper debate. We need to be back. We need to have a proper, full-blooded democracy, and that is what we are getting.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call the shadow Leader of the House, Valerie Vaz. I trust that Members will not unnecessarily make interventions upon the right hon. Lady, because I am hoping she will not take more than five or six minutes. Otherwise, we simply will run out of time.
Conduct of Business After the Whitsun Recess
Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) [V]
(Urgent question): To ask the Leader of the House if he will make a statement on the conduct of business after the Whitsun recess and if he will bring forward the necessary motions to continue the online participation of Members in the business of the House.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
Mr Speaker, may I first recognise your commitment to ensuring that the House operates as fully as it can while adhering to guidance from Public Health England? Your dedication and that of the House Clerks and digital team has been instrumental in establishing the hybrid proceedings that allowed us to return after Easter but as you have always agreed, the present arrangements were only ever envisaged as temporary, because they fundamentally restrict the House’s ability to perform its functions fully. Complaints about our debates becoming stilted, scripted affairs are one thing, but the impact on legislative scrutiny is another.
Under the hybrid proceedings, the time this House is able to spend debating legislation faces being cut by around two thirds. I am sure all Members will agree that each and every one of the 36 Bills put forward by the Government in the Queen’s Speech deserves the proper level of scrutiny. We have to recognise that if we persist with the present arrangements, it will become harder to make progress in a timely fashion. That is why, in line with Government advice for those who cannot do their jobs from home, I am asking Members to return to their place of work after Whitsun.
We will not be returning to the crowded, bustling Chamber of old. We will be observing social distancing. As a member of the House of Commons Commission, I was reassured yesterday by the progress being made in making the parliamentary estate a covid-19 secure workplace. That work has been expertly led by Marianne Cwynarski, the head of governance and central services, and I particularly commend her for her efforts in ensuring that staff already coming in to work in the Palace have the support they need.
Only yesterday, Mr Speaker, you organised the test of a new system for Divisions that will ensure Members can vote while remaining 6 feet apart. We will minimise the number of other passholders on the estate, strongly encouraging MPs’ staff and others to continue working from home. We will continue to work closely together in consultation with Members across the House, not least the Select Committee on Procedure, on the appropriate next steps.
We will need to understand from the House authorities where adaptations can be implemented, as the Procedure Committee itself acknowledges is key, without prejudice to the House’s ability to carry out its business effectively. At the same time, we will want to ensure that any steps taken are in line with the Government’s advice to the country at large.
I will consider the Procedure Committee’s views very carefully and keep these issues under review, but I would finally like to reassure those Members with underlying health conditions who have been told to shield or are receiving specific Government advice about their health that we are working with the House authorities to see how they can continue to contribute to proceedings within the House.
Mr Speaker
I will now call Alistair Carmichael, who is asked to speak for no more than two minutes.
Mr Carmichael
Thank you for allowing this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I do not want this debate today to be all about Members of Parliament. Let us remember what has brought us to this point. Yesterday, the number of recorded deaths from covid-19 reached 35,341—a rise of 545 from the day before. Today, the Government’s response to that is to insist that Members of Parliament should undertake non-essential journeys—in my case, that is almost the entire length of this country—to stay in second homes. When that was done by leading Government advisers, it led to their resignation. If ever there was a case of do as I say and not as I do, then this is it.
None of us is blind to the inadequacies of online scrutiny. Like many Members I find it stilted and artificial, but if it is a choice between that, and putting the safety of Members, their families and the staff of the House at risk, that is no choice at all. This system should end only when it is safe to do so—and safe for all Members, not just those who live within driving distance of Westminster.
As trade union representatives explained to the Commission yesterday, the House of Commons is supported by approximately 3,000 employees. Is the Leader of the House really satisfied that we can bring MPs back from 2 June while discharging our duty of care towards those staff? How many staff will be able to return to work without risk to themselves or those with whom they live?
It is widely reported that the motivation for this over-hasty return is to get a support pack behind the Prime Minister on Wednesday afternoons. Today, it has even been reported that yesterday, the Leader of the House suggested to the Commons Commission that to get more MPs in, perspex screens should be installed between the Benches and between Members—someone has obviously told him how things are being done in Tesco these days. In recent weeks we have demonstrated that the business of this House can be done from behind a screen, as we do right now, but it is from behind a computer screen, not a screen of perspex, the only purpose of which would be to shield the Government from scrutiny and the Prime Minister from ridicule. The Leader of the House must think again.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The point made by the right hon. Gentleman about Prime Minister’s questions is fundamentally trivial and beneath him, and therefore I shall ignore it. I am very sorry that he does not think that proper scrutiny of the Government is an essential task in a democracy. I think that is an extraordinary position for a former member of a Government, and a leading figure in the Liberal party—if it has leading figures—to take. Democratic accountability is fundamental to how our system works.
The right hon. Gentleman, from his eyrie in the Shetland Islands, tells us that a remote system does not work well enough. He then says that we should none the less continue with it. As Members of Parliament, I think we have a duty to return to doing our work thoroughly, properly, and effectively, and that is what we will do, in line with Government advice and the five tests, and by ensuring a safe working environment. I reiterate my thanks to Marianne Cwynarski for what she has done. People working in the House, employees of the House, are able to work safely, and the numbers expected to come in are not thought likely to rise significantly when the House returns after Whitsun.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), and you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. Last week the Leader of the House gave a fantastic performance about democracy and parliamentary sovereignty, but it was all style and no substance. If this was not so serious, I would have nominated him for a BAFTA.
We have had a joint Commission with the other place, and at a Commission meeting we had a briefing from Public Health England. Before his unilateral declaration that the Government will not renew the temporary hybrid proceedings, did the Leader of the House hold a discussion with Public Health England? What was its advice, and will he publish it?
May I correct the Leader of the House again? He keeps saying that if others are going to work, the Government expect us to go to work, but we are at work. We are at work at all times. The Government’s own advice is that those who can work from home should do so—that is still the Government’s advice, on grounds of working and travelling safely. Will he confirm that he is not contradicting Government advice, and will he say how Members are expected to travel down when there is a reduced service?
Everyone knows someone who has been a victim of this disease, including those who have not just suffered from it, but who have died. This is not a bounce-back virus, as the Prime Minister said; it is not about the survival of the fittest. We have a diverse workforce in our community here, which we encourage. What risk assessment has the Leader of the House asked to be made, to ensure that Members, and the extra House staff required for return, can return safely? Will he confirm that on returning to physical-only proceedings, proper social distancing measures will have been worked out and will be sustainable in the Chamber? What was the extra waiting time for voting at the practice voting?
This is not a battle of “Government good; everyone else bad”, or of “shirkers versus workers” as some Ministers have said. This is about Parliament about being a good model employer. We need a phased return, so as not to overpower the NHS or House staff, and where everyone can be safe.
Finally, can the Leader of the House confirm that the parliamentary estate is covid-free? Does he agree with the scientific advice that it is about observed levels of infection and not a fixed date?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Most of those questions were actually answered at the Commission meeting—the right hon. Lady is a member—that we had on Tuesday. Unfortunately, because of a dodgy connection, we could hardly hear her during the proceedings of the Commission and perhaps she could not hear all the points that were made.
We had reassurance from the House authorities that, yes, this will be a covid-19-secure workplace by the time we come back after the Whitsun recess; that a risk assessment has been carried by the parliamentary authorities; and that enormous steps are being taken to help and to assist parliamentary staff. What is the House doing? Well, there is extra cleaning going on. The same mechanisms will be used to clean pads as are used on the London Underground to try and ensure there is safety there; the congestion charge is being paid for members of staff so that they can drive to work and the Abingdon car park is being made available. Considerable steps have been made by the House authorities, as the right hon. Lady knows, to ensure that it is safe to work here.
Is this in line with Government advice? Yes, of course it is. The key question for right hon. and hon. Members to ask themselves is: do they think that proper scrutiny and proper legislative processes are essential? If they are, we need to be here. If they are not, they can work remotely. It seems to me, unquestionably, that those proper processes are an essential part of our country functioning. Therefore, we cannot do our jobs properly from home and therefore that is in line with the Government’s advice.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) [V]
I would like to thank my right hon. Friend for the work being done to ensure that Parliament is a safe working environment for all. Does he agree that while we have had to improvise due to the unprecedented situation we find ourselves in, we cannot effectively do our jobs from home? We should lead by example when asking the country to return to work. We could improvise further in Westminster, for example by taking advantage of more of the space available to enable more of us to participate fully and safely.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Government’s advice is clear: work from home if you can. But what I and many others have increasingly realised is that this House cannot work effectively without meeting physically. Take last week for example: no debates on secondary legislation; no Public Bill Committees; no Delegated Legislation Committees. Compare that to a fairly standard and not particularly busy physical sitting week, such as the week commencing 2 March. That week the Commons considered the stages of four Bills instead of one and nine statutory instruments instead of none. In addition to Chamber time, the House held seven Delegated Legislation Committees and four Public Bill Committee sittings. I therefore very much welcome my hon. Friend’s valuable point that MPs’ work is absolutely essential and that we cannot do it from home.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]
The position taken by the Leader of the House is reckless, cavalier and downright dangerous. Surely it is his job to make sure that elected Members can represent the views of their constituents, yet he now proposes to force Members to make a choice between standing up for those who elected them and putting their own health and the health of others at risk. The Leader of the House talks of an ancient right to enter Parliament, but what good is that right if it cannot be executed without endangering the lives of one’s family and constituents? Switching off the computer and barring Members from participating online will reduce the ability of Members of Parliament to scrutinise the Government. It is simply Orwellian to pretend that it will enhance it. Moreover, this will not affect everyone equally. Those who are older and suffer ill health will be disproportionately affected, as will those who live farthest away. Has he undertaken an equalities assessment of this proposal, and does he think that removing the existing arrangements is compatible with the laws of equality of treatment of persons in the United Kingdom?
