Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Chris Bryant

Thursday 24th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend’s constitutional expertise is second to none in this House, and he sets out the constitutional norms completely correctly.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think that the hon. Gentleman wants my hon. Friend’s vote, so he ought not to shake his head like that.

My hon. Friend’s point about the Fixed-term Parliaments Act is absolutely spot on. We have had such a vote twice, and it is absolutely fascinating how many people say they would like an election, but disappear when they are offered the opportunity for one—they do not go for it. I am absolutely delighted that the shadow Chancellor has just taken his seat, because I have some quite helpful quotations from him on this matter.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Chris Bryant

Thursday 17th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I congratulate my hon. Friend on her zeal for Parliament? I think there is only one other person in this House who has such zeal, Mr Speaker, and that is probably you. We will need to use time very efficiently in order to legislate by 31 October. I think it is safe to say that I do not expect us to have to sit next Saturday and that we should be able to do things in an orderly way before then, but I will obviously keep the House updated.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I make no argument against us sitting on Saturday, but it is inconvenient for many people who have families. Unfortunately, the nursery is not able to be open to ensure that childcare is provided for hon. Members. Would it not be incumbent upon the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority to make financial provision so that the costs of childcare can at least be met for Members?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I recognise that it will be difficult for some right hon. and hon. Members with responsibilities. The matter can certainly be raised with IPSA to see whether it feels any special arrangements can be made. As a general principle, though, I would say that to sit on three Saturdays in 70 years is not an insuperable burden.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Chris Bryant

Thursday 3rd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

On the last point, yes, I am very happy to do that.

In response to the points raised about the Backbench Business Committee, yes, we will ensure that it is re-established quickly, and yes, it is extremely helpful and welcome that the Committee, before it dissolves, will propose a list of debates. May I thank the Committee, and particularly its Chairman, for the terrific work it does? It is invaluable to Back-Bench Members that they have this facility. It is also of immeasurable use to the Leader of the House, because I can often say, “This is a matter for the Backbench Business Committee,” which is something of a stock answer, as Members might have begun to notice. Without it, I might find this question time rather harder.

As regards changing to a longer period of appointment, the Backbench Business Committee has unique powers, which are unlike those of any other Select Committee, including allocating a significant amount of time in the Chamber. Although the Government are happy to think about this—the Procedure Committee might want to think about it too—I am not going to promise any rapid change.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House mentioned IPSA, which is very tempting, but I am not going to go down that route, as I want to make him promise something. The United States has now had two traumatic brain injury Acts, which have made a dramatic difference for many millions of people in the USA, whereas we have never yet had one. Will he therefore include this in the Queen’s Speech? Some 1.4 million people in the UK have suffered from acquired brain injury. They often do not get the rehabilitation they need, and we could give them real quality of life if we took action across the whole of Government.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman, as always, makes an important and significant point. I cannot make promises as to what will be in the Queen’s Speech—it is not entirely within my remit as Leader of the House to dictate what Her Majesty will say—but his point is very important. On legislation, once there is a new Session there will again be 13 days for private Members’ Bills, and it may be that this matter has the level of consensus to make it very suitable for a private Member’s Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is entirely a matter for you to decide which debates you chair and which debates you do not chair, Mr Speaker, although I would say that for the convenience of previous Speakers in past times, before there were deputies, there was a curtain—

[Chris Bryant]

That’s not true.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Is that not true? It is reported in good history books, but clearly not ones as good as those written by the hon. Gentleman.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Chris Bryant

Thursday 26th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The general point on private Members’ Bills is that, if we get to a new Session, there will be more Fridays, a new ballot and the opportunity for Members to bring forward their bills. That would be the best way to go about it.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Would it not improve the atmosphere in all our debates in the House if we returned to an older tradition and took a self-denying ordinance refusing to clap?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Yes, yes and yes.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Chris Bryant

