Business of the House

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Monday 29th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I take seriously my responsibility to ensure that Opposition parties get their Opposition days and can give the undertaking that we will try to reschedule the second half of the SNP’s Opposition day at the earliest opportunity.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I appreciate the prompt three hours of debate on mask wearing. Will the motion be specific to the wearing of masks, or will we be able to raise issues such as air flow, the ultraviolet filtering of air, infection control and treatments, which are also important in combating the virus?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend has promoted me to your role, Madam Deputy Speaker, in respect of deciding what it will be orderly to debate tomorrow. As I said, the three-hour debate will cover the wearing of face coverings and the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation) (England) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2021. I think, although I look with trepidation at the Chair in case I am overruled, that that will allow for quite a wide debate and would be surprised if it were interpreted too narrowly.

English Votes for English Laws

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 13th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I have a sneaking suspicion that we may get the accurate statistics from a careful consultation of Hansard that took place earlier this afternoon by the hon. Gentleman himself. May I point out that I made a speech on the matter in 2011, when I outlined all the difficulties that the system would have? I therefore predate the hon. Gentleman in that I opposed EVEL before it had even been proposed. As a good Catholic, I would be expected always to oppose evil.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend explain why the Government think that England uniquely of the four main parts of the United Kingdom should have no devolved powers at all?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am loth to disagree with my right hon. Friend, who understands these issues very well, and had a better scheme of his own, which would have been called EVEN—English votes for English needs—rather than EVEL. We could be having a very different debate this evening had EVEN been adopted rather than EVEL.

There is of course devolution within England, but it is different. It is not to England as a country, because England makes up 85% of the total of the United Kingdom. As far as I am aware, there is no federal system in the world where one part makes up such a great proportion. The size of England—and of course the influence that comes from that—would unbalance any settlement we tried to create.

It is not just the ability of this place to legislate effectively that has been constrained. More fundamentally, the EVEL procedure has undermined the role of Parliament as the Union Parliament in which all parts of the United Kingdom are represented equally. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) has made that point very eloquently, and I greatly agree with him that there should be equal representation of all Members. I have spoken elsewhere about the ways in which the UK Parliament has become a more important place in our national life following the return of powers from the European Union. Since our departure, we have once again begun legislating properly in areas touching on devolved matters, including trade, health and safety, employment laws and state aid. All of these are now powers returned to the United Kingdom, and we are able to legislate properly because all MPs are equal once again in a Parliament that considers the matters put before it from the broadest possible Union perspective.

Rather than returning to an unhappy, asymmetric answer to the devolution question, the evolving operation of this Parliament has made this much less of a black and white issue than it would have felt in 2014. That is good news, because it reflects the way in which Brexit has strengthened the Union. We have now restored authority in this Parliament to address the problems of voters in every part of the United Kingdom. That is in all of our interests, because our country is much more than the sum of its parts. Just as George III gloried in the name of Britain, so do I, for our global influence together is far greater. Take, for example, our security relationships; the nuclear deterrent, based in Scotland; our shared history as brothers in arms; the economic successes that we have had; or the global reach of the empire builders. One may visit Argyle Street in Hong Kong, the Glencairn suburb of Cape Town, the Aberdare national park in Kenya, or even sunny Cardiff-by-the-Sea in California to see our past shared influence writ large across the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I do not think that is quite what I am saying. I am saying that this Parliament is the Parliament for the United Kingdom and is therefore able to take a broad swathe of decisions. It also takes decisions that affect only England, and it has votes from people from outside England affecting them. The Ministers are United Kingdom Ministers who, like this House, also make decisions for England, but they are held accountable by Members from across the whole of the United Kingdom, and I think that that is a perfectly rational constitutional settlement, considering that 85% of the population of the whole of the United Kingdom live in England. They are not, however, necessarily English.

[John Redwood]

I want to try to clarify this, as the Leader of the House is saying that our Ministers are United Kingdom Ministers. When the Government are consulting the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Irish Government, who then speaks for England so that it is a fair consultation?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Ministers have their different areas of responsibility. Within Ministries some areas are devolved and the Ministers will obviously consult with devolved Ministers; it is important that we have a good relationship with them. Other areas are not devolved and remain the competences of the UK Government, and those matters are decided by the Ministers themselves on behalf of the whole of the United Kingdom. This system is quite well known and understood.