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the remarks I made some moments ago when I said that I would like to reassure those Members with underlying health conditions who have been told to shield or who are receiving specific Government advice about their health that we are working with the House authorities to see how they can continue to contribute to proceedings within the House? We recognise the importance of that, but we also recognise the need for business to continue. I understand that the Parliament in Holyrood is still meeting, although with a third of Members turning up and moving all over Scotland to get there, so I slightly think that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) [V]
If the Leader of the House thinks that this is safe, he is trying to kid everyone but he is fooling no one. This is about those Members of Parliament who have underlying health conditions, those over 70 who absolutely should not be going anywhere, those of us who have family members with underlying health conditions and those of our staff who face the same challenges. With so many Members with underlying health conditions, of that age or with family members who are at risk, how on earth can this possibly be right or democratic, and how can our constituents possibly be represented properly?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I think the issue is that members of staff of MPs do not need to come in. They clearly can carry on working from home. There is no change there, and numbers coming on to the estate will be limited. What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that we are facing exactly the same issues as other workplaces where working from home is not good enough. These are not unique to us. We are in the same situation as the rest of the nation, and we should not think that Members of Parliament are some special priestly caste who must be treated differently. We should stand with our own constituents.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con) [V]
I welcome the comments of the Leader of the House. It is clear to me that although the House authorities have done a fantastic job in seeing us through the last few weeks, this is not a sustainable way to run Parliament in the future. May I seek my right hon. Friend’s reassurance that this model, which some people seem to think can be a model for the future, will not now be applied to projects such as restoration and renewal, which, in my view, would again create a situation in which Parliament simply could not function properly?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has experience as a former Leader of the House and knows and understands how this place ought to work. The measures that we are using currently are a remarkable achievement by the House authorities in a very particular circumstance, and it is very unlikely that this way of operating would be suitable to other circumstances.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab) [V]
Just like our communities, this House is made up of people with a range of different situations who are following Government advice and Public Health England advice and shielding or self-isolating or who have childcare or elder care responsibilities arising from these unique covid circumstances, yet they are continuing to represent their constituents although they cannot be here in person. Will the Leader of the House tell us what arrangements will be in place to ensure that all Members can continue to take part fully in the work of Parliament, in person or virtually?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The point that the hon. Lady makes is a serious one, and it is being considered by my office and by the House more generally. Discussions will continue over Whitsun to try to work out how those people who are receiving specific medical advice or being instructed to shield may be helped to participate in proceedings once we return, and how the technology may work with regard to that, but the importance of the point is one that we understand.
Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con) [V]
I welcome the commitment from the Leader of the House to ensure that those Members who are vulnerable will not be disadvantaged and will be able to continue to represent their constituents in the House. Can he confirm that these arrangements will also be available to Members who, like many working parents, rely on grandparents who might be in the vulnerable category to supplement their childcare and therefore cannot travel to Westminster at this time?
Mr Rees-Mogg
We are listening to the representations that people are making about the difficulties that they face with regard to attending the House. The Procedure Committee has looked at a number of these issues and written to you, Mr Speaker, about the return to physical proceedings, and I have had representations from a number of Members.
The reality is that Parliament is most effective when it meets physically. The hybrid parliamentary proceedings have allowed only a small proportion of Parliament’s functionality to take place. As we have seen in this sitting, with Members being cut off, the hybrid proceedings have limited Members’ ability to represent their constituencies across the country. What we will do is to return physically in a way that is advised, and properly orchestrated and organised, in accordance with the recommendations from the Government and, indeed, from the House of Commons authorities.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)[V]
I am grateful to be called in this urgent question. I am thankful to the Leader of the House, because I know that he recognises that we all have an equal duty to represent our constituents, but the travel to and from Westminster is not equal for us all. Indeed, taking a plane from Belfast is not as socially distant as we would like. I ask the Leader of the House to consider the issue that will be most vexatious and difficult to solve, which is voting. I ask him whether remote voting can continue, given that the ability to travel between Westminster and Northern Ireland is severely constrained, with less than two planes per day from Northern Ireland to London when ordinarily there would have been more than 20.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The issue with voting, as you have made clear, Mr Speaker, is that we can run one system or the other. The two systems are not compatible. We are looking to have a physical return of the House, and therefore to have physical voting. I think that is an important way of getting back to being a normal Parliament, with all the benefits that come from having physical voting.
Mr Speaker
We will now try to reconnect Karen Bradley, Chair of the Procedure Committee.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con) [V]
Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am audio only, I am afraid. I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. I firmly believe, as Chair of the Procedure Committee, that the House should be allowed to have its say on these changes. It is important that an opportunity is provided for the House to do that.
Will the Leader of the House reflect on the resolution that the House passed on 21 April, which stays in place while Public Health England advice remains, and which allows for both virtual participation and parity of treatment for all Members? Is the Leader of the House intending to amend or rescind that resolution, or does he believe that it no longer applies?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I thank my right hon. Friend for the invaluable work that she and her Committee have been doing, and for the suggestions that they have made about how we can make the hybrid work and how we can get back to a real Parliament. We see in her absence the difficulties with a hybrid Parliament. I am glad that the technology was able to reconnect her, in voice only, but being here in the flesh does have advantages.
The motion of the House stands, but to allow it to be effective it requires subsidiary motions that will lapse. Of course, the Government take motions of the House very seriously and wish to ensure that their details are reflected in the way the House operates, although sometimes these are matters more for Mr Speaker than for the Leader of the House.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con) [V]
I am pleased that the Leader of the House has announced that measures will be considered to protect MPs who have been shielding or carrying out caring responsibilities for vulnerable family members who are at high risk of coronavirus. Will we be advised on what the new measures will be before people decide whether they can come back early?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I will continue, as will others across the House, to listen to and reflect on the views of hon. and right hon. Members from across the House. Yesterday afternoon, the Procedure Committee wrote to me and the Speaker to set out its views on how we should return to physical proceedings. I welcomed the opportunity for further discussions with the Committee on Monday, and I am grateful for its work. I have also had representations from many other Members. This is a work in progress to finalise the details. Any changes in our procedures will need to be made by a motion in this House, and those cannot be made until the House meets again, so the assumption must be that we continue as we usually continue until such time as, or if, anything changes.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) [V]
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Across Scotland, we are dissuading people from travelling large distances, for fear of spreading the virus further and overloading rural communities. Does the Leader of the House understand that there are real concerns, beyond threatening the safety of MPs, that by removing votes unless we are physically present and insisting we return to that place we will undoubtedly undermine the public safety message, which has been key to preventing covid from spreading even more widely in our communities?
Mr Rees-Mogg
What is being proposed for the House is completely in line with what is being proposed by the Government generally; it is a question of working through the five tests and of those who can go back to work, because they cannot work effectively from home, being encouraged to go back to work. We are in the same situation as everybody else. Measures are being taken, have been taken and will continue to be taken to ensure that coming to the House of Commons is as safe as it possibly can be.
Business of the House
Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
The business for the week commencing 1 June will include:
Monday 1 June—The House will not be sitting.
Tuesday 2 June—Second reading of the Parliamentary Constituencies Bill.
Wednesday 3 June—Consideration of a business of the House motion, followed by all stages of the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill.
Thursday 4 June—Remaining stages of the Sentencing (Pre-consolidation Amendments) Bill [Lords], followed by debate on a motion relating to the EU’s mandate for negotiating a new partnership with the UK.
Friday 5 June—The House will not be sitting.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business statement. There we are, we are sitting up until Thursday with a hybrid, virtual Parliament, so it can be done. First, will he ensure that the Government make a statement on the guidance on people returning to work here safely on the first day back? The advice from the scientists is that lockdown should not be eased until track and trace is in place and that we should look at the observed levels of infection, not just at the fixed date. Does he agree that even the testing has not been got right and that the Government have extended it? Can he say whether there are enough home tests for the House and whether enough masks will be available? At this point, I, too, want to pay tribute to Marianne Cwynarski and everybody on the House staff, who have worked so hard to keep us safe.
Like us, following the Leader of the House’s outburst last week, which came with no consultation, what our teachers want is a discussion and time to prepare. They have been given a confused message, because the British Medical Association has said that the children are not safe to go back. Let us remember that teachers have been at work looking after our children now—they have been looking after key workers’ children—and they are the best people to say whether they are ready or not. The Government cannot compare this country to Denmark, because Denmark has not had as many deaths as we have had here. So what advice have the Government given teachers, particularly on the inflammatory disease affecting children? Given that a poll of almost 30,000 members of the NASUWT found that just 5% said that the schools were safe to return and 81% of parents said that they do not want to send their children back, may we have an urgent statement from the Education Secretary when we return on the evidence that it was safe for children to return? I say that given that a member of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies told the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee that the decision on schools was “political” and not based on science.
On Monday, we voted on the Second Reading of the immigration Bill, which contains swathes of Henry VIII powers. As the Leader of the House is a believer in parliamentary sovereignty and parliamentary democracy, does he think that is appropriate? Will he guarantee that Government time will be given to debate any statutory instruments that are prayed against by the Opposition? We clap our care workers into the NHS, but with this immigration Bill the Government are, in effect, clapping them out of the country.
A constituent of mine is the general manager of an SME—small and medium-sized enterprise—employing 65 people. Indirectly, they support the NHS, the Nightingale hospitals, manufacturing valuable items that people need quickly. They had a five-week wait, and their bank refused them a loan—just 20%—though they are a profitable company. They and many other businesses are struggling to find a way to stay open. If I forward details to the Leader of the House, will he take that up with the Chancellor, please?
Last week I asked about dentists. Will the right hon. Gentleman follow that up with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care? It was mentioned in the House on Monday, but we did not get a response. The regulatory body has been checking on personal protective equipment for dentists returning—again, small businesses hoping to help our country return to normal. There is an issue about their PPE. Will he ensure that major PPE companies fast-track the powered air-filtered PPE face masks particular to dentistry? We have not had an answer to that. Dentists could get back to work to protect our constituents, some of whom are having to pull out their own teeth.
I thank the Leader of the House for his response last week on Nazanin and Anoush. It was very helpful. Will he make sure that the Foreign Secretary ensures that all British citizens abroad are able to get consular visits and advice? No one is asking for a fanfare when the ambassador visits, but we want Nazanin, Anoush and Kylie to be visited. At this time, they deserve clemency, and the Leader of the House knows that this is an important day for them. I remind all hon. Members to light a candle for them all today.
Finally, Mr Speaker, it is National Epilepsy Week. I thank you for your statement on Mental Health Awareness Week, which was very helpful. Let us hope that we can all encourage everyone to look out for each other.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I completely endorse what the right hon. Lady said about Epilepsy Week and mental health: we do indeed need to look out for each other, particularly at a time of lockdown, when many people are suffering, and loneliness is a particular and difficult problem, especially for people who are shielding and must take particular care. That is obviously at the forefront of the Government’s mind.
With regard to Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, consular work continues, but it is not always best to argue this on the Floor of the House, if the right hon. Lady will forgive me for not giving more details on this occasion.
To come to the more politically controversial issues, on the guidance for Members coming back, they know what the national guidance is—the guidance provided for people returning to work, on how they should try to come back to work, what the procedures are and how they should try to distance themselves socially. Members who are already here will see in the House how much marking out has been done to help people to stick to the guidelines.
