Business of the House

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)]

The business for the week commencing 22 November will include:

Monday 22 November—Remaining stages of the Health and Care Bill (Day 1).

Tuesday 23 November—Remaining stages of the Health and Care Bill (Day 2).



Wednesday 24 November—Second Reading of the Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill, followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to terrorism.

Thursday 25 November—General debate on freedom of religion or belief: 40th anniversary of the declaration on the elimination of religious intolerance, followed by a debate on a motion on alcohol harm. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 26 November—Private Members’ Bills.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Splendid!

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The provisional business for the week commencing 29 November will include:

Monday 29 November—Second Reading of the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [HL], followed by a motion to approve a Ways and Means resolution relating to the Animals (Penalty Notices) Bill, followed by a motion to approve a money resolution relating to the Approved Premises (Substance Testing) Bill.



Tuesday 30 November—Opposition day (9th allotted day). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Scottish National party, subject to be announced.

Wednesday 1 December—Consideration in Committee of the Finance (No.2) Bill.

Thursday 2 December—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 3rd December—Private Members’ Bills.

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

I thank the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business and also his colleague, the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), for his various cries. I look forward to seeing him on a Friday.

Today is Equal Pay Day, but it is not a day for celebration. Today, 10 million women in the UK now face working their entire careers without seeing equal pay. This is up from 8.5 million just a year ago. Can the Secretary of State for Women and Equalities or the Work and Pensions Secretary, or both, come to this House and explain why, under this Government, we are going so far backwards and what they will do about it?

What a week! The Leader of the House and I have seen rather a lot of each other across the Dispatch Boxes, and we have also seen the true extent of the Government’s blasé attitude towards corruption. The Prime Minister’s letter, which I believe was sent to Mr Speaker on Tuesday, said that banning MPs from taking roles as paid political consultants or lobbyists would stop them from, “exploiting their positions”. But this Government seem to be saying one thing one day, and then doing entirely another the next—making rules to break them, and facing no consequences for their egregious actions. They could have voted yesterday for our motion, which would have guaranteed—guaranteed—this House a vote on strengthening standards and in a timetable, but instead they chose to support a wrecking amendment, with no clear timetable and no guaranteed vote, and that could see as few as just 10 Conservative MPs affected. Does the Leader of the House agree that such partisanship and what appears to be naked self-interest should never override upholding the principles of public life?

While we are on the Prime Minister and the subject of standards, news outlets are reporting—I do not know whether this has been confirmed—that he said that he had “crashed” the Government car into a “ditch” as a result of the advice that the right hon. Gentleman said, I think, that he gave to the Prime Minister over the affair of the former MP for North Shropshire. Can we have a debate in Government time on dangerous driving and whether that should take place on the Estate?

It is not just on the subject of standards where the Government show nothing but contempt for this House. I am afraid to say that I have raised numerous times with the right hon. Gentleman that Members are still not receiving timely, or in some cases any, replies to letters, written questions or calls to MP hotlines. I know that the Leader of the House shares my concern, so could he take it up again, please?

I am afraid that, at the last business questions, the Leader of the House stated that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) had received a response to his letter to the Prime Minister sent more than a year ago on Islamophobia. I am sure that the Leader of the House did not intend to make this mistake, but, unfortunately, it seems from what I am told that the response that he referred to was from the Conservative party chair, not the Prime Minister, and related to a completely different letter. I would be grateful if the Leader of the House could correct this and clarify. My hon. Friend has now written to the Prime Minister again, so can he also ensure that the Prime Minister finally replies to this letter before the end of this year’s Islamophobia Month?

The shadow Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), asked a named day question all the way back in September on the amount of covid-19 vaccines that had reached their expiry date. This week, it was publicly announced that around 600,000 doses were thrown away in August, but my hon. Friend has still not received a substantive response to her question, which is so critical for our global response to covid. Will the Leader of the House take this back to his Cabinet colleagues and impress on them once again their responsibilities to this House?

This is not my specialist subject, but the annual fisheries negotiations are due to conclude shortly, which is important in ensuring that we reach a good deal for British fishing. I ask the Leader of the House to allocate Government time to debate this, before the December fisheries council?

On behalf of the very many staff who have asked to be able to plan for next year, especially after this past year, will the Leader of the House please give us the recess dates for 2022 next week? They have a right to know those dates, as they have to plan around us and they need to be able to book that holiday to be with their family.

Finally, this week, Azeem Rafiq has given us distressing, but, unfortunately for many of us, not surprising evidence to the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee about his experience of racism—in this case in cricket. It is abundantly clear that there has been an acute failure of leadership—in his case, at club and national level—and that, sadly, this is part of a more widespread problem. There should be no place for racism in sport, in this House, or anywhere in our society. Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister to make sure that the Independent Commission for Equity in Cricket’s inquiry into racism in cricket is taken seriously, and that it cannot be swept under the rug, as it has been so many times before?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her questions. May I begin with the issue of cricket? As somebody who has followed cricket since his childhood, I think I can say that this is a matter of shame to all cricket lovers. I look back to when I followed Somerset county cricket in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s when we had the most wonderful players from the West Indies—Joel Garner and Viv Richards particularly, but there were others, too. They were so inspirational, and encouraged excitement in cricket and made everyone in Somerset feel that they were part of our county and huge contributors to it. I am afraid that what has been going on in Yorkshire fills many cricket lovers with sadness. The England and Wales Cricket Board has a strong responsibility to ensure that this is stamped out and dealt with much more thoroughly than it has been so far.

The hon. Lady started by asking about equality. It is worth pointing out that the Government have pushed very hard to ensure that women get the opportunities that they deserve: there is a higher percentage of women on FTSE 350 company boards than ever before, and we have introduced shared parental leave and pay, and doubled free childcare for eligible parents, to help to ensure that women in the workplace have as strong a position as possible. Those policy principles and precepts will be kept to.

The hon. Lady then came to some more controversial matters and talked about partisanship. Well, I have a word or two to say about partisanship, because yesterday the Leader of the Opposition had to apologise to the House and withdraw a word that he had used, which today the same man has tweeted about the Prime Minister. That is not only extraordinarily partisan, but it is enormously disrespectful to this House and to Mr Speaker. To have to withdraw a word in this House, and then scuttle out like a beetle and tweet it, is utterly disrespectful to the House and is not the sort of cross-party leadership that one might expect.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition then went further and tweeted inaccurately about his own motion yesterday, so perhaps he did not even know what he had put his name to. That is partisanship, whereas the Conservative Government have been trying to put things right by ensuring that by 31 January—a clear deadline, in spite of what the hon. Lady said—the Committee on Standards can report, and can do so in a way that makes it clear how the rules can be improved following the 2018 report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, led by the noble Lord Bew. We are the ones who are trying our best to be cross-party against a barrage of partisanship, and we are trying to ensure the highest possible standards.

As regards the letter mentioned by the hon. Lady, my understanding is that the party Chairman was replying on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but I will obviously look into that, check and respond.

Fishing negotiations are an important matter for the House, but I am sure that the Backbench Business Committee can look into finding time for that important debate.

Finally, the shadow Leader of the House wants to go on her holidays. I quite understand that it is a very important matter, although I think that some Labour MPs may have been on their holidays already this week because the Finance Bill, which can go until any hour and sets out the major principles of legislation from the Budget—one of the most important things that the Government do—fell short. It finished early! Where were all the socialists keen to make their arguments about how the finances of the nation should be guided? It does not surprise me that the hon. Lady, and her hon. and right hon. Friends, are keen to book their holidays, but to facilitate them I will bring forward recess dates in the normal way.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Last Sunday, this country quite rightly paused to reflect, and to honour those men and women who risked or gave their lives in world wars and other conflicts. It is less well known that this Sunday we come together at the Cenotaph to honour the Association of Jewish Ex-Servicemen and Women, with a parade where veterans and children of veterans honour those who risked or gave their lives. Could we have a debate in Government time on all the other people who gave or risked their lives so that this country and Parliament could be free?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this matter to my attention, because I did not know that the Association of Jewish Ex-Servicemen and Women had a parade on the week after Armistice Sunday. I congratulate him on bringing that to the attention of the House. I also congratulate the association on its work and on the commemoration to recognise one’s gratitude to the veterans from the Jewish community who served in Her Majesty’s forces—or His Majesty’s forces, as they then often were—and to ensure that their contribution, along with the contribution of others, is not forgotten. It may be difficult to facilitate a debate immediately, but remembrance should be discussed in this House.

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

May I start by congratulating the Leader of the House? I congratulate him on actually still being here. I mean, he has defied every single rule and principle of political gravity by ensuring that this disastrous period of sleaze now goes into its third week. But at least he has had the good grace to concede that it was all his fault and that it was he who encouraged the Prime Minister to pursue this disastrous action. It might have been the Prime Minister who crashed the car into the ditch, but it was the Leader of the House who provided the directions.

When the history books are written on this sorry saga and detail how this rotten Government lost their momentum, their lead and their authority, there will be a chapter that starts, “And Jacob Rees-Mogg rose to his feet to oppose the report from the Committee on Standards.” To still be here after all this, the Leader of the House must know where the top hats are buried. We need at least two days of debate on all the issues around Government sleaze and corruption, and we need to see the Prime Minister leading those debates. The Leader of the House has ensured that this is the issue that is consuming the public, so I am almost certain that he agrees that we must now satisfy that public demand.

We definitely need a debate about the House of Lords, because there are huge public concerns about how people get a place in it. The Prime Minister yesterday all but conceded that donors are given a place in the House of Lords for their contributions when he said to my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil),

“Until you get rid of the system by which the trades union barons fund other parties”,

we have to go ahead—conceding that money buys people a place in the legislature that allows them to define, determine and amend the laws of this country.

Lastly, may I thank the Leader of the House for advancing the cause of Scottish independence in the most dramatic, compelling and convincing way possible?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

One could never accuse the hon. Gentleman of being knowingly understated. We have had “disaster”, “sorry saga”, “rotten”, “sleaze”, “corruption”, “huge public concern” and “dramatic” all in about a minute. I do wonder whether he is capable of lowering the tone even further than he normally does, or of lowering the temperature and raising the tone at the same point.

It is so absurdly overstated; we have spent quite enough time discussing ourselves in this House in the last 10 days or so. For example, I return to the Finance Bill. It is a bit of a concern that when we have a debate that could go to any hour on something that affects the livelihoods of every single one of our constituents, the Opposition are too idle to turn up, but when we are talking about ourselves, they want even more time to focus a little bit more on our own concerns. On the idea that there is this huge public concern about the House of Lords, well, the hon. Gentleman must move in very different circles from those in North East Somerset, because the number of letters that I receive on House of Lords reform can be counted in single digits most years.

[Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend and I are great advocates of the power of the people, because the voice of the people is the voice of God. I say to him—because we both come from the heart of what made Britain as we now know it—that we need elections in Somerset. There is discussion that the local authority now wants all elections put back to 2023, which would be six years since we have had an election in the county that we both love. That is not acceptable. There are severe concerns from all political parties, including my own, that this should not happen again. It is not good for democracy. Gag the people, they will come back at us. Therefore, I ask for time in this place to debate the ability to have elections when we should be having them, because, as I said before, the voice of the people is the voice of God.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Vox populi, vox Dei, as my hon. Friend says. It is obviously important that there should be local accountability and elections, but sometimes when there is significant upheaval in local government, elections are postponed until the new body has settled down. It is all a question of getting the balance right.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

I apologise to Members for missing these proceedings for the two weeks prior to the recess, but I am afraid to say that three weeks ago today I tested positive for covid. I can honestly say to Members across the House that it is still worth taking precautions because, despite being double-vaccinated, I had some rather unpleasant symptoms and it is best avoided.

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business, notifying Members of Backbench business on 25 November and notifying us of an allocation of time on 2 December. I hope that we will be able to bring forward two important debates on that date. What we have provisionally pencilled in at the moment are debates on the territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Dayton peace accord, and economic crime. I hope we can bring those forward. I hope that before Christmas I could have a meeting with the Leader of the House to make sure that we are up to date with our time allocation from the Backbench Business Committee’s perspective.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I say how glad I am to see the hon. Gentleman back in his place? I thank him for his courtesy in letting my office know that he was not going to be here in previous weeks, and I hope he is fully restored to good health. I am grateful to him for announcing the Backbench business that will be forthcoming, and of course I look forward to having a meeting with him at a time of his convenience.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

May we have an urgent debate on the provision of increased general practice capacity when thousands of new homes are built? This should happen with as much certainty as the sun rising in the east every morning. We really can do better and we need to do so urgently.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this point, because I think all of us as constituency MPs have come across it when there have been developments in our area. Trying to bring various bodies together to make sure that that is considered is important and something that MPs rightly get involved with. We obviously need more home ownership and we need to build the houses for it, but we need to make sure that the infrastructure is put in place as well. This often, in many ways, becomes a matter of local politics, when it is important to address it at the local level, but I will pass on my hon. Friend’s concerns to the Secretary of State.

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) raised this with the Leader of the House two weeks ago. I have many constituents appealing to me for help about access to their state pensions. They were advised as early as July of this year, with impending retirements in November, to apply for their pensions. They still have not received confirmation of what state pension they are receiving or indeed when they will receive it. I now have three constituents who tell me that they cannot retire at the end of the month because they have no idea what their incomes will be. I know that the Leader of the House has raised this previously, but I would be exceptionally grateful if he could arrange for a Department for Work and Pensions Minister to come to the Floor of the House to make a statement, or for a written statement from the Secretary of State, to resolve the issue. We cannot have pensioners not having access to what is rightfully theirs.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue again. It has been a problem for some of my own constituents too, and I have therefore raised it at a constituency level as well as on behalf of the House. As I have said before, one of the very useful purposes of this session is that, if there is a general problem that gets raised by several hon. and right hon. Members, that gives me the opportunity to take it up. The DWP had hoped that the problem would be sorted by now, but I am hearing that it is not. I will therefore take it up with the DWP again and try to provide more information for the House on what progress is being made.

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on prescribed drug dependence, I pay tribute to Dr Anne Guy, Dr James Davies and Luke Montague for their support for this really important work. Dr Davies recently published research showing that the NHS spends £500 million a year on unnecessary and habit-forming drugs, mostly antidepressants, that people should not be on any more. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this really needs attention, and will he find time for a debate on the over-prescription of habit-forming drugs?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

This is a matter of considerable concern and my hon. Friend is right to raise it in this House. On 22 September the Government published “Good for you, good for us, good for everybody”, a review of over-prescribing commissioned by the Secretary of State and conducted by the chief pharmaceutical officer for England, Dr Keith Ridge, that sets out action to reduce patient harm by reducing unnecessary prescribing. A three-year national over-prescribing programme is being established to lead on implementation of the 20 recommendations in the review. A new national clinical director for prescribing, one of the review’s key recommendations, is currently being recruited to drive cross-system implementation and provide the clinical leadership for the programme. So I can reassure my hon. Friend that things are happening. As regards a debate, the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee is paying close attention to our proceedings, and I direct my hon. Friend in that direction in the first instance.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

May I associate myself with the words of the shadow Leader of the House and the Leader of the House relating to racism in cricket? Particularly with the Ashes almost upon us, we will be mindful of that debate as we go into watching much more cricket in the coming weeks.

I also want to ask about GP provision. Our GPs locally have an 81% approval rate. Many people say that they love their GP but they simply cannot reach the surgery. Could we have a debate, perhaps in Government time, that looks at the capital spend that is needed for telephony so that people can get through more quickly with their inquiries?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady raises an important point that I think all of us are coming across as constituency MPs—access to GPs, face to face, on the telephone, or on Zoom or similar services. This has been difficult for GPs, who have a huge burden to carry at the moment with the extra demand that has come up post covid. The Government have provided £250 million of taxpayers’ money in the winter access fund to improve the capacity of GP practices, but the hon. Lady’s specific point on telephony is important and I will pass it on to the Secretary of State.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Each week thousands of economic migrants come to this country illegally by crossing the channel from France. Now we know that migrants landing on the Kent coast will be taken to Wellingborough, put in a four-star hotel and given free board, free food and free medical care. There might be many reasons why people want to flee France, but adding the pull factor of coming to Wellingborough—one of the finest and friendliest towns in the country—is absurd. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate in Government time where the Government can lay out their position that in future economic migrants will be arriving not in the town of Wellingborough but in a town in Albania?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think the reason everyone wants to go to Wellingborough is that they will be so well represented by the Member of Parliament for that distinguished constituency, who will take up their cases for them regardless of their immigration status. However, I can give my hon. Friend some comfort because the Nationality and Borders Bill, which is currently passing through Parliament, will give us much greater power to ensure that illegal asylum claims are dealt with efficiently and effectively, but also that people who have valid asylum claims that they declare legally early on will be treated in the properly sympathetic way that this country has a proud record of doing.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

My constituent downsized in preparation for retirement and was left with a £76,000 surplus that he added to his personal pension, which is what this Government would advise him to do. In doing so, he wrote to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs stating that he wanted to claim tax relief for this one-off contribution. The letter was received, yet ignored. Despite HMRC admitting that it incorrectly changed his tax code, and a call handler admitting that HMRC had made a big mistake, it continued to harass my constituent, adding interest on a monthly basis and causing great anxiety. Can we have a debate on why HMRC continues to hold the public accountable for its own mistakes?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As I have said to the hon. Gentleman previously, I am more than happy to take up individual constituent cases where proper answers have not already come through. My experience from my constituents has always been that HMRC has been one of the more efficient Government bodies in answering correspondence that I have had. I am therefore sorry that he has not had a good reply and very sorry to hear about his constituent’s contribution of £76,000 to his pension not being handled correctly. If the hon. Gentleman will send my office more details, I will take it up with HMRC very shortly.

[Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)]

Good dental health is so important, but residents in Winsford in my constituency are finding it extremely difficult to access dentist services, leading, unfortunately, to some serious misdiagnoses, despite my having written to Ministers, to NHS England and to the Care Quality Commission. Will my right hon. Friend find Government time to sink the Health Department’s teeth into a debate on NHS dentistry so that we can better understand what is stopping my constituents from being able to access dentistry services when they need them?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is making me think of Jaws from the James Bond films and what might happen if teeth are stuck in, or those children who have railway tracks put on their teeth to straighten them up. His question is very important. The pandemic has had a significant effect on dentistry, and we continue to work on recovering NHS dental services. We are addressing regional shortages of dentists by working with the NHS to try to ensure that training place numbers are better aligned with the needs of local populations. NHS England and NHS Improvement are developing proposals for dental system reform, working closely with the Department of Health and Social Care and other interested parties. I think this is being chewed over. There is some mastication going on, and I hope that we will not all become indentured servants.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Dreadful!

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

We have made a degree of progress this week on taking unfortunate money out of politics. Now we need to take the next step and clean up the laundromat of British political party funding. In the wake of the Intelligence and Security Committee report on Russia last year, will the Lord President confirm that no British political party should be taking cash from suspicious fortunes made in Russia and Uzbekistan? Can we have a debate in Government time as soon as possible to crystallise a cross-party consensus on this critical topic?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

There are very clear rules on how money may be taken by political parties, and all the political parties have a strong obligation to abide by them and to ensure that money is declared properly to the Electoral Commission. Ultimately, there will be a choice: whether we wish to have parties funded privately or to put a greater burden on the taxpayer. I would be very reluctant to put any further burdens on taxpayers; they have to bear enough already. I might even remind the right hon. Gentleman of a comment he made some years ago about the shortage of funds.

[Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)]

Can we have a debate on insurance premiums for emergency vehicle drivers? At present, if the driver of a fire engine, ambulance or police car is involved in a collision in a blue-light situation, they are hit by increased insurance premiums. It would seem unfair that some of the most skilled drivers in the country, who are very safe in their normal private driving life, are being hit with extra costs for their personal car for putting themselves at risk for public safety.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend raises a point of which many of us in this House were unaware. I see the difficulty that there is for blue-light drivers, who are likely to be trained to a very high standard. Insurers are responsible for setting the terms and conditions of the policies they offer, and it is for them to decide the level of risk they take in issuing any policy to a given applicant. The insurance companies have very large volumes of data from which to estimate their premiums. That makes the setting of premiums a commercial decision for individual insurers based on their underwriting experience, and it is not one where the Government seek to intervene, but my hon. Friend has done a service in bringing this matter to the House’s attention.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Like the Leader of the House, I was not aware that the Sunday after Remembrance Sunday—this Sunday—there is a planned march by the Association of Jewish Ex-Servicemen and Women, until it was raised by the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). I feel it was a bit remiss of me not knowing that. Considering what seems to be a sharp rise in antisemitism, not just in Britain, but across Europe and elsewhere, should we not look at having a full debate in Government time on the contribution of AJEX to British history, where we could also pay tribute to associated organisations, such as the 43 Group, which crushed the Blackshirts in the late 1940s?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We have in some years had a debate around Armistice Day, where it has been possible to record the contribution of a range of people who have been involved in keeping the country safe and free. I am afraid that in normal circumstances, this is more a matter for the Backbench Business Committee than the Government, but his appeal is very wise.

[Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)]

The rot in the Labour administration in Sandwell is continuing to pervade. Last month, we saw the botched attempt by the council to close a care home in Tipton. Then we saw the moonlight flit on Tuesday of the leader of the Labour party in Sandwell, and now we have the disgraceful edict from the politburo—sorry, I mean the cabinet of Sandwell Council that if council tenants disagree with the council, they risk eviction from their home. I am sure my right hon. Friend agrees that this is a disgraceful situation. Can we have a debate in Government time about the shambles that is the Labour administration in Sandwell Council? The Opposition promised to deal with it. They have failed. Perhaps it is time for us to do something about it.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am appalled by what my hon. Friend tells me. It is a very important point, and it is not the first time that the failings of Labour in Sandwell have been raised in this House. There is something rotten at the heart of many socialist councils. I noticed his slip in referring to the politburo, because there is sometimes a feeling of absolute control. The issue he raises today about limiting freedom of speech is particularly troubling. Politicians must expect challenge and for people to disagree with them and to push hard and argue their points. To try to put in a council contract that someone has to be polite or not say rude things about the council sounds like the sort of thing that happens in totalitarian communist states and not in the United Kingdom. I will pass on my hon. Friend’s concerns to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Talking about local councils, the Leader of the House is my constituency neighbour and we share the same local authority, Bath and North East Somerset Council. There have been some worrying trends of deliberate misinformation about some decisions in our local area. When politicians’ reputations are at all time low, it is important that we make sure we improve that. Indeed, earlier he deplored some misleading tweets. Will he therefore confirm that the spreading of misinformation has no place in today’s politics?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

What the hon. Lady says is obviously right—information should be accurate—but there is sometimes not a clear dividing line between what is information and what is opinion. One should never use the piety of saying, “That is misinformation”, when one merely disagrees with an opinion.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

Can I raise another general problem with the Leader of the House, which is that of constituents who have switched from energy suppliers that have collapsed, of which there are 21, as of today? They are facing long delays being set up with suppliers of last resort. They do not know how much their Bills will be, and they risk facing accumulating debt and missing out perhaps on the warm home discount, all through no fault of their own. Please can we have an opportunity to raise this problem with Ministers, as it is not going away?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady raises something that has been of concern. Steps have been taken to help people with energy bills, including contributing £140 to the energy bills of 2.2 million low-income households. I accept that there is uncertainty when energy suppliers go out of business and how that is handled. If she has any specific requests for information for constituents, I would be happy to help her to meet that.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I advise the Leader of the House that I was here on Tuesday for the Finance Bill. The debate was well subscribed on the SNP Benches. There was precisely one Back-Bench contribution from the Conservative party. I counted the contributions three times just to make sure I had not got it wrong. I will be speaking later this afternoon on the Critical Benchmarks (References and Administrators’ Liability) Bill. Can the Leader of the House explain why it is necessary to complete its entire passage through this House in a single day? Unusually, I do not think the total debate time of six hours is an issue, but the lack of a Public Bill Committee and of an opportunity to call expert witnesses are serious problems. At the moment, the House has not been told why the Bill has been timetabled in this way. Will the Leader of the House explain why, and say why the Government did not follow their usual practice of explaining their actions in the explanatory notes?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

There has been a great deal of pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill to ensure that it is widely understood and accepted. The Bill is technical in nature.

Not a single amendment has been tabled to the Bill today, which indicates that there is widespread consent across the House. The most open form of debate and scrutiny is a Committee of the whole House, where every Member is able to be involved. I am afraid I disagree with the hon. Gentleman; I think it is a sensible way to proceed with a piece of legislation that has been very thoroughly considered and that ensures that the technical operations of the City of London in relation to interest rates and critical benchmarks can go ahead properly.

[Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)]

It has been reported that the Transport Secretary used public money to create a departmental team that lobbied against plans to build on airfield sites, including a gigafactory at Coventry airport. Disgracefully, that would mean he used public funds to lobby against green investment and jobs coming to Coventry. Why? Well, we know he is an aviation enthusiast. From a dodgy Transport Secretary to a dodgy Leader of the House, who last week tried to rewrite the rules to let his mate off the hook, this Conservative Government are rotten to the core. Is the Leader of the House proud of this shameful record?

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

With soaring energy prices and the abandonment of the triple lock, Age UK has warned of older people’s not being able to afford to keep their homes adequately heated this winter. Will the Leader of the House make a statement on the winter fuel payment, which has been frozen since 2011, and whether he agrees that that support should be linked to the actual cost of energy in order to tackle preventable deaths, which are expected to rise this winter?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It may be helpful if I set out what the Government have done in this area. There is a £500 million household support fund so that local authorities can help those on the lowest incomes with their food and utility costs. The energy price cap is being maintained; £140 is being contributed to the energy bills of 2.2 million low-income households through the warm house discount; seasonal cold-weather payments of an extra £25 a week for up to 4 million people will be available during colder periods; the £300 winter fuel payment will go to recipients of the state pension; the increase in the local housing allowance in cash terms this year is worth an extra £600 on average to 1.5 million households and there is a £65 million package for vulnerable renters so that councils can support low-income earners in rent arrears, prevent homelessness and support families. There is a wide package of support to help people to keep their homes during the winter.

The triple lock, which the hon. Lady mentioned, was obviously distorted because of covid and the decline of earnings last year, followed by a significant bounce back this year, and it was entirely suitable and right to suspend it under those extraordinary circumstances. Last year, pensioners benefited; this year, obviously, it was the other way around.

[Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

Members on both sides of the House will be aware of the paltry amounts paid in royalties to musicians from streaming platforms. In contrast, the head of Universal Music is set to earn more than £150 million in 2021—more than songwriters and composers made from all UK music streaming, downloads and sales put together in 2019. The Leader of the House will know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) has a private Member’s Bill ready that would address the situation. Can he assure me that sufficient time will be found to allow for the passage of my hon. Friend’s Bill?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

This is an issue that the Government take seriously, and it has been considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. The Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, of which the hon. Gentleman sponsoring the Bill, the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), is a member, launched an inquiry into the economics of music streaming, which heard from key actors in the music industry, including artists, record labels and streaming platforms.

The Committee’s report was published on 15 July and made several recommendations to the Government for a broad set of regulatory interventions, intended to address issues with artists’ streaming royalties, and including a performer’s right to equitable remuneration similar to that proposed in the Bill. However, the Committee’s report did not provide sufficient evidence to support legislative action. The impact of introducing a new equitable remuneration right would be significant, so, while the Government are not unsympathetic, more evidence is needed before any action can be taken.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Before I call the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and while the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, is still in the Chamber, I draw the attention of the House to the fact that, in my capacity as Chairman of Ways and Means, overseeing matters in Westminster Hall, I have just been informed that the Backbench Business Committee has been unable to fill the slot available for Backbench Business debates on Tuesday 30 November. Yet I have sat here listening to people asking for debates and the Lord President rightly referring them to the hon. Member for Gateshead.