The House will be delighted to note that I am now coming to the end of my speech. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said that I was being generous with my time, but I am not really; I am being generous with the House’s time, and I am aware that this debate is time-limited. The motion seeks to make the process of legislating on matters that deliver for everyone in the UK just a little easier, and it is on that basis that I commend the motion to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

Oh, it is so very hard to avoid starting this speech with the “I told you so” dance—which does actually exist—but alas, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is just making it too easy. In a written ministerial statement yesterday about English votes for English laws, which I will hereafter refer to as EVEL, he said:

“The introduction of the procedure in 2015 added additional stages to the legislative process in Parliament and in doing so introduced complexity to our arrangements and has not served our Parliament well.”

He also said:

“It is a fundamental principle that all constituent parts of the United Kingdom should be equally represented in Parliament, and Parliament should deliver for the whole UK. The operation of this procedure—and the constraints on the role of certain MPs—does not support this aim.”—[Official Report, 12 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 1WS.]

Goodness me! If only somebody could have spotted this sooner. Hmm. Let’s just see what my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle)—who, incidentally, did warn me against using sarcasm in the Chamber—the then shadow Leader of the House and a fantastic role model for me, said in the July 2015 debate on the EVEL proposals. She said that

“as currently written, they are deeply flawed. We do not think that the Government’s proposals are either wise or viable. Indeed, they are likely to put the Union at risk by creating an English veto rather than a voice, possible gridlock in Parliament, and two classes of MP.”—[Official Report, 15 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 949.]

My friend David Hanson, the truly right hon. and sadly not current Member for Delyn, said in that same debate:

“When Members walk through that door into the Chamber, they do so as equal Members.”—[Official Report, 15 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 1011.]

However, he and many others identified that the English votes for English laws provision would undermine that equality, and so indeed it has proved.

In the Leader of the House’s recent appearance at the Procedure Committee, he said:

“It is of fundamental importance, constitutionally, that every Member of Parliament in this House is absolutely equal: Minister, non-Minister, spokesman for Opposition party”—

thank you—

“Front Bencher, Back Bencher, Privy Counsellor, well established, newly elected—there is absolute equality of the regions of the country they represent. That has been the most ancient constitutional principle, which EVEL contradicted to some extent.”

I so agree. I am glad that the Leader of the House can now see the points that my hon. and right hon. Friends made so clearly and eloquently six years ago.

Then there is the contradiction between the two Houses. The written ministerial statement observes:

“The English Votes procedure does not apply to the legislative process in the House of Lords”.—[Official Report, 12 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 1WS.]

It is so hard to avoid that stricture from my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) not to use sarcasm at this point because, as David Hanson put it six years ago:

“Lord Thomas of Gresford in Wrexham, who has never won an election in his life in north-east Wales, will vote on these matters in another place, while I, who have won elections on six occasions in north-east Wales”—

I hope he will one day again—

“will not be able to do so.”—[Official Report, 22 October 2015; Vol. 600, c. 1212.]

[John Redwood]

How can the hon. Lady defend the idea that her party believes in a single category of MP when there is a huge difference of powers, responsibilities and aptitudes between an MP representing a Scottish constituency and one representing an English constituency? I cannot pass any comment here on health and education and so forth there, but they can pass any comment on that in England.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I was expecting references to the West Lothian question. As the Leader of the House has said, we have different bits of devolution for different parts of the country. We have indeed a Labour metro Mayor of the West of England, who was elected quite properly by the people of the west of England. There are different elements of devolution across the entire country. That does not take away from the fact that in this place we should all be equal.

The then Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) totally failed to absorb the wise counsel from my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) on the subject of matters of interest involving the border between Wales and England. My right hon. Friend said:

“The Government like to tell us that English votes for English laws is a clearcut issue, but it is not—and we have heard today many reasons why it is not. Residents of Alyn and Deeside use healthcare services both sides of the border.”—[Official Report, 15 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 993.]

My right hon. Friend has already referred to that and other issues today. I fail to understand why Ministers at that time did not understand what my hon. and right hon. Friends were saying. Now, wonderfully, they do, but why not at the time? We could have saved so much time and effort.

Also, what of the need to reform the constitution of this country? Does this procedure in any way add anything useful? Well, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey observed at the time:

“Labour Members consider that this issue should have been properly dealt with as part of a much wider process involving a constitutional convention to examine a range of issues in a more holistic way.”