The work done with members of staff has been exemplary. It is reassuring to know that the numbers of House staff expected back with MPs returning after Whitsun is not expected to change significantly from the number currently coming in to facilitate the hybrid Parliament. The burden on our staff is not the burden; the burden is on us as Members of Parliament and therefore it is one that we should undertake, because we are like the rest of the country in these circumstances.
The right hon. Lady asked questions about schools and wants a statement from the Secretary of State for Education. He responded to an urgent question last week. I hope it is not indiscreet of me to say, but he was himself very keen to make a statement, although the scheduling did not allow for that. He is keen to report to Parliament, and to keep Parliament up to date. There is, however, a real issue with the widening attainment gap, with schools not being open. That is why it is important for schools to open—if they can—in accordance with the five tests that the Government have set out.
With regard to praying against SIs, most Henry VIII powers are subject to affirmative SIs, rather than negative SIs, and are therefore automatically subject to a process in the House. The general policy of the Government, however, as of many previous Governments, is that when SIs are prayed against by the official Opposition, usually, if it is a reasonable prayer, debating time will be found. That is an important constitutional matter, but it is also why we need a physical Parliament back because there would not be any time for praying against statutory instruments if we were not back. I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for making my argument about the essential need for Parliament’s returning reasonably soon.
I am obviously sorry to hear about the difficulties that the right hon. Lady’s constituent is facing. I would point out that £11.1 billion is being paid out in furlough money and £7.5 billion in loans backed to 80% by the Government. That is major support for industry, and I think the Chancellor has done a quite phenomenal amount in getting support to businesses, but I would happily take up the specific case with the right hon. Lady, and likewise for the dentists in her constituency. I cannot claim to be an expert on the type of PPE that she is referring to, but I am sure there are people in Government who are and who can get her a proper response.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con) [V]
During this lockdown, we have seen numerous cases of broadcast media interviewing people in a manner that suggests they are independent experts, whereas they are in fact partisan political activists. That, of course, culminated in the notorious “Panorama” programme last month, but there are many other examples. Can we therefore have a debate on the guidelines that broadcasters are meant to use in order to provide their viewers with an informed picture of what they are actually watching?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has written to the BBC asking for an explanation of that “Panorama” programme, which seemed to have Communists in the background giving advice on how the programme was structured. I did not realise there were any Communists left in this country, but the BBC managed to dredge them up. He is absolutely right to ask for a for a debate—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) heckles, Mr Speaker. It is so unlike her; she is normally so ladylike and does not heckle. I would say that yes, it is a free country, but the BBC is obliged to be impartial. It has charter obligations. The issue regarding debates is that when the House is back in real form, there will be more opportunity and more time for debates, which I hope will satisfy many hon. and right hon. Members.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]
Let me take up where I left off 25 minutes ago. I have still not had an answer on whether the Leader of the House believes his proposals for Parliament’s return are compatible with the equalities legislation of the United Kingdom, and I would like him to comment on that matter. I also have two further points, Mr Speaker.
First, we are told that Public Health England will again inspect the building during recess and advise on whether and how business can be conducted safely. What happens if Public Health England says that that cannot happen? Do the Government then intend to override the public health advice given by their own agency? Would it not have been more sensible to make these decisions after rather than before determining whether they can be implemented safely, or is this a case of wishful thinking taking the place of evidence-based policy? If the advice is that the number of hon. Members must be restricted, on what basis will the Government determine who can attend and who cannot?
Finally, I turn to the question of remote voting. While everyone can see that online participation in debates is not ideal, although it is better than no participation at all, that is not the case with online voting. The process is simple and secure. This is not an abstract or theoretical question: the system is there. It works. Why on earth switch it off when there is no need to do so? It is accepted that voting cannot be the same as it used to be, with hon. Members crammed into Lobbies, queuing to give their name to a Clerk. I know that a physical vote has been trialled; indeed, I have seen the pictures, and I think once the public see how that is proposed, we will be in danger of exposing this Parliament to even greater ridicule. So why is the Leader prepared to go to any lengths, it seems, no matter how ridiculous, not to continue with the system that is already in place and that works?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman is, of course, a separatist, and he gives the game away when he refers to “even greater ridicule”, because he does not wish this Parliament to be the Parliament of the United Kingdom. He wants to separate himself from it and therefore uses every opportunity to ridicule it, which I am not sure is entirely helpful or reflects the views of the majority of Members.
As regards remote voting, there was a very clear undertaking that it would be temporary. The consensus reached within the House to allow the hybrid Parliament was based on consent, on the basis of it being temporary. If people want to make an argument for the longer term about remote voting, they are absolutely entitled to do so, and no doubt the Procedure Committee will look at it, but that is an argument for another day. I would be acting in bad faith if I did not deliver on the commitment to those who never wanted remote voting in the first place that it will stop at the point at which we return to a physical Parliament.
As regards how numbers will be kept down, there is a well tried and tested pairing system, and discussions are going on between the Whips. I expect that any Member who is concerned about coming here will not have to attend or will not be whipped to attend.
With regard to Public Health England, Mr Speaker, you and the spokesman for the Commission are probably better placed to answer these questions, but Public Health England has been involved in many discussions. The House authorities have liaised very closely with PHE throughout the whole process. That is why these markings are down on the floor. That is why, Mr Speaker, your plan for effectively a roll-call Division is being tested—it worked rather well yesterday—rather than using the Division Lobbies. That is on advice, which is being followed, and we are acting in line with other businesses that are planning to come back to work. Finally, as regards the hon. Gentleman’s question on whether we are obeying the law, of course the House of Commons and Her Majesty’s Government are obeying the law.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con) [V]
My right hon. Friend was undoubtedly correct in his answer to the shadow Leader of the House a moment ago when he said that the Government’s support for employment, business and industry has been extraordinary and hugely impressive, especially the retail, leisure and hospitality industries. However, many companies that supply those industries are not covered by those provisions, which risks risking the future of those industries, because they are experiencing difficulties. Can we have a debate in Government time on the future of the UK hospitality and leisure industries and the companies that supply them?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s reference to the support the Government have given. I really think that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has managed to be stunningly innovative in providing support for businesses in a way that, historically, is not what Finance Ministers across the world manage to do. His achievement is of historic proportions, and I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said. As regards a debate in Government time on the hospitality industry, that is one of the great virtues of our coming back to a physical House—there will be more opportunity for debates, and we will have to see whether such a debate can be slotted in or will fit into any of the other discussions that will be taking place.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) [V]
Welcome to a very warm and sunny Gateshead. I note from the Leader of the House’s statement that a general debate on Thursday 4 June has been facilitated. The members of the Backbench Business Committee and applicant Back-Bench Members across the House will be disappointed to learn that there is no place for any Backbench business debates if the House returns in the first week of June. In particular, there are many aspects of the Government’s response to the coronavirus pandemic that Members across the House wish to see aired, with answers to concerns and questions gained from Ministers. Could the Leader of the House facilitate that as soon as possible? Could he confirm that, if we return on 2 June, Select Committees—one of which I sit on—will still be meeting virtually, so I will have to travel 300 miles to attend Select Committee meetings virtually from my office in Westminster?
Mr Rees-Mogg
If the hon. Gentleman’s background is anything to go by, the sun is very bright in Gateshead—almost blindingly so. On the last point, the motion for Select Committees runs until 30 June and is then renewable at your discretion, Mr Speaker; that is therefore a matter for you, and it would be wrong of me to trespass on your prerogatives. [Interruption.] I am being heckled by Mr Speaker!
As regards the debate on 4 June and the motion put forward in relation to the European negotiations, there is a statutory obligation on the Government to provide time for that, so it is not like a Backbench business debate. However, I have a great deal of sympathy for what the hon. Gentleman says. I understand that there is a widespread demand for a wide range of Backbench business debates, as we see in these sessions every week, and once we get back to normal, there will be more opportunity to ensure that we get back to complete normal, rather than semi-normal.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con) [V]
I thank the Leader of the House for the reassurances he has given on safety so that Parliament is able to return physically as soon as possible. Areas of the country such as Stoke-on-Trent, where we need to level up our economy, could be hit hard by the impacts of coronavirus, so may we please have a debate in Government time on continuing and redoubling the levelling up agenda, so that we see investment into areas that have historically missed out?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful for the points made by my hon. Friend from, I assume, his wonderful constituency, which I visited for a Conservative tea last year, when we were still able to move throughout the country. There is serious economic disruption as a result of coronavirus and, as the Office for Budget Responsibility has outlined, without the package of unprecedented measures, the impact would be much worse. Councils have been given £3.2 billion of extra money and there is a further £2.6 billion in deferred business rate payments coming from central Government, but I agree with my hon. Friend entirely that we have to think of ways in which to grow the economy of our whole nation. I encourage him to speak to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, but I add once again that once we are back normally there will be the opportunity to have these important debates.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) [V]
Hull’s proud status as a maritime city is at risk of being tarnished because of the damaging actions by P&O Ferries, which appears to be using the covid-19 crisis to replace UK seafarers with exploited Filipino workers who are paid much less and forced to work much longer hours, putting at risk the safety of everybody aboard the ferry. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) has raised this issue before, and the situation is now even more urgent. May we please have a statement in the House from the maritime Minister on how the Government are going to protect UK seafarers’ jobs?