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady has left out a third definition of a coup: something hens live in.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The trouble with the Leader of the House’s argument about the recess motion tomorrow is that there is already a provision on the Order Paper for Westminster Hall debates next Tuesday, and lots of people have already submitted for them. I have submitted for a debate on skin cancer because the number of men in particular in recent years who are presenting the skin cancer, particularly at later stages which can be fatal, has grown quite dramatically. Postal workers are still not provided with free sunscreen, and nor in many cases are police officers, so it would be good to be able to have that debate on Tuesday. I guarantee absolutely that if the Leader of the House were to allow us to sit on Monday and Tuesday and he brought forward the Domestic Abuse Bill on Monday, there would be no other contentious business to deal with.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I know that the hon. Gentleman has suffered personally from skin cancer and I reinforce what he is trying to do to ensure that more people know about it, so there is greater awareness and so that treatment can be faster and quicker. I therefore think it is a very suitable subject for debate, because Westminster Hall debates do have the effect of raising awareness, and I wish him extraordinarily well both in his personal health and in this campaign. However, he knows procedures of the House better than I do, and he is aware that Westminster Hall debates and Adjournment debates are organised, assuming the House is sitting, before recess motions are taken, and that they then get changed. Government business in Government time is not announced unless a recess motion has been either not taken or sorted out. So it is routine for Westminster Hall to have an announcement for next Tuesday, regardless of tomorrow’s motion.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Chris Bryant

Thursday 5th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I also point out that £34 billion more is to be provided for the national health service? I am sure that some of that will be used to improve cancer treatment services.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Government now think that they may need to invoke the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 after 31 October if we leave without a deal. That Act presumes that Parliament is sitting. Is it not therefore vital that we sit through 31 October, and will the Leader of the House ensure that the motion is published as soon as possible—before 2 o’clock—so that we can all decide what we are going to do on Monday?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

There is no question of the House not sitting around 31 October. No one has proposed that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The date of the election flows from the date of Dissolution. [Interruption.] No, it is not: the election follows 25 working days from the date of Dissolution, so if we are dissolved on Monday—[Interruption.] But the process for that—[Interruption.] No, that is a mistake: it is not a minimum once the Dissolution day is set; it is 25 working days from Dissolution.

[Chris Bryant]

It is the other way around.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

No, what the hon. Gentleman is confusing is when the day of Dissolution is set, and that is done by Royal Proclamation.

I can assure the House that the date will be set and the date will be stuck to. I think everybody in this House wants to see this issue settled; it is the one thing we have agreement about. The best way to settle it is through a general election—and a general election before 31 October.

European Union (Withdrawal)

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 3rd September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. and learned Friend is very learned but his learning does not always lead him in the right direction. The Prorogation is completely routine. When I was first—and, indeed, last—at this Dispatch Box, Opposition Front Benchers were asking for the Session to be brought to an end. We were merely being our obliging selves in leading forth to a new Queen’s Speech in the general course of events.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House give way?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

In due course, because we always like to hear from the hon. Gentleman, who informs and educates us when he speaks—

[Chris Bryant]

Can I do it now?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

No. We are going to have to wait for this informing and educating. We are all bating our breath for it, but I like to keep people on tenterhooks for the time being, because I wish to talk about our old friend “Erskine May”, which sets out your role, Mr Speaker. The chief characteristics attached the office of Speaker in the House of Commons are authority and impartiality. It would be disorderly, wrong and not my intention to question your impartiality, Mr Speaker, but, as with the umpires at Edgbaston who saw eight of their decisions sent for review and overturned, accepting somebody’s impartiality is not the same as accepting their infallibility.