That might have answered what the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) was asking. My hon. Friend continued:

“A genuine attempt should have been made to come to a cross-party agreement between the parties represented in this place, and with wider civil society.”

We could still try doing that. She continued:

“Proceeding in this consensual way, rather than in the blatantly partisan way the Government have chosen, would have hugely increased their chances of introducing a successful and sustainable change. No such attempt has been made.”—[Official Report, 15 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 951.]

If only the Government had heeded her wise words.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I do so commend to all Members the Labour party’s constitutional convention work, which continues to this day. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey said at the time that there should be that attempt at a cross-party piece of work. If that had happened, perhaps the Government would not have had to admit yesterday that

“Parliament should deliver for the whole UK. The operation of this procedure…does not support this aim.”—[Official Report, 12 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 1WS.]

As my friend, the sadly not current Member for Scunthorpe, the wonderful Sir Nic Dakin said in his winding-up speech:

“That is why we are asking the Government to learn from their mistakes and proceed in a genuinely cross-party way that allows all interests to be properly examined. We need to go back to the McKay commission report”.—[Official Report, 15 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 1043.]

I interrupt that quote to explain for those who do not know that the McKay commission did indeed look at issues of devolution. It was commissioned by the coalition Government, and I urge the Government to go back and look at it. The report, Sir Nic said, examined the issue

“properly and thoroughly. That should be our starting point. As this issue has far-reaching implications for the way in which this Parliament operates, it is well worth seriously considering taking things forward through a Joint Committee of the Commons and Lords. That will be a proper way to proceed with a constitutional issue of such significance.”—[Official Report, 15 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 1044.]

There are probably not many people in the House who would not agree with my friend, Nic Dakin. The Government cannot complain of a lack of constructive suggestions, either at the time or now. Will the Leader of the House tell us whether, having seen the error of their ways, the Government would now consider a cross-party non-partisan piece of work in which we do what we need to do to strengthen our constitution, make it fit for the 21st century for the United Kingdom, go back to the McKay recommendations and try to work out what we need to do to bring power as close as possible appropriately to people?

What of the words of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who was recently quoted in The Times? He said:

“Ultimately, it’s a convention which arose out of set of circumstances after the 2014 referendum, where you had a coalition government and so on. We’ve moved on now, so I think it’s right to review where we are on it.”

Dear, oh dear, this doesn’t half reek of partisanship.

At the time, it was dressed up as the democratic thing to do. The Government accused those who objected to it of being party political, but it turns out that the opposite was, in fact, the case. I am afraid that this rather looks as if the Tories will do anything to cling on to power, even if it undermines democracy and even if it undermines our Union of nations, which the EVEL procedure does by creating different classes of MP in the House, depending on the nation their constituency is in. The Prime Minister is always claiming that he is a strong supporter of preserving and strengthening the Union, but in reality he seems to be a cheerleader for Scottish independence. The more atrocious he sounds, the happier SNP Members seem to be, as that makes their case for them. Feeding their indignation helps them to make their case that their sole purpose for being here is to campaign not to be here.

Creating two tiers has added to a narrative that does nothing to help preserve the Union. Poor legislation on constitutional matters seems to be a theme for the Government. For example, the Northern Ireland Secretary said last year that the new post-Brexit law was breaking the law

“in a very specific and limited way”—[Official Report, 8 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 509.]

That is an extraordinary thing for a law maker to say about something as important as our constitution and the way in which we operate legally.

[John Redwood]

Will the hon. Lady explain why Labour told us that Scottish devolution would solve the problem of independence, but it led directly to an SNP Government and the demand for a referendum?

[Thangam Debbonaire]

Well, I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that that is democracy. There is a Scottish Parliament, and the Scottish people elect its Members. At the moment, Scotland is still part of the United Kingdom, and long may that continue.

If the Government want to reform the constitution, they are going about it in an odd way by doing things piecemeal. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 was repealed last week; the boundary review is happening at some point, when it may suit the Government to put it in the legislative timetable; and there is the outrageous, anti-democratic, totally unnecessary, using-a-wrecking-ball-to-crack-a-wholly-imaginary-nut legislation on voter identification. If the Government want to reform the constitution, perhaps they could return to the McKay commission report, and emphasise the need for a national consensus-building approach to constitutional reform.

Once again, the Labour party is happy to oblige the Government with news of our constitutional convention. Over the past 15 months, EVEL has been suspended. The Leader of the House himself said in an evidence session with the Procedure Committee that

“EVEL has been suspended for a year without any loss of effectiveness to the way the House operates, any loss to the constitution, or any loss to MPs’ ability to represent their constituents.”