Mr Rees-Mogg
This issue has indeed been raised in the House before and is something that the Government are aware of. I will take it up with the Department for Transport so that a fuller answer can be prepared for the hon. Lady.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) [V]
I am sure the Leader of the House will have seen the sad news today of potentially thousands of redundancies at Rolls-Royce’s Derby plant. In the light of the large amount of redundancies that might keep happening, will he be able to find time for a debate on how we can best support people to find new work after this crisis is over?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend raises a point that will affect many of us in many constituencies. As the Chancellor explained to the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee, the effect of the coronavirus is of the greatest seriousness and depth, and the Government and Parliament will want to consider and debate very carefully how we recover from it. Of course, I reiterate that once we are back normally, there will be so much more time for debate.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP) [V]
May we have a statement on the importance of having a disability-inclusive covid-19 response? It is Mental Health Awareness Week, and a letter written to the Prime Minister by the all-party group on disability, which I chair, has been co-signed by 101 parliamentarians from both Houses. The letter advises that people with disabilities need additional support at this time. Many are lonely, anxious and isolated. This is an urgent matter that the House should address.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I absolutely accept that it is a very important issue and that support for people with disabilities is crucial. The Government have a good record of supporting people with disabilities over the past few years, and that is something we will continue. The instance of covid-19 is a further reason to remember and to help people with disabilities.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con) [V]
May I appeal to the Government for a statement on the plight of people, many approaching retirement, with endowment mortgages that are due to mature in the middle of this covid crisis? Such a statement would give the Government the opportunity to urge companies such as the Prudential to extend the maturation date until normality returns and the yield enables people’s mortgages to be cleared in the usual way.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to refer to people with endowments and the difficulty that they face. Having spent a lifetime—before politics intervened—in financial services, I can say that there is never an obviously right time to redeem investments, so the difficulty would be the Government intervening and setting a new time and that time not necessarily being any better than the existing time. I think that my giving financial advice from the Dispatch Box would be singularly unwise, but I will take up his point with the Treasury.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The Leader of the House has said that MPs being in Parliament will enable proper scrutiny. If that return to Parliament has to be physical, can he tell us what provision will be made for MPs and their staff who have childcare or caring responsibilities? I know that he is not a fan of the nanny state, but not all of us have nannies.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Not all have six children, either, which I am very lucky and fortunate to have. I absolutely understand, therefore, child caring responsibilities—all my children are quite young. The nursery in the House of Commons is open. Members of Parliament are key workers and therefore schools are available in England for their children. As regards MPs’ staff, they do not need to come back to Parliament. Speaking for my own staff, they are working extremely well and extremely hard from home. This is the first time that I have ever had the opportunity to thank them publicly for the remarkable work that they do for my constituents in North East Somerset. I am sure that many feel the same about their parliamentary staff, and they do not need to come back to the parliamentary estate.
Liaison (Membership)
Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
I beg to move,
That –
(1) With effect for the current Parliament, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 121 (Nomination of select committees), the Members elected by the House or otherwise chosen to be chairs of each of the select committees listed in paragraph (2) shall be a member of the Liaison Committee;
(2) The committees to which paragraph (1) applies are:
Administration;
Backbench Business;
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy;
Defence;
Digital, Culture, Media and Sport;
Education;
Environmental Audit;
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs;
European Scrutiny;
European Statutory Instruments;
Finance;
Foreign Affairs;
Future Relationship with the European Union;
Health and Social Care;
Home Affairs;
Housing, Communities and Local Government;
Joint Committee on Human Rights (the chair being a Member of this House);
International Development;
International Trade;
Justice;
Northern Ireland Affairs;
Petitions;
Procedure;
Privileges (the chair not being the chair of the Committee on Standards);
Public Accounts;
Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs;
Regulatory Reform;
Science and Technology;
Scottish Affairs;
Selection;
Standards;
Statutory Instruments;
Transport;
Treasury;
Welsh Affairs;
Women and Equalities, and
Work and Pensions;
(3) Sir Bernard Jenkin shall also be a member, and the chair, of the Liaison Committee.
I thought you were going to say, “Without hesitation, deviation or repetition,” in honour of the late and much- lamented Nicholas Parsons, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the whole House will welcome this debate. There has been an unfortunate delay in setting up the Liaison Committee, a situation that I seek to resolve so that the Committee can start its work this Session.
The House will be aware that this motion was objected to, and that we have since needed to delay bringing the motion back until such time as we could consider it properly, including having the ability to divide on the matter if needed. This motion establishes the Liaison Committee, a long-standing Committee of this House. The Committee brings together the Chairmen of Select Committees to an important forum, which takes evidence from the Prime Minister on matters of public policy and supports the House to scrutinise legislation and other policy proposals. The Government look forward to continuing their constructive working relationship with the Committee, particularly on issues such as pre-legislative scrutiny of Government Bills.
The motion specifies the membership of the Liaison Committee, and that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) should chair the Committee. As he is an experienced and respected former Select Committee Chairman, I would hope that he carries the support of the whole House to take on this role. It is my opinion that my hon. Friend has significant relevant experience in this area, in view of his previous experience chairing the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee and his long career as a Member of this House. Since his election in 1992, he has never viewed himself as a vassal of the Whips, and I am sure that Ministers who appeared before my hon. Friend in his previous role as a Committee Chairman can attest to his independence and thoroughness in robustly holding the Government to account.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The right hon. Gentleman will not interrupt.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I turn to the amendment in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and others. It seeks to limit the eligibility of those who can chair the Committee to existing Select Committee Chairs. The Government have chosen to put forward a distinguished Member to chair the Liaison Committee. It is for the House to decide—extending the degree of democracy—whether it agrees the Government’s motion and thereby approves my hon. Friend’s appointment. In this way, the motion is the most democratic way of providing a mandate for the Chairman of the Liaison Committee.
It is worth noting that it has not always been the case that the Committee has elected its own Chairman from among the ranks of Select Committee Chairs. In fact, as recently as 2010, when the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham was Leader of the House, a Member who was not a pre-existing Select Committee Chairman was the Liaison Committee Chairman, in accordance with an earlier, similar motion agreed by the House.
The Government respect the work of the Select Committees of this House and their independence in holding the Government to account. Today’s motion will allow the Liaison Committee to begin its work. As is right, the House can now decide whether the motion is agreeable, including whether the chairmanship be taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex. I hope we can achieve a resolution today and allow the Liaison Committee to begin its important work in scrutinising the Government and supporting other Committees in this House. I commend this motion to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Thank you. We have a very short time left for this debate, so I must ask that every speaker now takes no more than three minutes. I call Valerie Vaz, who is asked to speak for no more than three minutes.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Within this House, one always knows that it is a weak argument when it is overstated, and I have to say that I have never heard a more overstated argument than that which we have received from the Opposition Benches.
The idea that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) is not one of most independent-minded Members of this House is patently absurd. He has stood up for this House, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) has pointed out, throughout his parliamentary career. One of the threads running through the career of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex is that he has stood up for the interests of the House of Commons, be that in ensuring that the sovereignty of the House of Commons and of Parliament generally is maintained, or ensuring that the House of Commons was not overwhelmed by a shift of power to the House of Lords. He has held Ministers to account, and I am glad that the Chief Whip has come into the Chamber because my hon. Friend has been the bane of the life of Chief Whips since he was elected in 1992. It is therefore well known that he will be independent minded.
I also think it is peculiar to suggest that a vote of the whole House is less democratic than a vote of the clique within the House. That obviously cannot be true. Allowing the whole House to vote is the most democratic form we have. In this House, we boldly express our opinion publicly so that our voters know precisely what we think. We do not need to hide away in the shadows. We are happy to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex is the right person for this job and that is why he has support.
I would say to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) that constitutionally he does not fully appreciate how the system works. The Executive and the legislature have a symbiotic relationship. The Executive is drawn from the legislature. We are not like the United States, where there is no interconnection. Therefore, we always have in this House, and always have done going back into the mists of time, a relationship between the Executive and legislature, but that does not mean that the votes of the legislature are not democratic votes. They clearly and self-evidently are.
Moving on to the amendment and why I oppose it on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government, it is very straightforward. We are widening democracy, widening scrutiny and allowing the whole House to come to a decision on who should chair the Liaison Committee. We are taking away that decision, admittedly, from a smaller group to give it to a larger group, which is the proper thing to be doing.
Nobody, not one person who has spoken today, has suggested that my hon. Friend is anything other than impartial—[Interruption.] I hear various chunterings from the Opposition Benches. The principle of the House deciding is the most ancient principle of the House of Commons. That is the right way for us to do it. We decide by our vote. That is the art of democracy and this is the right procedure to be using to ensure that happens. [Interruption.] Oh, we have a chunter, “There’s only one candidate.” Did anybody else decide to amend the motion to suggest another candidate? Perhaps Opposition Members do not know how the procedures of Parliament work. May I give them a little bit of advice? If they are ever in any doubt as to how the procedures of the House work, there are many able, hard-working and thoughtful Clerks who will give them advice and they can work out how to put down amendments, but no other name came forward. Nobody else had any confidence in any other Member to do this job, which I know will be done extraordinarily well by my hon. Friend.
I happen to know that actually the Government have appointed someone who will be so independent-minded that if anyone thinks that he will be an easy ride, that person is mistaken. I commend the motion unamended to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I must now conclude the debate and put the question in accordance with the Order of today. Before I put the question, I confirm that Mr Speaker’s final determination is that the question on the amendment should be decided by remote Division. There is therefore no need for me to collect the voices, or for Members present in the Chamber to shout aye or no. The question is that the amendment be made. The question falls to be decided by a remote Division and the Clerk will know initiate the Division on MemberHub.
Business of the House
Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees- Mogg)
Thank you for your statement, Mr Speaker. It is obviously important that the House maintains social distancing in accordance with the guidelines.
The business for the week commencing 18 May will include:
Monday 18 May—Second Reading of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill.
Tuesday 19 May—Motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the draft Human Tissue (Permitted Material: Exceptions) (England) Regulations 2020, followed by motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the draft Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014 (Consequential Modification) Order 2020, followed by motion to approve a Ways and Means resolution relating to the Finance Bill.
Wednesday 20 May—Second Reading of the Trade Bill, followed by motion relating to the membership of the Liaison Committee.
Thursday 21 May—The House will not be sitting.
Friday 22 May—The House will not be sitting.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for next week’s business and you, Mr Speaker, for your statement. I must admit I was alarmed to hear the Leader of the House say yesterday that Parliament was going to return physically. He said yesterday that we could not ask people to return if we did not also return, but he fails to understand that we are working—we continue to work. Our casework has increased massively. We might not be in the Chamber but we are still dealing with our constituents, as we always are when we are not here.
The House must lead the way in protecting the health and wellbeing of everyone who works in Parliament by following public health advice to the letter. House staff have done an incredible job, as the Leader of the House knows, setting up a hybrid virtual Parliament that ensures scrutiny of the Government while limiting the number of staff and Members who have to be physically present on the estate. Can he please explain why Parliament would contradict the Government’s own health advice by returning to business as usual in early June and allowing only physical attendance, and contradict the Government’s advice that those who can work from home should do so?
Will the Leader of the House confirm what assessment has been done to ensure that Parliament’s move to physical-only attendance can be done in a way that fully complies with social distancing guidelines? What advice has he received from Public Health England? Will he share it with all the parties? Has it been discussed with you, Mr Speaker, the House authorities and the usual channels? Will he confirm that all the business next week will make use of the hybrid virtual Parliament?
Is this a preview of the Government’s future policy? If so, as a matter of urgency, can the Leader of the House arrange for the Government to make a full statement on Monday on their guidance for society as a whole for returning to work safely? He will know that probably one of the best things to do is to ask each workplace to undertake a risk assessment so that staff and employees come back in a phased return.