I feel it necessary to make this point—I hope it is heard more widely—that it would appear that Members are coming to the Chamber to ask the Leader of the House for a slot for a debate, but they are not at the same time applying to the hon. Member for Gateshead for a debate through the Backbench Business Committee. The Lord President has acknowledged the need for debates over the past 40 minutes; the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee is sitting here noting all these requests for debates, and yet those Members have not applied to his Committee for slots. Something is wrong here. I feel it necessary to make that point; it would be a pity to lose the opportunity to do so, since I have just been informed of this slot on 30 November. The hon. Gentleman tells me, “Applications by tomorrow,” so if you want your debate, do not ask the Leader of the House—apply to the hon. Member for Gateshead.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I have already had discussions with the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee and asked him about a debate, and I hope to submit that tomorrow.

Will the Leader of the House agree to arrange a statement on a total boycott of the winter Olympics in China in protest over human rights abuses against the Uyghur Muslims and other ethnic and religious belief minorities? This follows a call to the International Olympic Committee to move the 2022 winter Olympic games out of China. Such a statement would show a united front following a similar announcement from the United States of America on Tuesday stating that it will not send a diplomatic delegation to the 2022 winter Olympic games. A statement would be very helpful.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am tempted to say that applications for debates do not go flooding in to the Backbench Business Committee because Members receive such full answers in these brief sessions, and therefore time is saved, although I see some shaking of heads among Opposition Members.

I am always grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for raising these points. He is such a strong campaigner for freedom of religion, and there is of course the debate next week on freedom of religion, following the 40th anniversary of the declaration on the elimination of religious intolerance. No decisions have been made about the UK Government’s attendance at the Peking winter Olympics in 2022. The attendance of athletes is a matter for the British Olympic Association and the British Paralympic Association.

Freedom of religion and belief is a fundamental human right, and the hon. Gentleman is right to raise it with me regularly at business questions. Her Majesty’s Government remain deeply concerned about the severity and scale of violations and abuses of freedom of religion or belief in many parts of the world, but particularly in communist China and against the Uyghur Muslims, as well as against the Tibetans—and the Catholics in China also do not have freedom, with Catholic priests being locked up on many occasions over the years. We have consistently led international efforts to hold China to account for its human rights violations, and we remain committed to the global effort to support the most vulnerable members of society irrespective of race, religion and ethnicity, but I am very glad that this is raised so forcefully in the House not just, but particularly, by the hon. Gentleman.

Strengthening Standards in Public Life

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Wednesday 17th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees- Mogg)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add: “acknowledges recent concern over the outside interests of Members of Parliament; believes the rules which apply to MPs must be up to date, effective and appropriately rigorous; recalls the 2018 report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life into this matter; believes that recommendations 1 and 10 in that report form the basis of a viable approach which could command the confidence of parliamentarians and the public; believes that these recommendations should be taken forward; and supports cross-party work, including that being done by the House’s Committee on Standards, to bring forward recommendations to update the Code of Conduct for MPs by 31 January 2022.”

It is an honour to speak in this Opposition day debate today, and an honour indeed to follow the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), who has been giving us an object lesson as to why people in glasshouses are best advised not to throw stones. It is always a privilege for any hon. or right hon. Member to speak in this House, at any time, on any day. We come here fully aware of the fundamental principle that lies at the heart of our parliamentary democracy: first and foremost, we work on behalf of our constituents. As Edmund Burke said in his address to the electors of Bristol in 1774, familiar territory to the hon. Lady—[Interruption.] No, I was not actually there, unfortunately: it would have a great pleasure to listen to Edmund Burke, such a distinguished figure in our history. He said that

“parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole.”

Our primary duty is to the electorate. It is their interests we are here to represent, and to them, also, that we must answer at the ballot box. But if being a champion of our constituents is critical to an MP’s role, it is also our innate duty to act in the interests of the nation as a whole.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

In Parliament we scrutinise legislation and hold the Executive to account, both in debates in the Chamber and in Westminster Hall, and through our work on a range of Committees. Speaking of Committees, I give way to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), a distinguished Committee Chairman.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

I am sorry myself that I missed that quote in Bristol in 1770-whatever it was. This is a good and well-intentioned debate on strengthening standards in public life, but Labour studiously avoids dealing with cash for honours. We should remember that the Prime Minister was interviewed under police caution on this matter back in 2006. I have tried with Labour and I will now try with the Conservatives: will the Tories rule out the practice of cash for honours—a very corrupt practice where high-value cash donors find themselves up in the House of Lords, buying their place in a Parliament in what is meant to be a western democracy, for goodness’ sake?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this, because he knows a great deal about Maundy Gregory and the scandal that came about with Lloyd George, and indeed corresponded with my late father on this subject when cash for honours came up. Cash for honours is illegal and has been for the best part of 100 years. It is rightly illegal and is wholly improper. The hon. Gentleman has been right in his campaigns to ensure that that never tarnishes our way of life.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

rose—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Let me carry on at this stage.

The Government hold their position solely by virtue of their ability to command the confidence of the House of Commons, and it is primarily from the elected Chamber that Ministers are appointed. Given the spectrum of responsibilities, the Government believe it an historic strength of our system that MPs should have a wider focus than the Westminster bubble and that we should maintain connections to the world beyond, so that we may draw on the insights and expertise that this experience offers so that, rather than a Chamber replete with professional politicians with no previous career or future career other than to remain on the public payroll, we have a Parliament that benefits from MPs with a broader range of talents and professional backgrounds.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I agree with the Leader of the House about Members having a wide range of backgrounds. I also agree with Burke that our first duty should be to serve our constituents, but hon. Members are picking up from their second job tens, scores or hundreds of thousands of pounds a year, and one cannot serve two paymasters. Has the time not come to, at the very least, agree to this modest motion today and ban at least certain categories of jobs to avoid the allegation that people are serving two paymasters?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think it important that there should be some humble crofters in this House who can bring their experience and their wisdom, and not only humble crofters, but people who have experience of the City of London—sometimes, they happen to be one and the same person. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that that brings distinction to the House, particularly on Wednesday afternoons.

This sort of experience, gained both prior to a Member’s election and once they have taken up their parliamentary seat, is beneficial. The profusion of perspectives, be they corporate, trade union or charitable, brings a welcome variety to this place, and enhances the quality of challenge we hear in debate and throughout the business of the House.

[Dr Huq]

The Leader of the House talks about the good and the humble. Would he agree with the sentiment that bad people will always find a way around rules? The point of rules is to draw them as tightly as possible so that that does not happen. Five living Cabinet Secretaries said so in The Times yesterday. If he does agree, what were the Government thinking of the other week? Does he realise how it looks?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I do not hold the Labour party responsible for the fact that six people, and one currently appealing, have been sentenced to jail terms or suspended jail terms as socialist Members. I do not hold that against the socialists because I understand that even well-intentioned parties with a high moral standard and an enormous amount of self-righteousness will occasionally have rotten apples within them.

We have seen in recent weeks growing and sincerely held concerns across the House about the outside interests of Members of Parliament, particularly where potential conflicts of interests may arise. Here, the Government are clear that the reputation of Parliament must come first—more than that, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister says, it is imperative that on a cross-party consensus we put beyond doubt the reputation of the House of Commons by having rules for MPs that are up-to-date, effective and appropriately rigorous so as to continue to command the confidence of the public, whom we are here to serve. That is why the Prime Minister has written to Mr Speaker to set out the Government’s advocacy of reforms to update the code of conduct that sets out the standards of behaviour for MPs as we carry out our work.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House is absolutely right, this debate and this motion are about the integrity of not just this House and this place, but our political system as a whole. So should the Prime Minister have corrected the record in January when he incorrectly said that PPE contracts had been published when the High Court ruled that they had not?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Government’s behaviour with PPE was the subject of the previous debate and was essential to ensure that, in very short order, a very large quantity was provided. What was done to provide the vaccine and sufficient quantities of PPE was absolutely right.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

The Leader of the House mentioned cross-party working. On the theme of the previous intervention, the leader of Plaid Cymru, Adam Price, introduced a Bill when he was in this place 14 years ago that would have made the wilful misleading of this House by a politician an offence. Should we bring that Bill forward again?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The right hon. Lady raises an interesting constitutional question, because misleading this House would arguably be a breach of the privileges of this House, and to take that to a court would be a breach of article 9 of the Bill of Rights. Although I think that misleading this House is a serious offence, it is an offence punishable within and by this House through our privileges processes, and it would be wrong to take the proceedings of this House to a court, which would take away one of our most fundamental constitutional protections of freedom of speech in this House. I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you will forgive me that constitutional dilation in response to the right hon. Lady’s important point.

In a moment or two I will come to the details of the Prime Minister’s letter and how they relate to the motion before us, but I want first to address the substance of the issues that I know, from my recent conversations with hon. and right hon. Members, have been of particular concern. I have already emphasised the supremacy of an MP’s parliamentary and constituency work, but we also recognise that there are certain external roles that seem particularly at odds with the job of an MP—namely, those that would capitalise on an insider’s knowledge of Parliament and Government. I can confirm to the House that we believe the experience and expertise we accrue as part of our work as MPs should not be for sale. We are elected to Parliament on a promise to work for the greater good not of ourselves, but of our constituents and our country.

Turning to the specifics of the motion, we can see from the Prime Minister’s letter to the Speaker that the Government are proposing to go beyond the terms set out for today’s debate. The Prime Minister made clear the Government’s view that the MPs’ code of conduct should be updated as a matter of urgency to reflect two key recommendations made by the Committee on Standards in Public Life in its 2018 report on MPs’ outside interests. We wish to endorse, first, the key recommendation of the Committee in relation to MPs’ outside interests. It is self-evident that being an MP is the greatest responsibility and, indeed, honour. Therefore, any undertaking of paid employment must remain within reasonable limits, and it should not prevent MPs from fully performing their range of duties whether in their constituency or in this place.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Of course, everybody agrees with that, but how does one determine realistically what is taking too much of one’s time on an outside interest? It should be common sense and it should be left to the judgment of the electorate. What worries me is that, if it is left to the commissioner for standards, however distinguished, that will give that official a degree of power never enjoyed by any official ever before over Members of Parliament. We are accountable not to officials, but to our electorate.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are responsible and accountable to our voters. This is why the Chairman of the Standards Committee will be leading his distinguished Committee in looking into this and I hope will make recommendations to the House.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way, and this is very naughty of me because I have only just walked in from the Liaison Committee; I am breaking all the standards of the House. The only point I want to make is that I think it would be very difficult for the commissioner to start investigating whether an MP was devoting enough of their time to their constituents. Of course, all our constituents want us to throw ourselves heart and soul into our work, and I think we all do. Many of us work many more hours than a normal working week—60, 70, 80 hours. But I am just very hesitant about going down this route of timesheets or something. She already gets thousands of requests every year saying that an MP has not replied to an email, he or she has voted the wrong way, or whatever. I just urge him, and I will urge my Committee very strongly, to think very carefully about this.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I thank the hon. Gentleman, the parliamentary leader of Plaid Cymru, the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), and the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar for their good temper and sense in this debate and for trying to bring a genuinely cross-party approach?

As the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has pointed out, these issues are complex. They are not open to easy solutions; they need deliberation. How people lead their lives depends very much on them as individuals, and trying to work out how an MP fulfils his or her duties is not something that can easily be put down in a time and motion study. That is why we are hoping that his Committee will be able to consider it and then bring forward recommendations that, with support on a cross-party basis, may prove acceptable to the House as a whole.

If I may continue, we endorse the Committee on Standards in Public Life’s recommendation that MPs should be banned from accepting any paid work to provide services as a parliamentary strategist, adviser or consultant. It is, of course, the case that amending the code of conduct for MPs is a matter for Parliament, rather than for the Government—indeed, strictly speaking it is a matter for this House, the Commons, because of our exclusive cognisance of our own affairs. However, Her Majesty’s Government believe that those two recommendations form the basis of a viable approach that could command the confidence of both parliamentarians and the public, and would therefore like to see them adopted.

Coming to the final part of my remarks—this is the point at which normally, somebody says, “Hear, hear”—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!] Thank you. I know that some hon. Members like nothing more in debate than to start delving down the procedural rabbit holes of the merits or otherwise of Standing Orders and the like. I am not immune to that temptation myself, but I do not think it would be useful in this instance. It is an established convention—this is one problem with the Opposition motion—that the Government are able to transact their business in the House of Commons, and the House itself has long recognised that principle in Standing Order No. 14, which provides that Government business takes precedence.

To give this motion from the Standards Committee immediate precedence would be both impractical and unnecessary. Her Majesty’s Government support the amendment to

“bring forward recommendations to update the code of conduct for MPs by 31 January 2022”,

which sets a clear timeframe for progress on the issues discussed today. The Government therefore support a more practical amendment that acknowledges the concerns we have all been hearing in recent days, and positively proposes that the proportionate measures devised by the Committee on Standards in Public Life should be taken forward on a cross-party basis. That would include the work being done by this House’s Committee on Standards, in accordance with the timeframe suggested by Opposition Members. We have listened, and we have very much taken into account what they have proposed. It is important to note that on this matter, as on the other issues before us today relating to the code of conduct, the Government recognise that any changes are a matter for the House, and are looking ahead to the next steps being taken in a way that seeks consensus and respects the views of all sides of the House.

Committee on Standards

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)]

I beg to move,

That, notwithstanding the practice of this House relating to questions already decided in the same Session, this House:

(1) rescinds the resolution and order of 3 November 2021 relating to the Third Report of the Committee on Standards (HC 797) and the appointment of a new select committee;

(2) approves the Third Report of the Committee on Standards (HC 797); and

(3) notes that Mr Owen Paterson is no longer a Member of this House.

I have listened carefully to the views expressed since the debate and decision on 3 November, and I make it clear that Members of Parliament must uphold the highest standards in public life. We expect all Members to abide by the prevailing rules of conduct. Paid lobbying is wrong and Members found guilty of it should pay the necessary penalties. Our standards system must function robustly and fairly to support this so that it commands the confidence of Members and the general public.

The Government support the principle of an additional right to appeal in the standards system in the House of Commons and for that potential reform to be explored on a cross-party basis.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

What happened a couple of weeks ago was an extraordinary failure of moral leadership and, for the first time, it has given rise in the minds of many to serious questions about the character of this Government. With hindsight, why did the Leader of the House and his right hon. Friends not recognise the brazen wrongdoing of their colleague?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think the simple answer—[Interruption.] No, I think the heckle from the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) is unfair and unkind. It was simply that the tragedy that afflicted Mr Paterson coloured and clouded our judgment, and my judgment, incorrectly. It is as simple and as sad as that.

The Back-Bench amendment that we supported was intended to facilitate the exploration, on a cross-party basis, of the standards system, with a time-limited, ad hoc Committee. However, I regret that the amendment conflated an individual case with more general concerns. That was a mistake. Crucially, the amendment did not carry cross-party support, which is why we have changed our approach.

The Government fully recognise the role of the Committee on Standards in ensuring that the code of conduct reflects and fosters the highest standards of public life. I would like to thank all the Committee members and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards for their service. We await the Committee’s report on the code of conduct with interest. The Committee performs an important role in identifying opportunities to improve the standards system, and I note that the Chairman, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), has made a recent, and helpful, commitment to commission a senior judicial figure to advise on possible changes to the process.

I assure all right hon. and hon. Members that I am always willing to discuss this matter further, and I hope to work with Opposition Members constructively on this issue. We all have the best interests of the House at heart and I hope that, setting aside the previous debate, we will work well together in the weeks ahead.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for facilitating this debate. [Laughter.] On 3 November, he said that the concerns expressed about the individual case in question included:

“the lack of examination of witnesses”—

of whom there were 17—

“the interpretation of the rules relating to whistleblowing…the application of aggravating factors; and the absence of the right of appeal.”—[Official Report, 3 November 2021; Vol. 702, c. 939.]

With regard to the first three of those, what is my right hon. Friend’s current view in relation to that particular case?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

First, the House will always have a debate when it wants to have a debate; that is how our procedures work. They are extremely straightforward and ensure that right hon. and hon. Members can come to this House and make objections, if they so wish, to have subjects debated on the Floor of the House—

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House give way?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I will not give way, because I am trying to answer my hon. Friend. I have already covered his point about last week’s debate: we made the mistake of conflating the two issues of the individual case with the general system, and that did not have cross-party support. That is why the Government have committed to working on a cross-party basis to find and grasp opportunities to improve the system. I will be listening carefully to the insights of Members during this debate. I commend the motion to the House.

Business of the House

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Thursday 4th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)]

Before I begin, I congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on this day of legend and song, because it is the second anniversary of your being dragged to the Chair with notable reluctance. The business for next week is as follows:

Monday 8 November—Consideration of Lords message relating to the Environment Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Telecommunications (Security) Bill, followed by Opposition day (7th allotted day—second part). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced, followed by motion to approve the draft Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021 and the draft Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2021.

Tuesday 9 November—General debate on giving every baby the best start in life, followed by general debate on the provision of school-based counselling services. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

At the conclusion of business on Tuesday 9 November, the House will rise for the November recess and return on Monday 15 November.

The business for the week commencing 15 November will include:

Monday 15 November—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Social Security (Up-Rating of Benefits) Bill, followed by Second Reading of the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [Lords].

Tuesday 16 November—Second Reading of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.

Wednesday 17 November—Opposition day (8th allotted day). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 18 November—Consideration of a business of the House motion, followed by all stages of the Critical Benchmarks (References and Administrators' Liability) Bill [Lords].

Friday 19 November—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 22 November will include:

Monday 22 November—Remaining Stages of the Health and Care Bill (Day 1).

Tuesday 23 November—Remaining Stages of the Health and Care Bill (Day 2).

I would like to mark the retirement of Crispin Poyser, who has served the House as a Clerk for more than 40 years. A good understanding of “Erskine May” is essential for the functioning of Parliament, and Crispin is a great proceduralist. In the House and in his secondment to the Cabinet Office as parliamentary adviser to the Government, his work has underpinned the principle of accountability to Parliament. We should all be grateful. I know that his colleagues will miss his expertise nearly as much as they will miss him. I thank him for his terrific public service.

I am aware that last night’s vote has created a certain amount of controversy. It is important that standards in this House are done on a cross-party basis. The House voted very clearly yesterday to show that it is worried about the process of handling complaints, and that we would like an appeals system; but the change would need to be supported on a cross-party basis, and that is clearly not the case.

While there is a very strong feeling on both sides of the House that there is a need for an appeals process, there is equally a strong feeling that this should not be based on a single case, or applied retrospectively. I fear last night’s debate conflated the individual case with the general concern. This link needs to be broken. Therefore, I and others will look to work on a cross-party basis to achieve improvements in our system for future cases. We will bring forward more detailed proposals once there have been cross-party discussions.

[Mr Speaker]

I would also like to express the thanks of the whole House to Crispin Poyser for his 43 years of service to the House. We wish him and his wife Krissie well, and send our best wishes for the many things that they will do next. Crispin is known among colleagues for his keen procedural mind, curiosity and kindness. He will be missed by the House, and I thank him for the loyal service that he has given.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I join the hon. Lady in wishing people a happy Diwali? I hope that they enjoy their celebrations.

There is a problem with people writing their questions before they have heard what has been said, because I made it quite clear in my business statement that we need to proceed on a cross-party basis, and it is a matter of regret that there was no cross-party agreement yesterday. Obviously, a Committee cannot work effectively without Opposition Members on it, and I think that was absolutely clear from what I said.

We need to ensure that we have standards in this place that are fair and robust, and that are seen to be fair and robust. I would highlight the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme, which has an appeal body, the independent expert panel. The independent expert panel has on it a High Court judge—somebody of the highest standing and legal training—but that is not the case for standards cases. This issue has been bubbling away for some time, as people have seen the differential between the two.

Of course, I listened very carefully to the debate yesterday, and to comments made from across the House, and I absolutely recognise that it is important to proceed on a cross-party basis to have the highest standards in this House, but ones that, when implemented, are fair to those they are applied to. That is what we will seek to achieve. I hope that the hon. Lady and others are willing to enter into this in a spirit of co-operation, as we did when we co-operated successfully with her predecessors over the ICGS question, to ensure that the ICGS could be taken out of the Standards Committee while remaining under its umbrella, and become a much more independent process.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising the fact that this is Islamophobia Awareness Month, and for asking for a reply to a letter that has been sent. As I have said many times in this House, I view it as my role to facilitate for this House answers to legitimate questions. This is a matter of priority for me, and I regularly remind my hon. and right hon. Friends of the need to respond. I will continue to do that, and I can assure her that I will take up with No. 10 Downing Street the letter that was sent last year.

On the hon. Lady’s question about whether there are any other planned changes, I am always rather with Palmerston: “Change, change—aren’t things bad enough already?”. However, I point out that the Procedure Committee is available to consider alterations to our procedures. It does invaluable work, and at the moment it is considering whether proxy voting should be extended.

The hon. Lady, and all other Members of the House, will know that our proceedings and processes have evolved. There was a lot of talk yesterday about 1695. As I am sure you are aware, Mr Speaker, that related to a Speaker, Sir John Trevor, who was given 1,000 guineas, I believe by the City of London Corporation and the East India Company, to influence proceedings in Parliament. He was therefore removed as Speaker, but rather oddly remained Master of the Rolls. We are so lucky, on your second anniversary, that no such question should arise with the current Speaker, who is fortunately not Master of the Rolls.

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

On Monday I attended a debate in Westminster Hall on research into endometriosis and polycystic ovary syndrome. I was hoping, indeed planning, to participate, but such were the excellent speeches from female colleagues who had been suffering from that condition, as well as time pressures, that it was clearly appropriate to hear their important words first. The debate highlighted that it can take up to eight years between someone presenting and their diagnosis. Could we perhaps build on Monday’s debate, broadening the subject to consider how long it takes between presenting and diagnosis for someone with certain conditions, and what we can do to improve that?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important issue, which has also been raised with me by constituents. That is the sort of question that may well have come from Sir David Amess in the past, because he was a passionate campaigner for those suffering with endometriosis. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence publishes authoritative evidence-based guidelines for healthcare professionals that help to ensure that the diagnosis, care and treatment of NHS patients is based on the best available evidence. I hope that eight years is not seen as an acceptable length of time for people to wait for diagnosis and treatment. In the spending review an extra £5.9 billion of taxpayers’ money was announced for capital expenditure to support elective, recovery, diagnostic and technology over the next three years, and we are rolling out 44 community diagnostic centres to increase capacity. That could deliver up to 2.8 million scans in the first full year of operation. We aim to deliver up to 100 community diagnostic centres in total by 2024-25, and we will publish the delivery plan for tackling the electives backlog later this year. I will, of course, pass on my hon. Friend’s concerns to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.

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

What an absolute and utter mess, and I am not entirely sure that it has been much helped and assisted by what the Leader of the House said about the process this morning. He is inviting us to capitulate to this Tory kangaroo court Committee, and go along with what the Tories are intending to do on reform. If he wants us to participate, we must return to the status quo. We have to get back to where we were before we voted yesterday, with an intact Standards Committee, and abide by the findings of that Committee. Only on that basis will we enter any discussions or talks with the right hon. Gentleman.

What we have is disgraceful. We effectively have two Committees—perhaps three if the Leader of the House gets his way—that have no legitimacy in the House, no confidence of the membership of the House, and no trust from any members of the public at all. No wonder so many gloomy Tory MPs are kicking around the House this morning—the magnitude of what they attempted to do yesterday is starting to dawn on them. What they did was to legitimise and sanction paid advocacy, and signal a return to cash for questions and grubby brown envelopes stuffed full of cash for doing their paymasters’ bidding. They have effectively dispensed with independent investigation, and they have transferred that to a kangaroo court Committee on which they have given themselves a majority. We will play no part in that Committee of corruption, and I am glad the Labour party will not either.

I heard the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy say this morning that the standards commissioner should review her position. That is akin to giving the referee a red card because we do not like the decision of that referee. It is not too late. Return us to the status quo and to where we were yesterday, and we will enter into discussions. But not on the basis of this ridiculous attempt at reform.

Mr Speaker, I have given up trying to get the Leader of the House to wear a face mask. I have now accepted that he does not care a jot about the safety and security of his colleagues or staff in this House. We now have an outbreak in this House, and we have him, with his weird individualism and arrogance, refusing to do anything about it. Maybe that is something that his Tory kangaroo court Committee could look at, because it will have precious little else to do.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I will just add in response to the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) that I have had a note to tell me that the party chairman responded on behalf of the Prime Minister to the letter on Islamophobia. That was done earlier this year.

Nobody would wish to defend paid advocacy. I would say to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) that his pre-prepared fury every week is becoming very much a broken record. It does not matter what the subject is; the fury is enormous. It may be that it is raining outside and the hon. Gentleman is furious. It may be that there has been a debate on standards and the hon. Gentleman is furious. Anything that comes up, he comes here to be cross, and he gets crosser and crosser as the weeks and the days go on.

If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said, rather than concentrating on his pre-prepared fury, he would have noted that I said that we need to make sure that this happens on a cross-party basis. It would be idle to pretend that there are not concerns about the system. It would be idle to pretend that there are not many people in this House who feel that not having a proper appeals process is a flaw in the system. It would be idle to suggest that there are not people in this House who recognise that the system set up for the ICGS, with the IEP, has, with a High Court judge, a better legal focus than the other system. These things are all true and they all need to be looked at, but of course, to maintain high standards and proper processes, we want to have cross-party support.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I think one of the problems with yesterday was the fact that two issues were being put together; one was the case of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) and the other was the reform of the system. On what the Leader of the House has said now, I understand the process of going forward on a cross-party basis, but I am not sure how that leaves the case of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire. Perhaps we could have a statement next week clarifying the Government’s position.

I voted for the Leadsom amendment, as it is called. I listened to the debate and I made up my mind. Will the Leader of the House issue a statement reminding people in the media that all votes in this House are free? I, for one, am never going to be told by someone else not to vote my conscience.

But Sir, the issue that concerns me most—I am sorry to take so long—is that this morning, my office was vandalised because of the way I voted last night. That puts my staff in danger. This is not the way that this should happen. We can have strong disagreement, but I think some of us should remember what happened to Sir David Amess, and perhaps our language needs to be a little temperate. I ask the Leader of the House if we can have a statement next week setting out the Government’s position on what he has said today.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I just reiterate what I said at the beginning of these proceedings? While there is a very strong feeling on both sides of the House that there is a need for an appeals process, there is equally a strong feeling that this should not be based on a single case or applied retrospectively. I fear last night’s debate conflated the individual case with the general concern. This link needs to be broken. I hope that answers my hon. Friend’s question.

As regards the vexed question of whipping, as I understand it, all Whips are attendance Whips. My hon. Friend is well known for his independence of mind, and I am sure his constituents are aware of that, but to vandalise some Member’s property or office because of the way that Member voted seems to me to be potentially a breach of privilege, and it may be something that needs to be looked into with considerable care. As you warned us yesterday, Mr Speaker, we always need to discuss these things in a temperate and sensible manner.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The problem is, we are in a quagmire now. I fully support the comments that have just been made by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and I am sorry for everything that has happened to his office; I think that has happened to quite a lot of MPs over the last few years. I think the message for all of us is that we need to be very careful when we are talking about standards issues, as I have tried to be.

The Leader of the House is quite right that we should never be changing the rules at the last minute for a named individual. There is a potential solution to that, which is that the Standards Committee, on a cross-party basis, could produce another report next Tuesday, which the Government could then put to the House next week to deal with the case of the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson). I think the Committee would say exactly the same thing, but it would be a means of separating that case out from the issue of the whether we should change the system.

On changing the system, as the Leader of the House knows, because he has given evidence to our Committee, we are already reviewing that. There are decent points to be made about things that could be improved in the system. They are not easy things to resolve, but my Committee will do its best, on a cross-party basis and with independent members—a valuable addition to the process and an important part of establishing the trust of the public—to take that forward.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming that there are concerns about the system. I think there is a general concern about the investigator and the adjudicator being the same person. It has been suggested to me on a number of occasions that that should be looked at. I am grateful for his suggestion that we should use moderate language, although it has to be remembered that he was the one comparing what happened yesterday to Russia when he was on the wireless this morning, so I hope he will use moderate language not only when he is in this House. As I say, it is important that this is looked at on a cross-party basis, because we need to have robust standards in which Members have confidence.

[Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)]

I was shocked and incredibly disappointed to hear of the Labour west midlands police and crime commissioner’s plans to overhaul the use of stop and search powers across West Midlands police. Yesterday, I wrote to the police and crime commissioner to spell out my disappointment at his proposals. My view, shared by other Members, is that we should be empowering our police officers to use stop and search powers in an appropriate and proportionate way, rather than undermining them and making our streets less safe. Will the Leader of the House make some time for west midlands MPs to debate this issue and ensure that the views of my constituents are represented?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. Police chiefs are absolutely clear: stop and search is a vital tool to crack down on serious violence and to keep people safe. That is why we have announced the relaxation of voluntary restrictions on section 60 stop and search powers in all forces in England and Wales. We are also introducing a new court order to make it easier for officers to stop and search those convicted of knife crime. Every weapon seized is potentially a life saved. Last year, stop and search removed 11,000 dangerous weapons from our streets. I encourage my hon. Friend to seek a Back-Bench debate on this matter. I will share her concerns with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House seemed to indicate earlier that the ICGS system will remain unchanged. Could he now make it absolutely clear that there will not be any changes to the independent system, even if an MP happens to dislike the outcome of a particular case?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I said that in my remarks yesterday. I had a representation from union officials before the debate, which I thought it important to reply to in order to reassure people who work in the Palace that cases relating to harassment and sexual harassment that come under the ICGS are entirely unaffected by what happened yesterday. They have a different process. They have an Independent Expert Panel as an appeal, organised and presided over by a High Court judge, which I think gives those who may come up before the panel greater confidence in its ability to deliver natural justice.

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend may think, after a £56 million levelling-up fund, a £29 million transforming cities fund, a £17.6 million Kidsgrove town deal and 550 new Home Office jobs in the city of Stoke-on-Trent, that perhaps we would be rather full up in my constituency, but he will not be shocked to hear that we have an appetite for more. Potholes drive us potty in the Potteries, so with the announcement in the Budget of £2.7 billion to fix them, does he agree that Stoke-on-Trent should get a big slice, particularly when taking into account the condition and use of our roads, and that congestion delays drivers by an average of more than a minute for every mile travelled?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is beginning to remind me of Oliver Twist, in that he is always asking for more. I heard him in Transport questions asking for £90 million and now he wants even more money. He is an absolutely terrific campaigner for Stoke-on-Trent and for getting things done there. There is a £2.7 billion fund over the next three years for local road maintenance, and there is this brilliant JCB device that can mend potholes very quickly. I encourage him to keep on campaigning to get rid of the potholes and to lobby his council to ensure that that is one of its priorities. However, I really commend him for his success in ensuring that any available taxpayers’ money always goes to Stoke-on-Trent.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

It has just been announced in the media that the Government are U-turning and have ditched immediate plans to overhaul the standards system. First, will the Leader of the House confirm that? Secondly, does he agree that we need an urgent debate on the whole issue?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That was what I said in my statement at the beginning. We wanted to proceed on a cross-party basis and clearly, therefore, the Select Committee not being supported by other parties was not going to be an effective way of doing that. We had a debate on standards yesterday, which took up 90 minutes and was quite comprehensive.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

With regard to yesterday’s amendment to the Standards Committee’s motion and my right hon. Friend’s statements this morning, both initially and in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), I welcome this move, but I emphasise the need to move very, very quickly for cross-party involvement and to allay the concerns that have already been expressed by members of the public. Our credibility is destroyed if we do not nip this in the bud very, very quickly.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think we have moved quickly. We recognise that not achieving cross-party support yesterday made it very difficult to get the reforms that we are seeking. We do still seek to have a system that is properly fair and allows a genuine form of appeal, but that cannot be done by the fiat of the Government. It needs broader support than that.

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

One of my constituents, Christopher Crawford, recently changed his name by deed poll and has been experiencing considerable delays in securing a replacement biometric residency card. No other details have changed, but he has been told that the process will take up to six months. As he works in the creative industries, without this card he is unable to prove his identity and to apply for a covid pass, which is required in Wales in certain circumstances. I have written to the Home Secretary and no action has been forthcoming, so will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate so that we can look at the delays in the Home Office and actions that it can take to expedite matters and militate against circumstances such as these?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I view it as my role as Leader of the House to facilitate issues of this kind, when Members bring forward specific issues relating to their constituents who are not receiving an efficient Government service. I will therefore take this up with the Home Secretary after business questions, although perhaps if the hon. Gentleman could email to me further details of his constituent and the new name that he has adopted by deed poll, I will do what I can to try to speed up the process.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

As shadow roads Minister, I had spent this week preparing to speak in a Committee on Monday on motor vehicles regulations—that was slightly complicated by the fact that one of the statutory instruments did not seem to have been published. We were told yesterday that that Committee would not go ahead. As a result, I had a conversation with the chair of the all-party group on trailer and towing safety, our neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth). It would have saved an awful lot of time and an awful lot of conversation and speculation yesterday if we had been told that the reason why the Committee was pulled was that it would be listed for the main Chamber on Monday instead. To be frank, this has upset rather a lot of people who were hoping that the measures on trailers were not going to go ahead. I would like to know from the Leader of the House why things could not have been tied up and why, when the Delegated Legislation Committee was cancelled, we could not have been told that it was going to be in the Chamber.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That is a very good question, but the answer is that the Chamber has to be told first the business of the Chamber. That is a courtesy to the House. I appreciate that when things are being cancelled, it is not helpful that people are not informed of the replacement, but it is absolutely standard practice to notify the Chamber first of business in the Chamber.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

As the Leader of the House may be aware, I have been highlighting since August the unacceptable delays to state pension payments for the newly retired. Despite protestations from the pensions Minister that all payments would be up to date

“by the end of October”,

today the Department for Work and Pensions has admitted that thousands of newly retired people still do not have their rightful pensions, including many in my constituency of North Ayrshire and Arran. This is causing deep financial distress, not least to the 1950s women who have already had their pension age increased. Will the Leader of the House make a statement setting out what he will do to ensure that the pension system is fit for purpose and that this mess, which has gone on for far too long, will be sorted out once and for all?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I will tell the hon. Lady what I did the last time she raised the matter: I contacted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions within a few minutes of the end of business questions, and was told that it was expected that the problem would be sorted out by the end of October. I note that the hon. Lady says that that has not happened; I will be in touch with the Department immediately after business questions. I know that the Department deeply regrets the delays that have taken place.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

St Joseph’s Catholic club in Birtley in my constituency has been running a 1 o’clock club in recent weeks, bringing together residents in a social and friendly environment with huge success. We all know that tackling social isolation and loneliness is really important, especially in the light of coronavirus, so will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating St Joseph’s Catholic club on its work? Can we have a debate in Government time on progress towards tackling loneliness?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Yes, I would very much like to congratulate St Joseph’s Catholic club on its 1 o’clock club and its efforts to tackle loneliness. I note that loneliness can be greatly helped by spiritual fulfilment, which many people find through their religious practices; I am therefore delighted that the Catholic Church is involved in helping to tackle loneliness. I fear that I cannot promise the hon. Lady a debate, but it may be that the Backbench Business Committee would be keen to help.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I thank you, Mr Speaker, for all the work that you are doing to ensure that Parliament is kept safe for staff and Members? May I say to the Leader of the House that this place is not safe? Around voting time, the Lobbies around the Chamber are rammed with many of his colleagues who are not wearing face masks, putting us all at risk. I ask him to review that with you, Mr Speaker, and with others in this House.

The housing crisis in York is growing and it seems that the Government’s proposals around planning have run into the long grass. Could we have a debate in Government time to look at housing need and tenure need in order to address the housing crisis that we are seeing in our constituencies?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady raises a matter that is of concern across the country: how we have a planning system that provides the number of houses that we need and ensures that the right number of permissions are granted every year to achieve the targets and to allow people to own their own home, which is the fundamental aim of planning reform. It was announced in the Queen’s Speech that there would be a planning Bill, and it is the intention of Her Majesty’s Government to deliver a planning Bill.

[Mr Speaker]

Finally, the voice of Bradford: Judith Cummins.

[Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am sure that the Leader of the House and the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup), who is in her place, will be interested to know that 30 million NHS dental appointments have been lost since the start of the pandemic. Access to urgent treatment is delayed and my constituents continue to struggle to find an NHS dentist. Can we have a debate in Government time on funding and access to NHS dentistry?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady will know that there is a very considerable catch-up plan for the NHS, including £5.4 billion over the next six months, but at the height of the pandemic, the very immediate contact that patients have with a dentist was thought to be a particularly high risk. However, I know that dentists are now very much back to work; indeed, I have visited dentists in my constituency who are extremely busy working through the backlog. We should be grateful to them for the work that they are doing, but the resources are being provided to help with it.

Committee on Standards

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)]

I beg to move,

That this House–

(1) approves the Third Report of the Committee on Standards (HC 797);

(2) endorses the recommendation in paragraph 212; and

(3) accordingly suspends Mr Owen Paterson from the service of the House for a period of thirty sitting days.

As Leader of the House of Commons, it is important that I move this motion to facilitate debate on the report by the Committee on Standards. I have said before that Members of Parliament must uphold the highest standards in public life, which is why the process for this House to consider standards infractions is of the utmost importance. It must be fair and robust, and it must command respect on both sides of the House. There must be tough and robust checks against lobbying for profit, and there must be a proper process to scrutinise and, if necessary, discipline those who do not follow the rules.

However, it is also my role as Leader of the House to listen to the concerns and thoughts of Members on both sides of the House, which are now too numerous to ignore. Since the publication of this report, many hon. Members have expressed their concern about the way in which it was prepared, as is evident in the amendment to the motion tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom).

Today I come not to defend my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) but to consider the process by which he has been tried. It is not for me to judge him—others have done that—but was the process a fair one? “Let justice be done though the heavens fall.” Any disciplinary process concerned, as it is, with people’s jobs and livelihoods must be fair and must respect basic principles of natural justice.

The concerns raised with me in this case and other standards cases by hon. Members from Government and Opposition parties include: the lack of examination of witnesses; the unused mechanism for the appointment of an investigatory panel; the interpretation of the rules relating to whistleblowing; the length of time taken and the lack of continuity in participation and investigations; the application of aggravating factors; and the absence of the right of appeal.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend refers to the lack of appeal, which is a point I have heard on a number of occasions. Are not the oversight of the Committee on Standards and, indeed, the judgment of this House both effective appeal processes in this matter?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Committee on Standards is clearly not an appeal process, because it is the Committee’s report, not the commissioner’s report, that comes before us. The commissioner is the adviser to the Committee and is supervised by the Committee.

I wish this Chamber, as my hon. Friend suggests, were the court of appeal, but as this matter has been discussed we have seen how quickly what happens in this Chamber becomes partisan. [Laughter.] Opposition Members cackle and crow, and they have made my point. It is a sadness to me that this Chamber is not, as one would hope it could be, the apolitical court of appeal for standards cases, but the Opposition have absolutely no desire to do that. We therefore need to consider an independent appeals process, as we have with the Independent Expert Panel.

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)]

I simply ask the Leader of the House a question that I ask of all Conservative Members. Does he think he would be standing here today and making these changes if it were a Labour MP?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think the hon. Lady knows me well enough to know that the answer is yes. I would have no hesitation in doing exactly the same if I thought a Labour Member had not had a proper process and had representations of that kind.

[Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House give way?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am answering the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), so have patience.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley has raised this point in previous debates, saying that she would have done something regardless of the party. In my view, she said that in good faith and I accepted her good faith. I hope she will do the same for me.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for giving way.

Today’s debate could be a turning point, and not of the kind that many of us would like to see. Can the Leader of the House tell us how often this House has overturned a report of the Standards Committee with respect to the behaviour of a particular Member?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am afraid the hon. Lady has not troubled to read the amendment, which does not overturn the report of the Standards Committee. The amendment asks whether there should be a form of appeal and sets up a Committee to consider how the standards process is working. As I said, there have been problems with the process.

On the examination, or non-examination, of witnesses, paragraphs (6) to (10) of Standing Order No. 150 allow the commissioner to appoint an investigatory panel to assist in establishing the facts relevant to an investigation. The Standards Committee is also able to request that the commissioner appoints such a panel. Under these provisions, the commissioner chairs the committee with two assessors, who advise the commissioner but have no responsibility for the findings. One would be a legal assessor and the other a senior Member of the House who would advise on parliamentary matters and be appointed by you, Mr Speaker. The commissioner would determine the procedures and could appoint counsel to assist the panel.

The Member against whom the complaint had been made would be entitled to be heard in person and would have the opportunity to call witnesses and examine other witnesses. At the conclusion of proceedings, the commissioner would report as usual. The legal assessor would report to the Standards Committee as to the extent to which the proceedings had been consistent with the principles of natural justice, which of course include the right to a fair trial under a proper and just process, and the Member assessor might report on the extent to which the proceedings had regard to the custom and practice of the House and its Members.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

The Leader of the House started with a quote, and I am often reminded that what is false exists on the same judicial footing as what is right. I make no judgment about those who signed the amendment but, given that six of them have had allegations upheld against them by the Standards Committee in the last year, can he differentiate between how what was good enough for them is not good enough for the right hon. Member we are discussing?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and I am grateful to him for doing so. The reason why this has come now is the volume of complaints that have come through and the more widespread feeling of unfairness, across all Benches, that has been brought to my attention and the attention of others. In simplistic, clichéd terms, this is the famous straw that has broken the long-suffering camel’s back.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

But I do not see any Opposition Members signing the amendment.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That is the point I made earlier about the unfortunate state of affairs whereby this House does not work as a court of appeal, but, regrettably, becomes partisan, which reinforces the need to have an independent body.

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

I am certainly getting up, as I know many Opposition Members are, not in a partisan way but because I care about the integrity and reputation of the House and our democracy. I have a lot of personal empathy with the individual who is subject to our debate today and the terrible personal circumstances he faces. But the matter has been considered twice, in two separate stages, in a procedure well known in this House.

The allegation is incredibly serious. It is that the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) used his position of trust as a Member of Parliament and abused that for personal gain. I say to the Leader of the House that it would be absolutely terrible for our democracy if we did not take those decisions that have been unanimously agreed and endorse them in this House today. We would bring into danger the real trust in our democracy and the integrity of this House.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The right hon. Lady says that this has been looked at, and it has, but there has been no form of appeal and many of the aspects of it have been contested.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am a member of the 2019 intake. December will mark two years since I have been here so I confess that I do not know the rules and regulations inside out. However, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that under the rules paid advocacy has been banned from this House since 1695? Why do this Government appear to be bending the rules when it suits them?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Because the rules are not being treated in that way. The exemption exists for whistleblowing, which I will come to.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

We need to widen this out. People out there believe that the Government’s attempt to rewrite the rules is dodgy, and the reason for that is because it is dodgy. It is a plan to cover up the kind of corruption we have seen throughout the covid crisis. Polls show that the population believe that the Government are corrupt, and I am afraid that they are correct. This is the most corrupt Government in modern history. Unless they change their behaviour, will they not be doing further permanent damage to our democracy and people’s belief in it?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am, as always, grateful to the hon. Gentleman, as he proves my point. The pieties espoused from the other side about being non-partisan are always undermined by the hon. Gentleman, who is the epitome—the very acme—of partisanship.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Is the plain truth not that if the amendment passes today, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) could actually find himself in an even worse position? He could be further condemned by an appeals process, which could find against him.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is right about that.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend was interrupted in the course of his speech by an intervention; he was about to say something regarding the question of contested cases, which is at the heart of this issue. Report after report, including by the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, has said that in such cases criteria for fairness have to be applied. As he has so adequately stated, this investigatory panel does provide for such a state of affairs but it was not applied by the Committee in this case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a point that I am going to make in slightly more detail.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the Leader of the House also accept that the report itself says, towards its conclusion, that “paid advocacy” and the exceptions are open to interpretation? That being the case, and given that there are two different interpretations here, surely the difference of interpretation should be open to some appeal.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and this is one of the key things that the Committee will be asked to look at, to see whether it can clarify the interpretation on the whistleblowing exemption.

Let me return to Standing Order No. 150, which appears to provide a mechanism for the investigation of contentious cases that respects natural justice, ensures that legal counsel is appointed, is appropriate for what is a quasi-judicial process, and introduces significant checks and balances into the investigation, such as the appointment of a separate member by the Speaker to act as an assessor and the right of the Member being investigated to call witnesses and be able to examine other witnesses, rather than leaving this to the discretion of the Commissioner. In a case where so many witnesses and so many Members have made their concerns known, it is unfortunate that the Commissioner did not appoint such a panel. Indeed, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Committee on Standards have never opted to use this mechanism, despite having had many contentious cases before them.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

Some 17 individuals have come forward saying that they wish to give oral evidence, but that was refused. Is not the point that, whether or not someone is guilty of paid advocacy, there must be justice and that justice must be seen to be done? In this case, many right-minded people would say that justice has not been seen to be done.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am sure that the Committee we are setting up will want to consider the appearance of witnesses and whether that ought to be a fundamental right of people accused of serious cases—

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

If it is all right, I just want to respond directly to the point that has just been made. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

I would like to hear what the hon. Gentleman has got to say before we make a judgment.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman can intervene on me, but he cannot intervene on a point made by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant)—

[Mr Speaker]

Let me help. It is not going to be direct; I think it is direct to the point that was made to you, Leader of the House. I think we can dance around on the head of a pin, but that is not going to be helpful in a very important debate today.

[Chris Bryant]

I just wanted to make a simple point, which is that we reviewed and read all the witness statements. Nobody asked to make an oral witness statement to us. It is perfectly normal in most workplaces in this country, as a retired High Court judge confirmed to me yesterday, for witness statements to be read and considered, and not necessarily for witnesses to be questioned or cross-examined. We did a perfectly normal, fair hearing for the right hon. Member for North Shropshire. We considered all the witness statements and we published them.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The point is that there was this facility to set up an investigatory panel, which was not used. It would have been able to see all the witnesses that my right hon. Friend wanted.

[Michael Fabricant]

Is not the point on natural justice in this country about the ability to cross-examine witnesses? Is it not the case that written evidence is not the sort of evidence that can be cross-examined?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Mr Speaker, my hon. Friend has made a mini-speech very pithily.

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

Once again, we are seeing this become partisan. We are examining the cases of the individual, but for me the key thing that is not right is that even the Commissioner is in an impossible position. Therefore, we desperately need to reform a system that puts the staff in that place.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because that helps me to get back to the point about process. The 2015 Committee on Standards report on “The Standards System in the House of Commons” noted that the provisions relating to the panel had “never been invoked”, questioned why the investigatory panel was “necessary” and recommended that the provisions be “reviewed”. However, the House never chose to remove these provisions, so this was an active mechanism open to the Commissioner and the Committee, which they decided not to use. It is the Government’s belief that it is right to allow the House to revisit whether, to ensure natural justice, our procedures should be changed to give Members of Parliament the same or similar rights—including the right of examination of witnesses—as apply to those subject to investigations of alleged misconduct in other workplaces and professions.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Before my right hon. Friend carries on, may I add that anybody who is complaining about the amendment to the motion is complaining about the procedures of this House as they exist in respect of standards cases? All standards cases come to this House for this House to dispose of as it thinks fit. That is what this House is debating now and that is perfectively legitimate. The reason why the mechanism to which my right hon. Friend referred has never been used is that, unlike what was recommended by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the commissioner would chair the panel. For it to be an independent appeals process, it should be chaired independently. It has never been used because it would be so likely to arrive at the same conclusion.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. It is really important to remember that this House can never be and should never be a mere rubber stamp, which is not our purpose; we are a sovereign Parliament.

Let me turn to the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire. The proposed Select Committee could consider, for example, whether the Standing Orders should be changed so that a panel was always established in contentious cases, or it could consider a new mechanism to ensure that witnesses were always called and examined.

Let me turn to whistleblowing and its relationship to the rules on lobbying, as raised by the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). The rules related to paid advocacy have been considered many times over the years and rightly place restrictions on Members. In 2012, the House recognised the need for a whistleblowing provision to make it clear that in exceptional cases, if there were some serious wrong, a Member could approach the responsible Minister or public official, even if to do so might incidentally benefit a paying client. Concerns have been expressed about the commissioner and the Committee’s interpretation of the application of this exemption in the case of a serious public policy issue, and about whether the balance was correctly struck. We must therefore think carefully about how we protect the ability of our MPs to raise issues where they see them while ensuring that our system is robust against abuse. The balance is worth examining, and a Select Committee appointed for the purpose of reviewing our standards system would be able to give it due consideration.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

If any Member, regardless of their political affiliation, is involved in paid advocacy to the tune of £100,000 per year, I would expect the House and the Committee to come to the same conclusion—for a Member from any political party and of any affiliation.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That will be a matter for the proposed Select Committee to look at. The purpose of the exemption is for serious wrong and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire pointed out, the problems with milk and with carcinogens in processed food that he pointed out saved lives. If a Member comes into information because of an outside interest, should they really hold it back from Government officials—if it would save life?

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I am not without sympathy for the proposition that the rules require reform in this regard, but the Leader of the House knows, as we all do, that when the House requires reform, it can be done effectively only by building consensus. We build the consensus first and then bring it to the Chamber; I am afraid this Chamber is never where we build consensus. Surely it is already apparent to the Leader of the House that even if the House votes today to constitute the proposed Select Committee, the prospects of achieving consensus in that Select Committee are now as remote as they would be of achieving it in the Chamber today. I am afraid the way the Government are going about this is self-defeating.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The right hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member and quite rightly points out that consensus is very hard to achieve in this Chamber—indeed, this Chamber is physically designed not to achieve it— but our Select Committee processes do, on occasions, manage to achieve consensus from pretty stiff contention in this Chamber, so I am more optimistic about having a Committee that could come to a consensus.

[Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, then to the right hon. Lady.

[Peter Kyle]

The Leader of the House is utterly detached from the reality of most working MPs in the House, so let me inform him that most of us do not need to get paid £100,000 to do the job we are already paid for. If we think something is endangering our residents’ lives, we do it for free.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am glad that I saved the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) for next, because that point was so fatuous that it is not worth answering.

[Yvette Cooper]

A cross-party Committee, including lay members, has already considered this issue and come to a unanimous conclusion. My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) asked the Leader of the House why the House should not just come to a conclusion on paid advocacy, which we are clear is against the rules, and the Leader of the House said that was a matter for the new Committee to consider. The old Committee, including lay members, has already considered it and come to its independent conclusion; why does the Leader of the House think the new Committee will somehow be better than the old Committee? Does he not realise that this just looks to everyone as if he simply does not like the conclusion that the old Committee came to?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Dare I say that the right hon. Lady is modelling herself on the deaf adder and, charm I never so nicely, she is not hearing what I am saying? The new Committee could come to the same conclusion, but the point at issue is that we are discussing the process, the lack of appeal and the failures in the processes as they currently exist.

Let me come to the length and continuity of investigations. Across many standards cases we have seen huge differentials among the lengths of time taken for investigations. There appears to be no consistency. For example, the case of the Chair of the Standards Committee himself, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), was completed within a week using the rectification procedure, after he had failed to declare something after two years. That is contrasted by the lengthy investigation into the case of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire, which took just over two years from the start of the inquiry to the publication of the Committee’s report.

It is equally concerning—this is an important point for those who have been speaking up for the Committee—that the current processes do not ensure continuity of attendance at the Committee, with different Members present at the Standards Committee’s three formal meetings on the report. By the final meeting, only 50% of the membership had attended all three meetings, and four of the 11 members who attended that meeting had not attended the meeting in which the evidence of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire was heard. Although we all understand the pressures on Select Committee members, that seems to be in sharp contrast to the expectations in a judicial process such as jury service, when people are meant to be there to listen to the evidence, and a good reason to look again at our processes.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

Are the Government asserting, under that premise, that there will be a compulsion for Members to attend not only the proposed Committee but every other Select Committee?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The proposed Committee is very different from other Committees, but that will be a matter for the ad hoc Select Committee to consider.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

That is precisely the case when we serve on a Special Standing Committee for a private Bill: Members are required to be present because it is a quasi-judicial process.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for reminding us of the procedure in private Bill Committees.

The Committee on Standards has itself noted:

“Long investigations are undesirable…place the Member concerned under considerable strain”—

and—

“should be conducted as expeditiously as possible, so long as rigour and fairness are not compromised.”

In fact, the Committee is itself examining the length of recent investigations an adjudications, as part of its inquiry into the code of conduct, to see whether further steps can be taken—

[Dame Angela Eagle]

You’ve taken a third of the time for the debate!

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady chunters that I have taken a third of the debate; that is because people like her have intervened. Either I answer people’s questions or they just get a monologue. It is better to have a proper debate.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

Under the right hon. Gentleman’s Government, an MP can be found guilty of sexual harassment and retain the Conservative Whip; can be found guilty of bullying and keep the job of Home Secretary, overseeing law and order; can break covid rules and be Health Secretary; can break the law and be Leader of the House; and can endanger the lives of our armed forces and allies and be promoted to Deputy Prime Minister. Why should we be at all surprised by the return of cash for questions and Tory sleaze?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It seems that these admirably non-partisan socialists can talk a lot of nonsense in this House and not have to correct the record later, but we shall see.

[Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

If the House does introduce an appeals process, it is very important that the appeal is heard in good time. If the appeal panel upholds the original ruling, what will happen?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

If the original ruling is upheld, it will come back to this House for a vote on the proposal in the normal way. I agree with my hon. Friend that it should be timely.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

Can I take the Leader of the House back to what he was saying a couple of minutes ago about the whistleblowing exemption? Does he recognise the grave danger that, if the interpretation of that exemption that he appeared to be commending was accepted by the House, there would in effect be no ban at all on paid advocacy?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The right hon. Gentleman is a very distinguished and fair-minded Member of this House. It is fundamentally important that the whistleblowing exemption is an exemption and not a loophole that can be exploited for all purposes. Paid advocacy demeans the House and is not something that Members should be involved in. On the other hand, if people have come across a serious wrong in the course of something they have been paid for, I think most fair-minded Members would think it only right and proper that they should tell Ministers about it. There must be a clear dividing line, which I hope the Select Committee would be able to establish. That is at the heart of the disagreement between my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire and the Committee on Standards, and that matter needs to be clearer.

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think the hon. Gentleman is going to speak at the end, so it may be best if he does that.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

rose—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend has already intervened. Let me continue, because I am conscious of time.

The Committee noted that the commissioner has, since March 2020, routinely conducted an initiation interview with a Member concerned in investigations that involve serious allegations to assure herself that the Member is fully appraised in detail of the allegations and the process at the earliest possible stage. That postdates this case, but it is worth noting that my right hon. Friend suggested a meeting in his letter to the commissioner on 16 January 2020. These are welcome steps, and a Select Committee appointed by the House could look further at how the system might be approved.

I will now move on to the aggravating factors that the Standards Committee refers to in a number of its reports. A consistent theme has been that Members’ refusal to admit wrongdoing in contentious cases has been considered an aggravating factor leading to greater punishment, but we do not want to encourage a system in which a person has to admit fault in order to receive a reasonable response from the Standards Committee. Members who believe that they are innocent must be able to continue to assert that from the beginning to the end without that being considered an aggravating factor.

Plea bargaining is not part of our system. Expectation of self-denunciation is not where we want to get to. We do not want struggle sessions, though the Opposition may like struggle sessions, in order to receive more lenient sanctions. We saw examples of that recently where a Member was considered to have a higher degree of culpability because he did not accept the judgment of the Committee and commissioner on his correspondence with the judiciary. There was also the case of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), whose punishment, for the arguably innocuous and legitimate act of writing to Michel Barnier after his request for the views of MPs, was shortened and not brought to the Floor of the House on the condition that he admitted wrongdoing. This is a concerning theme in these investigations that clearly warrants greater review.