I quite agree, and would go further in saying that I very much doubt that anyone outside the House has even noticed. He added:

“I think the EVEL Standing Orders take up more than 10% of all our Standing Orders, for a procedure that has not had an effect on our business once in the time in which it has been available.”

I really am struggling to avoid the “I told you so” dance. Given that the Government strongly supported EVEL six years ago and have now decided to think again, I have to ask the Leader of the House what changed? What have the Government learned about EVEL in the past 15 months that has led to this devastatingly obvious conclusion that the Labour party was, in fact, right all along? What plans do the Government have for developing devolution and constitutional reform within the context of a strong and united United Kingdom?

The most disappointing element of this whole completely pointless process is the disdain that the Government repeatedly show for the people of this country and for the concept of national identity and national pride. We have seen that very recently when many senior Cabinet Ministers so badly misjudged the public mood on the England football team taking the knee in solidarity as a team with their black teammates and to show their opposition to racism everywhere. It is time that the Government looked at the leadership qualities shown by Gareth Southgate, so inspiringly set out in his incredibly patriotic letter, “Dear England”, which I have read many times, despite the fact that I have very little interest in football. It sets out a richly layered, values-based patriotism.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

England deserves better, and England expects better. It is a sad occasion that this Government should wish to dismiss the only modest devolution ever offered to England, with nothing to put in its place. They leave instead Labour’s lopsided and unfair devolution, a devolution proposed and forced through a previous Parliament, on a large majority, by a Labour party that said it would settle the constitution and unite the country behind the Union once and for all. It did nothing of the sort.

Surely this Government can now see that if they carry on, as Labour did, appeasing the forces that would pull the Union asunder, they will not bring the Union together but give those forces greater strength and a better platform. Instead of Scottish electors welcoming their devolved powers and deciding to continue in the traditional mould of two United Kingdom parties contesting power, they chose a party that wishes to pull the Union apart. Some of them chose that party because they thought the Government would give in to it, and so get a better deal for Scotland; and some of them chose that party because they genuinely wanted to pull the Union apart, although they were, of course, in a minority.

The Government and I treasure our United Kingdom. We wish this Union to work for everyone, but it has to be a fair Union and it will not be held together better by appeasing the SNP or by appeasing the EU over Northern Ireland, when we above all in this House should be speaking up for all the millions of Unionists in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and throughout England and Wales, who expect better and expect fairness.

One of the crucial values that our United Kingdom shares is that idea of fairness. How is it fair to have these totally different categories of MP, with different powers, different responsibilities and different opportunities to influence how they are governed in their parts of the United Kingdom? Why is it that England, the home of many more millions of Unionists and more loyal to our country than anyone else in our Union, is the one part of the Union that gets no justice and no fairness from this Government or their predecessors?

Labour introduced policies that sought to break the Union in the name of keeping the Union. I want this Government to mend the Union, and that means standing behind all those people throughout the United Kingdom who believe in the Union, and to stop appeasing those who would pull it apart.

Business of the House

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Thursday 25th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very troubling issue. All deaths in custody of the state are matters that should concern us, as those who believe that the state should always behave extraordinarily well to people in its charge. The death of Mohamud Hassan has rightly been referred to the IOPC, and I think confidence in our systems is enhanced by proper, thorough and independent investigation. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that that is what must happen—it must happen

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) [V]]

As businesses large and small need more orders to power jobs and economic recovery, can we have a debate on Government buying? Can we learn from the great success of buying so many vaccine doses from UK science and facilities, and buy more innovative and competitive goods and services from companies here at home?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend, as always, raises interesting and important points. The Government are planning on creating a much simpler and nimbler procurement system, which will open up procurement opportunity to small and medium-sized businesses. However, I hope he will contribute to the Budget debate that is coming up, which will be an opportunity to talk about these matters at greater length.

Business of the House

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Thursday 21st January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As regards the musicians’ requests, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave the shadow Leader of the House. What the British Government asked for and offered was generous, and it was refused by the European Union.