Let us remind ourselves that no one asked to stay at home. It is what the Government asked us to do in response to a pandemic, and everyone has listened and understood the message, which is why people must be kept safe. I am sorry to say that the Leader of the House has further confused the message: “stay at home”, “stay alert”—to what? —“work from home”, “come to work”, “come in on Monday”, “come in on Wednesday”. It’s like a Commons hokey-cokey. We can all pull together but only if the Government provide us with answers and do not contradict their own advice.
I am sure the Leader of the House will ensure there is a statement from the Health Secretary on testing in care homes, given that the number of deaths has now risen to over 40,000. It seems that no one knows whether the Department of Health and Social Care, the Care Quality Commission or Public Health England is in charge of testing. Who is in charge of testing? Test, trace and isolate—we need to get the first bit right. Some of my constituents have said they have not even got their test results after eight to nine weeks. Can we have an urgent statement on the crisis in testing and care homes?
Our councils have done what they have been asked to do to protect local communities, yet we hear from the Treasury that they may have to make further cuts—that the Treasury is not going to bail them out any more—but councils have been asked to keep their communities safe, so please can we have a statement to ensure they will not be financially penalised if they have done what they have been asked to do?
The Leader of the House has mentioned the Liaison Committee motion, which is up for debate next week. It seems that there is no compliance with equal opportunities. Are the Government really saying that only men we want can apply? Of the paid Committee Chairs, 26 are men, seven are women and none are from a black or ethnic minority background. Why do we not just let the Chairs of Committees decide, as they have always done?
At Foreign Office questions, there was no update on Nazanin, Anoush and Kylie—who is mentally in a difficult place. They need clemency, and it is International Day of Living Together in Peace on Saturday, so could we have an update?
Finally, I too want to thank our brilliant nurses—it was their day yesterday—many from around the world and some of whom have lost their lives looking after us. Some 70% of nurses who have died were from the BME community, as were 94% of doctors who have died. I hope the Government review will report soon. We send our heartfelt thanks to their families: they gave their lives for us.
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I completely concur with the right hon. Lady in what she says about those who are working for us and who have lost their lives during this terrible outbreak of the coronavirus, and the public service that is given by so many so courageously in going about their daily work?
I want to answer what the right hon. Lady says about Parliament, because what she says is important and fundamental to us as a democracy. The Government’s advice is clear: work from home if you can. As you have made clear, Mr Speaker, many members of the House staff will be able to continue to work from home, even with the House of Commons operating in physical form. Indeed, very few additional Clerks will need to be present on the premises, Members’ staff will be able to continue to work from home, and the overwhelming majority of the House community will be able to continue to work from home—the exception being Members of Parliament themselves. Why is that? It is because the Government’s advice is that if you need to go to work, you must go to work.
We see in this Parliament—in this House today—the ineffectiveness of scrutiny in comparison to when the House is operating in the normal way. We have no flexibility of questions. The questions are all listed in advance, with no ability for people to bob, to come in and to join in the debate; no cross-cutting of debate; and no ability to advance arguments or take them forward. We simply have a series of prepared statements made one after another. That is not the House of Commons doing its proper duty and playing its proper role of scrutiny of the Government.
Then there is the other side of it: where are the Bill Committees? How are Bills progressing? What is happening to the legislative agenda that the Government were elected on in December? Or do we just ignore our constituents, ignore the voters and not get on with a proper democratic parliamentary system? The idea that our democratic system is not an essential one—is not the lifeblood of our nation and is not how the Government are held to account at a time of crisis—is one that is surprising. It is extraordinary that it should be held by Opposition Members; that they should not wish to be here, challenging the Government and holding them to account; and that they wish to hide behind a veneer of virtual Parliament, so that legislation is not progressed with. We have heard it from the Scottish shadow spokesman, when he says that a virtual Parliament is a second-rate Parliament. He wants us all to be second rate, whereas I want us all to be first rate—to get back to being a proper Parliament because democracy is essential. What we do is essential. Holding the Government to account is essential and delivering on manifesto promises is also essential, and that is what I hope we shall be able to do after we come back from the Whitsun recess, in line with what is happening in other parts of the country.
The intention is for schools to go back: how can we say to our schoolchildren, “You’re safe going back”—some of them—but we are not? How can we hide away while schoolchildren are going back? Is that the right message to give to our constituents? Are we a people set apart, a special class who are exempt from what the rest of the country is doing? No, we are not. We are the leaders of our nation, and we have a responsibility. That responsibility falls on us to come back, but we can observe social distancing. We can look at the Chamber as it is set out. We can look at the Division Lobbies that have been arranged by you, Mr Speaker, to make sure that the Clerks are safe and that Members are safe. That is the right way for us to proceed, so that there is proper democratic scrutiny and legislation may be brought forward in accordance with the mandate that the British people gave us. Stay at home, work from home if you can. We in reality cannot and that is why we ought to be coming back.
Let me move on to some of the other points made by the right hon. Lady, in particular the situation of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, which is a matter of concern to the whole House. I assure her that the Government are in contact with Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe and her family and will continue to make decisions in line with what we believe will produce the best outcomes. Without providing every detail of what the consular authorities are doing, obviously, Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s temporary release is a welcome step, but we remain extremely concerned about her welfare and that of all our dual nationals detained in Iran. We continue to raise all their cases at the most senior levels. We will continue to urge Iran to ensure that Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe receives any necessary medical care and that her treatment so far has clearly been unacceptable, including the lack of due process in the proceedings against her. It is important that Iran is held to account, and we urge the Iranian authorities to release her and allow her to come home.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con) [V]
Can we have a general debate on tourism and the movement of people? Due to the changes in guidance on unlimited travel to take exercise and enjoy open spaces, residents—particularly in tourism hotspots, where there are limited facilities open—have valid concerns about putting additional pressure on facilities and local hospitals. Like many MPs, I have had communications from constituents who are concerned about public health and putting their health at risk. I believe we need to revisit our distancing measures to ascertain how far people should be able to travel to take exercise and enjoy open public spaces. Can we have a debate on that issue, to ensure that we get some clarity?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I absolutely understand the vital role that the tourism industry plays in my hon. Friend’s particularly attractive constituency and his concerns that many people will want to go there. The Government’s guidance on second homes remains clear. Restrictions on travelling to exercise have eased, but it is not permitted to travel to a second home or to remain overnight in a holiday destination. As we ease restrictions, everyone must continue to follow the rules. As the recently published Command Paper states, the Government will announce easing measures for different parts of the country in line with the scientific advice. The Government’s objective is to return to our way of life as soon as possible, but it is vital that we do not waste the sacrifices that have already been made, and I understand why that is a particular concern to my hon. Friend.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]
I should first make it clear that yesterday, when I questioned the wisdom of going ahead with next week’s recess, I was in no way suggesting that the staff of the House should not get the leave to which they are entitled. I was simply wondering whether, given the current emergency, it might be possible to do that without closing the business of the Chamber completely. If we are to go ahead with the recess, I would seek an assurance from the Leader of the House that there will be no dramatic changes in Government policy while the House is unable to question Ministers, and that if such a change is required, the House will be recalled to consider it.
The Leader of the House is extolling the fantasy that on 2 June, we can go back to the way things were without special procedures being in place. If he genuinely believes that, I have some specific questions. How can 650 Members of Parliament possibly work safely in a building of this size and lay-out? What should happen to those who are shielding and have received a letter from the chief medical officer? What should happen to Members who belong to one of the identified vulnerable groups? What procedures will apply in the light of a Member becoming symptomatic or being diagnosed as having the virus as a result of returning to this place? Should Members in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland ignore the advice of their respective Governments to work from home?
In my view, to try to force Members to return to this Parliament in person without those questions being answered is unbelievably reckless, and it will place Members, staff and the wider public at risk. It will also disenfranchise many. I asked the Leader of the House some weeks ago what exactly requires the physical presence of MPs in the Chamber and what aspects of our job cannot be done remotely. I have yet to receive an answer. Is it therefore the case that his decisions are motivated not by necessity but by personal preference?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Yesterday, as the hon. Gentleman crackled through the ether, he was hard to hear, and it was hard to be clear what he was saying. His complaint was that we in the Chamber had an unfair advantage over those who were remote. Today, it is unfair that we should be here in person at all, because we should all be as disadvantaged as he is by being here remotely. That is explanation in itself of why we need to come back: the Chamber does not operate properly when it is done on a remote basis.
On the numbers, the hon. Gentleman suggests that the acres of space at the Palace of Westminster are not large enough for 10%, if not less, of the people who work here on a daily basis. The Chamber is marked out for social distancing. We can get 50 people into this Chamber, which, it has to be said, is often as many as are here for an ordinary debate. It is only on high days and holidays and Prime Minister’s questions that the Chamber is bursting at the seams.
As you so rightly said in your statement, Mr Speaker, there is no change to the social distancing advice. There is no change to the advice to Members’ staff to continue to work from home. The numbers coming into this estate are a fraction of what they normally are, because we have no tours, we have no commercial banqueting and we do not have the thousands—sometimes, tens of thousands—of people who come in every day. We are just requiring MPs to do their job, because, as the hon. Gentleman eloquently pointed out in his electronic communication, their job cannot be done properly from a remote distance.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) [V]
The Backbench Business Committee has a number of outstanding older applications, but we also have significant demand for debates in Backbench business time on many different aspects of the Government’s response to the covid-19 pandemic. However, Members will want to hold those debates in an environment that is safe for House staff, their own necessary staff and themselves, with the logistics of getting there from all points of the compass safely and efficiently having been considered in a comprehensive and safety-conscious way.
The R rate—the reinfection rate—nationally is between 0.5 and 0.9. However, here in Gateshead, it is between 0.8 and 1.1, so we are not out of the woods. Verified cases per 100,000 in Gateshead are 478.5 per 100,000; in the right hon. Member’s constituency, they are less than a third of that. We are all in very different situations. We want to come back—but when it is safe to do so.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am always grateful to the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee, and I understand it is difficult for his Committee at the moment, with no time available for his debates. However, the Standing Orders do provide a certain number of days each Session, and over the fullness of the Session the Government will obviously look to provide those.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, there are differences across the country, and that is why the Government are looking to have regional alterations, as necessary, to ensure that everybody is protected and kept safe. However, that requires people to follow the Government’s guidance and to remain alert.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I congratulate the Leader of the House on his speech at the beginning, which he would undoubtedly have made from the Back Benches and not just from the Front Benches. We do need to be back in this House, because we cannot do the job remotely. I cannot complain about the Government not communicating properly, because it is not possible when I am working virtually. Could the Leader of the House therefore ensure that we get back as physically as possible as soon as possible, and could we have a written statement next week? And one other thing: will the Leader of the House confirm that, in future, all new Government policy will be announced in this House first?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I said yesterday—carefully—that I did not expect to bring forward further virtual Parliament motions. It is important not to forget the word “expect”, because things could change. However, the current expectation is that we will be back physically after the Whitsun recess. I note my hon. Friend’s point on Government statements, which is, of course, in full accord with the ministerial code.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) [V]
Thanks to you and all your staff, Mr Speaker, for what you do to make these sittings happen.