Perhaps the most critical point to emerge on concerns expressed by Members is the question of a right to appeal. I consider that right to be fundamental to the provision of justice, which is regrettably not genuinely provided by the matter coming to the Floor of this House—a regrettableness that has been reinforced by the conduct of this debate so far.

I observe that, in the House of Lords, there is an appeal process that provides that the noble lord concerned has a right of appeal to the Conduct Committee against the commissioner’s findings and any recommended sanction. Having considered any appeal, the Conduct Committee, having agreed an appropriate sanction, reports its conclusions to the House, which has the final decision on the sanction. That is why I support the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire. It proposes setting up a Select Committee to review the standards process and consider whether Members should be afforded the same or similar rights as apply to those subject to investigations of alleged misconduct in other workplaces and professions, including the right of appeal, and to make recommendations for reform. The Committee will, therefore, be able to recommend setting up an appeals mechanism and recommend other changes to increase confidence. It will also be able to consider whether the case against my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire should be reviewed with the benefit of any new appeals mechanism, or whether the Standards Committee report should be considered by the House. It will be a method by which we can reset a process that has lost the confidence of many Members of this House.

Let me be clear: the new Committee will not be the judge, jury and executioner in this case. It will be time-limited and established for the particular purpose of recommending improvements to the standards system for the House to consider. For example, following the Committee’s work in relation to this report, it is entirely possible that a reformed process, including any new appeal mechanism, may conclude that this initial report and sanction was entirely correct. This complex case still demands proper consideration, and the Select Committee would in no way pre-determine that.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Can the Leader of the House explain why it is appropriate that this new Select Committee should have an in-built Government majority, while the Standards Committee with its lay members does not. If this is about trying to improve our processes, why is he running the risk of making it look to anybody looking in from the outside that, essentially, this is like someone who has been found guilty of a crime, but instead of serving a sentence, his mates come together to try to change the judicial system? It looks really bad.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Sometimes, to do the right thing, one has to accept a degree of opprobrium, but it is more important to do the right thing to ensure that there is fairness.

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I cannot refuse to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Chris Elmore]

Can the Leader of the House explain to the House why, for all other Select Committees, Members of this House vote for the Chair, but on this occasion he has decided to appoint a Chair and still call it a Select Committee?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is not true that all the posts are elected. The Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, for example, is not elected. The hon. Gentleman, who is on the Procedure Committee, really ought to know better and know the details of the composition of Select Committees of this House.

I shall turn briefly to a letter sent to me yesterday by union representatives about the importance—

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We only have an hour and a half to discuss this. This is the time that the Government gave us to discuss this matter. There is huge interest in this debate. Is there anything that you can do to encourage the Leader of the House to wind up his remarks?

[Mr Speaker]

I think the Leader of the House has just said that he is coming to his conclusion.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Thank you for your ruling, Mr Speaker. It is always a balance in this House as to whether one tries to answer as many questions as possible, which is, I think, the better way of conducting the debate.

A letter was sent to me yesterday by union representatives about the importance of maintaining independent and impartial investigations into misconduct. The standards system stands in contrast to the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme, which has an appeal panel, chaired by a High Court judge. That is for the very reason that all parties referred to the scheme must have total faith in it. It has been absolutely essential in achieving positive cultural change in this House precisely because of its rigorous, judicial processes, transparency of operation and evident commitment to natural justice and the right to appeal. The House should be proud of the ICGS system, and it owes a debt to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire for its establishment. It is clear that we can learn many lessons from its operation, and I would encourage the Select Committee to look to the ICGS system, with its benefits of judicial experience, as an example of how a process of independent adjudication can be set up effectively.

In summary—I was expecting a “Hear, hear” for that, Mr Speaker, as I am coming to my conclusion—there are numerous problems with the operation of the standards system, a fact that has been highlighted by the concerns of Members across this House in this particular case and others. Given these concerns, I think that it is only right that consideration of this report be paused until our standards system can be reviewed. Therefore, I will support the amendment so that the new Committee can consider whether Members should have

“the same or similar rights as apply to those subject to investigations of alleged misconduct in other workplaces and professions, including the right of representation, examination of witnesses and appeal”,

and whether this case itself should continue through any reformed system recommended by the new Committee.

Members must act when we see a situation arise that we do not believe to be compatible with the principles of natural justice. This is about the process and not the individual case, but when considering this report how can one not consider the great sorrow that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire has suffered? The suicide of his wife is a greater punishment than any House of Commons Committee could inflict. As we all know:

“The quality of mercy is not strained.

It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven

Upon the place beneath. It is twice blessed:

It blesseth him that gives and him that takes”.

It is in this way that the House should consider this case and standards more widely. The system must provide justice tempered by mercy, for mercy is essential to justice.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the House appears to have spent this whole time supporting the amendment and has not actually moved the motion that he was meant to be moving.

Business of the House

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Thursday 28th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House give the forthcoming business?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)]

The business for the week commencing 1 November will include:

Monday 1 November—Continuation of the Budget debate.

Tuesday 2 November—Conclusion of the Budget debate.

Wednesday 3 November—Motion relating to the third report of Session 2021-22 from the Committee on Standards, followed by Second Reading of the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill, followed by a motion relating to the membership of the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.

Thursday 4 November—General debate on a proposal for an inquiry into the UK’s involvement in the NATO-led mission to Afghanistan, followed by a general debate on the use of medical cannabis for the alleviation of health conditions. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 5 November—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 8 November will include:

Monday 8 November—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Environment Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Telecommunications (Security) Bill, followed by an Opposition day (7th allotted day—second part). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition, subject to be announced.

Tuesday 9 November—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

At the conclusion of business on Tuesday 9 November, the House will rise for the November recess and return on Monday 15 November.

If I may, I would like to take this opportunity to correct a figure I gave last week that was out of date, for which I apologise. I said to the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), who is in her place, that 650,000 fewer children were living in workless households than in 2010; the latest figure, from 29 September, which I apologise for having missed, is 580,000. I am glad the hon. Lady is in her place and I have therefore had the opportunity to correct the information I gave her.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I thank the Leader of the House for giving the forthcoming business. On behalf of the many staff as well as colleagues who have asked to be able to plan for next year, will the Leader of the House please next week give the recess dates for 2022?

I am relieved that the motion on the report from the Standards Committee that was published this week into the conduct of a Member is in the business statement. If any Members have not yet read it, I urge them to keep an open mind and to read it before the motion is debated.

It was good to see that yesterday almost all the Cabinet took the Health Secretary’s advice to wear masks, but I note that the Leader of the House did not; he still appears to think that a “convivial, fraternal spirit” will protect him from covid. Meanwhile, in the real world covid rates are still high, and apparently largely unhindered by the £37 billion that the Government spent on their Test and Trace programme. According to the Public Accounts Committee report published yesterday, this was “muddled” and “overstated” and the expense “eye watering”. It failed on its main objective to prevent lockdowns and get normality back, and just 14% of 691 million tests have been registered. So much for world-beating. Will the Leader of the House ask the Health Secretary, not a junior Minister, to come here and explain why the Government are wasting our constituents’ money with crony contracts filling mates’ pockets?

Yesterday, we had what I can only describe as the remainder of the Budget, given that we had had five days of Treasury announcements—we cannot really call them leaks—in the press. The Chancellor seems to have forgotten that the Government’s own ministerial code says:

“When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of Government policy should be made in the first instance, in Parliament.”

I know the Leader of the House has a very strong commitment to the primacy of Parliament, so will he—once again, I am afraid—please remind his colleagues that Parliament, not the press, is the place for policy announcements?

While I am on the subject of the ministerial code, Lord Geidt was appointed in April as the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests, but six months later we still do not have an updated code, which we were expecting. Will the Leader of the House please confirm when that will be published?

We are days—hours now, really—away from what should and could be the most important environmental summit in history. As host nation in Glasgow, we have an incredible, one-time chance to change the course of history. To make the summit a success, the Government need to lead by example. They should be demonstrating ambition for a more hopeful future, a clean environment, warm homes, good jobs and protection for nature. Politicians from around the world are watching this Government’s deeds and words and calibrating their ambitions accordingly, but unfortunately it seems that the Government are treating COP26 as nothing more than a photo opportunity.

Just last week, politicians from around the world will have seen the uninspiring sight of this Government voting for feeble legal limits on air pollution and less regulation for bee-killing pesticides, and just yesterday the Chancellor announced that he was slashing air passenger duty to incentivise short-haul domestic flights. That is embarrassing as we go into COP26. We should be projecting an open, optimistic, global vision to the world, yet the Government—working with the SNP Scottish Government, I am afraid to say—seem to be supporting new oilfields in the North sea. Will the Leader of the House ask the Business Secretary to come to the House and explain why the Government are saying that we must move beyond fossil fuels but meanwhile opening the new Cambo oilfield?

Finally, on COP26, I make this urgent plea, via the Leader of the House, to the Prime Minister and other world leaders in Glasgow: please, get this right. We cannot waste this opportunity to save our climate and save our planet.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The recess dates will be announced in the normal way, subject to the progress of Government business, but I am well aware that it is convenient for Members and staff to know as soon as possible.

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s approval of the standards debate. I, too, encourage Members to read the report; I think that is always essential. It is quite a long report, but the weekend is looming and that will be an opportunity to read it.

As regards masks, I remind the hon. Lady about the Daily Mirror party at the socialists’ conference, which I have heard more about since last week. Not only was it a maskless-fest, where alcoholic beverages, which will probably be cheaper in the future thanks to the marvellous Budget yesterday, were imbibed, but Mr Speaker, I hear there was dancing—maskless dancing. Now, can you think? We are not doing that in here, are we, Mr Speaker? No dancing, I am glad to say, on the Floor of the House of Commons.

However, I would say that the Government guidance is absolutely clear: masks are not compulsory in workplaces, and masks are not compulsory when we are with people whom we regularly meet. It is a matter of personal choice. I would also, if I may, give a reassurance to the hon. Lady that there is the lateral flow test, which she was rather disobliging about. Having taken one—having taken more than one over the weeks and months that have gone past—I can assure her that I am negative and therefore I am not going to be spewing covid around the Chamber, because I have taken a negative lateral flow test. I do have a concern, obviously, as all of us do, to limit the spread of this disease. I think that that is just as safe a procedure to take.

As regards the contracts, it was of the utmost importance that things were rolled out swiftly. They were not given to mates; indeed, even Labour supporters, or companies associated with Labour supporters, got contracts. It had to be done quickly. Every criticism that is made of Test and Trace should be applied equally to the vaccine process; we see that the success of the vaccine process was dependent upon exactly the same processes, to do things quickly—to make decisions fast, to award contracts urgently—to ensure that we had a response to the crisis. That is what the Government did, it is what any wise Government would have done, and it is fortunate that the do-nothing socialists—the Captain Hindsights of socialism—were not in charge during the course of the pandemic.

The hon. Lady raises an important point, as you have Mr Speaker and as has the Chairman of Ways and Means, about information not being given to this House first. The “Ministerial Code” is absolutely clear that important announcements must be made to the House first. We have a right to expect that, as representatives of our constituents, and that is why we here: to hold the Government to account. There is sometimes a debate about what is important and occasionally, Mr Speaker, you and I have not taken the same view on importance. However, I can assure the House that after every business questions I write to every Secretary of State and other Cabinet Members on the issues that have been raised, so the point the hon. Lady makes will be raised with the Chancellor, as, I believe, Mr Speaker, it has been raised by you. It is a fundamental constitutional right that this House should be told things first, although I would note that there was lots in the Budget yesterday, including the most important announcement of the cut in the withdrawal rate from 63p in the pound to 55p in the pound, which had not been whispered abroad before it was announced here.

The hon. Lady finished on the question of COP26. I set out once again what the Government’s targets are, which I think the hon. Lady will find agreement with: to secure global net zero by the middle of the century and keep 1.5°C, or 2.7°F, within reach; adapt to protect communities and natural habitats; mobilise finance, whereby developed countries must make good on their promise to mobilise at least $100 billion in climate finance per year by 2020; work together to finalise the Paris rulebook; and accelerate action to tackle the climate crisis through collaboration between Governments, businesses and civil society.

The Government’s vision is one based on improving people’s standards of living. That is what the Budget was about yesterday and it is what the green policy is about. It is not about cave dwelling. It is not hairshirt greenery. We are not becoming Adullamites. What we are in favour of is having higher standards of living based on the new technologies. All sorts of exciting things are happening, including with hydrogen, which will make that possible. There is not, I think, a market for going back to the stone age—some hon. Members may think I have never really emerged from the stone age—but we want to ensure that the standard of living of our constituents improves.

The hon. Lady rightly mentions air pollution. One of the great scandals of recent decades is that we promoted diesel in this country. The Labour Government, then in charge, promoted diesel, which led to tens of thousands of early deaths because of particulates. That was done on the encouragement of the European Union in support of German car manufacturers. It is one of the great scandals that has been put right by this Government. We have seen air quality improve since 2010.

As regards air passenger duty, it has gone up on the longest, greatest emitting flights, but of course we should be free to travel around our own United Kingdom, our own country. That is a perfectly right thing to do. We have to remember that the target for net zero is by 2050. We are going to need to use fossil fuels in the interim and it is fanciful to think otherwise. If we are going to use them, we want them to be economic. We need to ensure our constituents have a rising standard of living.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

Yesterday, the Chancellor announced £300 million of support for children in the first 1,001 days of their lives. May we have a debate on the meaning of that phrase, bearing in mind that the excellent report by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), which informed the Chancellor’s decision, refers to the first 1,001 days as being from conception to aged two?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I begin by thanking my hon. Friend for the tremendous work she has done since her election in 2010 to support the family and all life from the point of conception through to the point of natural death? She is heroic in what she has done. The first 1,001 days is a very important staging post. The work of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire has brought that to people’s attention. She has campaigned for and succeeded in making the funding available. In terms of a debate, I am going to slightly cop out and point to the Budget debate that is carrying on later today, which will be a great opportunity to raise the issue further.

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

The Leader of the House should be thoroughly embarrassed about his ridiculous comments from business questions last week, when he suggested that Tory MPs are protected from covid because they have

“a more convivial, fraternal spirit”.——[Official Report, 21 October 2021; Vol. 701, c. 945.]

It is so convivial that several of them are now off having caught covid, along with the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Whip of the Scottish National party.

Tory MPs are not immune. Staff and visitors are now obliged to wear face masks but MPs are not in a “Do as we say” edict. But progress has been made and my campaign to get them to mask up is beginning to bear fruit. More of them are actually starting to care about colleagues and members of staff by wearing a face mask, and I welcome that, but I note that the Leader of the House’s fizzog remains unadorned from this modest, disease-stopping piece of cloth. He has a perfectly good Union Jack face covering; for goodness’ sake, man, put it on! Be the Leader of the House, not the libertarian of the House.

I want to support you, Mr Speaker, in your campaign to make sure that important announcements are made in this House first. The pre-announcing of the Budget was an absolute disgrace, designed to soften up the press and the public. I like the idea of Ministers being forced to resign if they break the trust of Parliament. I suggested bringing them to the Bar of the House last week, but let us maybe have a debate and see what we could do. We could have a prize for the most creative and inventive sanction that could be applied to Ministers that break the trust of the House.

Lastly, COP comes to Scotland next week and our beautiful country will be on show to the world. Scotland leads the UK in renewables and climate change legislation and we will be a good host of the summit. The world will also see a nation ready to take its own place in the world. The Leader of the House knows that debate is coming soon. He knows it is coming. Let us get on with it.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

One does like to think sometimes of what dinner must be like in the household of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), because everything is “a disgrace”, it is “an outrage”, it is “shocking”. The sound and fury that enthuses him whenever he gets to the Chamber allows no time for nuance, for things being degrees of acceptableness or not being favourable. It is always this absolute outrage, which fortunately, I answered entirely in my answer to the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), the shadow Leader of the House.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Following the recent conviction of the hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) and the strong possibility of a by-election in the seat, the rumours are swirling in the fair county of Leicestershire that the previous incumbent may seek a return to this place. Given that he received a six-month ban from the House of Commons in 2019 following the cocaine and rent boys scandal, which he avoided by standing down, will the Leader of the House give a statement to the House where, hopefully, he will confirm that if Mr Vaz were to return to this place, he would have to serve his punishment outstanding in full?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I will confirm the precise opposite. The House agreed to a six-month suspension for Mr Vaz on 31 October 2019, but Parliament was then dissolved on 6 November for a general election. A suspension cannot carry across into a new Parliament, so that ended Mr Vaz’s suspension. The recall petition process was also terminated by the election, as provided for under section 13 of the Recall of MPs Act 2015. But this is right, because we are here by virtue of our electorate, and the electorate is free to send here whomsoever they choose. I know my hon. Friend will not be happy with that answer, but I remind him about John Wilkes and the Middlesex election. It has not always been the case that this House has acted wisely in whom it has sought to expel, but the electors have had a right to send that person back. Although this may be a difficult case and although this may be disagreeable to my hon. Friend, these constitutional principles are fundamentally important and should not be changed for individual cases.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I thank the Leader of the House for the reference to a debate on 4 November about Afghanistan, but is he aware of reports that journalists in Afghanistan who have previously worked for the BBC are now subject to grave risks? A number of examples have been highlighted by the National Union of Journalists. One such example, Abdul Malik Asem, survived an attack after armed men opened fire on him at his sister’s home just a few days ago, injuring his 20-year-old nephew, who is seriously ill in hospital. Can we therefore have a debate in Government time to discuss what actions can be taken urgently to ensure that such journalists can be safely evacuated?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Government are doing what we can to help refugees from Afghanistan. I recently visited the RAF base at Brize Norton, whose staff have worked incredibly hard around the clock to evacuate people. People who are now able to get out of Afghanistan into other countries do have a route through. In the first year, the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme will welcome to the UK up to 5,000 vulnerable Afghans who have been forced to flee their country, with up to a total of 20,000 over a five-year period. The scheme will provide protection for vulnerable people and those identified as at risk, including women and girls and members of minority groups. The Government are doing what we can; there is a programme, and there is funding behind it.

[Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)]

Ystradgynlais Community Welfare Ground Association is working hard to raise £100,000 to secure a 50-year lease on the playing fields in Ystradgynlais, so that the rugby club and other community groups can continue to use the facility and grassroots Welsh rugby can continue to thrive. I will be submitting a bid to the UK Government’s community ownership fund and will urge Powys County Council to step in as well.

With Wales set to start its Autumn Internationals campaign on Saturday, will the Leader of the House, who I know has Welsh connections, wish Wales good luck against New Zealand? Will he consider granting time for a debate on how we can secure the future of Ystradgynlais Community Welfare Ground Association’s playing fields?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am delighted to wish Wales luck against New Zealand. I am looking forward to an heroic victory of our fellow countrymen that will inspire many across the country.

I also wish my hon. Friend every success in her campaign for funding for her rugby club, which I know is an important community facility. There are opportunities to apply for money, and she is very good at working out which ones to pursue. I cannot commit Her Majesty’s Treasury, but I encourage my hon. Friend to keep on pushing. Perhaps, Mr Speaker, in your benignity, you might grant an Adjournment debate so that the issue may be discussed further.

[Mr Speaker]

Especially if they play rugby league as well.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

In recent weeks, Bath and North East Somerset have had some of the highest covid rates in England, as the Leader of the House, my constituency neighbour, will know. Despite No. 10’s claims to the contrary, experts have linked the rise in cases to the month-long error at the Immensa lab in Wolverhampton, which caused false negative test results. It has now been reported that the lab is still processing and profiting from travel PCR tests.

This is nothing short of a scandal. We need a statement from the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to explain why the Government are using these private companies to profit from testing our communities, when they operate with virtually no oversight and their failures could mean an increase in deaths.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

There was obviously a failure in a testing centre; that is a serious matter, and it is something that the Department of Health and Social Care acted on. Buying in services is a perfectly normal and sensible thing for the health service to do, and has allowed the enormous amount of testing that has taken place. Right hon. and hon. Members may remember my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), the then Health Secretary, saying that we needed to get to 100,000 tests a day. We can now do far more than that—the availability is enormous. It is important, of course, that they be right, but where something went wrong, the Department of Health and Social Care has intervened.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Last week, I raised the plight of Hindu minorities in Bangladesh. I thank my right hon. Friend for raising the matter with the Foreign Secretary.

This week, I refer to the notorious hate preacher Mizanur Rahman Azhari. Unbelievably, having been banned in Bangladesh and having fled for his safety, he has been invited to address the London Islamic conference this Sunday at the Royal Regency. I understand that he is in Qatar right now, attempting to gain entry to the UK. Alternatively, he may be invited to stream online to people in this country his message of hatred against Jews and Hindus. Will the Leader of the House take action with the Home Secretary to make sure that that is not allowed to happen? Can we have a debate in Government time on what we can do to prevent these hate preachers from misinforming the vast majority of Muslims in this country, who are actually peaceful people?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend has raised a very important point. It is crucial that the law is enforced. Stirring up hatred is, in certain circumstances, an offence for which people can be prosecuted, and it is right that that should happen. We do not want to allow into this country people who will stir up hatred. I will not comment on the individual case, because it is not for me to do so, but as a general rule we want to ensure that there is a sensible tone of debate and discussion, and that those who stir up hatred are fully deterred. I will pass on my hon. Friend’s comments to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Last night many young women in Nottingham were having a “girls’ night in” as part of the national protest against the epidemic of male violence that they face in bars and nightclubs. In particular, there are extremely worrying reports of spiking by injection. The issue was raised with the Leader of the House last week, and with the Prime Minister yesterday. Is it not time that we had a statement from the Home Secretary about what she is now doing to ensure that young women can live their lives without fear?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady is right to raise this, because it is an issue of the greatest concern. Everyone should be able to go out and go about their lawful business feeling safe, and the fact that young women do not feel safe is a blot on the safety that we expect in this nation.

I assure the hon. Lady that these matters are taken extremely seriously by the Home Office and by the Home Secretary, who has asked the police for an update. The police are now conducting inquiries. Criminal offences must be investigated, and offenders must be charged and prosecuted. People who spike women’s drinks should find themselves facing the full force of the law, women going out for drinks should feel safe, and bars have a strong responsibility to ensure the safety of their own premises.

[Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)]

As everyone in the House will know, next week is Parliament Week, and I am very pleased and excited to be talking to my local Guides and Scouts and to pupils at Strand Primary Academy in Strand Street and Littlecoates Primary Academy. Great Grimsby sent two burgesses to the new model Parliament in 1295. Would the Leader of the House like to talk a little bit to young people in Great Grimsby, and across the UK, about the importance of our Parliament and our democracy?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I was not at the Parliament in 1295, I am sorry to say. I clearly missed a treat.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that she is doing in Great Grimsby to highlight Parliament during Parliament week, which follows Hallowe’en. I do not know whether we should read anything into that; perhaps people will be tucking into pumpkin soup made from the leftover pumpkins.

It is so important that we engage everyone with Parliament and the work that we do. One thing that should always concern us, as hon. and right hon. Members, is who does not come to see us, and who does not know that they can seek redress of grievance through their Member of Parliament. Most of the time when something has gone wrong and we take it up on behalf of a constituent, it can be put right. We want to ensure that more people know that, and we want to encourage, for instance, the brilliant pupils in my hon. Friend’s constituency to stand for Parliament so that they can go forth and become involved in the democratic process.

I shall certainly be active during Parliament Week, but although it is no competition, Mr Speaker, I have a feeling that you will be even more active than me.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Some important amendments have been tabled to the Elections Bill, which is due to come back to us on Report. They include new clause 1, which would give the House the chance to decide on lowering the voting age to 16. Will the Leader of the House revisit the programme motion to ensure that there is proper, protected time rather a risk of the debate being squeezed and finishing at the moment of interruption? I think it important for the Bill, given its constitutional significance, to be given a full airing on the Floor of the House.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very sympathetic to what the hon. Gentleman has said. I think that one of our main tasks here—indeed, our main main task—is the scrutiny of legislation. Unfortunately, the House does not always seem to agree with me. I was slightly surprised that the Second Reading of the Judicial Review and Courts Bill fell slightly short, even though it had lost time because of the earlier debate on the remaining stages of the Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Bill.

It ends up being a balance, depending on what Members want—how many urgent questions they ask for earlier in the day, for instance, and what statements are called. This goes back to the issue of making announcements to the Chamber first. We must strike a balance between the legislative business carried out by the House and the other important matters that are brought to it. So I am not unsympathetic, but I think that this is one of those things that are simply a question of balance, and for the House to decide for itself.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Can we have a debate on which is the true workers’ party of the United Kingdom, given the Budget yesterday with the huge increase in the living wage of 6.6%, the reduction in the taper rate that in essence gives a tax cut to millions of lower earners, the fuel duty freeze and the 42% increase in the skills budget? Does my right hon. Friend not agree that it is the party on this side of the House that represents the workers of the United Kingdom?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

For once, I am going to have to disappoint my right hon. Friend. We could not possibly have a debate on that, because there is nothing to debate. This is clearly the party that supports the workers and that has taken steps to improve their living standards, whereas all that the Opposition do is support the trade unions and the union barons. Labour is the party of the barons; we are the party of the workers. My right hon. Friend’s campaigns over the years to save motorists billions of pounds through a freeze in fuel duty have put more money into people’s pockets year in, year out and continue to do so. People may say that it has cost the Treasury money, but actually it has helped the economy to grow, boom and flourish and has allowed us our motoring freedom. I commend my right hon. Friend for what he does, and yes, we are the workers’ party. There is nothing to debate.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

Following on from the Leader of the House’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), is he aware that many Afghanis who supported our armed forces and who have fled to the UK under the Afghan relocations and assistance policy and other schemes are facing long waits for biometric residency permits? Family members of my constituents are finding themselves stuck in bridging hotels for months because local authorities are unable to see whether they have any funding to house them. Please can we press Ministers on this, because those people have suffered enough already?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am more than willing to take up individual cases, as I have done, of people who do not seem to be getting the answers that they should get. That is one of the roles of this House. There is a big programme, as I mentioned to the hon. Member for Easington earlier, and that will continue. It is also important to ensure that the right information is gathered and the right processes are followed, but if the hon. Lady would like to point out any particular cases to my office, I will take them up with the Home Office for her.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Earlier this week, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Lia Nici), I met representatives of UK Fisheries. They expressed a number of concerns regarding the work of the Marine Management Organisation, the amount of red tape they have to deal with and the ongoing trade negotiations with Greenland and other nations. Could my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate on the work of the Marine Management Organisation and on the wider interests of the fishing industry?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

There has already been an urgent question on fishing, and it ranged quite widely. This is a matter of concern to the Government, and we are keen to support the fishing industry. This tempts me to say that this is obviously the right “plaice” for such a debate because we are the “sole” of democratic engagement in this House—[Interruption.] Somebody got it, slowly but surely! Although I cannot promise a debate in Government time, I think that raising the issue in a Backbench Business debate would command widespread support.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

Two community councils in my constituency, Cambuslang and Halfway, have created the Cambuslang COP26 campaign. It encourages pupils from local schools to pick up 26 bags of litter for 26 days in the run-up to COP26. It has been a great initiative, and it tackles one of my biggest bugbears: litter. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating them and schedule a debate in Government time to celebrate these community-led initiatives and their positive impact?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

What a brilliant thing for the schools in the hon. Lady’s constituency to be doing. Yes, I congratulate them wholeheartedly. To pick up 26 bags of litter is a real effort, and to do it on 26 days is a consistent effort. It is clearly not just been done for a quick photo opportunity; it is being done as a real effort to beautify a beautiful country. I wish them well on that, and I hope that other schools will follow in their footsteps.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

Although bonfire night is fast approaching, many of my constituents are plagued by fireworks being let off at all hours of the night throughout the calendar year. I have even had it reiterated to me that fireworks are often used as a signal for drugs being dropped. May we have an urgent debate in Government time to discuss the licensing provisions on the sale of fireworks and to have a frank discussion on how local enforcement can clamp down on this antisocial behaviour?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Unfortunately I find myself in a degree of disagreement with my hon. Friend. I think fireworks are a little bit of harmless fun. People enjoy them, and we should not take every enjoyment out of people’s lives with endless licensing and regulation. Conservatives are meant to be cautious about excessive regulation and giving power to bureaucracies. I am afraid I am unsympathetic to his request.