As regards my comments last week, at least I did not joke about happy Members of the SNP, because that really would have been a joke too far; I do not think it has ever yet been achieved, but perhaps one day—we live in hope. I reiterate the £23 million of extra support for the fishing industry, the increased exclusive area for UK fishermen to use and the additional quota that is coming, with a 15% uplift already, going to 25% within five years. That is an enormous increase in our control of our fishing waters, which will ultimately repay the fishermen of the United Kingdom for the damage that was done to them when we joined the European Union. That is fundamentally important.

On universal credit, it was this Government, under my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who introduced universal credit, and this Government have allowed an extraordinary increase in support for the most vulnerable in society, including the £20 a week uplift. That is £1,000 a year, in addition to the £170 million winter grant scheme; £380 million in free school meal vouchers in the summer; increasing the national living wage; an extra £670 million for councils to help families pay their local bills; and supporting the most vulnerable families with £165 million for the troubled families programme. This Government have shown their absolute commitment to the least well-off in society and have done their best in these very difficult times to provide the support that is needed.

Ultimately, all the hon. Gentleman wants to do every week is moan about the devolution settlement. The referendum was won by the Unionists in 2014. It was accepted that it would be for a generation. A generation is not a mere six and a half years. The Scottish people made their choice, and he is still grumpy that they did not make the choice that he wanted. This Parliament respects the free choice that the Scottish people made more than he does. When the SNP is in such an awful muddle with its rows and disagreements, with Mr Salmond and Ms Sturgeon getting together and fighting like cats in a sack, it is a most disagreeable spectacle. That is why we should all support the Union and not leave it to the dangerous activities of the SNP.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) [V]]

People voted to take back control so that the Government would use the new powers to make their lives better, so will the Government urgently make time available for the VAT cuts, the new enterprise zones, the freeports, the policies to increase our fishing fleet, the policies to boost our domestic food production and the so many other good ideas that Ministers should be queuing up to put through our House now we are an independent country?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend is not only right but he reads my mind. There are great opportunities: the new financial services regulation, which will encourage innovation and competition; the faster and more agile clinical and regulatory regime that is going through with the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill; a revolutionary approach to gene editing, on which the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is consulting; freeports, on which the Treasury is consulting; and looking at public procurement differently. We are really taking back control and seeking the advantages, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will join in this enterprise and send a list of all his good ideas to every Minister so that we know there are more ideas bubbling away.

Business of the House

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Wednesday 30th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his enthusiasm for the vaccine, which at least was the preamble to his question. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care was here earlier this afternoon answering questions about the vaccine. As soon as we are back—the day after, on the Tuesday—there will be a debate on covid, which will be another opportunity to raise questions. One has to be realistic about this. The vaccine is being rolled out as swiftly as possible. This is very important. It is a great achievement. We have been one of the first countries in the world to license a vaccine and get it into people’s arms, and that is going to make the country safer earlier than would otherwise be the case. I think one should look at the good news rather than being too Eeyore-ish about it.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) [V]]

I was surprised by the lack of Government business in the forward look from the Leader of the House. I had assumed that Ministers would be jostling to come forward with ways to use all the new freedoms we will have following independence day on 1 January. Can the Leader of the House give us some insight into when we will hear from the Government about the taxes they will be changing and removing, the laws they will be improving, and the grant, subsidy and support schemes they will be shaping in Britain’s interest? I am sure that we can improve on many of the things that we were suffering under during our time in the European Union.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. His views of what should happen and mine are very close. I would point out to him that there are quite a few Bills currently in their lordships’ House, which they are working through patiently; of course, every peer has important views that they wish to express on many of these issues. Those will come back, and as they come back, that will take up our time. But there is good news for my right hon. Friend: although it is not necessarily right for me to announce the Bills that are coming, because other Secretaries of State may wish to announce them individually, I have a feeling that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary may be cooking something up that he will like very much.

Proceedings During the Pandemic (No. 4)

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As I am sure my right hon. Friend is aware, the point of the 14-day quarantine is that after 14 days it is clear that you have not been infected and that a test indicating that you are clear will mean that you are completely clear. However, people who have the illness need to self-isolate for only seven days until the symptoms have cleared up, because after that point they are not infectious. Those two differentials show that the testing regime is worth using and also that it does not show that you haven’t got it until you have got it, if my right hon. Friend follows what I am saying.

The key points here are not only that we are getting back to work in this House, but that we were already back at work. We led the way. The letters that came into my office about what we were doing in June bear some reading. People did not think we were necessarily wise to be leading the way as we did, but we are back. We are firmly back. We are physically voting, and most business in this House takes place physically rather than virtually. None the less, to protect some vulnerable people, and to consider the situation of the nation as a whole, we have maintained some facilities voluntarily used by Members to allow for remote participation in some of our proceedings, and we are maintaining social distancing within the Chamber, which is in line with Government advice.