May I ask the Leader of the House to outline the proceedings on the Northern Ireland abortion legislation, which was pulled from the schedule for debate this week? Ever mindful of the legal opinion of the Attorney General for Northern Ireland, will he further undertake to press the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to allow the legislation to be debated in its proper home and proper place—the existing, functioning Northern Ireland Assembly?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He knows that we had to make the changes to the business this week because of the interest in the covid-19 debate. But he is also aware that there is a legal requirement to bring these regulations forward and have them debated. That is of course not a legal requirement for them to be passed by the House, which would be a different matter, and the House cannot be bound in that regard. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was in the Chamber earlier. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to raise his questions with him directly, because what happens between this House and Stormont is going to be more a matter for him than for me.
Hybrid Proceedings (Extension of Temporary Orders)
Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees- Mogg)
I beg to move,
That the Orders of 21 April (Hybrid scrutiny proceedings (Temporary Orders)) and 22 April (Hybrid substantive proceedings (Temporary Orders) and Remote voting (Temporary Orders)) shall have effect until 20 May 2020.
The motion extends the decisions of the House on 21 and 22 April to allow the continuation of remote participation in proceedings of the House and remote voting until the Whitsun recess on 20 May. I shall not dwell on the detail of those motions, but rather use my time to explain, briefly, the reason for their extension.
The current arrangements have allowed scrutiny of the Government to continue and, remarkably, remote voting to be carried out for the first time today. The motion allows the House to agree a short extension to the current arrangements. The Government have been consistent in saying that the arrangements are temporary. As yesterday’s Command Paper set out, it is only right that Parliament has set a national example of how businesses can continue in these circumstances. We have done so admirably, thanks to the patience and commitment of both staff and Members, and will continue to do so until the Whitsun recess, but it is clear that soon Parliament must set an example for how we move back, gradually, to a fully functioning country again. Our constituents would expect nothing less.
Although we must move in step with public health guidance, it is vital that when we are asking other people to work and to go to their places of work if they cannot do so from home, we should not be the ones who are exempt from that. Indeed, we should be leading by example. It is my expectation that I will not have to renew the temporary Standing Orders again. I am grateful to the House for developing the temporary procedures, and for the immense amount of work by staff here to make the arrangements work. However, it is my belief that this House cannot be as effective in carrying out its constitutional duties without Members being present. Debates are inevitably stilted; they lack interventions. I cannot think of any previous occasion when I have spoken for so long without receiving any interventions. I begin to fear that I am boring the House, and I can think of no greater sin.
Mr Rees-Mogg
No, I am not allowed to give way under the current arrangements.
Debates are inevitably stilted and time is restricted by the understandable limits of the technology—although the people operating the technology have done a truly fantastic job in getting us to where we are. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I know that the feeling is shared across the House. All these factors restrict our ability to conduct effective scrutiny and to pass the volume of legislation required by the Government. I therefore think it essential that we move back to physical ways of working as quickly as possible.
I understand that some Members have concerns about how long we keep these measures in place, and that is why it is so important that we agree only a short extension. It is essential that we move back to physical proceedings as soon as practicable in order that this House can do what it does best: the cut and thrust of debate and the flexibility to hold the Government to account and to legislate on behalf of the people of the United Kingdom.
Mr Speaker
I call the shadow Leader of the House, who is asked to speak for no more than 5 minutes.
Hybrid Proceedings (Extension of Temporary Orders)
Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful for the support that this motion has and grateful to the shadow Leader of the House and the Chairman of the Procedure Committee for all they have done in helping us to ensure that this has worked. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) made slightly the wrong point, because he said that we should be entirely virtual, and it became harder and harder to hear him as he said so. That is one of the reasons we need to come back, because the last bit of private wire may be the bit that cuts people off in their prime, and therefore being back would be advantageous.
The hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) made some important points. I am always happy to speak to the Procedure Committee and have a discussion on how we look to do this. I will make one really important point, which is that there is a fundamental, absolute right of Members to attend this House. It dates back to 1340, and it is improper for anybody to molest any Member coming to this House. Regardless of any rules that there may be, the right to attend this House is a constitutional principle of which we should remind all Members. If we are back physically after the Whitsun recess, there should be no question of any Member being stopped from coming by any authority outside Parliament.
Our coming back will be based on advice from Public Health England and will maintain social distancing. Mr Speaker is working on how we will have Divisions under these circumstances, but I agree with those Members who have said that we have to lead by example. The rest of the country is being asked to go back to work where it cannot do so from home. That is clearly a position that we are in, and we must be alongside the whole of the rest of the country, as long as it is safe so to do.
Mr Speaker
I announced to the House earlier this afternoon my provisional determination that a remote Division would not take place on this motion. I am aware of some opposition to the motion, but I am not satisfied that the demand is sufficient to warrant a remote Division today. I say that bearing in mind that the House will return to this matter next week. My determination that the Question will be decided without a remote Division is final. I will collect voices in the usual way, but the voices will not and cannot trigger a remote Division. Reliance on the voices alone will not be considered with the principle of parity of participation. That is made clear in the new guidance issued to Members today, in which Members are asked to make submissions to my office in advance on whether it is necessary to hold a Division on the Question designated for remote Division.
Question put and agreed to.
Business of the House
Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
Mr Speaker, with permission, I should like to make a short business statement. Today’s general debate on covid-19 has understandably generated a significant amount of interest from Members wishing to participate. With that in mind, and to allow more Members to take part, tomorrow will now be a continuation of the general debate on covid-19 followed by a motion relating to the extension of the temporary standing orders. Wednesday will be the remaining stages of the Agriculture Bill. I shall also make a further business statement on Wednesday.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab) [V]
I thank the Leader of the House for his statement. I appreciate that there needs to be more discussion about covid-19. I have a couple of questions for him. There are two statements tomorrow: one on covid and business and one on transport and users. Will the Leader of the House also facilitate a statement on covid and care homes? Secondly, there are two very important statutory instruments that have been moved. When is the Leader likely to get those statutory instruments back before the House? Otherwise, I support the statement.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Government are trying to provide as many statements as is reasonably possible. There was one by the Prime Minister earlier, and there will be one from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and one from the Department for Transport tomorrow, so we are running through a pattern of statements. The Health Secretary has been very good at keeping the House up to date on matters that fall within his Department. I am sure we will continue to be kept up to date on all these matters.
As regards the two SIs, there is no date for them at the moment, but the one relating to Northern Ireland has to be brought before the House in due course, because of the requirements of the Act under which it falls.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]
The events of the past 24 hours must surely have brought home to the Prime Minister the benefits of seeking to engage Parliament, rather than using staged media events to take forward the Government’s response to the current crisis. Had he done that, we might not now be in a situation where the public health message in most of the UK has been compromised and confused.
There is, however, also an onus on Parliament to improve the way we receive and debate Government proposals. I welcome this decision to extend the general debate, but the Leader will know that, even with this, there will still be a great number of Members who would want to contribute and who are unable to do so. My plea is not only that we devote more time for Parliament to discuss the Government’s response, but that we do so in a more joined-up way. Tomorrow, our business comprises two statements, one urgent question and one debate, all on the same subject. For the most part, Members will only be able to ask questions and not comment on or discuss the Government’s proposals. The public must be wondering why we do things in such an apparently haphazard and unstructured way. It is repetitive and inefficient, and it hinders the ability of Parliament to scrutinise the Executive.
Given that our world has turned upside down and that we have changed so dramatically the way we conduct our proceedings, is it not time to alter our rules of debate, to allow the Government to outline their proposals and for those to be debated with urgency? We will discuss the extension of emergency Standing Orders tomorrow. I ask the Leader of the House to consider at that time ways in which we can better debate and agree the most important steps in responding to the crisis.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I would not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the last 24 hours. What the Government have set out is extraordinarily clear and sensible. As we move out of lockdown, inevitably we are trusting people more to make judgments for themselves. It is, of its nature, less prescriptive than the lockdown had to be, and there is a great deal of clarity within that.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the way we debate things. That is why we are so keen to get back to a physical Parliament rather than a hybrid Parliament—because the flexibility of a physical Parliament allows for the interventions, the cut and thrust of debate and the natural progression of discussion from statements through to business around statutes being introduced that make Parliament so effective and such a good place for scrutiny and legislative procedures. I commend to hon. and right hon. Members alike the excellent article by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) setting out why, to her surprise, a hybrid Parliament has not been as satisfactory as the real deal. I am keen that we should get back to the real deal as soon as possible.
Standards
Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
I beg to move,
That this House–
(1) approves the Fourth Report of the Committee on Standards (HC 212);
(2) endorses the recommendations in paragraphs 36 and 37; and
(3) accordingly suspends Conor Burns from the service of the House for a period of seven days, beginning on Tuesday 12 May.
Today’s motion follows the publication of the Committee on Standards’ fourth report of this Session on the conduct of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns). The report was agreed by the Standards Committee following a comprehensive process of investigation and consideration, and was published on Monday 4 May. The Government have sought to schedule a debate as quickly as possible, as is the usual practice.
The matter before us today has been investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and now reported on by the Committee on Standards. I thank the commissioner, Kathryn Stone, for her work, and the members of the Committee for producing this report. In particular, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) for her service as Chairman of the Committee on Standards over nearly two years, which she has done with distinction. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on his appointment as the new Chairman. He is a great understander of Parliament and author of books on Parliament, and will, I think, do the job with considerable skill.
It is always regrettable when a motion such as this is before the House, and it is not a duty that I, as Leader of the House, take any pleasure in. However, the Committee has found against my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West. This motion approves the Committee’s report and proposes that my right hon. Friend be suspended from the service of the House for seven days and that he should apologise in writing to the House and to the complainant, as I understand he has already done.
I would like to record my thanks to my right hon. Friend for his service to Her Majesty’s Government and for the steps he has taken throughout his career to drive and maintain the UK’s interests overseas. I have no doubt that he will continue to add value to this Government and to his constituents in Bournemouth West from the Back Benches.