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

Can we have a debate on the Government’s environmental illiteracy and the impact on people in Bristol South and indeed Somerset? This morning people can buy a flight from Bristol to Edinburgh for £29.99, but the train journey is £97.20. Individuals in Bristol South are making their contribution towards COP26, but the Government are not making theirs. Reducing air passenger duty and the delays to the Portishead line mean the Government are not helping, and that is something we need to debate.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I will continue my disagreeable line, as I disagree with the hon. Lady, too. I sometimes find myself in a surprising degree of agreement with her on local matters but, no, this Government want to keep the cost of living down. We want people to enjoy travelling around our great country. If it is £29.99 to fly from Bristol to Edinburgh or Glasgow, that is great for our constituents, and I hope they enjoy their trip.

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

May I suggest that resilience is an issue for the Leader of the House to consider? We have considerable resilience issues in this country, as we have seen with personal protective equipment and vaccines. We are now seeing it with energy supply, and we see it all the time with flooding and coastal defence issues on the Isle of Wight. Although it is not a specific departmental responsibility, resilience is a key overall responsibility of the Government. I will be talking to the Backbench Business Committee about a resilience debate but, given the work being done by the Government on resilience, will the Leader of the House also keep an eye on it?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

This is a very important point. The civil contingencies secretariat in the Cabinet Office makes preparations for the unexpected. The difficulty is that the unexpected we expect sometimes turns out not to be the unexpected that eventually happens, and therefore the planning does not always directly answer the difficulty that arises. The more one thinks about it, the more one debates it and the more one works out what the risks are, the better prepared one is likely to be.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

This weekend will mark 140,000 people dying from covid. Every public health measure taken helps save lives. As a result, it is crucial that face masks are worn, social distancing is maintained and high hygiene standards are met, in addition to testing. Will the Leader of the House talk to his director of public health to learn more about public health measures so that he can model them? Can we also have an urgent statement on Monday so that we can discuss the tragedy that is still unfurling?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Nobody denies the great tragedy of 140,000 deaths from covid and the sadness for every single one of those families and for the friends of those who have died. There is a plan B, which includes going back to masks, but we also have to get back to normal. That is what the vaccines and lateral flow tests have allowed us to do. We have to ensure that life returns to normal and that we carry on with our business.

We also have to deal with the other consequences of the various lockdowns: the mental health issues, the disruption to children’s health and the economic consequences. Lower economic growth has health consequences, too, as is well known and well established. Plan B is there if things get worse during the winter, but we should stick to plan A. That is the right thing to do. Normalisation is where we want to get to.

[Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)]

We all know that the production of single-use plastics produces a variety of toxic emissions that pollute our environment. To combat this, Rowena Academy in my constituency has stopped using single-use plastics. I hope schools across the country will follow that move. Following the “Panorama” episode on the 100 billion plastic bottle problem, and with COP26 just around the corner, does the Leader of the House believe that we should follow the lead set by Rowena Academy and stop using single-use plastics in the Chamber?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important issue and congratulate Rowena Academy on the work it is doing. His specific request is a matter for the House authorities, but it is important to limit single-use plastics. I have never been a great one for plastic coffee cups; I think a nice china cup, preferably with a saucer underneath it, is infinitely preferable, and I encourage other right hon. and hon. Members to think the same. Thinking of Hallowe’en, we should all say to our children that when they go round trick or treating, they should use a paper bag, rather than a plastic bag, to collect their Haribos—although I sometimes think that the quantities and the generosity of neighbours are such that they will need hessian mail sacks to carry the booty away.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Across my constituency in North Ayrshire and Arran, and indeed throughout Scotland, many householders are living in dread of bonfire night, as it means fireworks causing widespread disruption and distress to communities, the elderly and pets. While the use of fireworks is a devolved matter, control of the regulation of the sale of fireworks is reserved to the UK Government. The Leader of the House indicated earlier today that he is opposed to tighter regulation of fireworks; will he make a statement setting out why he believes the Scottish Parliament is apparently unfit to regulate the sale of fireworks in Scotland, so we can properly deal with the safety hazards and antisocial misuse of fireworks in Scotland at source, by restricting their sale?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I say to the hon. Lady: don’t be such a killjoy. It is fun having bonfire night. We will be having fireworks in West Harptree; we will even have a Guy put on a bonfire and it will go up in flame. It will be fun for the children and even for the adults, who may sip a glass of mulled cider while watching this going on. We do not want to be a Parliament of the kind that Oliver Cromwell would have enjoyed, cracking down on every possible bit of fun that people have, so no, let us keep on enjoying our fireworks and have a jolly time on 5 November. Madam Deputy Speaker:

“Remember, remember, the Fifth of November

Gunpowder treason and plot

I see no reason why gunpowder treason

Should ever be forgot.”

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)]

As a Member new to the House, I did not know Sir David Amess for as long as others, but when we worked together on the all-party parliamentary group on fire safety and rescue, I got to experience the warmth and kindness that others have talked about. After his tragic killing, I saw that he used to hold an annual tea party for 100-year-olds in his constituency; I am going to try to do the same, as my way of honouring his kindness to me. Will the Leader of the House, and perhaps the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), meet me to discuss how we could support Members throughout the country to do the same to honour Sir David?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That would be a very fine tribute to our late hon. Friend, and I thank my hon. Friend for his tribute to Sir David. I would very much enjoy having a meeting with my hon. Friend, because that would be a good thing to do. It is beneficial to involve the elderly in society more, and to have a tea party for centenarians who have probably done so much for their country is a noble cause.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the Leader of the House consider providing time for a debate on the terrible situation facing refugees fleeing Afghanistan? The resettlement scheme must be opened as soon as possible, with the relevant mechanisms in place to ensure that religious or belief minorities who live in fear of their lives after the Taliban takeover receive adequate assistance, support and priority in the scheme, and Government aid for other countries to assist with the influx of refugees from Afghanistan should be given when our Government are certain that such assistance will reach those who are at risk.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As so often, the hon. Gentleman raises an issue of concern across the House, which fits in with concerns expressed by several other Members. I have already mentioned the fact that the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme will welcome more than 20,000 people over a five-year period. The scheme will provide protection for vulnerable people. The Home Office will announce further details, including eligibility criteria, in due course. I will of course take the matter up with the Home Secretary after this session. The amount of humanitarian aid is being doubled to £286 million this year, plus £30 million of life-saving aid for Afghanistan’s neighbouring countries to support new and existing refugees and host communities, as part of the Government’s effort to support regional stability. Things are being done, then, but I understand that there is a feeling that they should be done more urgently.

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

This weekend, we will be unveiling a plaque to commemorate Cuthbert Taylor, a boxer from Merthyr Tydfil, who was a victim of the British Boxing Board of Control’s colour bar rule, which prevented boxers from competing for professional titles because of the colour of their skin. This blatantly racist, discriminatory and shameful policy prevented many people from achieving their potential and, unbelievably, the British Boxing Board of Control has yet to apologise. Will the Leader of the House encourage the British Boxing Board of Control to apologise and finally expunge this racist stain from British boxing, and will he find Government time to debate this historical wrong?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I find myself in complete agreement with the hon. Gentleman. It is not something that I was aware of. I was not aware of Cuthbert Taylor, but that he should have been banned for his colour at any point in our history is simply monstrous, and any organisation that was involved with that ought to try to right a wrong. As it is a very specific issue, it is very suitable for an Adjournment debate, but as it is a very serious issue I hope it will be an Adjournment debate in the Chamber.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

The prize for perseverance and patience goes to Olivia Blake.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Parents and carers up and down the country will be really worried about what climate catastrophe will mean for young people. Ahead of COP26, will the Leader of the House join me in celebrating the great work of Voices for Action, a group of mums and children from Hallam Primary School who have recorded a song to celebrate COP26 and to highlight the issues that worry mums?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

What a pleasure it is to congratulate Voices for Action and mothers and children getting together to develop a song. I do not know the song. I think it was St Winifred’s school choir that sang, “There’s No One Quite Like Grandma”, and we know the power that song can have, particularly when it involves small children. May I suggest that the hon. Lady intervenes on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, who, because of his responsibilities, knows a great deal more than I do about environmental matters, and who may be able to give her more information?

Business of the House

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Thursday 21st October 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)]

The business for the week commencing Monday 25 October will include:

Monday 25 October—Second Reading of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill.

Tuesday 26 October—Remaining stages of the Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Bill, followed by Second Reading of the Judicial Review and Courts Bill.

Wednesday 27 October—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deliver his Budget statement.

Thursday 28 October—Continuation of the Budget debate.

Friday 29 October—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 1 November will include:

Monday 1 November—Continuation of the Budget debate.

Tuesday 2 November—Conclusion of the Budget debate.

Wednesday 3 November—Second Reading of a Bill.

Thursday 4 November—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.



Friday 5 November—The House will not be sitting.

Friday 5 November is a particularly important parliamentary date. Fortunately, considering what once happened, the House will not be sitting.

May I, at the end of my statement, Madam Deputy Speaker, by your leave, add words of tribute to our hon. and right hon. Friends, Sir David Amess and James Brokenshire? They have had tributes paid to them already, but they are so sadly missed by this House.

David Amess was one of the most regular contributors to business questions. I have the list of some of the subjects he raised with me: forced adoption, violent crime, face-to-face GP appointments, child sexual exploitation, do-not-attempt-resuscitation orders, zoonotic diseases, discretionary pension increases, endometriosis, animal welfare, a memorial to Dame Vera Lynn, and, obviously, Southend city status. Everybody adored David because he was such a champion of democratic rights for his constituents, but he did it all with such courtesy. However much he might have been trying to prod the Government into doing something, he was, of all the people who dealt with my Parliamentary Private Secretary, the most charming, the most kindly, the most willing to be open to discussion and thoughtfulness. He is desperately missed by all of us and missed because of the death that happened in such a particularly cruel way.

James was, again, somebody of the greatest popularity in the House. It is, I think, particularly poignant. There are quite a lot of tough cookies in this House, aren’t there? As I look around, I know that some of us are quite hard-boiled eggs. We have lost two of the nicest, gentlest, kindest and best people. I went to speak for James in his constituency. That is always a telling thing to do, because one sees how people are in their own patch. His association and his members adored him. They adored him because they really knew him. They saw his many great qualities and his openness and availability, somebody who had been a normal person in his constituency even when surrounded by the personal protection that a Northern Ireland Secretary has to have.

They are both desperately missed and one’s heart bleeds for their families. There are no words of comfort for them. It is just so desperately sad. I remind hon. and right hon. Members that books of condolence are still open in the Library in the end room, Room D, nearest to Mr Speaker’s office. I encourage Members, if they wish to, to go and sign the book of condolence.

Eternal rest grant unto them O Lord and let perpetual light shine upon them. May they and all the souls of the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace.

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

I thank the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business.

May I join him in his tributes to two fine parliamentarians? It is often a shock to some party members that we in this House can find common cause with each other across the Dispatch Box and across the divide of the House, yet these were two such Members who gave one great hope that democracy provides a way for people with very different political views to nonetheless work together and achieve change for their own constituents but also for the country. I consider both of them a terrible, terrible loss. That has been evident in the way people have spoken of them this week. I think of David this morning fondly and with a smile, because he would have been championing Southend. He is missed. I look around for him now and think, where is he? This moment is bittersweet. I think the right hon. Gentleman and I feel the same way about that. There is no more fitting tribute—it is the reason I am smiling—than that he can rest in peace knowing that his campaign for Southend to be a city has been fulfilled. We thank Her Majesty for making that swift and good decision.

On to the business: I am glad that the Leader of the House has rescheduled Monday’s business so promptly, and it is important, of course, that we do not fall behind, but I understand that any amendments for the Report stage of the Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Bill will need to be in by the rise of the House today, which does not leave much time for Members to scrutinise the Bill before tabling their amendments. Does he agree and would he like to make any further comment about how Members are supposed to scrutinise the Bill if they do not get any time to scrutinise it before they can try to amend it?

While I am on the subject of Northern Ireland, the Government also promised to legislate by the end of October on language provisions—including the Irish language Act—agreed in the New Decade, New Approach deal, as part of the restoration of the power-sharing arrangement at Stormont. However, that does not seem to appear in next week’s business, so will the Leader of the House tell us when that legislation will be tabled and when the commitments made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be fulfilled?

I desperately want to know what is going on on 3 November. It is not that far away; I do not think it is too much to ask. The Leader of the House is very courteous about giving advance notice of things as far as is possible, so will he urge his colleagues to let us in on which Bill we are having a Second Reading of on 3 November? Rumours abound and it would be good to get the facts so that we can get our teeth into it.

In Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, the Prime Minister appeared to confirm, first, that the Online Safety Bill would have completed all stages by Christmas. It was then just going to be Second Reading and now it seems that No. 10 have rowed back even further, to a vague commitment that the Bill will be presented at some point during this Session—that is not even before Christmas. Will the Leader of the House help us out and tell us what the timetabling is for that Bill, because the Prime Minister does not seem to know?

On Monday, the Transport Secretary put out a written statement about the changes to travel guidance, including that, from this Sunday, travellers will no longer need to take an expensive PCR test when returning to this country and, instead, they will be able to take a lateral flow test. Opposition Members have been calling for months for a simplified system for international travel, affordability of tests and the publication of full country-by-country data. I am glad that the Government have finally listened. However, the list of approved providers for lateral flow tests is not yet available, and we are talking about Sunday. It will not be published until tomorrow, just two days in advance. That causes yet more uncertainty for our constituents, so will the Leader of the House ask the Transport Secretary to come back to the House to provide a fuller statement?

The heat and buildings strategy published earlier this week mentions a commitment on installing new heat pumps. It seems a bit strange that that is being heralded as a flagship policy when it appears that only 30,000 heat pumps a year will be subsidised through the policy, and for only three years. That is roughly only one in every 1,000 of the 30 million buildings in total in Britain—hardly a flagship. And with some of the least energy-efficient housing in Europe, millions of UK homes may require far more significant upgrades to be suitable for heat pumps, insulation and so on. Can the Leader of the House ask the energy and clean growth Minister—the Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands)—to come back to the House to explain why this policy appears to be about as successful in prospect as the failed green homes grant?

This week, we heard that Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe lost her appeal, without a court hearing, against her second jail term, and is now waiting to be called back to prison in Iran. Anoosheh Ashoori has had his request for conditional release and an appeal against his 10-year sentence thrown out. So I ask the right hon. Gentleman again: when will the Government bring them, and all other UK citizens wrongly imprisoned abroad, home?

Finally—sort of finally—I know that this is something that the Leader of the House is committed to improving, and I did mention it before summer recess, so it disappoints me to have to raise it again: Members are still not receiving timely responses to written questions, ministerial correspondence and MP hotlines. A hotline cannot be called a hotline if it is barely tepid. So far, despite the right hon. Gentleman’s definite best efforts—I have witnessed that—there seems to have been very little improvement, so can he once again remind his Cabinet colleagues of their responsibilities?

This is finally: the Health Secretary said yesterday—unfortunately not to this House, but to a press conference—that it is crucial for people to act responsibly and wear masks in crowded places to avoid future restrictions. I give Government Members, including the Leader of the House, the opportunity to see that one can have a very natty matching mask to go with one’s outfit. The right hon. Gentleman may wish to talk to his tailor about what they can construct. I strongly urge him to do so, because we do seriously need to set the highest possible, best example to the public if we are to avoid the winter crisis that none of us wants.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the tribute that she paid.

Masks are a very interesting matter. After this sitting, I might retweet—you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, there is amazing modern technology on social media—a picture from the socialists’ conference that took place recently. Do you know the most extraordinary thing? There are all these luminaries of the Opposition Benches—some of the most formidable figures in British political life—and their faces are naked and unadorned.

What I have heard about the drinks party sponsored by the Daily Mirror at the socialists’ party conference—well! I do not know that they were able to get the drinks through their masks. That may be the reason that masks are worn more by socialists when there are television cameras around than when they are not going to be seen. I wonder whether we might suggest that the Doorkeepers, who historically have generously provided snuff for Members who wish to take it, should replace the supply of snuff with the supply of humbugs. That might, on occasions, prove more useful.

As regards timely responses, I am in entire agreement with the hon. Lady. Members have a right to timely responses. I have taken up quite a number of right hon. and hon. Members’ requests for speedier responses, and I am always willing to do so. That is not, in the end, an answer, because my office is not big enough to chase responses for 649 other Members, but I encourage Members to come to my office and I will do what I can to help. I will, of course, remind Ministers of this responsibility, which is quite clearly set out in the ministerial code.

I share the hon. Lady’s frustration about the way in which Nazanin has been treated. I can tell the House what the Government have done—the Foreign Secretary and all levels continue to push for Nazanin’s immediate and unconditional release—but we are dealing with a barbarous regime that does not follow the proper rules of international law and justice in its own country. There are, I am afraid, limits to what the Government can do, but I am grateful to the hon. Lady for pushing this important case.

As regards the heat and buildings strategy, the answer is technology. As technology comes in, we will find that there are more affordable ways of heating our homes. My personal view is very much in line with the Government’s strategy. Significant money—more than £100 million, I think—has been committed to trying to work out whether hydrogen will be the answer, but nuclear is part of it. A range of strategies are being adopted, looked at and implemented, with taxpayers’ money devoted to them, in addition to heat pumps. They are not the whole solution, but merely a part of it.

As regards the travel guidance, I am delighted that the Opposition are supportive of the simplification of the rules. That seems to me a good thing. I sometimes think that the hon. Lady makes points that I would in opposition and that I respond as she would in government. The truth is that obviously the Opposition call for rules to be relaxed earlier, but the Government have to work at a sensible pace to ensure that things are done at the right time and cautiously, as we continue to be in a pandemic.

I am delighted to inform the hon. Lady that the Online Safety Bill will complete its draft scrutiny in December. This is really important, because the draft Bill is already available—it is there for all and sundry to see, to look at and to consider. The Joint Committee on the draft Bill will come up with its wise views before Christmas; we will then be able to look at them and ensure not just a good Bill, but a brilliant Bill—the best Bill, an ideal Bill. That is a very important part of scrutiny.

I look forward to revealing next week the Second Reading of an important Bill on 3 November.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

For all of us, business questions will not be the same without Sir David, and nor will our pre-recess Adjournment debates. May I suggest, as a matter for the House, that we call the summer pre-recess Adjournment debate the Sir David Amess debate as a tribute?

During Navaratri, Hindu communities in Bangladesh were targeted by lynch mobs. They were brutally attacked and many were murdered. Indeed, an ISKCON—International Society for Krishna Consciousness—temple in Bangladesh was targeted and partly destroyed. Protecting religious minorities is one of the key roles of Government, and there will be a demonstration this weekend by Hindu organisations across the country, so could we have a statement from the Government about what they will do to ensure that religious minorities are protected in Bangladesh and around the world?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this concerning matter to the attention of the House. The Government are concerned about the recent violence directed against Hindu Durga Puja celebrations across various districts in Bangladesh. Her Majesty’s Government continue to engage with the Government of Bangladesh on the importance of freedom of religion or belief, which remains a priority for the UK Government. I am glad to be able to inform my hon. Friend that the British high commissioner to Bangladesh has publicly expressed his concern and his condolences to the victims of violence, and the UK’s support for those working for religious tolerance and harmony in Bangladesh and around the world. In addition to that, I will pass on my hon. Friend’s comments to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Scottish National party spokesman, Pete Wishart.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.

This has been a rotten first week back, and I think we are all still struggling to come to terms with and comprehend all the issues surrounding the killing of our friend and colleague David Amess, as well as grieving for the loss of James Brokenshire. The Leader of the House was absolutely right to pay those further tributes. I have been doing this job for nearly six years, and I think that missing Sir David at business questions is something we all feel profoundly today. Let us hope that we never have another week like this one.

Many of us will be leaving to return to our constituencies in the next 24 hours with a greater sense of anxiety, and a greater sense of the responsibility that we all feel for the staff who work with us. I think that what Members are looking for more than anything else is clear advice, bordering on instruction, about how we should do our business in our constituencies. We were grateful for last night’s statement from the Home Secretary, but will the Leader of the House commit himself to further statements, and ongoing information and clear advice from the police and the security services, to acquaint Members with what we can do to keep ourselves and our staff safe?

Another safety issue has arisen on our return: the ongoing comic appearance in this place of those on one side of the House wearing masks and those on the other side not wearing them at all. Yesterday the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said that we should wear them in crowded and enclosed places. He even went so far as to say that Members of Parliament should be setting an example by wearing them, so come on, for goodness’ sake—set that example! I am looking around the Chamber now, and I am looking at my Conservative colleagues. I do not like picking on them, because I consider that so unnecessary, but I think that four out of 14 are wearing masks this morning. That is a little bit better than what we saw before the conference recess, but we must do better than this. We are going to be back with compulsory mask-wearing, we are going to be back with further restrictions—we are going to follow the countries of mainland Europe, because we are way ahead in terms of infections. We are going to have to do something, so let us do it now. Let us set that example.

Mr Speaker was absolutely right to castigate the Government this morning for making major policy announcements outside the House. Today we are in a ridiculous situation: there will be an urgent question and a statement on the same topic. That cannot happen again. Indeed, I would go further: I would bring the Secretaries of State or other Ministers responsible for this to the Bar of the House to apologise for their disrespect if they dare to make announcements outside this Chamber.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Bar of the House, interestingly, is a gift from Jamaica, as Members will see if they pull it out; but I do not think anyone has been called to the Bar of the House recently.

I think the issue really is, what is a major policy announcement? It was the Government’s view that the announcement made yesterday was an entirely routine announcement. Major policy announcements do come to the Floor of the House, but it is important to understand that there is a balance involved in the business of the House. Given the number of statements today, and the urgent question, it would be perfectly reasonable if the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee were to complain that his important debates were being squeezed; and this is an issue that we face every day of every week. Should we ensure that the business of the House—often important legislative business—has its time protected, or should we bring every possible Government announcement to the Floor of the House? There has to be that balance, which I think that, by and large, is got right.

As for the question of mask-wearing, I responded to the shadow Leader of the House on that, but I will say that there is no advice to wear masks in workplaces, and that the advice on crowded spaces refers to crowded spaces containing people whom we do not know. We on this side of the House know each other. It may be that the hon. Gentleman does not mix with his own side. He may wish to keep himself in his personal bubble, away from other SNP Members. I normally find them extraordinarily charming, but the hon. Gentleman may not take this catholic view of his right hon. and hon. Friends. I sympathise if that is the case, but we on this side have a more convivial, fraternal spirit, and are therefore following the guidance of Her Majesty’s Government.

I want to finish with another important point that the hon. Gentleman raised, and I have left this to the end because this is not the politicised bit. This has been the saddest week, I think, for any of us in Parliament. It has been a terrible week because of the deaths that have happened and the memory of Jo Cox, which was in itself a terrible time for the House and for politics. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that Members want very clear advice. The Home Secretary is working closely with the Speaker, and local police authorities will have contacted every Member. Many of them are getting in touch with further advice. I think that advice “bordering on instruction” is what we are looking for, because there are many forms of safety available to Members, but they do not all necessarily know what they are. Of course I could not say in the Chamber what they are, unless we were to sit in private, for the obvious reason that we do not want people who are hostile to us to know what they are. Information is going to be important, as is working with our local police forces, but we also want to know what the real level of risk is. I do not feel that that is yet clear. It might take some time to become clear, but it needs to be communicated to Members along with all the support that is available. I am in agreement with the hon. Gentleman on this, and the Home Secretary and the Speaker will work together try to ensure that Members are properly informed.

[Jill Mortimer (Hartlepool) (Con)]

May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the Government will find time for a debate on the planned decommissioning of nuclear power stations across the country? As the most affordable large-scale low-carbon energy source currently available to the UK, nuclear energy must play a significant role in meeting our climate change commitments, including net zero by 2050. Although the Hartlepool power station is one of EDF’s most productive power stations, supplying low-carbon electricity to 2.3 million homes and providing 730 high-skilled, high-wage jobs in my constituency, it is set to be decommissioned by 2024. A debate on this topic would allow me to continue to make the case for a new nuclear reactor for Hartlepool, which would supply my constituency with thousands of new high-skilled jobs and ensure the success of levelling up and building back better in the north-east.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think there may be opportunities to discuss nuclear power in this House in the not-too-distant future. It is an important subject, as nuclear has a key role to play in helping us to achieve our net zero objectives. That is why we are building Hinkley Point C in God’s own county of Somerset, which will provide around 7% of the U.K.’s current electricity demand. The community of Hartlepool can be very proud of its production of low-carbon electricity for over 30 years, just as it can be proud of having elected my hon. Friend.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

I echo the comments that have been reiterated time and again about Sir David Amess. He was previously a member of the Backbench Business Committee, and he was a regular customer with us after he left the Committee. He will be sadly missed.

We have business pencilled in for Thursday 4 November, and I thank the Leader of the House for announcing that we have that date, but we are still waiting for confirmation from the sponsoring Members that they are free to take those opportunities. I also have a couple of provisional dates for the Leader of the House’s diary. On Thursday 18 November, we provisionally have a debate on the impact of alcohol in society, to coincide with Alcohol Awareness Week. The second provisional debate that day would be on International Men’s Day, which is on the following day, 19 November. The week after that, we have provisional acceptance of a debate on freedom of religion or belief, to mark the 40th anniversary of the UN declaration, which falls during that week. My fellow member of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), talked about religious intolerance, and it is important that this House should have an opportunity to debate that on the Floor of the House. To do that at the time of the 40th anniversary would be very welcome.

I also echo my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) and ask the Leader of the House to urge his Cabinet colleagues to get their Departments to respond to MPs’ inquiries in a timely and complete way. Particularly from the Home Office, we are getting holding responses after eight weeks to say that the Department is “looking at it.”

We are also getting non-responses from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in a situation where heavy goods vehicle drivers have passed tests and had medicals but, by the time the process has finished, their medicals have lapsed and they have to go through the process again. This is keeping qualified HGV drivers off the road, so it is urgent. I raised the matter with the Leader of the House well before the summer recess and I said it was a looming crisis, and I am afraid to say that a Government Department is not helping that process.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Government agencies have a great responsibility to be responsive to Members of this House. What the hon. Gentleman says is very important, and I will take it up with the DVLA immediately after this session.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out the forthcoming anniversaries, which is useful to know for planning, although I must confess that I am slightly disappointed. Today is one of our great anniversaries, the anniversary of the battle of Trafalgar, and for some reason it has passed the Backbench Business Committee’s mind not to spend the rest of the day celebrating Nelson’s famous victory.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

Our wonderful colleague Sir David Amess was the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on epilepsy, a cause that he championed with great energy. The Independent Fetal Anti-Convulsant Trust campaigns to raise awareness of sodium valproate, a drug taken by epileptics that can have terribly profound implications if taken during pregnancy. Yesterday the World Health Organisation announced that it is adopting In-FACT’s recommendations on the use of valproate, but here in the UK we are still waiting for the full implementation of the recommendations of the Cumberlege report. Will my right hon. Friend please find time for a debate to understand why we are still having to campaign for redress, more than a year after the publication of that report?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Cumberlege report was an important report covering a number of pharmaceuticals. I cannot promise my right hon. Friend an immediate debate, so I would encourage her to seek an Adjournment debate on this subject. I am, as it happens, looking forward to meeting the noble Baroness Cumberlege next week, and I will discuss with her the issues that have been raised.