It is worth noting what a wise and scholarly Speaker once said—indeed, this wise and scholarly Speaker said as recently as last year that a debate held under Standing Order No. 24 could be held on a substantive and amendable motion only if the Standing Order is itself amended. In April 2018, in the light of two emergency debates on the UK’s decision to take military action in Syria, you yourself, Mr Speaker, said that

“it is perfectly open to the House to amend Standing Order No. 24, of which there is some uncertainty and often incomprehension. It could be amended to allow for the tabling of substantive motions in circumstances of emergency, which could also be amendable and on which the House could vote. If there are Members who are interested in that line of inquiry, they could usefully raise it with the Chair of the Procedure Committee”.—[Official Report, 19 April 2018; Vol. 639, c. 475.]

As far as I am aware, no change has been made to Standing Order No. 24, yet the decision has changed—varius et mutabilis semper dictor.

[Chris Bryant]

The Leader of the House said earlier that Parliament is not being suspended, but in this case it is. He knows perfectly well that Select Committees will not be able to sit, and as according to the Bill of Rights, there will be absolutely no proceedings of Parliament while Parliament is prorogued. I want Parliament to prorogue, but I want it to prorogue only for four or five days so that we can do our job of scrutinising the Government through proceedings in Parliament. That is the point: we want a Queen’s Speech but we also want to be able to come back and do our job.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman knows the procedures of this House only too well. He knows that we are about to go, in some cases, to the seaside for party conferences—in the case of my party, to a major city centre. That is why we are taking four or five days of parliamentary time and simply going over the normal recess. That is not in any sense an abuse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am afraid that I disagree with the hon. Lady, and I must confess that I am astonished that she is not a right hon. Member. Something must have gone wrong with the Privy Council, of which I am now Lord President, for that not to be the case. [Interruption.] Oh, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) feels that he has also not been justly promoted; I am sorry.

[Chris Bryant]

No, you’ve been unjustly promoted!

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not think that the Leader of the House was planning to invite the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) to join him in Balmoral, so I am not sure that it makes a great deal of difference in the immediate circumstances.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Chris Bryant

Thursday 25th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I may be the fifth Leader of the House since the hon. Gentleman took up his post, but from what I hear it seems that his question is the same regardless, so it does not make any difference who the Leader of the House should be. I therefore fear that the answer is going to be much the same. I would point out that the House of Commons predates the House of Tudor: it started in 1265, and the House of Tudor obviously began with Henry VII—

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

That’s wrong as well. It was 1341.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

No, no. The hon. Gentleman is a very good parliamentary historian, but 1265 is when the burgesses came from the towns, as he knows perfectly well.

Anyway, on restoration and renewal, I had the privilege of serving on the restoration and renewal Joint Committee. It is extraordinarily important that the House of Commons is not only a beacon for democracy, as it was built to be in the 19th century, but a functioning, modern Parliament.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman will be reassured to know that he does not have to wait long: on Thursday 5 September we will be back here and we will have questions to the Department for Exiting the European Union. His wish is my command; it will be granted.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Chris Bryant

Wednesday 27th March 2019 Commons Chamber

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

I oppose this motion because I think that it is constitutionally ill thought through. Our country does not have a codified constitution, but it works on conventions, and those conventions are precious to those in government and to those not in government, for the tables may be turned at some point and the Labour party may find it has a minority Government and cannot keep the business of the House as it would expect.

Why do the Government need this primacy on the business of the House? As my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) says, it is absolutely right that the Standing Orders are the property of this House and are not challengeable outside this House, and our governmental system works through the Queen in Parliament. The Queen, in this sense, is represented by the Executive, and there is a separation between the Executive and the legislature that we all know about. That separation requires that the proposition of events comes from the Government and that the amendment, review and redress in relation to those events comes from this House.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

One of the conventions that has lasted for a very long time is that a parliamentary Session lasts for a year unless a general election intervenes and makes it more sensible for a Session to be 15 months, or something like that. In a parliamentary Session, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Standing Orders provide that there should be so many days set aside as Opposition days. That has been completely broken in this Session, which has gone on for nearly two years. We have not had an Opposition day since November, the longest period in living memory.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I agree that it is important to observe the conventions, because the conventions protect the interests of everybody. If the hon. Gentleman is calling for a Prorogation so we may reset and have Opposition days, I would not be opposed to that. It may well be time for a Prorogation.