I conclude by reiterating my thanks to the Parliament Commissioner for Standards and to the Committee on Standards for their work. I commend this motion to the House.
Mr Speaker
I now call the shadow Leader of the House, Valerie Vaz, who is asked to speak for no more than five minutes.
Mr Rees-Mogg
It falls only for me to thank the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for their contributions and their endorsement of what I said when I moved the motion, and to record my regret that today’s events have proved necessary.
Question put and agreed to.
Business of the House
Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
The business for the week commencing 11 May will include:
Monday 11 May—Motion to approve the fourth report from the Committee on Standards, followed by a general debate on covid-19.
Tuesday 12 May—Motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Early Release on Licence) Order 2020, followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2020, followed by a motion relating to the renewal of the temporary Standing Orders on hybrid proceedings.
Wednesday 13 May—Remaining stages of the Agriculture Bill.
Thursday 14 May—The House will not be sitting.
Friday 15 May—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 18 May will include:
Monday 18 May—Second Reading of a Bill.
Mr Speaker
I call the shadow Leader of the House, Valerie Vaz, who has five minutes.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Leader of the House for the business statement, which takes us up until 18 May. I think we have all adapted to the new way of working. I am still having difficulty in muting and unmuting. Mr Speaker, I do not know if that is something you want to carry over after we come out of this, so that you can mute and unmute us.
I want to start by thanking the team, digital services and everybody from the House staff for working on the remote voting. I voted three times, and all three times I was successful. Joanna Dodd was very helpful to me and a great support, so I want to thank her for her help. All we need now is a way to lobby Ministers virtually, and then I suppose we are done with virtual proceedings. But we do await the Procedure Committee’s report on how the voting is taking place before we take it any further.
I think that Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions are on Monday. Nazanin is out, but she is not home, and Anoosheh and Kylie are still incarcerated. Could I ask the Leader of the House to ensure that we get a proper update on Monday? There is plenty of time to ring Tehran to ask if some clemency can be exercised for our dual nationals.
The public health advice at the start of covid-19 said that it affects our senior citizens, so it is quite surprising that our care homes are only now coming to the forefront. Actually, they have been at the brunt of most of the difficulties that are faced. Could I urge the Leader of the House to ensure that perhaps the mobile testing unit visits the care homes, because they are finding it difficult to get their tests? As care homes have said to me, they are almost forgotten, but they are there looking after people at the end of their life when their families cannot be there; they said they are the forgotten ones. Could he also guarantee that care home staff get their personal protective equipment, and that they will be recognised equally with NHS staff; I am sure he will agree that they should be?
Could I ask the Leader of the House to ensure that there is a statement on the total number of beds that are available in the Nightingale hospitals? It is important for us to know for the next step whether there is capacity so that the NHS can withstand any changes. If the Government had released the 2016 pandemic Exercise Cygnus report—or at least its conclusions—it might have helped with the next stage.
I do not know whether the Leader of the House has seen the next stage from the Irish Government, but they have different sectors—community health; education and childcare; economic activity and work; cultural and social; transport and travel—and all that is going to be set out from 18 May until August. Each one of them has five stages, and it is all subject to the science advice.
It is a pity that the Prime Minister could not use the debate on Monday to come to the House to explain what the next stages are. The Leader of the House knows about the sovereignty of Parliament—he is constantly saying how important Parliament is—and, Mr Speaker, I am sure you will agree with me that that would have been more appropriate. In the meantime, could I ask that the Leader of the Opposition has sight, under Privy Council rules, of the strategy the Government are going to set out on Sunday?
Last week, I raised the fact—I know that it was difficult for people to hear me—that we are not getting responses from Secretaries of State. I wrote to the Secretary State for Education. Could we have an urgent statement on the support that schools are getting in terms of PPE and the school voucher system? I understand that Wonde has offered its help to the Government, but that has been refused. This is really difficult, with some teachers parcelling up food because children are not able to access vouchers.
I would like the Leader of the House to ask the Health Secretary to apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Rosena Allin-Khan), the shadow Minister for Mental Health. How many times have members of the black, Asian and minority ethnic community and women heard that remark? To compare her to a white male, almost telling her to behave the same way as a white male, is totally unacceptable. I would be grateful if the Leader of the House could ask him to apologise. She is on the frontline of the covid crisis, and she deserves an apology.
We are in a unique situation, but the whole country has shown great spirit and resilience—the same sort of spirit and resilience that we will be celebrating on Friday, to mark 75 years since VE Day. Let us remember those who sacrificed their lives—their spirit and resilience—so that we can live in peace. We will always remember them.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The right hon. Lady is right to remember 8 May. I know that you, Mr Speaker, will be laying a wreath on behalf of the whole House to commemorate those in the service of the House— Members and non-Members alike—who died during the war. Commemorations will go on across the country, although obviously in a more limited way than would otherwise have happened. She is right that we will remember them.
The right hon. Lady mentions remote voting. I have a letter from the Chairman of the Procedure Committee—as do you, Mr Speaker—and I believe we will be able to vote remotely next week. I am glad to say that that is in place, and the testing seems to have worked reasonably well. Even I was able to do it, so it is relatively straightforward.
The right hon. Lady, as always, mentions Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. I am glad to say that there are Foreign Office questions on Monday, and I will ensure that the Department is aware that this question will be raised and that some answer will be expected.
With regard to testing in care homes, obviously, what is going on in care homes is a matter of the greatest priority for the Government. The deaths that have taken place are a terrible sadness. Testing is being and has been extended. The Government’s target of 100,000 was met last week. All patients discharged from hospital before will be tested going into care homes, so there are improvements taking place.
It is part of the success of the Government’s strategy that the Nightingale hospitals have not been fully utilised. One of the main aims—and, indeed, one of the five tests set out by the Government—was that the NHS should be able to cope with the number of people who had to go into hospital, and that has happened.
The right hon. Lady asked for the next stage to be set out. The Prime Minister said earlier in Prime Minister’s questions that a statement will be made on Sunday, so that people know for the beginning of the working week what the new procedures will be. With the House sitting as it currently is, for three days a week, that is perfectly reasonable in the circumstances, although I am aware—as are you, Mr Speaker—that the ministerial code expects statements to be made to the House in the first instance where possible. I am sure that the House will be kept fully up to date. The debate on Monday, which is the Government responding to requirements from the House—with requests coming to me in particular as Leader of the House—is a method of ensuring that the House is kept fully informed and can debate these issues.
I reiterate my thanks to the Opposition for the serious-minded way in which they have approached this crisis and the cross-party working that there has been, including with the Scottish National party. I hope that relations of that kind will continue. It is not for me to promise briefings outside the House of Commons—that is not my responsibility—but the good will and the positive contribution that has been made is very important.
I have no doubt that announcements will be made in relation to the opening of schools in due course. It would be wrong of me to pre-empt those, because I do not know what I would be pre-empting, so I would be making it up as I went along; I had better not do that. With regard to PPE, we will follow the advice, and the advice at the moment is that in school settings, PPE is not a requirement.
As regards the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, I think he is doing a simply magnificent job. We are very lucky to have somebody who has shown such personal commitment, effort and hard work in the job that he has done and in minimising and dealing with the effects of this terrible, unexpected and unprecedented crisis; I am not, therefore, going to ask him to apologise. In the cut and thrust of debate, people are entitled to say things and that is perfectly legitimate.
The right hon. Lady was right to say at the end of her contribution that the resilience we showed 75 years ago is what we are showing now.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con) [V]
The House authorities are indeed to be warmly congratulated on working at speed to get the hybrid system that we are using now up and running. I believe that, this morning, Mr Speaker authorised electronic voting, which is a welcome way to ensure that business can continue to be conducted. We must, though, emphasise the temporary nature of these measures and the unshakeable primacy of meeting, debating and voting in person. Will the Leader of the House therefore give some thought to a hybrid voting system to complement the hybrid Chamber system? Those present could vote in person, and there could be an expanded role for proxies and electronic voting for those who are absent.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and assure him that I, too, am looking forward to returning as soon as possible to the tried-and-tested means of a physical Parliament, which has significant advantages over a virtual Parliament. Although it has been necessary to begin to look for alternative solutions on a temporary basis to ensure that scrutiny can continue, it is intended only to be temporary. I am grateful to the Procedure Committee for its swift assessment of the House’s voting system, but we want to get back to a fully physical voting system, not a hybrid system.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]
May I commend our digital team for perfecting electronic voting? I am pleased that we now have a system of voting that is simple, safe and secure, and unlike the Leader of the House I look forward to it becoming a permanent aspect of our procedures.
A lot of disquiet has been expressed—including by you, Mr Speaker—that a major statement of Government policy in relation to the crisis should be made first to the press rather than to Parliament. I had expected that there might be something on today’s Order Paper to indicate a Government statement on Monday. Will the Leader of the House confirm that there will indeed be such a statement to the House, and that it will be made by the Prime Minister himself?
Neil Ferguson’s resignation shows the importance of the Government leading by example. At a time when we are obliging many in the population to endure the privations of lockdown, it seems very off-message for us to be talking about how we can get out of it. Will the Leader of the House tell us what actually requires the physical presence of MPs in the Parliament building? What is it that cannot be done remotely? I believe we should embrace the technological changes made necessary by this crisis and try to make them work better, not engage with them with stubborn resistance and insist that they are but temporary. To that end, I return to the point that I raised last week: we talk of a hybrid Parliament, but in fact what we have achieved is the ability for some to join the physical discussion in the Chamber remotely. The entire thing is still contingent on a physical meeting taking place in the Commons Chamber.
Surely it is now time to consider making use of the digital platform to allow a fully virtual sitting of Parliament. I know that our staff have the expertise and capability to make that happen. It would ensure that there are not two classes of participant and that all Members—including you, Mr Speaker—are on a level playing field. Does the Leader of the House know of any reason why this cannot be done under the provisions currently agreed? If there is a reason as to why the current Standing Orders prohibit such an experiment, will he take the opportunity of the review scheduled for next Tuesday to introduce whatever changes are necessary to make this happen?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s comments with regard to the digital voting, and for the tribute he paid to the House staff for doing that. I re-emphasise its temporary nature. We have proceeded with almost unanimous consent to achieve a hybrid Parliament. We would not have done so had people thought this was a sleight of hand—a prestidigitation—to try to change our procedures on a permanent basis. It has been important to maintain the good will of all parliamentarians.