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House will know that a child born this week in my constituency will lose more days of education, probably have more ill health and will die younger than a child born in his constituency. I say that not because I want to level down the opportunities for his constituents but because I would like us to have a meaningful debate about what levelling up really means for health, education and the things that make a material difference to a constituency such as Rochdale.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is becoming an advocate for the levelling-up campaign, which is about helping people. Yes, it is about health, but it is also about improving skills so that people have a chance to get better, higher-skilled jobs so that they are able to be more prosperous. It is about the towns fund, which ensures that towns that have been left behind have the opportunity to do better. It is about the money that is being spent in the NHS to ensure that the backlog that has come about because of covid is dealt with. Levelling up is about ensuring that all the effort of the Government, the spending of taxpayers’ money, is directed towards ensuring that those who have been left behind have an opportunity to do as well as everybody else.

[Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)]

As my right hon. Friend knows, there is one way into west Somerset and one way out. That road has been completely blocked for the past couple of weeks due to work that had to be done. It was an absolute shambles. The signage was wrong and everything went wrong. Unfortunately, we need time in this place to ensure that, where major diversions have to be put in place, the statutory obligations of Highways England are carried out. To put it in context, if Alfred had had this problem he would still be stuck on the levels and would have been diverted via Edinburgh. Can we please have time to discuss this matter?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That is an important matter. Diversions do sometimes send people on peculiar routes, so it is always a good idea to have a look at a map. I think my hon. Friend can probably navigate his way around Somerset without resorting to a boat.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

May I add my voice to all those who mourn the loss of Sir David Amess and James Brokenshire? Across Parliament, we have all lost two wonderful colleagues. In the words of the late Jo Cox, times like this remind us that there is so much more that unites us than divides us.

There is a shortage of bus drivers in Bath and across the UK. That is partly because of Brexit, but it is also because of the Government’s decision to poach bus drivers to fill the gaps in HGV drivers. That has caused innumerable disruptions to my constituents: four consecutive buses do not turn up; routes are being cancelled; and drivers are working well over their hours. So may we have a statement from the Transport Secretary on what the Government are doing to solve this crisis of their own making and to bring back the buses in Bath?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

To say that this is anything to do with Brexit is absolute nonsense. There is a shortage of more than 100,000 lorry drivers in Poland and of about 50,000 in Germany. There is a shortage of lorry drivers in California, which has not recently been a member of the European Union, as far as I am aware; California may have some funny policies but it has never had one that funny. The problem with driving in Bath is that the council has made it absolutely impossible to drive around Bath; there is a war on the motorist, and I cannot think why anyone would try to drive in Bath.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

The biggest single item in my inbox is constituents telling me about the challenges in getting face-to-face appointments with their GPs. They tell me about lengthy queues on outdated telephone booking systems. One constituent even told me that the NHS had refused to give them details of the guidelines on refusing face-to-face appointments. The Government have announced some measures in the winter access fund. May we have a debate to consider their effectiveness in dealing with this serious problem?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

MPs ought to be giving face-to-face appointments to those who need them and to be ensuring that people can get through reasonably efficiently on a telephone line if a telephone appointment is what the patient wants. The NHS has been clear: every GP practice must provide face-to-face as well as telephone and online appointments. That is supported by the Government. There will be a Westminster Hall debate next week on GP appointment availability, and I encourage my hon. Friend to contribute to it.

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House will know from his work as a constituency Member how much charities and voluntary groups have done during the pandemic, so I was appalled to receive a letter from my local Girlguiding groups informing me that HSBC has decided to start charging for charity accounts. I am sure he would agree that it simply is not acceptable for large corporate banks to charge for groups that do great work, support young women and girls into their futures and, importantly, do not have masses of funds in their accounts. This move makes it almost impossible for them to continue banking with HSBC. Will he find time for a Treasury Minister to issue a statement on what the Treasury can do to encourage banks to stop charging charities, which really are the backbone of many of our communities?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful for that question, as that is an important point. Banks do have, as do we all, a social responsibility. Most banks would be proud to support local charities, and I am slightly surprised that the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation does not wish to support local charities in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. As regards time for a debate, I think that it would be in order to mention this matter in the Budget debate. I have just announced several days for that, so he will have plenty of opportunity.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)]

In 2018, the independent leader of Ashfield District Council ripped up the draft local plan, and promised to deliver a new plan to build 8,000 houses over 15 years and protect our green belt. Two weeks ago he published his new plan, which totally obliterates our green spaces. In a desperate attempt to save face, he is now the only council leader in the country to write to the Prime Minister to see how he can save our green-belt land. This staggering incompetence has left my local residents furious, so does the Leader of the House think that a debate on planning in this Chamber would serve as a good reminder to local authorities that it is their job to decide where we build houses, not the Prime Minister’s?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is right to say that local authorities have responsibilities, which they should not try to pass on to other people. Local authorities are prevented from altering the green belt boundary unless in exceptional circumstances; that is the point of the green belt. So when developing their local plan, they must consult local people and use this availability only in exceptional circumstances. It is their responsibility and their feet must be held to the fire, but there was a Westminster Hall debate on Tuesday on the inclusion of green-belt land, so this has been discussed in the House recently.

[Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)]

Six months ago, my constituent, who has a medical condition, returned his licence to the DVLA for renewal. Six months on, neither he nor his doctor have heard a word from it. This is possibly due to a dearth of medical advisers recruited by DVLA. As the Leader of the House can imagine, this is causing difficulties in terms of my constituent’s work and social obligations. I am sure the Leader of the House will agree that this is not good enough. Will he therefore advise me on the best way forward to ensure a response from the DVLA and the speedy return of my constituent’s licence?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The previous Speaker used to say, when points were raised that answered themselves, that the Member concerned knew parliamentary procedure so well that very little intervention was required. The appearance in Hansard of the hon. Lady’s question will go a long way to ensuring a response from the DVLA, but just to help it along its way, I shall send a copy of Hansard to the DVLA to remind it that it must respond to right hon. and hon. Members.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

It is hard to believe that I was part of a tribute act, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove) and Councillor Helen Harrison, when a leadership contest for the Conservative party was being run. We ran the “Back Boris” tour. We went to areas where the Prime Minister could not come and we had a substitute star. When David Amess found out about that, he was determined to get us to Southend. On that occasion, the star was the Leader of the House. We went to Iveagh Hall, Leigh-on-Sea, and it was packed, with people almost hanging from the rafters—we had everyone there. He made a wonderful speech and we overran. A lady had baked a cake for him, but because of all the events and how well David spoke we dashed off without taking it.

We dashed off to St Albans and the wonderful Anne Main. David rang me when we were on the motorway haring down to St Albans. He was desperately unhappy that the Leader of the House had not got his cake, not for that reason in itself, but because David felt he had let down his constituent who had baked the cake. David was really concerned and somehow or other he arranged to get that cake to St Albans before we left there. Taking into account what was said earlier, I wonder whether the Leader of the House could mark the pre-recess debate in the summer as the David Amess day, in response to such a kind and decent man.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I remember the incident very well. My children then benefited from the cake, which they enjoyed very much. What was so striking about the event at Iveagh Hall was, again, how loved by his constituents David was. That is what we all want, is it not? All of us want to have our own constituents on our side, and David had achieved that and was therefore, in my mind, a model of what a constituency MP wants to be. I am the servant of the House, and if the House would like the summer Adjournment debate to be the David Amess debate, that is what it will become.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I associate myself with the remarks by the Leader of the House and all other right hon. and hon. Members about Sir David Amess and James Brokenshire.

We need a debate or statement on British citizens being held prisoner abroad. I have raised many times with the Leader of the House the case of my constituent Luke Symons, who is still held captive by the Houthis in Sanaa. His family have recently received worrying reports about his welfare. May we have a statement on, or will the new Foreign Secretary participate in a debate about, British prisoners held abroad? Now that we have a new Foreign Secretary, will the Government redouble their efforts to get Luke and the other British prisoners unjustly held abroad released?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I have no up-to-date information on Luke Symons, but I will pass on to the Foreign Secretary the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has raised. There are Foreign Office questions on 26 October, so I encourage right hon. and hon. Members to raise such issues with the Foreign Secretary then. Whenever these matters are raised at business questions, I pass them on to the Foreign Secretary, so I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman’s comments and his desire for more information.

[Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)]

I am sure that, like me, the Leader of the House will have welcomed the Prime Minister’s comments about the protection of the green belt in his excellent speech in Manchester earlier this month. Like a number of other areas throughout the UK, Warrington is currently consulting on its draft local plan, which is, as the Leader of the House will know, the point at which green belt can be released for future development. In my constituency, thousands of homes are planned on green belt, so may we have an urgent debate in Government time to give councils guidance on the local planning process and the need to prioritise town centre regeneration and brownfield usage ahead of destroying the green belt for future development?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I heard my hon. Friend earlier promoting gin from his constituency; I am glad that he did not confuse his question and ask for gin distilleries on the green belt, which would have made for a different tone.

When developing their local plan, local authorities are prevented from altering the green belt boundary, unless in exceptional circumstances, and they must consult local people. It is of course right to use brownfield sites first and to try to redevelop town centres, and a number of permissive rights—permitted development rights—have been provided to make that easier for developers to do. That will help home ownership, which is a fundamental objective of the Government and is what people want. Our constituents want to own their own home and Governments must try to facilitate that, which means house building but, yes of course, on brownfield first.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Harkness Roses and We Too Built Britain are today launching the first rose ever to be dedicated to an ethnic minority person in the UK. The rose is named after John Ystumllyn, the first ever recorded black person in north Wales, who was taken from Africa as a young boy in the 1740s and spent his adulthood in Criccieth, where he worked as a gardener. His marriage to a local woman, Margaret Gruffydd, is the first recorded mixed marriage in Wales. In celebration of Black History Month—and of gardeners everywhere—will there be sufficient time in the House to debate the host of black history stories, as well as to ensure that the John Ystumllyn rose blossoms as a symbol of friendship, love, kindness and community?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady, and to Harkness Roses. This is a really heart-warming story, and as Members we should all want to plant the John Ystumllyn rose in our own gardens, as a symbol, perhaps, of what we have debated this week. As the right hon. Lady puts it, we do actually have friendship across the boundaries, and that is important. We may disagree very fiercely on policy and we may fight our battles in this Chamber energetically—and so we should, because the issues that we discuss are important—but if the Ystumllyn rose could be the rose of friendship across political parties, it is something that we could plant with pride.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

On many occasions I have said in debates in the House that I regard Cleethorpes as the premier resort of the east coast. It will come as no surprise to the House that David Amess did not agree with me, and we had some light-hearted exchanges on that subject. Members will recall that in his tribute to Sir David on Monday, the Prime Minister referred to an unnamed individual who, like Sir David, thought that Southend was better than Cleethorpes. Clearly, I disagree, but some people obviously think that we need some levelling up in Cleethorpes, so I urge my right hon. Friend to pass on to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities the message that he should look favourably on the bid by North East Lincolnshire Council to achieve that.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I thought that, being the great promoter of Cleethorpes that he is, my hon. Friend was going to ask for funding to build a cathedral in Cleethorpes, because a cathedral is a normal requirement for city status. I have a feeling that that might be the next campaign to ensure that Cleethorpes and Southend manage to be on an equal competitive footing.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

On Tuesday, I presented a petition relating to the closure of the NatWest bank branch in Crouch End and Hornsey—I am sure I am not the first Member to have presented a petition on a branch closure—and I have now learned that Lloyds Banking Group will close its bank just up the road in Muswell Hill. Since 2015, there have been 50 bank branch closures per calendar month throughout the UK, and our high streets are turning into deserts. This will affect 8 million branch users who are on a low income, disabled or need the cash for their business. Please may we have a debate, perhaps with a Treasury Minister, on stopping this haemorrhage of banks from our high streets so that we can have genuine confidence that they can be vibrant places?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Obviously, banks make their own commercial decisions, but the Government are committed to ensuring that there is access to cash, recognising that it remains important to millions throughout the UK, and so have committed to legislating to protect access to cash and to ensuring that the UK’s cash infrastructure, which obviously includes bank branches, is sustainable in the longer term. That issue will inevitably be discussed in the House when the legislation is introduced, but it can of course be raised in the broader Budget debate next week.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

Like many Members, I am deeply concerned about the reports in recent days of injection by spiking. This is a completely horrendous act and we have heard harrowing stories from dozens of young girls throughout the country. I am pleased that the Home Secretary has requested an urgent update from the police, but may we have a debate in Government time to discuss these crimes and ensure that we tackle the perpetrators without delay?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

This really is a very concerning matter. It comes down to the whole approach that needs to be taken to tackle violence against women and girls. The Government do have a strategy on that and there is an extra £5 million for the safety of women at night fund, in addition to the £25 million safer streets fund. We are also increasing penalties for stalking and harassment, and the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 has been passed. It is all about ensuring that our society is safe for women and girls and taking the legislative and policy steps that are necessary to make it a safer place.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

I associate myself with the Leader of the House’s comments about James Brokenshire, who was the Immigration Minister when I first arrived in the House and helped with cases, and, of course, the great Sir David Amess, who always gave me, as someone who led for the SNP in summer Adjournment debates, support, advice and encouragement, no matter what the politics.

Data shows that in the United Kingdom, out of 282,000 tonnes of surplus food, just 9% is donated to food aid charities for human consumption, and it is estimated that 80,000 tonnes that could be donated for human consumption is not. May we have a debate and a statement on food waste and surplus food, to address this serious problem?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. I must confess that I was not aware of those figures, but it does seem extremely wasteful and it would be beneficial if food that is perfectly usable were used. I will take the matter up with the relevant Department.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

Please can we have the opportunity to challenge Department for Work and Pensions Ministers on what they are doing to ensure that state pensions reach individuals on the date they reach pension age? I ask this because increasing numbers of Newport East constituents are reporting mistakes and long delays, often waiting months for their pension, despite applying well in advance, and it is causing hardship.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very concerned to hear what the hon. Lady says. It is obviously important that people receive their pension on the correct date. She, like many other Members of Parliament, is providing a useful service to her constituents by getting in touch with the DWP. I will pass on what has been said, but this is something that should happen correctly as a matter of routine.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Fife Council is one of over 90% of local authorities in Scotland that have given firm commitments of provision of housing for Afghan nationals and others who have had to be evacuated from Afghanistan recently. So I was very concerned to read a few days ago that a Minister in the Home Office, during a private press briefing, had said that the figure in Scotland was just over 50% and that only 18 or 19 out of 32 councils had given that commitment. Can we have a statement from the Home Office, first, to update Members on the fantastic work that has been done across these islands to support those who have been evacuated from Afghanistan, and, in particular, to put the record straight on just how comprehensive the support from Scotland’s local authorities has been?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I obviously do not know what was said in private meetings that I was not at. I would never put too much weight on gossip from private meetings; it is not always accurate. We should be proud of what councils have done. Having had a pop at Bath and North East Somerset Council earlier for making driving in Bath completely impossible, it has been extremely good as a council in terms of immediately volunteering to help take Afghan nationals and that is, I think, a spirit that has arisen across the land.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Last week, York CVS launched York’s Poverty Truth Commission and, tonight, York Labour will be urging the council to make York a Right to Food city. The levels of poverty in my constituency are rising really sharply, not least because of the recent cut to universal credit. Can we have a debate on poverty in urban areas and the impact that that is having on our constituents?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Since 2010, absolute poverty has fallen by 700,000. That is a very significant decline and 650,000 fewer children live in workless households than did in 2010. That is the key way out of poverty. Getting people into work is the key way out of poverty. We have a record number of vacancies. Employment has got back to pre-pandemic levels and an extra £500 million has been made available for people who, over this winter, may be in need because of the continuing consequences of the pandemic, so the Government are doing absolutely the right things. But the key way out of poverty is economic growth and economic success. It is not any other route.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Building on the question earlier from the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), I have been contacted by many constituents in North Ayrshire and Arran who have just reached state pension age, but have faced considerable delays in receiving their state pension payments. There are 2.1 million pensioners in poverty across the UK, so, for them, the state pension is the most important source of income and these delays to payments are a particular cruelty to the WASPI women who have already had their state pension age increased. I wrote to the DWP Secretary of State about this on 8 August and not yet received a response. Will the Leader of the House make a statement setting out what investigations he will undertake into these delays? Will he use his good offices to ensure that state pension payments are made in a timeous manner?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Since I have been doing this job over the past couple of years or so, I have thought that one of the most useful parts of business questions is that, if problems are arising and affecting a number of constituents, this is an opportunity to raise them. On some occasions, a number of Members have raised the same point, which tends to indicate that an issue is of a degree of seriousness and will need Government attention. This has now come up twice. I do not know whether it is affecting other hon. and right hon. Members—[Interruption.] I see a certain amount of nodding. I will therefore take this up as a matter of extreme urgency after this session with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House has very close links with the finance sector, so I am sure that he will have followed very closely the news that the Government are set to cut taxes on the profits made by banks. Surely, at a time when ordinary people are facing such a tax hike, any such cuts to taxes on the profits of banks would be completely wrong. Obviously, a Budget is on its way, but can we have a Government statement specifically on this issue because it is something that the public are alarmed about and that this House should be very alarmed about, too.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman has pointed out that a Budget is on the way.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

Planning is a much under-appreciated skill that some people think is beneath them, but, as a former network programme manager, I know that it is critical to getting anything done. Can we have a debate on planning and the Prime Minister, so that he will not again announce the date of critical legislation—the Online Safety Bill—and then U-turn on that date within a couple of hours? The many people suffering online hate will not thank him for not having a plan. Could the Leader of the House confirm whether the Prime Minister’s commitment to criminal sanctions will outlast his commitment to bring legislation to this House before Christmas?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising the point about the Online Safety Bill, which I referred to earlier. It is undergoing detailed scrutiny as a draft Bill. This is really important because this is complex legislation. We have to deal with the online harms issue. We also have to protect freedom of speech. We need to hold the online service companies to account for what they publish and that report will come forward in December. We know that the plan of the Joint Committee is to have its report issued then. That will be the basis for legislation. It is following the proper, suitable plan. This is the parliamentary process—lots of it is written down in Erskine May, a copy of which I can see not too far from me—so the Government’s planning is exactly as we would expect it to be.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the Leader of the House consider providing time for a debate on the persecution of religion or belief and minorities in Pakistan? Last week, the Pakistan Government rejected a Bill that was designed to prevent abduction, forced marriage and forced conversion of Christian and other minority under-aged girls from among Pakistan’s minority religious or belief communities. Does the Leader of the House agree that it is right, proper and timely for this House to consider the plight of girls in Pakistan as the Pakistan Government violate their rights, and shirk their international obligations and constitutional provisions regarding the rights of minorities?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As always, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. His question is similar in principle to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) about protecting the rights of religious minorities who face persecution in various parts of the world. I share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, as he knows. Freedom of religion or belief is a fundamental human right. Last year, the Foreign Office published its “Human Rights and Democracy” report, which noted significant concern about the treatment of Christians and other religious minorities in Pakistan following the global coverage of the trial of Asia Bibi for blasphemy. The United Kingdom remains deeply concerned about the severity and scale of violations and abuses of freedom of religion or belief in many parts of the world. Her Majesty’s Government remain committed to the global effort to support the most vulnerable members of society irrespective of race, religion and ethnicity. I will make sure that the hon. Gentleman’s points are passed on to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and that what can be done will be done.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

I echo the sentiments by the Leader of the House about our two colleagues, James Brokenshire and Sir David Amess—two exemplary constituency MPs, who any MP would wish to emulate.

An issue of particular concern in my constituency in recent months is 5G mobile phone masts. While both I and many others understand the need for greater coverage and connectivity, my constituents and I share concerns about engagement on mast locations. Will the Leader of the House schedule a debate in Government time about the requirements on telecoms companies to meaningfully engage with local communities when planning these projects?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

There is a real difficulty in this, in that we need to improve connectivity. When I am at home in Somerset and my mobile signal gives out again, I begin to think, “Wouldn’t it be nice if there were a 5G mast not so far away, so that I could actually get some signal?” On the other hand, local communities need to be consulted and we need to take people with us as the systems are rolled out. Therefore, it is all about getting the balance right. We do not want to hold back business or communications, but, equally, we want to reassure communities.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the Leader of the House for the business statement.

Independent Expert Panel Recommendations for Sanctions and the Recall of MPs Act 2015

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees- Mogg)]

I beg to move,

That—

(1) the following Standing Order be made:

“IEP recommendations for sanctions and the Recall of MPs Act 2015

(1) The Chair of the IEP shall send to the Chair and Members of the Committee on Standards and to the Clerk of that Committee any report from a sub-panel of the IEP which he has referred to the Clerk of the House under subparagraph (5)(d) of Standing Order No. 150A (Independent Expert Panel) and which contains a determination for a sanction that would, if made by the Committee on Standards, engage the provisions of the Recall of MPs Act 2015.

(2) Where a report has been sent to the Committee on Standards in accordance with paragraph (1) of this Order the Committee of Standards shall make a report to the House in relation to the Member named in that report, setting out a recommendation for a suspension equal to that recommended by the sub-panel to run concurrently with any sanction imposed as a result of the sub-panel’s determination.

(3) Reports under paragraph (2) must be made no later than on the third sitting day after the report of the IEP sub-panel is sent to members of the Committee on Standards, save that the day on which the report is sent shall not be counted in calculating this period.

(4) If the Committee on Standards is unable to meet within 3 sitting days, the Chair shall, if satisfied that the report from the IEP sub-panel has been sent to all members of the Committee, make the report to the House from the Committee required under paragraph (2).”

(2) The following amendments to Standing Orders be made:

(a) In Standing Order No. 149 (Committee on Standards), paragraph (1), at the end insert

“(c) in accordance with Standing Order No. (IEP recommendations for sanctions and the Recall of MPs Act 2015) to report to the House recommendations for sanctions to run concurrently with sanctions determined by a sub-panel of the IEP and implemented by the House.”

(b) In Standing Order No. 150D (Motions consequent on the ICGS), paragraph (1), at the end, insert

“( ) a motion under paragraph (1) of this Order includes a motion to implement a sanction recommended by the Committee on Standards under Standing Order No. (IEP recommendations for sanctions and the Recall of MPs Act 2015), or a motion to implement both such a sanction and a sanction determined by a sub-panel of the IEP”.

Being a Member of Parliament is an honour and a privilege. The rights conferred on those who hold office as Members exist to help us perform our constitutional role of representing our constituents and their interests as fully as we can. Yesterday, we reflected on a Member of Parliament whose devotion to his constituents served as an example to us all. Today, with this motion, the House is asked to consider what happens when those elected to this House let down their constituents.

As Members of this House, we have all a shared duty to ensure that Parliament is a safe and positive place of work. In recent years, we have taken important steps to put in place suitable support and protection for all members of our community. Progress is being made in achieving culture change in Westminster. The elements of the independent complaints and grievance scheme—including the behaviour code and the independent expert panel—put in place so far have begun to make a real difference.

As Members will know, when the independent expert panel was established it was felt that recall would be an unsuitable consequence in ICGS cases. This was a decision that the House took in establishing the IEP in June 2020 after taking into account the views of the ICGS staff working group. It was the working group’s considered view that the opening of a recall petition could have implications both for the complainant’s confidentiality and the willingness of future complainants to come forward. It was also felt that, should the 10% signing threshold be reached and a by-election campaign be subsequently triggered, the risk to the complainant’s confidentiality would become greater.

It has been nearly 12 months since the independent expert panel was appointed in November 2020, and I thank Sir Stephen Irwin and the panel for their work. The panel has had to consider very serious ICGS cases. Since the panel commenced its work, this House has had cause to consider once more the discrepancy between ICGS and non-ICGS cases when it comes to their interplay with the Recall of MPs Act 2015.

Further to a period of engagement with the independent expert panel, staff groups and the trade unions, the House of Commons Commission has come to the view that it is right to amend the Standing Orders to enable recall to be triggered as a result of an IEP recommended sanction of suspension. I would like to thank the Clerk of the Journals for identifying a simple and clear mechanism by which that could be achieved. I note that Sir Stephen Irwin, chairman of the IEP, while ultimately wanting the matter settled by legislation, has urged the Government to make this change as soon as possible.

The purpose of the motion before us today is therefore to amend the Standing Orders to ensure that a sanction of suspension of a qualifying duration, made following a report from the independent expert panel, will lead to a recall petition. The Recall of MPs Act 2015 provides three conditions for a recall petition process, one of which is a suspension of a period of at least 10 sitting days or 14 calendar days. For a recall to be initiated under the Act, the sanction must be applied on the recommendation of the Select Committee on Standards, or another Committee of the House of Commons concerned with standards of conduct. The independent expert panel is not a Committee of the House of Commons and therefore a sanction that might otherwise qualify can never result in a recall petition.

If today’s motion were agreed, in future should a Member be suspended for a period of at least 10 sitting days or 14 calendar days, whether on the recommendation of the independent expert panel, the Standards Committee or another Committee of the House concerned with standards, the Recall Act would be engaged.

Turning to the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, the chairman of the IEP has said he is “seriously concerned” by the proposal to apply these Standing Order changes retrospectively. I will go through his concerns in turn, as I think it is important for the House to understand them and take them into account, given the panel’s independence.

First, the amendment would offend

“against the principle that a sanction properly determined by the IEP should be final”.

Secondly, it would offend

“against the principle that there should be no retrospective imposition of a sanction which was not available at the time when a given case was determined by the IEP.”

It is also worth noting that expulsion was an option available to the IEP at the time, which it chose not to take. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, it

“impinges on the independence of the IEP, since, if implemented, it would amount to a political decision affecting the sanction in an individual case.”

In establishing the independent expert panel, the House recognised the importance of ensuring the panel’s independence. The existing arrangements were put in place to protect the determinations of the panel from debate before the vote on a resolution. The amendment before us today in effect risks drawing the House into a debate on the substance of the IEP’s May 2021 report and whether recall is an appropriate sanction in this case. It is wrong in principle, as Sir Stephen explains in letters placed in the Library by the IEP, for a properly determined sanction to be altered by any other route than a proper appeal or to be made retrospective, but it would also set a very problematic precedent. It would mean the House was taking a decision directly affecting a sanction determined by the IEP. The effect here would be to increase a sanction, but once a change had been permitted, what is to prevent the House making a change so as to reduce a sanction properly determined by the IEP?

This debate is not and should not be about the merits of an individual case. While I do not dispute that in severe cases it is right that a sanction of qualifying duration should lead to a recall petition, it is not right that the House re-considers the effect of a suspension that was previously agreed forthwith and accordingly served. Moreover, we must keep the experience of the complainant in mind. To change how the IEP works now risks reducing confidence in the process. Such a change would not be a fair one, as the complainant arguably engaged with the process on the understanding that, at the time, it would not result in a recall petition being opened.

I therefore urge the shadow Leader of the House to withdraw the amendment, which would undermine the independence of the panel. To apply these measures retrospectively could violate the independence of the panel—an independence that is at the core of why the panel was created in the first place on the recommendation of Dame Laura Cox, and which the House has agreed is essential for achieving culture change in Westminster.

None of us doubts the Opposition’s wish to play their part in making Parliament a safe and supportive place of work. With this motion, we are asked to consider how best to achieve that, so it is in a spirit of co-operation, not confrontation, that I ask the shadow Leader of the House to withdraw her amendment. What we need to see is parity in the effect of sanctions that will, irrespective of their origins, lead to a recall petition. As Sir Stephen has made clear, that will build confidence in the system, and on that basis I commend this motion to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

We have not been advised of any problems with legal challenge. I still think legislation would be better. Legislation always—or nearly always—puts things completely beyond doubt, whereas Standing Orders changes do not always put things completely beyond doubt. However, it would then be a proceeding in Parliament and, as we all know, article IX of the Bill of Rights says that no proceeding in Parliament should be

“impeached or questioned in any Court”

of law or any other place.—[Interruption.] I have got it right, have I not? I think we would be able to rely on that very solidly, and that must appeal to the Leader of the House because it goes back to the 17th century. On the question of the independence of the IEP, we are very keen in the Standards Committee that we will do everything to maintain that independence, and it will not be questioned or impeached by us in any shape or form.