Privilege (Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Advice)

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 4th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Your wisdom, Mr Speaker, in always making that point just before you call me is shared by the whole House, I am absolutely sure. So we are all united now and everybody can just agree with what I am about to say.

Although I sympathise with the arguments made by the Father of the House and for that matter with the points made by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), I disagree with the conclusion to which they have come. I am delighted that the motion does not mention the Attorney General by name because I do not think this is a matter of the Attorney General being a dishonourable man at all. I am very fond of the Attorney General. I think he is a wonderful man. I think he is entirely honourable and, yesterday, he did his level best in the Chamber to provide what he thought he could, within the terms and the strictures given to him by the Government. However, I would say that we are today facing an extraordinary moment. I cannot in the history of Parliament find a moment when the Government have referred themselves to the Committee of Privileges. The best argument they have today, in response to the motion moved by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), is—“Instead of deciding already on the House’s behalf that the Government are in contempt, we will refer it to the Committee of Privileges.” Always in the past, that has been to decide, prima facie, that there is a case to answer. So the Government themselves accept at the very least that there is a case to answer about their being in contempt. I cannot think of another moment in our history when that was true.

In fact, as several Members have already said, the Attorney General himself in a sense confessed his own guilt to the charge of contempt yesterday. He said on the motion for the debate we had previously:

“We should have voted against it.”—[Official Report, 3 December 2018; Vol. 650, c. 579.]

Of course we should have done. It would have been good if the Government had made in the debate back then all the arguments they are making today and made yesterday afternoon. Some of us might have listened to the argument about national security then. It might have been an appropriate argument then, but it was not an appropriate argument yesterday and, for that matter, it is not an appropriate argument today.

The Attorney General repeated time and again yesterday that he knew he was not fulfilling the will of the House. That is what we are asked to decide today—whether the Government are fulfilling the will of the House. He himself said yesterday that he was not fulfilling the will of the House. In an extraordinary moment, he said:

“The House has at its disposal the means by which to enforce its will.”—[Official Report, 3 December 2018; Vol. 650, c. 574.]

That is what we are doing now. To all intents and purposes, the Attorney General yesterday asked us to do what we are doing this afternoon and I think he fully accepts that the House has to be able to have its way in the end.

I say to the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and the hon. Member for North East Somerset, the other thing that is extraordinary about the motion before us—the Opposition motion, supported by the other Opposition parties—is that there is no sanction involved in it. In fact, the only thing it requires to happen is that the will of the House is abided by. That is the only thing. It may be that we have to return to this if the Government choose to ignore it, but my suspicion and hope is that, if the Opposition motion is carried today, the Government will say, “Alright. Fair do’s. That’s twice we’ve been told now. We do actually have to abide by the decision of the House.”

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Could the hon. Gentleman help the House by explaining what the next step would be if the Government did not then publish the information and what procedural effect could be had or what motion could be brought forward to follow up on the motion before the House today?

[Chris Bryant]

I do not want to go back to 1340, as the hon. Gentleman did, and I am not going to. I prefer to cross my bridges one at a time. I am hopeful for all the good reasons that he himself adduced that, if the House for a second time decides to insist on its will, the Government will then comply. To be honest, if that were not to be the case, I hope other hon. Members who today are dubious about this procedure would want to stand in favour of more robust measures. The anxiety is of course that there is a time factor. We cannot let this roll on until after next Tuesday because then the Government would have completely defied the will of the House beyond the time necessary.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Chris Bryant

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Wednesday 20th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

When I was training to be a priest in the Church of England, my professor of systematic theology was called John Macquarrie. He would say that he was often asked by parishioners, “What is the meaning of God?”, but that actually the far more important question is, “What is the meaning of meaning?” To be honest, it feels as though that is what this afternoon’s debate and last week’s debate have been about: what is a meaningful vote?