A number of hon. and right hon. Members have asked whether that can be changed before 3 November, and the answer is yes, of course it can. If the advice of PHE changes, Mr Speaker can change the arrangement of the House under this order immediately. There would need to be no delay and no debate. This is a facilitating motion to allow us to keep up with the best recommendations from PHE. I note that my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden does not have much confidence in that organisation, but I would ask him where else the advice is going to come from. Who are we going to take the advice from? I think we have to take it from the responsible Government body.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Would the House authorities and the Leader of the House also look at the question of whether we can optimise the use of the seats we have? Why do we have to keep to the rule that we cannot speak from certain seats, when we are desperately short of seats and want more people to spontaneously join in the debate?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend has a record of making important and valid points in the Chamber, and that one is absolutely spot on. We must of course look at whether we can use those seats. As I look up to the Galleries, I note that according to “Erskine May” it is still possible to speak from the Galleries. It might upset the broadcasters a little, but I am not sure that that is everybody’s concern. If my right hon. Friend went up to the Gallery and sang “Rule, Britannia!”, I wonder whether the broadcasters would find a way of recording and broadcasting it. Perhaps he would like to do that.

I want to reassure the House that I, perhaps as much as anybody in this Chamber, want to get back to normal. I, as much as anybody in this Chamber, think it is right that we have been leading the way for the nation as a whole, but this motion is not as bad as it seems. It is permissive, not compulsory. It allows discretion, and it will allow the numbers to increase. Yes, it runs till 3 November, but bear in mind that proxy voting will come up for review before the end of this month. This is not the only time we will be able to discuss this and to think about it, but this seems to me to be the right step to be taking this evening.

Question put and agreed to.

Business of the House

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The right hon. Gentleman has done exactly the same, Mr Speaker.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Given that we still have not seen the Bill, may I ask what the deadline is for the tabling of amendments, and until what hour the Government would propose that we sit on these three days?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

A motion has been tabled in my name to be dealt with later today, allowing for amendments to be submitted prior to the Second Reading. If that motion is approved by the House, it will be possible to submit them later today, by which time the Bill will have been approved. The programme motion will be set out tonight before the rise of the House.

Business of the House

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Monday 8th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that issue. I fear the House was a bit jealous of all the Cabinet leaks and decided to have one of its own. It was rather a big problem for the House, and the debate had to be adjourned. I have already spoken to my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is very much looking forward to the resumption of that debate and making his points as well as facilitating those of the Opposition spokesperson. I will announce that as soon as possible.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Why the undue haste? Why are the Government conceding the Bill that they do not want before they have even had the amendments or the votes? Why have they not dug in over the need for a money resolution? It will be enormously expensive to delay the exit from the European Union, given the very high taxes that it imposes on us. Surely the Leader of the House should dig in on that and insist that the normal procedures apply.

[Andrea Leadsom]

My right hon. Friend is exactly right that if passed the Bill would place a severe constraint on the Government’s ability to negotiate an extension and reflect the new date in the UK statute book before 12 April. The Government do not accept that the Bill is necessary and deeply regret that the House has taken it upon itself to introduce a Bill that has not had the proper preparation, scrutiny or drafting. It is of grave regret to the Government; none the less, the Government will abide by the law at all times.

Business of the House

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

Mr Speaker, you will rule if I move out of order, of course, but the point that my hon. Friend is making is about the Bill. In section 1(6) and (7) of the Bill, if I recall that correctly, there is a requirement for the Government to bring back what the EU asks it to do, but that matter is probably better debated as part of the debate on the Bill, because it is not a question of the business of the House motion. In response to her, however, I want to repeat that the lack of scrutiny of which she complains arises from the fact that, unfortunately, in the absence of an extension request, this country leaves the EU on Thursday next—a point that she and others of my hon. Friends have often made, and rightly. We do not have the choice between a long look at the Bill and no look at the Bill; we only have the choice between a short look at the Bill and no look at the Bill. She prefers no look; I prefer a short look. Those are the only two options.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