I note that the changes to the Standing Orders say that the Chair of the Committee can do something if the Committee has not managed

“to meet within 3 sitting days”.

I think this would happen quite often, because it is quite difficult to ensure that the Standards Committee is going to meet within three days, especially because the independent members come from some distance and we would not necessarily be able to gather them together, and we can be quorate only if we have three lay members and three members who are Members of the House.

I gently suggest to the Leader of the House that it might be nice, at some point, to have a Standing Order that says that all motions from the independent expert panel or from the Committee on Standards will be before the House within three sitting days as well, but I know what he is going to say. He will say that it is all very difficult, and that sometimes it is impossible to find time and sometimes it is possible to find time—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

indicated assent.

[Chris Bryant]

The Leader of the House takes my point.

On retrospectivity, I am afraid I am not going to vote for the amendment in the names of the Leader of the Opposition and shadow Leader of the House; I will be voting against it. The independent expert panel could have decided in the case we are referring to that the Member should be expelled from the House; I do not make a judgment as to whether that would be the right thing to do, but it could have done that. It knew perfectly well that these were the rules and that it was unable to allow the invoking of the Recall of MPs Act 2015. That is why it is unfair to introduce an element of retrospectivity.

It does, however, present a very difficult example for the House that somebody who has been found to have behaved so inappropriately that in any other set of circumstances it would have been invoking the Recall of MPs Act chooses to continue in the House. The Leader of the House himself has said that he thinks the hon. Member should resign, and that is my view as well. The situation is very difficult for constituents in that constituency and for other Members and staff around the House, and I wish it could be other than it is, but that does not mean we can surrender the fundamental principles we have always had.

My main point, however, is that I fully support the closing of the loophole, and I wish this had done before the IEP came to its decision on the case hon. Members have referred to. I only wish that attitudes across the House were changing more rapidly, and we still have a considerable job of work to do on that, but I am assured that many members of staff both of Members and of the House feel reassured by the independence of the IEP process, and I would encourage anybody who ever feels that they have been bullied or have been subject to sexual harassment in their line of work here to present themselves, because they will have a fair hearing from the system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

With the leave of the House, I will respond to the debate. I thank all those who participated in it. I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), for her support for the main motion, and I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) not just for his support for the main motion but for the considerable contribution that he has made to ensuring culture change in the Palace of Westminster.

I am in considerable agreement with the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), the Chairman of the Standards Committee. He made the very important point that this is not a loophole, but it was a deliberate decision that was taken because of representations that were made to exclude recall when the independent expert panel was set up. As it happens, I also agree with him that that was a mistake. The arguments against allowing for recall were essentially weak and erroneous. I think that we agreed to them because we wanted to set the panel up in a spirit of consensus and compromise, and to ensure that all the participants were happy, with the knowledge that we could go further in the future.

I turn to the speech by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips). I agree with a great deal of what she says. I confess that my first reaction when I heard about this case was that the Member concerned should not remain a Member of this House, and I said that I thought he should resign. However, I listened very carefully to what the chairman of the IEP said and very carefully, actually, to the basic principle of justice that nobody has a punishment inflicted upon him that was not available at the time the offence was committed. That principle does not apply just to this House; it applies throughout our court and legal system, and it has, really, from the earliest times. I think that is an important principle of justice.

What the hon. Lady said in her impassioned plea is so right in so many ways. Actually, when the recall Bill came through, I was of the view that we could always trust our constituents under the widest possible circumstances of recall. I have never felt that we should shy away from what our constituents want. I was very much in support of what my noble Friend Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park was trying to do. However, Parliament decided otherwise. Parliament decided to introduce a recall Act subject to strict criteria, including going through a Committee of this House, and those criteria were deliberately not used to extend the Act to the independent expert panel.

[Chris Bryant]

Will the Leader of the House give way?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I will not, actually, on this occasion; I want to complete my thought.

I think so many of us were so desperately depressed when, after all that this House had tried, after the efforts that we made to improve the standards of behaviour, to achieve culture change and to ensure that people working in this palace felt safe and secure and respected, somebody so recently elected, who went on the course about treating people properly—somebody who did all of that and got every message from the Whips, every message from the Government, every message from this House—had broken the rules within a few months. But that was the system that there was; that system provided for a penalty that was imposed; that penalty was imposed by an independent body, and that is justice. One may then change it for the future. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley knows how much I respect her—that is not the normal waffle of politics; I hold her genuinely in the highest regard, and I admire her campaigning spirit—but I am afraid that on this occasion, justice must trump anger.

[Chris Bryant]

The Leader of the House knows that I will vote with him on this matter, but for me the biggest problem is that the Member concerned has shown absolutely no insight into his conduct. That was a point that the independent expert panel made, and it has been absolutely self-evident at every single moment since. That really does pose a problem for all of us. I know that many Members on his own side have said to him, “It would be better for you and for the House if you were to step down.” I very rarely say this, but as a former priest, I would say this to him as well. I think it would be in his own best interests, for him to be able to move on in his own life, if he were to step aside, and that is what I would prefer.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I do not think that it is really for me to respond to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but it will be in Hansard tomorrow.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Business of the House

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Thursday 23rd September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)]

The business for the week commencing Monday 18 October will include:

Monday 18 October—Second Reading of the Judicial Review and Courts Bill.

Tuesday 19 October—Motion under the Coronavirus Act 2020 relating to the renewal of temporary provisions, followed by Opposition day (7th allotted day—first part). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.

Wednesday 20 October—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Environment Bill.

Thursday 21 October—General debate on COP26 and limiting global temperature rises to 1.5° C, followed by a general debate on World Menopause Month. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 22 October—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 25 October will include: Monday 25 October—Second Reading of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill.

Mr Speaker, I wonder whether I might add a tribute to Mark Kelly. I am sure the House will want to join me in paying tribute to Mark for his 37-year service to the Government, which saw him spend 23 of those years providing outstanding service to the Government and this House as senior private secretary to the Government Chief Whip. He was really the man who made things happen in this place. Mark will shortly be moving away from London with his family. During his time in post he has been an exemplary provider of support and advice to successive Chief Whips, Leaders of the House, and countless Members from all parts of the House. As a loyal and skilful deputy to Sir Roy Stone, Mark’s parliamentary expertise and calm and friendly style has been an essential fixture of the parliamentary landscape. He will be greatly missed.

Mark has always been very proud of his Welsh heritage. He is a staunch Wrexham supporter and has been a mentor and guide to many civil servants, and others, who have had the privilege of working with him and learning from him. As he leaves his post we wish him and his family well, and send him the combined thanks of the House for his essential contribution to our constitution. I have a particular reason for regretting his departure, because he is being replaced by my outgoing private secretary and head of office, Robert Foot, who has been a terrific and steadfast worker and supporter of the business managers going back to 2007. We are very lucky to be surrounded by dedicated individuals such as Mark and Robert, who have dedicated their careers to supporting the work of this House in so many different ways. We are grateful to them all.

[Mr Speaker]

I would like to reiterate the loyal service that Mark Kelly has given to this House. I have to say that he will be missed. We thank him, we wish him well, and of course we wish Rob Foot well in his new place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I thank the Leader of the House for the business, and I join him in his fulsome tributes to Mark Kelly and Robert Foot. Congratulations to both of them on the new stages in their lives. We thank them, of course, for their loyal and dedicated public service.

I am very pleased to see a debate on COP26 after the recess. I have asked for that at previous business questions, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for that.

Today marks the 2,000th day of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s detention in Iran. A demonstration is taking place outside to raise awareness of her case, that of Anoosheh Ashoori, and those of countless others imprisoned there. When will the Government bring them home?

This week, the Government showed us again just how out of touch they are. Last week, I raised the soaring cost of living and I was told to use an Opposition day to debate it, so that is what we did. We raised energy prices, childcare, rents, taxes, fuel, rail fares and food prices, all of which are going up, before we even get to the empty shelves. The shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), questioned the Government on that and more, but still no answers.

Last week, the Leader of the House attempted to boast about his Government’s record on child poverty, but they are pushing 200,000 more children into poverty by cutting universal credit. It is not too late to cancel that cut, and it is certainly not something to boast about. The Prime Minister had no trouble being Scrooge last year, so it is no surprise that this cut comes 11 weeks before Christmas this year.

If the Leader of the House wishes to trade numbers, I can remind him that the last Labour Government took nearly 1 million children out of poverty. That is what good Governments do when they choose to prioritise what matters for our children. Instead, this Government are deliberately choosing to make working families bear the brunt of their failures.

The increase to the energy price cap means that from next month, half a million more families will be plunged into fuel poverty. I know that the Leader of the House will say that the current energy crisis is global. That is true, but it is also true that it has been made far worse by choices that this Government have made and continue to make. Ministers are not denying that people will face the impossible non-choice between heating and eating this winter. We already pay the highest energy bills in Europe—something the Prime Minister promised his Brexit deal would fix—but here we are, with bills set to get even bigger.

Just yesterday, over 800,000 customers saw their energy supplier go bust, but this morning the Business Secretary refused to admit the scale and severity of the crisis and the economic hardship facing working people. The shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), when she was Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee back in 2019, warned of the fuel crisis we are now in. A Minister replied that

“the UK’s gas system is secure and well placed to respond effectively to unexpected changes in supply and demand”.

Well goodness me, Mr Speaker. I am not sure what the Government consider to be a “secure and well placed” system, but what we have is the opposite.

Government decisions over the last decade have undermined our energy security and resilience, with domestic gas storage capacity eradicated, new nuclear stalling, the Swansea bay tidal lagoon rejected, renewables subsidies scrapped, and no long-term reform of the broken energy market, which Ofgem warned the Government about just months ago. So I ask the Leader of the House: why did the Government choose to ignore those warnings?

Carbon emissions from buildings are now higher than in 2015. Some 14% of carbon emissions come from poorly insulated homes that are too expensive to heat, yet the Government cut £1 billion from the green homes grant before scrapping it altogether, they have a missing heat and buildings strategy, which has been delayed month after month—year after year, actually—and people up and down the country are forced to choose between overpriced heating and overpriced eating. Will the Leader of the House ask the new Housing Secretary to come to the Commons with a proper retrofit plan?

I would like to place on the record my thanks to the Leader of the House and the members of his office, some of whom are in the Under-Gallery, for being incredibly helpful to me and my team over the past few weeks. They have helped us solve a problem that I cannot describe at the moment, but I just wish to place that on the official record, because we are very grateful to him and his team for the trouble they have taken.

Although the Home Secretary finally appeared in the House this week, quite rightly, to update us on the incident in Salisbury and the further charging to come, we still have no update on the delayed Afghanistan resettlement scheme. I wonder whether the Leader of the House could ask the Home Secretary to come back after the recess and explain why there has been such an unacceptable delay, but really to present the scheme and implement it in full as soon as possible.

Before I close, I would like to congratulate Anika Tahrim, who was on your Speaker’s intern scheme, Mr Speaker, and was based in the Leader of the Opposition’s office, and thank her for her hard work. Finally, I would like to thank all the staff in this place who have ensured our safe return after summer. I hope everyone gets to have a peaceful and productive conference season, and I look forward to seeing everyone in October.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady in giving thanks to the staff of the House, who have made sure our September return has gone so smoothly, as we head off for the conference recess. As I was saying about Mark Kelly, we are incredibly well served in this House by the teams who support us and make sure that we are able to get on with our key democratic responsibilities.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her thanks in relation to the work my office has done in helping her with a particularly knotty problem. I remind all Members of the House that if ever they are finding difficulties in getting answers from Departments, I view it as the role of the Leader of the House to try to facilitate answers as far as I possibly can. That applies to all Benches, Front and Back, and all parties.

On the Afghanistan resettlement scheme, the Government have committed to 5,000 this year and up to 20,000 in future years. The numbers that have been dealt with so far are very large—200,000 emails have come in—so this is, as everybody knows, a work in progress, but one that is very important.

As is seeking the release, on the 2000th day, of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. I hope the hon. Lady is reassured to note that the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), raised the issue and said that it was quite inexcusable for Nazanin to still be detained by the Iranian authorities, as one of the first things she said as Foreign Secretary. I think it is extremely reassuring that the Government are publicly saying that this must happen, but there are limits to the power of the Government in enforcing rogue regimes into doing what we want. That has been the case for too long, but it is inexcusable that Nazanin is still held. The Government will push the Iranian authorities as far as we can.

Coming on to the litany of complaints about what the Government have been doing, I notice there was indeed an Opposition day. I am glad that my suggestions for Opposition days are being taken up by the Opposition. We could make this a formalised system and perhaps I could always choose Opposition day topics of debate. However, I noticed there was not an enormous number of speakers. There was more in length than there was in number, which is interesting in showing the enthusiasm that the Opposition had for debating this money, but let us go through the Government’s record.

There are 100,000 fewer children in absolute poverty than in 2010. In total, there are 700,000 fewer in absolute poverty than in 2010. In 2019-20, there was a 3% chance of children being in absolute poverty if both parents worked full time, which is why it is so important to ensure that work is available. Since 2010, we have seen 650,000 fewer children in workless households. We have also increased the universal credit work allowances, giving parents and disabled people an extra £630 a year in their take-home pay. Great steps have been taken in particular to help children: the £220 million holiday activities fund; the 30% increase to the healthy start vouchers, providing £4.25 a week to eligible parents with children under four; and more money being invested in breakfast clubs. So great steps are being taken and are being successful in reducing poverty, as the absolute numbers show.

The hon. Lady then went on about the energy issue. Well, we know that energy prices fluctuate; that is part of a market system. They are fluctuating across the world. We do have a robust energy system. We have a system that ensures that supplies continue. There is a certain irony, is there not, when half the time the socialists have wanted us to close everything down? They do not much like energy, because they think we should have hairshirt greenery, whereas the Government are in favour of technological greenery. What does that mean? It means economic growth, so what have we had? We have had 78% economic growth since 1990 with a 44% reduction in emissions. It is getting that balance right. People need to be able to afford to heat their homes, but we also need to green the environment and the economy, and that is what is being done. There has been £9 billion of taxpayers’ money to support the efficiency of our buildings, while creating hundreds of thousands of skilled green jobs. Over 70,000 green home grant vouchers, worth over £297 million, have already been issued.

This is a story of success and I am very grateful, although the hon. Lady does not raise it as I would like, for the amazing support we receive from her in highlighting how we have reduced child poverty, ensured there is an energy supply and ensured a greener economy. It is a success of this Government and I am delighted it has been recognised by the socialists.

[Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

I join others in praising Mark Kelly, who really does know where the bodies are buried.

Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the subject of World Animal Day? Unfortunately it falls on 4 October during the recess, but if we have a later debate it will give the House an opportunity to talk about animal welfare generally, cruelty to animals and the welfare of farmyard animals, which my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) so ably mentioned yesterday?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Mr Speaker,

“Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you”.

I have done what my hon. Friend asks before he asked for it—before he rose to his feet—because on Monday 25 October there will be the Second Reading of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, which will be an opportunity for him to raise those important points. We also have the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill, which is in their lordships’ House and will come back to us in due course. The Government are very committed to following many of the policies that my hon. Friend has suggested.

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

I join in the tributes to Mark Kelly. When I was Chief Whip of our group and the representative of all the minority parties, Mark Kelly gave us nothing but kindness and great advice. I am sure that he will be sorely missed. I congratulate Rob Foot, who I know will be missed in the Office of the Leader of the House.

Here we are, barely back, and we are just about to take another break so that we can participate in the proceedings of voluntary organisations of which we just so happen to be a member. We will be taking a month off when the UK is facing an autumn of discontent and when hard-pressed families are facing one of the biggest assaults on their weekly income. As this House abandons its station to go to the conference hall and seaside resorts, there are universal credit cuts, energy prices going through the roof, a carbon dioxide crisis, driver shortages, farming chaos, fishing chaos, export prices, the ending of furlough and a Brexit killing a nation. This nonsense of a conference recess has surely run its course and must now come to an end.

We also face an environment crisis, but hey, we have the Prime Minister telling us all to grow up as he quotes Kermit the Frog. Maybe he should have got Kermit the Frog to negotiate a trade deal with the Americans while he was there—maybe we could even get Fozzie Bear to solve the energy crisis. How dare anybody even start to refer to them as a bunch of Muppets?

I know now that there is absolutely nothing that will encourage Conservative Members to take the safety of their colleagues seriously in this House. Their pathetic defiance in refusing to wear a face mask is almost like a pathological childishness. When we come back, will the Leader of the House agree to a meeting with all parties and your good self, Mr Speaker, so that we can agree a joint approach to safety in this workplace and so that at least we do not have the ridiculous spectacle of a House divided by face masks, where Conservative Members defiantly do not wear one but everybody on our side of the House does?

Lastly, may I wish you a good conference recess, Mr Speaker? I do not know whether there is a UK Speakers’ party in which you might be the Chair. I also want to say to the Leader of the House as he goes off that I just hope Sir Toffalot here will manage to find a face mask on his way to Manchester.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

There was a Speakers conference: an enormously successful conference of the G7, which was held in your constituency of Chorley, Mr Speaker, and included very significant Speakers, including Nancy Pelosi from the United States. I think that the hon. Gentleman was intending to congratulate you on a successful conference there. Otherwise I am slightly puzzled by his geography, because I was unaware that Manchester was a seaside resort, but perhaps he knows something that I do not.

As is now becoming traditional, I thought that I would give the hon. Gentleman a date that I discovered from The Times this morning: it is the anniversary of the battle of Salamis in 480 BC, when the Athenians beat the Persians and Xerxes was defeated. I am sure that that will be of interest to the hon. Gentleman, although it is quite hard to see how it relates to Scottish independence.

As regards the question of wearing masks, I do not know whether you are a reader of tabloid newspapers, Mr Speaker, but a certain very senior figure in the socialist party was photographed travelling on a train without a face mask. I do wonder whether there is one rule when the cameras are on and everybody is under vision, and another when people are on railway trains not expecting to be snapped.

[Mr Speaker]

I presume the Leader of the House meant the Labour party. That aside, before I call Rehman Chishti, I want to thank all the staff who have worked hard and made this House safe. They are due to have a break and, as much as the SNP spokesperson might like to cut it, they deserve it and need it. I also offer a big thank you to my team, the security team and all those who came up to help ensure that we had a great Speakers’ G7 in Chorley. It involved solid business, with real resolutions coming out of it.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

On that point, Mr Speaker, may I thank you for all that you have done to ensure that our House can operate? To you and your team, from all of us, thank you.

I am reluctant to raise this sensitive but important matter with the Leader of the House. Both of us are men of faith, and it is important to give credit where it is deserved. A certain event took place at Edgbaston cricket ground on Saturday 18 September when, as my right hon. Friend will know, Kent beat Somerset to be crowned champions of the T20 cricket competition. Will he join me in congratulating Kent on their well-deserved win against Somerset? Will he also allow a debate on the Floor of the House to support grassroots cricket across the country?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Fortunately it was T20, and therefore my heart did not grieve too much, but I am of course delighted to congratulate Kent on their victory. My earnest hope and desire is that I shall live to see the day when Somerset win the county championship. We are one of the few counties never to do so in all our history, and I hope that my hon. Friend will join me in thinking that it would not be unreasonable to let Somerset do it at least once.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business. I reiterate my appeal of last week to right hon. and hon. Members across the House to look at their calendars and check whether they want to submit an application to the Backbench Business Committee for a debate to commemorate a specific anniversary or campaign day, and that they do so well in advance. That helps the Committee to manage the business and gives notice to the Leader of the House that date-specific debate applications are in.

I truly and with all my heart wish that food banks did not need to exist, but they do, and therefore they need to be supported, as they are by communities across the whole country. However, food banks in my constituency and across the north-east are already struggling with demand. Can we have a statement on what the Government will do to support food banks given the anticipated huge spike in demand as we approach winter once the £20 universal credit uplift is withdrawn and fuel bills go up again?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point about the calendar, and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will take that to heart, because it does make the scheduling of business between the Backbench Business Committee and the Government easier and smoother.

The Government have done a great deal during the course of the pandemic and continue to do a great deal to support families in difficulty. The welfare system received an extra £8 billion in the financial year 2020-21. When schools were closed, over £450 million of supermarket vouchers were provided so that families could feed their children, and things of that kind are continuing. As I mentioned earlier, there is the 30% increase to Healthy Start vouchers and further money for breakfast clubs. The people who donate to food banks and act in a charitable way are to be commended, and the support is there through the welfare system to ensure that people have the money they need to feed their families.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend seen my early-day motion 415 highlighting the serious concerns of thousands of Harlow residents about the Stort crossing proposals, which could have a devastating impact on the beautiful environment and wildlife of the Stort valley in Harlow?

[That this House understands concerns that the Stort crossing proposals will have on the beautiful environment of the Stort Valley in Harlow constituency; further understands the threat that those proposals pose to local wildlife and ecosystems; recognises the concerns on those proposals raised by hundreds of local residents; further recognises that the plans for that problematic development have been inherited from the previous Labour Council who agreed to the proposals in the 2020 Local Plan; notes that Harlow Conservative Councillors voted against the 2020 Local Plan; further notes the upcoming Planning Committee meetings of both East Herts Council and Harlow District Council at which this planning application will be considered; and calls on the Government to put pressure onto the developers to reassess those plans and go back to the drawing board.]

Unfortunately the problem was inherited following a decision made by a previous Labour council. Will my right hon. Friend praise the constructive “Save Our Stort” campaigners who, rather than block the M25 and harm commuters, have campaigned and demonstrated passionately to cherish a beautiful part of our town? We call upon the developers to go back to the drawing board on the proposals.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I do of course praise my right hon. Friend’s constituents—they are some of the most civilised constituents in the country, and are brilliantly represented by my right hon. Friend, who always ensures that their concerns are highlighted—and I also compare them with what we must now call the hippie-crites: the people who have been blocking the M25, and who turn out not to be insulating their own homes while lying down in the road to inconvenience and cause danger to others. We know that a lady did not recover from a stroke as well as she would otherwise have done because of the delays caused, and of the risk caused to the police. I commend my right hon. Friend’s constituents for campaigning peacefully, respectfully and in a civilised manner. As he knows, planning decisions are a matter for the local council and are rightly made at a local level, but I am sure that what he has said in the House will be heard by the developer, who will want to maintain community support.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

We know that the Leader of the House is keen to see MPs return to the Chambers of Parliament; and, indeed, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority refused to fund appropriate maternity cover for me on the basis that people needed to be able to speak in the Chamber. In order to speak today, I have had to abandon my baby leave proxy vote—or else be reprimanded by the House authorities for speaking in the Chamber, which makes Parliament one of the few workplaces in the country where, when a new mother comes in for a “keep in touch” day, she is rebuked rather than supported.

I know that some in this place are not fans of mothers, in the “mother of all Parliaments”, but I am sure that the Leader of the House is not among them. Will he meet a cross-party delegation of MPs to discuss how we can ensure that everyone in this Parliament upholds the law on maternity cover and leave?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I say what a pleasure it is to see the hon. Lady in the Chamber, and may I congratulate her on the impeccable behaviour of her infant? Mine are of course perfect in every possible way, but I am not sure that they would have been quiet for the whole time during a parliamentary debate. I congratulate the hon. Lady most warmly; there is no greater joy than a new baby.

The rules provide for maternity and paternity leave, and for proxy voting for people who want to take that opportunity, but if people want to be present in the Chamber, they are of course welcome. I would be the last person to deter Members from coming in, but I do not want to put pressure on them to come in. I think it is for them to decide for themselves, as the hon. Lady has done, and I think that the rules as they are currently constructed are perfectly reasonable and entirely in line with the law.

We have to remember—this is very important—that Members of Parliament are office-holders; they are not employees. As office-holders, we have different rights and different privileges from employees because ours is a different role, and therefore employment law applies to us in a different way. We have, in fact, many more privileges than most employed people, not because of who we are individually, but because of our collective responsibility to represent the people of this nation.

As regards a meeting, I am always open to meeting all Members of the House: I think that that is the proper role of the Leader of the House.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

A constituent came to me recently, very distressed. Her young son was attacked at a community event about two years ago. The perpetrator was arrested and charged by the Crown Prosecution Service. He then reportedly failed to appear in court twice, was arrested a second time, and appeared in court for the third hearing. However, the Crown Prosecution Service erroneously, and wrongly, said that the case had been timed out—which it has admitted in writing was a mistake—and the perpetrator therefore got away with not being fully pursued. Because this was not publicly known, he went on to be selected as a candidate and subsequently elected to Crawley Borough Council in last May’s local elections. May we have a debate on why this perpetrator, Atif Nawaz, was able to do that, on why the victim was failed by the Crown Prosecution Service, and on the efficiency of the CPS?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. We need to have brisker questions, otherwise we will not get through everybody.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am obviously not aware of the full details of that case, but I understand that the CPS has accepted that it made an error in the handling of the case and apologised to my hon. Friend’s constituent. I recognise, however, that an apology in these circumstances does not go very far. The CPS is ensuring that advocates in the south-east area receive training to prevent a similar error from happening again, but I would urge my hon. Friend to write to the Attorney General about this case if he has not already done so, as she oversees the work of the Crown Prosecution Service. Equally, I would be happy to take it up with the Attorney General on his behalf.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

A constituent contacted me again this week desperately worried about his only brother, aged just 19, and his brother’s fiancée, who is 22. Their lives are in immediate danger in Afghanistan. They are both on the run and living in hiding following Taliban threats. I have had more than 70 constituents get in touch on behalf of hundreds of terrified friends and family members in Afghanistan. We are clearly not going to get a statement for several weeks, so having acknowledged the importance of this, will the right hon. Gentleman urge his colleagues in the Home Office to use this time to set out the referral process and clear guidance about how those still in Afghanistan can access the resettlement scheme?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As I said earlier, this is important, and it is worth reiterating what is being done. Under Operation Warm Welcome, we are ensuring that Afghans arriving in the UK are able to rebuild their lives, find work, pursue education and integrate. There is additional support, with extra funding for housing as well as immediate medical and mental health support. We have made it clear that all those who arrive through this safe and legal route will be granted indefinite leave to remain. I reiterate that more than 200,000 emails have come in, so the volume is very large, but we are committed to relocating an additional 5,000 vulnerable Afghans in the first year, with this potentially rising to 20,000. As I said to the shadow Leader of the House, if there are any specific cases to which the hon. Lady is not getting replies, she should please come via my office and we will do whatever we can to facilitate answers.

[Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

All three of Derby’s MPs are supporting Derby’s bid to become the UK city of culture in 2025. Derbyshire’s industrial heritage as the home of the world’s first factory is well known. Formerly known as the Silk Mill, it will be reopening officially tomorrow as the Museum of Making. Derby is also home to the arts and culture, with a 52-week festival in 2023-24 providing an ideal opportunity to promote the city of culture programme. Does the Leader of the House agree that Derby’s history and future growth in industry, sport and the arts make it a true UK cultural landmark?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend and I were going to go to a nightclub once the ban was lifted, and I think that that would have been a true cultural landmark. Beyond that, I would say that I heartily encourage Derby’s bid to become the UK city of culture. It is a wonderful city, and its record in the arts and manufacturing is enormously impressive. This is, however, an independent process chaired by Sir Phil Redmond, who is assessing the initial bids. He will announce the long list of eight places very soon, and the winner will be announced in May 2022. I wish my hon. Friend good luck.