The first point is that a meaningful vote is surely not one that is meaningless. We had a meaningless vote on Monday afternoon after the SO24 debate. It was meaningless because we were voting on whether this House had considered the matter of the Sewel convention, and even if every single Member of the House had voted against that, we would none the less have considered the matter. This is exactly what we do with statutory instruments as well: we vote on whether we have considered the matter. The Government’s motion will require the Government—not allow them but require them—to table a neutral motion.

I disagree with the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), who said that the vote in 1940 was on the Adjournment. It was not—it was on whether this House should adjourn for a successive number of days, and it was an amendable motion that would have had effect—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman if he does not mind. [Interruption.] Oh, all right.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I said that the vote was on the Whitsun recess, so I think that I covered that point.

[Chris Bryant]

But the hon. Gentleman managed to elide the fact that it was an amendable motion that had effect.

The point is that if the Government do what their motion says they should do—namely, table a neutral motion—the written ministerial statement gives the Speaker no power whatever to decide that it is not neutral. Indeed, if a Speaker were to decide that a neutral motion was suddenly, somehow or other, not neutral and could be amended, we should remove him from the Chair because he would not be abiding by the Standing Orders of this House. So let us make it absolutely clear: if it is a neutral motion, it will be a motion that has no meaning whatever.

Private Members’ Bills: Money Resolutions

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Chris Bryant

Monday 21st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

No; I disagree fundamentally with that point. That is why our Standing Orders are as they are. If we look at Standing Orders Nos. 48, 49 and 50, we can see that the requirement of public money is given only at the express request of the Crown, because regardless of whether it is a private Member’s Bill or a Government-initiated Bill, the principle is the same.

[Chris Bryant]

I would argue that one problem with how we do our business is that we do not afford enough scrutiny of the way in which the Government seek expenditure. We are simply unable to fillet things out, which is why we have not voted against estimates for a very considerable period of time. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the simple proposition that, if the number of MPs is reduced, the number of Ministers should also be reduced?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is a great constitutional expert, but his point is completely irrelevant to this debate, which is on money resolutions relating to private Members’ Bills. He seeks to widen it to the virtues of the Bill that is being considered, but we need to focus on this basic constitutional principle, which is at the heart of how this place operates.

A Government elected on the basis of popular suffrage come to the House with their demands for expenditure. We as Parliament and the House of Commons hold that Government to account for the expenditure they wish to have. It has never been the role of the House to say that money should be spent if the Government do not wish to propose it.

Restoration and Renewal (Report of the Joint Committee)

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Chris Bryant

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Commons Chamber

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

I want to go back to this 16 and a half feet—16ft 5in to be precise. When we sat on the Committee, we looked at and studied the report from Deloitte, we took evidence from experts, we sat for hours and we came to a conclusion based on the possibility that an inexpensive temporary Chamber could be put in Richmond House. That was fundamental to what we concluded. It turns out that that was wrong—that actually the measurements were out and therefore it would not work. That seems to me to undermine all that we tried to do. If the people responsible could not even measure a courtyard, how could they possibly get the figures right on the overall proposals that were being made? I regret that the work that we did and the conclusions that we drew have been fatally undermined by the fact that the figures we were provided with on an essential basis for our conclusion were wrong.

[Chris Bryant]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I will not on this occasion because time is so limited. I do apologise. I always like to give way, but I think that I had better not on this occasion.

That troubles me. The other thing that troubled me throughout the Committee process was that we never looked at the figures on the basis of a discounted cash flow, and so the assumption that was made was that a pound spent in 40 years’ time had exactly the same value as a pound spent tomorrow. That is incorrect. A pound spent in 40 years’ time obviously has a lesser value. When we consulted the Comptroller and Auditor General about that, he said in evidence that that was not how Government projects were done: Government projects look at the economic return that one gets on the expenditure, and not on the discounted value of money that one may spend in future. However, this is not a project that reveals a return; it is not an investment in that sense, but a cost. Therefore we need to look at the discounted cost, at which point the remaining in becomes the cheapest option by a considerable margin. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) may shout no, but that is what the figures show when we apply a sensible discount rate.