As regards the statement on Sunday, I think the Prime Minister’s answer at Prime Minister’s questions was the right one. Although the week starts on a Sunday, the business week starts on a Monday, therefore the announcement is being made in preparation for the business week on a Monday. It is therefore the right time to do it, but I can confirm that there will be a statement on Monday. [Interruption.] I notice some giggles in the Chamber, although, Mr Speaker, I am not sure I am meant to notice the giggles emanating from the Chair. It slightly surprises me, because I do not think there are any plans for the House to meet on Sunday.
As regards the hybridity of this Chamber, this House must lead by example. The Government have set out in their guidelines that those who cannot work from home are entitled to and ought to carry on working, especially those in crucial roles. To pretend our democracy is not crucial undermines and undervalues the whole purpose of our democracy. What goes on here—the holding to account and the legislation—is essential, and when we are asking other people to work and to go to their places of work, we should not be ones who are exempt from that. I am glad, therefore, that we have made a hybrid system work.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con) [V]
Can I thank my right hon. Friend for giving the assurance that there will be a statement on Monday, because that will enable Members to be able to ask questions on the statement, which they would not be able to do if it was just a mere introduction to a debate without the ability to intervene? May I also ask my right hon. Friend what he will do to ensure that the system of named day written questions works for the benefit of Back Benchers and their constituents? A host of named day questions are not being answered on time or at all, and I am sorry to say that the Department of Health and Social Care is the worst offender. One question that it has answered was from me, asking how many it had not answered. When that came in on Monday, it showed that figure to be more than 100, and I do not think any of those questions have been answered since, and a whole lot more are in the queue. Will my right hon. Friend do something to help us on that?
Mr Rees-Mogg
One of the reasons why everyone likes and admires my hon. Friend so much is that only he would think up the question of asking how many questions had not been answered. It is a splendid question that should be asked regularly, although most politicians might not be able to give an accurate answer. It is really important that written questions and named day questions are answered. I would, however, ask the House to have some sympathy for the Department of Health and Social Care under these very extraordinary circumstances. Whereas I would normally go in with all cudgels waving, I think with that particular Department under the current circumstances, a degree of latitude is allowable.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) [V]
Good afternoon from a bright and sunny Gateshead. The Backbench Business Committee would welcome any indication of whether Backbench Business debates will be included in the House business programme any time soon. If so, how much time is likely to be allocated to facilitate such debates?
We received and considered 10 new applications yesterday, all on different specific aspects of the Government’s response to the covid-19 pandemic. I realise that a general debate on the Government’s response is to be scheduled for Monday, but there is a real appetite to discuss, debate and question particular aspects, such as the job retention furlough scheme, the impact on black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, support for the tourism sector, universal basic income, support for families, mental health support for frontline workers, education of vulnerable children and the business interruption loan scheme. All those are requests that we have dealt with, and Members have a thirst for having those topics debated in detail and getting good responses from Ministers. With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I remind all MPs that they can add their names as wanting to speak in debates on any application, whatever side of the argument they are on. The Committee wants party balance and both sides of the debate.
On the covid-19 response, could special consideration be given to making sure that domiciliary care workers who go from home to home to look after vulnerable people are tested? I am really concerned, and I think a lot of those domiciliary care workers are concerned, that they might not know they have covid-19 because of asymptomatic positives. That is an aspect of where precedence should, I believe, be given to care workers.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Anyone who now needs a test is able to get one, so I can give some comfort on domiciliary workers. As regards Backbench Business debates, I understand that the hon. Gentleman has also written to me. These debates are important and we want to get them back as soon as possible, but in the short term the priority has been scrutiny and legislation. The hybrid Chamber is not a perfect substitute for the normal Chamber and our normal working practices, and the technology and capacity does not yet facilitate Backbench Business debates; however, I think that it is a strong argument for our physical return. I do not know what the announcement will be on Sunday, but I do feel that Parliament has a leadership role in whatever is announced, and we should always be slightly ahead of what we are expecting the British public to do.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con) [V]
It is unsurprising that the SNP should prefer the virtual world to the real world, Mr Speaker, but that is perhaps for another day. The Leader of the House, because he is a diligent constituency MP, will know the significance of horticulture for our economy. It provides some £1.5 billion for our national finances, yet it is in serious trouble in this crisis. The Horticultural Trades Association estimates that £200 million of perishable products will be lost unless action is taken quickly. Will the Leader of the House therefore arrange for a Minister to come to the House to speak about how the sector can be assisted, perhaps by an adjustment to the loans scheme, special grant funding and the reopening of garden centres with all the necessary precautions?
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is always my wish to facilitate my right hon. Friend, and I am glad to say that there will be Treasury questions on 18 May followed by Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions on 19 May, when these important issues may be raised, but I recognise and agree with him that the horticultural sector is a crucial one.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab) [V]
The idea that workers will hear the Prime Minister on Sunday and change what they were going to do on Monday, and that businesses up and down the land will suddenly be able to respond from Sunday to Monday morning is utterly preposterous. The reason the Prime Minister is making the statement on Sunday is that he wants to avoid the House of Commons. You, Mr Speaker, are quite right to have already told him off on that basis. I am begging the Leader of the House to please make sure that we have more time to ask questions of Government Ministers. At the moment, we end the day early and we are not sitting on Thursdays. Ministers are not coming to the Chamber enough to answer questions, which we have in buckletloads in our constituencies. In my own patch yesterday, we had a horrific incident where one man was murdered and three others were stabbed. We want to talk about the issues that are happening in our constituencies. We need to challenge the Government on these issues and we cannot if the Prime Minister will not even come to the House.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Well, the Prime Minister was in the House earlier on, but I accept what the hon. Gentleman is saying in that a virtual Parliament is not a substitute for the real Parliament. Apart from anything else, we are missing the constant chirruping from the hon. Gentleman.
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
Like me, the Leader of the House must have received many emails from constituents whose holidays have been cancelled and who save annually for just one holiday. Some travel companies are refusing refunds completely while others are offering refunds after 10 to 12 weeks. I know that Ministers are working on this with the industry, but may we have a statement on how we are going to protect our constituents’ statutory rights?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter, which, as he has said, has been a concern for many who made travel plans prior to the covid-19 outbreak. There has been no change to either the package travel regulations or EU regulation 261, so consumers retain their right to request a refund. In line with existing legislation, the Government have been clear that if a consumer asks for a refund it must be paid. We recognise the challenges that businesses are facing in processing large volumes of such requests and the regulator is taking a balanced and proportionate approach to enforcement to help manage and mitigate covid-19 impacts. We have been clear, however, that it should not be unduly difficult for passengers to receive a refund and this should be done in a timely manner.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con) [V]
I would like to check with my right hon. Friend what consideration he gave to using the proxy voting for baby leave system for Members of Parliament to vote during this time as opposed to an electronic voting system. My grave concern is that if there are technical problems, Members of Parliament may not be able to vote in some very critical votes in the near future.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am very grateful for my right hon. Friend’s question; she herself was such a distinguished Leader of the House. The issue is the technical problems one rather than the proxy one. The proxy vote would not necessarily have helped because it would have brought people to the House, we would have had Divisions, and that would not necessarily have solved the problem that we were trying to address. But there are measures in place for technical problems. A Member who is having difficulty voting on the Members’ hub will be able to text or email the relevant House office leaving a telephone number. House staff will immediately call the Member back on that number and, once they have performed the necessary checks and are satisfied that it is indeed the Member, arrange for the Member’s vote to be recorded.
More broadly, the changes that have been made to allow for the creation of a hybrid Parliament are strictly temporary and will last for only as long as a completely physical Parliament is impossible. Within that time, Mr Speaker, if you think that a Division is not working properly, you have the ability to stop the Division for it to be re-held at a later stage. In addition, people will always be able to check their vote because it is a public rather than a private vote.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Fifty per cent. of bed and breakfasts do not pay business rates, the events industry often does not pay business rates either because it uses outside spaces, and language schools are excluded from the Government’s support for tourism. I have tried to raise this issue with Ministers directly in writing, but the Government have not reissued the document, “Government ministers and responsibilities”, which lists the private and direct contacts for Ministers, since 11 October 2019, and we are ending up getting generic responses from civil servants. Will the Leader of the House make sure that that document is reissued to us, either publicly or privately, so that we can directly contact Ministers and their private offices rather than just the Department?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, which has recently been a matter of correspondence between the shadow Leader of the House and me. We hope to be able to reissue the list of email addresses that can be used by Members later today, but certainly within the next few days.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con) [V]
As a former small business owner, I understand how vital it is to get people who are furloughed back to work as soon as it is safe for them to do so in order to support the economy. A strong export market is particularly important for companies in my constituency such as Perkins and General Electric. May I therefore ask the Leader of the House when he could find time for discussing global supply chain resilience post this coronavirus lockdown?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue and for her characteristic championship of her constituency and its businesses. The Government are very aware of the importance of global supply chains. That is one of the reasons we have taken a decision to ensure that the supply chains between Great Britain and Northern Ireland are supported, for example. The Secretary of State for International Trade recently attended the G20 trade ministerial meeting, where she called for trade to keep flowing and the maintenance of the supply of essential goods and services during this unprecedented time. I also note that the crisis has demonstrated the excellent job that many have done in keeping supplies going, including supermarkets maintaining essential supplies that people rely on. There are understandable concerns about this issue, but it could be raised in the debate on Monday.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) [V]
I have a particularly harrowing case in my constituency: a young couple who had a taxi business, Leanne and Fraser Gair. They now have no income whatsoever and have fallen through what I might call the floorboards of the safety net. Will the Leader of the House be kind enough to agree with me that it would be helpful if a Minister came to the House to outline to Members like me how we can speedily try to help these people, pick them up off the floor and get them going again?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point. I think all of us as constituency MPs have businesses that we would like to provide more help to and that find they cannot apply for the scheme they want. The Treasury has made enormous strides to help people. There are Treasury questions on 18 May, when this matter can be raised. The schemes are enormous and widespread, but there are some who fall through the cracks.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
I would like to thank the Speaker, my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) for all their work on electronic voting. Have we test-proofed the systems to ensure they are robust against cyber-interference?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The issue of cyber-security is indeed important. I can assure my hon. Friend that Mr Speaker has taken a personal and strong interest in this matter. The Procedure Committee has done a full assessment of the proceedings and confirmed that they are ready to deploy. We have taken proper advice from Government sources on cyber-security to ensure that the system is as robust as possible, but there is the final safeguard that Members’ names are published. They are therefore able to check that their vote has been properly recorded, in the highly unlikely event of any cyber-attack.