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

My constituent Jack Barnett was furloughed by his former employer under the coronavirus job retention scheme between April and mid-September 2020, and was made redundant thereafter. Mr Barnett received CJRS payments in April, May and June, but with July, August and two weeks of September 2020 outstanding, he is still awaiting almost £3,000. Most recently, the employer advised that he was waiting for the funds from HMRC, although HMRC is unable to either confirm or deny this because of the general data protection regulation. This case in Angus cannot be the only such case in the UK, so can we have a statement from the Government on what recourse former employees can pursue to recover moneys owed through the CJRS?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The furlough scheme has been enormously helpful and one of the key things that has maintained employment in this country. In Scotland, it has protected more than 910,000 jobs. However, I would be happy to take up the case of Mr Barnett with HMRC and with other Ministers. I have always thought business questions were a good opportunity to raise constituency issues that have not been solved by other means, and I will try to get a proper answer for the hon. Gentleman’s constituent.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The Leader of the House rightly talks about greening the environment. This week, a company has put in an application for a solar farm around Gainsborough that would be the size of 4,000 football pitches. It says that this is a nationally significant infrastructure project, and therefore, under a law passed by the last Labour Government, no local planning is allowed at all. There is no say for West Lindsey District Council, the county council, myself or anybody else. Can we have a debate on this matter? I was going to ask about a levelling-up grant for Gainsborough, but perhaps we could have a bit more levelling up for local democracy too.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is obviously important that planning decisions are taken efficiently and that matters of national importance come to a national level. I have to say that 4,000 football pitches sounds like a very large area. I do not know very much about football, but I know that a football pitch is not an entirely small space. It cannot be that dissimilar to 4,000 cricket pitches. I note my right hon. Friend’s concern, and he is right to raise it in this House. The opportunity to discuss it will probably be best provided through an Adjournment debate to ensure that this specific issue can be raised and that a Minister of the Crown can be held to account.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

Earlier this year, I sky-dived for Florence, a beautiful seven-year-old girl from Dukinfield who sadly has a life-limiting degenerative condition called GM1. This Sunday, I will be zip-wiring for her at the same place that the right hon. Gentleman visited in north Wales recently. Can we have a debate on GM1, and can I have some tips for Sunday?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I sincerely congratulate the hon. Gentleman on what he is doing. I think all of us in this House find the greatest pride when we campaign on issues such as these for people like Florence and try to help them when they have a terrible disease. I am probably not allowed to say this, but I wish him every success in his campaign to get a treatment for GM1 and to get the appropriate support from the Department of Health and Social Care. As regards going down a zip wire, it is enormously exciting. It really is the most exhilarating thing to do. I would say to him: just lie back and enjoy it. They run it extraordinarily well and it is very safe.

[Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)]

Last week, I had the privilege of meeting Thomas Gill and his parents. Thomas suffered major injuries requiring significant reconstructive surgery, and he and his parents and I would like to compliment his surgeons on their skills. The injuries were the result of Thomas being hit by a car driven by a young female driver who was under the influence of drink and drugs. The sentence handed down at the magistrates court was incomprehensibly lenient: a two-year driving ban and a fine of £439. Will the Leader of the House help me and Thomas to enable the Crown Prosecution Service, which chose not to proceed with one of the charges, to understand how it has let him down so badly, and tell us whether the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill will help to prevent similar occurrences?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

This is a deeply troubling case, and I am sorry to learn of the injuries suffered by Thomas. I wish him well with his recovery. Charging decisions are a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service, and sentencing in individual cases is entirely a matter for our independent courts. The sentencing framework and sentencing guidelines apply equally to all offenders. I understand that the CPS is seeking a meeting with my hon. Friend’s constituent to explain the decision making in this case. I am able to reassure my hon. Friend that there are provisions in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill currently before Parliament—which I note is being opposed by the Opposition—that will increase the maximum penalty from 14 years imprisonment to life for the offences of causing death by dangerous driving and causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs. The Bill also creates a new offence of causing serious injury by careless driving, so the issue is being addressed in the Bill before the House.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for confirming that we will have the Second Reading of the Judicial Review and Courts Bill on Monday 18 October. Between now and then, will the Government reflect on the fact that the United Kingdom has today been added to the Civicus Monitor watchlist? Civicus has stated:

“Civic space is in decline in the UK, with the right to freedom of peaceful assembly repeatedly targeted”.

It also states that the

“Judicial Review and Courts Bill threatens fundamental rights and democratic checks and balances which aim to hold the government accountable”.

The other countries added to the watchlist today are Afghanistan, Belarus and Nicaragua. Surely we should be better than that.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That says more about this silly organisation than it does about Her Majesty’s Government. We have a wonderful tradition of freedom of speech, and it is protected in this House under article 9 of the Bill of Rights, which has provided us with freedom of speech since the reign of William and Mary. This is fundamental to our constitution.

Peaceful protest does not mean running in front of cars and risking the lives of police officers, meaning that people who need stroke treatment may be much more seriously debilitated than they would otherwise have been. It does not mean people saying we should insulate our homes while not insulating their own homes. They are frightful old humbugs causing trouble, distress and inconvenience, and nearly causing people to die. This depth of irresponsibility does not begin to be freedom of speech or expression, and I am afraid the organisation to which the right hon. Gentleman refers is clearly very silly.

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

Can we have a debate in Government time on the progress that has been made in improving the probation service since it was brought back into public ownership? Will the Leader of the House take this opportunity to admit that privatisation was a mistake?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is important that we have an effective probation service, and I was privileged to visit Birmingham prison recently and to speak to prisoners who are keen to get back on the straight and narrow when they leave prison. They need help and support to do that, and it should be provided as effectively and efficiently as possible, which is what this Government are trying to do.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Experts in the field estimate that the energy requirements of High Speed 2 trains will be five times that of conventional rail. Given that HS2 was sold to us as a green project, and given that the level of interest in the House is such that contributions to last week’s 90-minute Westminster Hall debate were limited to two or three minutes—many hon. and right hon. Members who wished to participate, including me, were not even called—can we have an extended debate on the impact of HS2 on Government energy policy and the level of annual subsidy with which this loss-making project will have to be supported, if it is ever built? Can we have that debate before 2041, when, my whistleblower at the very top of HS2 tells me, phase 1 will actually be able to carry passengers between London and Birmingham?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I thought whistleblowing was more for steam engines than for fast, high-speed trains, but never mind.

Obviously, the energy needed to run a train that is 440 yards long—that is two furlongs, which is an extraordinary length for a train—and going at 225 mph is more than the energy required to run Ivor the Engine. That has to be built into this country’s overall energy plans, but the cost of energy to operate the HS2 network has been accounted for within the project’s overall business case. This energy will be procured on the open market at the right time to start operations and achieve value for money for the taxpayer.

Once operational, HS2 will be delivering significantly lower overall carbon journeys than other modes, offering journeys at roughly half the carbon impact of intercity rail per passenger mile. The delivery into service date for phase 1 of HS2 remains 2029 to 2033, so I am interested in my hon. Friend’s whistleblower and I will, of course, pass the whistle on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on special educational needs provision for young people up to the age of 25? It is crucial that we ensure young people with SEN have the support they need at school and college to maximise their life chances and job opportunities. Will he therefore join me in supporting the establishment of SEN hubs throughout the country to provide bespoke commissioning services linking health, education, care and employment support in one location?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend raises an issue about which many in this House will be concerned. Children and young people with special educational needs should be supported to prepare for adulthood, including employment, and local authorities must include provision in their local offer. The support needs to start early and should centre on the child or young person’s hopes, interests and needs. Through the special educational needs and disability review, we are committed to improving the SEND system to improve outcomes for children and young people with special educational needs and to focus on preparing them for later life and adulthood.

In terms of a debate, I see that the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), is still here and he will have heard the appeal.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

I take the Leader of the House back to the far off days of his childhood, watching his favourite shows “Thunderbirds”, “Captain Scarlet”, “Joe 90” and “Fireball XL5”. As Thunderbirds Day fast approaches, will he join me in paying tribute to the late Sylvia Anderson, television and film producer, writer, voice actress and costume designer, without whom these childhood-enhancing shows would never have made it to our television screens and whose immense contribution, in common with so many iconic women in the arts, is still largely unrecognised? In the presence of Sylvia’s daughter, Dee Anderson, will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on putting matters right by recognising the contribution of women to our great creative industries?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

First, I apologise for thinking that the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee is here, as he is not. That was my mistake.

The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) is right to recognise Sylvia Anderson and the happiness that she brought to countless children through her work, which ought to be recognised. I cannot promise a debate in Government time, but I would have thought an Adjournment debate to praise her work would be very well attended and would be enjoyed by children across the land.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

I know the Leader of the House is an avid reader of the Worksop Guardian, so he will have been astounded to find out that South Yorkshire police underspent their budget by £2 million. Does he agree that the Labour police and crime commissioner has no excuse not to reopen Dinnington police station, which was closed to save £14,000 a year? Can we have a debate in Government time to ensure that happens?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend knows that locally elected police and crime commissioners are responsible for their allocated budget. I am afraid that I am rather austere when it comes to public spending, and I think it is a good thing if people underspend rather than overspend, so I might not give him the most helpful answer. I would encourage him to campaign locally with the police and crime commissioner on the important issue of keeping police stations open.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, would support upholding the law, as I hope the Leader of the House does, particularly section 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. I remind the House that, at the height of the pandemic, 560 employees of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency centre in Swansea contracted covid and one sadly died because they were working on site, at management’s request, despite Government advice that people should work from home. Can we have a statement on the background to the dispute at the DVLA in Swansea, not just the backlog but the robust allegations that political interference by Transport Ministers led to the industrial dispute with members of the Public and Commercial Services Union being prolonged?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is important to recognise that some people had to go into work to do their job properly, for security reasons or to ensure the integrity of systems, and the DVLA was one of those organisations. We are now getting back to work and people are going back to their offices, which is a thoroughly good thing.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Can we have an early debate on the role of the Committee on Standards in delivering natural justice for those against whom complaints are made? Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that, in its second report, at paragraph 53, the Committee decided that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) did not accept that he had breached the rules of the House and that this was treated as an aggravating factor? That is in complete contrast to the rules of the Sentencing Council, which say that pleading guilty can be a mitigating factor but that contesting a case cannot be regarded as an aggravating factor. Does that not show that natural justice seems to have been thrown to the wind by the Committee on Standards?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend raises an important point: people must be entitled, in all circumstances, to defend themselves, and it would be unfair to penalise somebody who believed they had acted in good faith for that belief. The assumption must very often be that Members do act in good faith. That is not to say that we do not make mistakes, but to defend oneself must be a natural right of Members of Parliament.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

The Leader of the House may be aware that last week a High Court judge refused the Cabinet Office leave to appeal against a first-tier tribunal decision that it should release information to me that I had requested under the Freedom of Information Act concerning public opinion research in Scotland. Sadly, earlier this morning the Cabinet Office’s Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) declined to confirm that the Department would comply with that ruling. May we have a debate in Government time on why the Cabinet Office is acting as a rogue Department within government and refusing to comply both with the law of the land and with the courts?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the guidance given to Ministers is that answers given in this House should be at least as full as those given to Freedom of Information requests. So he may wish to table a written question, because that ought to have exactly the same effect and would use the procedures of this House. However, Her Majesty’s Government obey the rule of law.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Tomorrow, is the grand reopening of the Salvatorian College, a Catholic academy for boys aged 11 to 16 in Wealdstone, in my constituency. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the diocese, the Department, the staff, the governors and the children on achieving this tremendous new facility? Does he agree that it is good to have first-rate buildings for an excellent faith-based education?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I congratulate the Salvatorian College on its reopening and all those involved with it? It may not surprise my hon. Friend to know that I think there are huge advantages in Catholic education and it should be widely encouraged. Having good and suitable buildings is very important; there is the great line of Churchill’s that we all know so well that I will not repeat it.

[Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Sue is a single mum and a former nurse. She wrote to me saying,

“The 20-pound a week Universal Credit uplift was a relief…but now it’s being taken away and I don’t know what to do… I can barely exist and I am terrified.”

My inbox is filled by accounts such as that. The papers tell me that the Leader of the House has just been paid £600,000 from share dividends. I ask him for a debate, so that he and the other Conservative Members can explain how they sleep at night knowing that they are robbing people such as Sue and plunging 800,000 more into poverty.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The answer I gave earlier was that we have reduced the number of people in absolute poverty by 700,000 since 2010. An extra £8 billion was provided for the welfare system during the pandemic. Other systems are still in place: there has been the increase in the living wage, and an increase in the tax allowance. All of these have combined to make people better off. That is fundamentally important. It is the right way for the Government to be going. The £20 a week extra on universal credit was a temporary measure during the height of the pandemic, and to pay for this would cost the equivalent of 13.5p on a gallon of a petrol. These things have to be paid for and there are limited resources.

[Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)]

There are several contentious development proposals in my constituency, including the redevelopment of South Ken tube station and the sale by the Mayor of London of Notting Hill police station. Does my right hon. Friend agree that residents’ voices need to be heard in deciding how their local communities develop and that they need to be at the heart of the planning process? Will he contemplate a debate on this topic?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

We will be bringing forward the planning Bill and publishing a response to the White Paper consultation in due course. It is important that local people have a say in how planning takes place. It is amazing how few people take part in it now, under the current system. There are opportunities for them to do so, but they are not always taken. I would say to my hon. Friend that Kensington is extremely fortunate to have her as its representative, because she is always a voice for her constituents, and for their interests and thoughts on planning, and long may that remain so.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

The Leader of the House was very helpful in June when he passed my request for a focus on childhood cancer research to the Department of Health and Social Care. I am sure he knows that it is Childhood Cancer Awareness Month, and perhaps he will encourage hon. Members to sign my early-day motion 428 on that topic.

[That this House acknowledges that September is Childhood Cancer Awareness Month; notes that blood cancers are the most common cancers affecting children and young people and that acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL), a type of leukaemia where cancerous cells build up in the bone marrow, is the most common cancer diagnosed in children, further notes that ALL is an acute leukaemia, which means it develops quickly and needs treatment straight away; recognises there are around 790 diagnoses of ALL in the UK each year, including over 500 in people aged under 25; welcomes signs that improvements in outcomes for children and young people with ALL have been driven by improvements in treatment related to clinical trials, including the use of CAR-T therapy, which has been effective in curing some patients with advanced cancers where other treatments have failed; expresses its appreciation for the work of groups such as the Teenage Cancer Trust and Children's Cancer and Leukaemia Group who are working to provide and improve the care and treatment of young people with ALL, supporting them and their families through the aftermath of a diagnosis and the extended period of treatment, which may last for two or more years; and calls on the Government to provide additional funding and support for research into promising treatments, such as CAR-T therapy, and effective means of recognising the signs and symptoms of ALL and other childhood cancers to ensure early diagnosis, which plays such an important role in ensuring survival from these distressing diseases.]

I think there is a bit of a logjam in correspondence, so I wonder whether he would also help me by giving his colleagues a nudge and by facilitating a debate on childhood cancer research in Government time. These children and families really need to know that this research is an absolute priority, one that the Government understand.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Yes, of course I will provide a nudge if any specific correspondence is outstanding. I think it would break all possible convention if a Minister encouraged Members to sign an early-day motion, but may I say that I think the hon. Lady’s early-day motion sounds extremely worthy, if that is a good enough hint for her? As for a debate on childhood cancer research and awareness, I think that is very important, but I suggest it is a matter for the Backbench Business Committee.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Knife crime is a problem in Northamptonshire and it is not being helped by lenient sentencing. Ministry of Justice data show that last year in Northamptonshire there were 39 cases where an offender was convicted or cautioned for a second time or more over the possession of a knife or offensive weapon. In 20 cases the culprit was given an immediate jail sentence, but in 15 cases the repeat offender was not sent straight to prison. The Leader of the House will know that the law says that adults already convicted of the crime should face a minimum six-month jail term under the “two strikes and you are out” system brought in six years ago. Across the country, one third of repeat knife possession cases did not result in an immediate jail sentence. May we have an urgent statement from the MOJ about the courts issuing the sentences that the law demands?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The punishment must fit the crime, and the Government are taking urgent action to tackle knife crime and keep people safe, in addition to hiring 20,000 additional police officers. We are spending £40 million this financial year to tackle drugs supply and county lines, building on the successful results of our £25 million county lines programme, and £130.5 million to tackle serious violence and homicide this financial year, including funding for targeted police interventions and the introduction of serious violence reduction orders, which will make it easier for officers to stop and search those convicted of a knife crime. In addition, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General can apply for unduly lenient sentences to be increased. So there are things in place, but it is fundamental to our constitution that Parliament passes the law, which the judges must then implement as we have passed it.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I was really pleased that in the Queen’s Speech the Government announced that they were going to make the armed forces covenant statutory and that they were going to introduce a covenant for the police as well. Between 9 March 2020 and 7 May 2021, 1,561 NHS and social care workers died from covid-19, on the frontline of the pandemic. May we have a debate, in Government time, about why we need to have a covenant for the NHS and social care workers, to ensure that they are protected just as we want to make sure that the armed forces and the police are protected?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The right hon. Lady always raises points of great importance in this House, and the work done by people on the frontline during covid was of fundamental importance. I think that this is initially a subject for a Backbench Business debate to raise this issue and whether covenants may be appropriate in other areas beyond the armed forces and the police, but I will certainly take it up with the Department concerned.

[Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)]

Since a fire at the Bilsdale mast on 13 August, many of my constituents have been left without access to terrestrial TV services. Many of my constituents have contacted me about this issue and especially about the impact it has had on elderly loved ones who rely on these services for company. With no concrete date by which these services will be restored, will my right hon .Friend find time for a debate on the Bilsdale mast fire and the impact it has had on communities, such as mine in the north-east?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important issue, which my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) raised with me last week. I understand that my hon. Friends attended a meeting with the Minister responsible at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and Arqiva, which is responsible for the mast. The point that my hon. Friend made is spot on: terrestrial television channels such as ITV are important in the lives of many people, especially the elderly and vulnerable, who are often alone for extended periods and find such channels an important form of comfort and company. As I understand it, the Bilsdale mast is in a particularly remote location, which has provided certain challenges, but I hear that a temporary mast may be constructed before 8 October, so I think some good news is in the pipeline.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Today is Loss and Damage Awareness Day. For COP26 to be counted as a success, rich nations must commit to a fund of at least $100 billion for developing countries to adapt to the climate crisis. The Government have announced that they will contribute $2.3 billion to the fund—except that money is to be taken from the slashed foreign aid budget. Is robbing Peter to pay Paul the way that the UK, as the host of COP26, should lead by example? Will the Leader of the House ask the COP26 President, the right hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) to come to the Chamber to explain the position?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That $2.3 billion is not an amount of money to be sniffed at. There is a limited budget for funds, so it is right that that money comes from the overseas development budget because that is what it is.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has committed to four targets for COP26 in Glasgow this year: first, to secure global net zero by mid-century and keep the 2.7 °F target within reach; secondly, to adapt to protect communities and natural habitats; thirdly, to mobilise finance—developed countries must make good on their promise to mobilise at least $100 billion in climate finance by 2020; and fourthly, to work together to deliver and finalise the Paris rulebook, which comprises the detailed rules that make the Paris agreement operational, and accelerate action to tackle the climate crisis through collaboration among Governments, businesses and civil society. The Government’s policy is very much in line with what the hon. Lady asks for.

[Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)]

I have previously raised in the House my concerns and those of my constituents about the decision by Warrington Borough Council to borrow £1.6 billion to invest in business around the UK. One of those businesses is a domestic energy supplier, Together Energy. The total exposure for taxpayers in Warrington is £41 million, and we are seeing what is happening in the energy sector. Will the Leader of the House schedule a debate in Government time on the decisions that councils are taking, so that we can have absolutely clear transparency? Does he agree that action of this type is absolutely irresponsible?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. We must have shorter questions.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend raises a point of concern. When I served on the Treasury Committee some years ago, I tried to encourage its then Chairman, my noble Friend Lord Tyrie, to hold an inquiry into the borrowing by councils of money for speculative investments, which is obviously a risk. I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that on 28 July the Government published plans to strengthen the capital framework to prevent councils from taking on excessive risk. That must be the right thing to do.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Two weeks ago today, I attended Mr Speaker’s state apartments to meet members of the Climate Assembly who a year ago produced an excellent report on climate change and the actions we need to take. The assembly was a great example of how to bring people together to discuss such important issues. The Government have said that they plan to set out their wider public engagement strategy “shortly”, but the clock is ticking and time is running out, so will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate in Government time on the Government’s strategy? I thank the Backbench Business Committee for scheduling a general debate on the issue when we return after the recess.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady has, in a way, answered her own question, because there will be a debate on this important issue. I have just set out the four targets for COP26, and there will be questions to the President-elect of COP26 on 20 October, shortly after the House has returned from recess.

[Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)]

On Monday, an unauthorised Travellers’ camp was set up on Torr Top car park in the centre of New Mills, blocking the car park, including the disabled bays, for all other users. This has caused concern, particularly among local businesses on the high street that are worried about the impact of the loss of the car park on their customers and footfall. May we have a debate on the laws relating to trespass and look at whether we need to give the police more powers so that they can take action on such cases in future?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter. The Government’s overarching aim is to ensure fair and equal treatment for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities in a way that facilitates their traditional nomadic way of life. However, we are equally clear that we will not tolerate law-breaking and are determined to ensure that police have the powers they need to support and serve their communities. I will take up my hon. Friend’s concerns with the Home Secretary, because it is important that the law should apply equally to all.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

In a debate yesterday, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said as an aside that Northern Ireland would no longer be subject to the EU state aid regime and that changes to the Northern Ireland protocol had been sought to ensure that would happen. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a ministerial statement on proposed changes to the Northern Ireland protocol and the process that the Government will undertake to attempt to make them?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady is right to raise the Northern Ireland protocol, which is a matter of discussion between Her Majesty’s Government and the European Union. It is clearly not working properly at the moment, and we cannot allow our country to be divided by the actions of the European Union and their interpretation of the agreement that we came to. Last week, my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Frost made a statement to their lordships that was reported in this House by my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General, so these things are being brought to the attention of the House and will, I am sure, be brought to the House’s attention in future.

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will have seen the chaos caused on the M25 this week by Insulate Britain. I am pleased that a number of protesters have been arrested and that an injunction has been served. My concern is that they might simply go to another strategically important road somewhere else in the country. Will my right hon. Friend find Government time for us to debate how the law may need to change so that we can instantly and robustly deal with and move on these troublemakers?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. A lot of these people are being exposed as the most ridiculous humbugs. I think it is The Sun that has discovered that they pretend to want insulation but do not insulate not only the houses that they live in but the houses that they let out to other people. One of them stormed off some television programme in a great huff when it was revealed that he was a frightful old humbug. We should know these people for what they are: silly, dangerous and hippie-crites.

I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which is under consideration in the Lords, contains proportionate measures to enable the police to deal better with disruptive protests. By putting public nuisance on a statutory footing, as recommended by the independent Law Commission, it will increase the powers available to the police for dealing with protests of that sort. Proper, peaceful protest and freedom of speech are fundamental, but causing risk to life and liberty is not.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to the York Medical Group, which enabled me to spend last Friday with the group to see the capacity challenges that our GPs face. On our return from recess, may we have a statement on the crisis faced by primary care and its inability to cope with the demand it has to deal with?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Yes, we should have a clear statement that people ought to be able to get face-to-face appointments. This is fundamental and really important. I have had complaints from my own constituents, one of whose cases was reported in detail in The Telegraph because they almost died because of the inability to get a face-to-face appointment. Another of my constituents was told off and told to go to A&E instead of going to her GP. It is not satisfactory. GP appointments need to go back to being face-to-face and the Government have been clear on that. I urge GPs to reopen their surgeries and see people.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the Leader of the House consider providing time for a debate on the need to uplift the child-benefit threshold to allow single-parent working families to ask for the increase needed to address inflation? Gas prices in Northern Ireland have jumped by 30% due to the Northern Ireland protocol, among other issues, and further rises are upcoming. Does the Leader of the House agree that it is right and proper for the House to consider an uplift to the threshold in line with inflation?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is a rare occasion when I do not see eye-to-eye with the hon. Gentleman. As always, I am grateful for his diligent attendance in the House and representation of his constituents. The Government’s approach charges the high-income child benefit charge on those who are on higher incomes, while leaving the majority of child-benefit claimants unaffected. This ensures that everyone makes a fair contribution while those with the lowest incomes continue to be supported. The Government are committed to managing the public finances in a disciplined and responsible way by targeting support where it is most needed. The £50,000 threshold affects only a small minority of those with comparatively high incomes. The Government believe that the current threshold for the high-income child benefit charge remains the best option. As always, it is of course about a balance, in these difficult financial times, between the support the Government can provide with taxpayers’ money and the need to ensure that we live within our means.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

I am very concerned about a British citizen, Michael Brian Smith, who continues to be detained in the United Arab Emirates despite having received a pardon and having subsequently completed his original sentence, particularly as his health is deteriorating as a result of AIDS and kidney cancer. May I ask that the UK Government do all they can, including making further urgent representations to the relevant UAE authorities, to help secure his release soon on humanitarian grounds? I fear that time is running out for Mr Smith and it would be tragic if he were to die in prison in the UAE. Can we have a debate more widely in Government time on human rights in the UAE?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I cannot promise the debate, though I may guide the hon. Lady towards an Adjournment debate in relation to Mr Smith. I will take up the case that she has brought to my attention with the Foreign Office immediately after this session.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the Leader of the House for the Business statement.

We come now to the Backbench Business debates, the first of which is on Baby Loss Awareness Week. As colleagues will see, the two debates are well subscribed. I hope that they will bear that in mind when considering how long they will speak for.

Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd September 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)]

I beg to move,

That Sir Edward Leigh be appointed as a Parliamentary member, and that Paul Lewis be appointed as an external member, of the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body under Part 1, Schedule 1 to the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019.

I remind the House that the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 established a sponsor body, which has overall responsibility for the restoration of the Palace of Westminster and acts as a single client on behalf of both Houses. The body is comprised of parliamentarians and external members, including the chairman. That ensures the right balance between cross-party and cross-House parliamentary support for the works, and the appropriate external professionalism and expertise.

As required under the terms of the Act, the motion before the House seeks to appoint a Member of this House and an external member to the board of the sponsor body. That follows a fair and open competition for the external member position, following the departure of Brigid Janssen, and the appointment of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) to his new position as the Minister for Security and Borders at the Home Office. I pay tribute to both for their contribution thus far. They have worked hard during the current stage of the restoration and renewal programme, in which proposals for a fully detailed and costed plan are being developed prior to their consideration by Parliament in due course. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his reappointment to ministerial office.

In their place are two excellent candidates, who I hope the House will agree will provide valuable insight and perspectives into the sponsor body’s efforts. It is perhaps embarrassing in his presence to lavish too much praise on my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), but he unquestionably deserves it. He is a distinguished and long-serving Member of this House and I expect that few know their way around the ins and outs of the palace and what really needs to be done quite as well as he does. He brings a wealth of experience to his position. He currently serves on the Public Accounts Commission and he ably chaired the Public Accounts Committee for nine years. He also served on the Joint Committee on the Draft Parliamentary Buildings Bill. I am sure many Members will agree that he is one of the House’s experts on parliamentary restoration. I expect him to support restoration and renewal with a keen eye for scrutiny on public spending, otherwise known as taxpayers’ money. I expect him to show support for an architecturally sound, historically sympathetic and beautiful restoration and, of course, an understanding of what Members would vote for as elected representatives.

Secondly, I turn to Mr Paul Lewis. He is a chartered civil engineer with more than 40 years’ experience in the construction and property industry. His early career was spent with the Laing group in design, planning and construction on a variety of projects in the United Kingdom and abroad. He is currently a director and senior adviser to Stanhope, having worked for 35 years at the company since its infancy. In addition, Mr Lewis holds a personal, non-executive position with the royal household as an independent adviser on the Buckingham Palace resurfacing programme. He is also a non-executive director at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust. The sponsor body believes that Mr Lewis’s experience and knowledge from his work on a multitude of large, complex developments will be a great asset to the board and to the restoration and renewal programme. His ability to be on the board of two royal palaces is a rather splendid confirmation of his high abilities.

We know that the restoration of this historic palace is essential, but we also know that the works must represent value for money for the taxpayer. The Government will continue to work collaboratively with the sponsor body to deliver that. I remind the House that the programme must be focused on the vital works, not gold-plated add-ons. Costs must be kept down and the work delivered on budget and on time. This is an important task and I wish both new members well. I commend the motion to the House.