The other thing that has concerned me throughout this process is that we are being too precious and we are assuming that we will not accept any modest inconvenience. The hon. Member for Rhondda said that costs go up because work has to be done at night. We have to accept that, in this process of saving this building and ensuring that we are here, there may be some modest inconvenience to Members of Parliament. Are we really so precious that there must never even be the slightest sound of a hammer bashing a nail into a piece of wood? Are our ears so sensitive that we cannot bear that strain upon them?

I, along with the hon. Member for Rhondda, was extremely keen that we should sit in Westminster Hall, because Westminster Hall is not part of the main restoration and renewal project; it is outside it. The argument that we got against Westminster Hall was the most negative naysaying approach that we could have had—that the roof put up by Richard II would fall upon our heads if we had a little bit of heating in there. The naysayers wanted to put us in a glass pod—a temperature-controlled pod to ensure that we were kept at the perfect temperature, boiled to the right level in Fahrenheit or centigrade, whichever you prefer. This is a building that has survived for 800 years, not a hot air heating system. Once they said it was a glass pod, the glass pod was then too heavy for the floor. Whatever way we look at it, they were naysayers. It seems to me that we could have sat there in our overcoats, as that would have solved the problem in the winter. And in the summer, some hon. Members more racy than I am might have felt it possible to take off their jackets. It seems to me that there is an easy, affordable solution whereby we maintain a Chamber in our historic residence. That is what we should do and that is what we should vote for.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Chris Bryant

Committee: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 13th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

Sir David—for you are indeed beknighted—it is good to take part in this debate immediately after the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey). However, I am slightly saddened that he was so disparaging of all the Opposition Members who have signed his amendment. If we are just cast aside with such casual, reckless, gay abandon, we are never going to do that again, are we?

The British way in parliamentary matters has always been that we govern by consent, not by Government fiat, so Parliament should never be conceived of by a Government as an inconvenience that has to be avoided if possible. Parliament should be seen as an essential part of how we carry the whole nation with us. The Government should have more strength in Parliament than they do if they try to circumvent Parliament.

Getting the process right, as several hon. Members have already said, is absolutely essential. We are going to be deciding what many assume will be a long-term settlement for this country for generations to come. We cannot simply try to go ahead with a railroaded version of that settlement that only carries 52% of the country, or perhaps even less by then—who knows?—because we will in the end undermine the very institutions that people have been trying to say should be sovereign. I say to the Government that no amount of jiggery-pokery will sort things out. At the end of the day, parliamentary shenanigans will do far more harm to this country’s political institutions than we should countenance.

The Government already have phenomenal power and—I have used this figure before, but it is true—this is the first time in our history that more than half of Government Members are now either Ministers, trade envoys or Parliamentary Private Secretaries and are beholden unto the Government in some way or other. We have more Ministers than Italy, France and Germany put together, so the Government’s hold on Parliament in our system is already phenomenal, yet they have introduced clause 9, which is truly exceptional. I have tabled several amendments, which I will not address because I do not think there is any great point. The honest truth is that I would prefer to see the whole clause out of the Bill.

The moment I saw clause 9, I thought, “If there is a real reason for this, surely by now the Government would have argued why they have to have these powers.” Now the Government say a Bill will be introduced on the agreement and its implementation. If there really is a need for those powers, clause 9 should be in that Bill and not in this Bill at all.

I love all four of the Ministers sitting on the Government Front Bench to death, and obviously the safest thing to do today is for one of them to stand up—they could stand up one after another, as in “Spartacus”—and say, “We will not support this. We will not urge the Committee to consider taking on this clause as part of the Bill, because we know we do not really need it.”

People might ask, “If the Government do not really need clause 9, why does it matter if the clause is in the Bill at all?” The problem is that every single Government in the history of the world have always used every power they have to the umpteenth degree. It is a temptation, and we should take temptation out of the Government’s hands if they are not prepared to take it out of their own hands. Let us bear in mind that the Bill will allow the Government to change the Parliament Acts and the Representation of the People Acts. [Interruption.] The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice is standing up! Oh, he’s not.

Admittedly, changes to the Parliament Acts and the Representation of the People Acts by secondary legislation would have to be made via the affirmative process and there would be a vote in both Houses.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I will give way to the 16th century, but I cannot imagine for an instant how the hon. Gentleman could support such a change.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As I have said, I have my doubts about parts of clause 9, but it says that a Minister of the Crown may, “by regulations,” do things

“for the purposes of implementing the withdrawal agreement”.

It is hard to see how that could change the Representation of the People Acts. The hon. Gentleman slightly overstates his case.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman entices me down the road of one of my amendments. Previous legislation allowing Governments such extensive powers, such as the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, has made it clear that, when tabling statutory instruments, Governments have to argue the case for why those statutory instruments are necessary. In this case, the Government have not even added that provision to the Bill, which is what makes me suspicious.

A doubting Thomas is a good man, but he should follow through on his doubts. I hope that means the hon. Gentleman will be joining us in the Lobby tonight, although I have a sneaking suspicion the smile that just crept across his face indicates that he has no intention of doing so.

There has been much talk about what is a meaningful vote. I read theology at university. My theology professor, John Macquarrie, was a wonderful man who had a rather strange half-American, half-Scottish accent. He was asked by a student, “What is the meaning of God?” And he answered, “You should not ask me, ‘What is the meaning of God?’ You should ask me, ‘What is the meaning of meaning?’” That is the kind of existential debate we are having today.

What does it mean to have a meaningful vote? First, I would say that the vote cannot simply be on a fait accompli. It is not meaningful to vote on something after it has already happened and it has already been decided. It cannot just be a vote on a treaty because, as I have already tried to explain, the provisions on treaties in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 state that the Government do not have to provide for a vote on treaties, because it is not an affirmative process. They merely state that, if the House says within 21 sitting days that the treaty should not be agreed, the Government have to have another go, if they want to. That is a problematic process for us.

In addition, a treaty is unamendable. One thing everybody has been arguing in this debate is that we need to be able to send the Government back to negotiate again if we think the deal is not good enough. This cannot be simply be on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. That is what Hobson, the 17th century stable owner said: “You can either take the horse closest to the door or you will not take a horse at all.” It is like Henry Ford’s saying:

“Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black.”

My fear is that the Prime Minister will want to be a stable owner trying to persuade everybody to take the horse closest to the door, and I do not believe that will be a meaningful vote.

Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Chris Bryant

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 20th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

Absolutely. It is worth saying that the reason I presented this Bill rather than any other is that I did a survey of my constituents and of the wider public, to which more than 40,000 people responded, giving them a choice of six different Bills, each of which I would have been very happy to present. Another Member is doing civil partnerships and somebody else is doing votes at 16 and so on, but this subject came top in my constituency and around the country. That means that we are also responding to the public, which is an important part of what we are sent here to do.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

What an utter delight!

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. At least the Rees bit of me is Welsh. I congratulate him on bringing forward this Bill, because he has managed to show that private Members’ Bills on a Friday morning may cover serious topics that have the widespread support not only of the House but the country. It is very important for Parliament that we do sensible and proper things today rather than just hear people making statements.

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that. Because we now have a two-year Session for this Parliament, private Members’ Bill Fridays have been stretched out considerably. If this Bill gets its Second Reading today, as we all hope, it could easily get through Committee in the next few weeks. There is no reason why the Government could not give it Government time on a Thursday afternoon, for instance, rather than having to wait until the end of April for its remaining stages. We could then send it off to the House of Lords and it could be on the statute book by Easter rather than having to wait the whole year.