My worry about expending this time today is that the only proper thing that the House can debate and influence is whether we ask for an extension. We know that the Prime Minister wishes to ask for one. He, however, indicated that he would want the Bill to be amended or developed so that the House may express its view on what the length of the extension had to be. We know that last time the Prime Minister asked for an extension to 30 June, but she got one to 12 April. Once we have asked for an extension, it is the EU’s decision. This House, for all its mighty powers, has no ability to legislate for what the EU should do.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

My right hon. Friend tempts me to stray into the particulars of the Bill, but I was not suggesting that it should be developed to have the effect that he describes; it already has that effect. The Bill provides for the House, upon the Prime Minister putting forward a motion about the length of the extension, to determine whether it wishes to amend that length, and then provides for her to seek the approval of the House for whatever she comes back with from the EU. There are issues about whether this is the best drafting, but they can be considered in the Lords stages of the Bill if the Government so wish. We had productive discussions with the Government this very morning about their views on whether more flexibility should be built in. We are very open to that—I think I can speak for my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford on that—but at the moment, the Bill does exactly what I described, and not what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) described.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I oppose this business motion. The idea of speed legislating is dangerous and wrong on this occasion, although I fully accept that there are times when legislating at pace can make sense. If the House has a consensus and the matters are not contentious, of course there is no need to waste the House’s time on pointless debates in which Members try to think of something to say. Were there a great national emergency and most people in the House thought that the Government should take emergency powers to deal with a catastrophe, that would have to go through at pace. However, there is no national emergency that can justify this, and there is certainly no consensus in this House.

We cannot be sure how the vote will go this evening. It may be that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) has enough Conservative rebels to tip it over the line—I think that that is the modern phrase—for himself, or it may be that enough Conservatives respond to the Government’s whipping and carry the day with our DUP partners. Either way, I think we can be sure that a large and significant minority of Members of Parliament who have lost will be in no way part of any consensus. On my side of the argument, there would be a minority who in no way think that such legislation should be rushed through at pace. We feel that we have every right to table amendments and to discuss them in the normal way.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

My right hon. Friend ought to be a little careful, because a number of us voted for the Prime Minister’s deal, which would have got us out of Europe on 29 March. As someone who voted for the deal, the suggestion that this proposal is somehow about losers’ bad faith does not accurately reflect my actions.

[John Redwood]

I think my hon. Friend misheard me. I made no such allegation about her or my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset. I was paying them all due civility in saying that they may win, but nobody can claim that there is a big consensus in this House or a large potential majority on either side, so we need more time than is being offered in this business motion. Lightning legislation is bad legislation.

As we have already heard, this potential legislation poses fundamental questions about the nature of government, how government is conducted and the powers of Government, which go to the heart of our very processes, and seeks to overturn conventions and Standing Orders that have been in place and accepted by Governments of both persuasions for a long time. That should happen only after due consideration. I am not one to think that there should be no constitutional change or experiment. I have often been against my own Government and have understood the need to use the available procedures to get them to change their mind. However, we should not enter into a radical transformation on the basis of just a few hours’ debate, which is what we are being offered in this business motion.

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

Viewing this situation objectively, I do not believe that there is any constitutional impropriety whatsoever in what the House is being asked to do this afternoon. It simply does not arise. The truth is that we have a flexible constitution. I rather agree with my right hon. Friend that one often wants more time, but it is precisely when one faces an emergency that the flexibility of the constitution becomes most desirable, and I cannot alter the fact that the emergency exists. With that in mind, I would hope that he would appreciate that there is nothing improper in what the House is doing. In fact, it is only since a recent date in this House’s history that we have been fettered by the Government’s almost total control of the Order Paper.

[John Redwood]

Again, I fear that my right hon. Friend did not listen carefully. I never suggested any impropriety. I said that we wished to proceed in an orderly manner, which Mr Speaker will ensure that we can do, and that there are occasions on which we need to change our procedures or modify our Standing Orders. On this occasion, however, the case I want to make is that there are some fundamental issues that are worthy of rather longer time than is being offered in this business motion.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

rose—

[John Redwood]

I would quite like to develop my argument, but I will give way to my right hon. Friend.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I rather agree that it would be desirable to have longer to discuss these things, although, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) just said, I am not suggesting any impropriety. Nevertheless, there is innovation here, and it would be nice to have longer.

Is not the fundamental difference between us that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) thinks—I know he genuinely thinks this, and he has thought about it a lot—that leaving on Thursday week without a deal is not an emergency, whereas many of us who support this motion think, rightly or wrongly, that leaving on Thursday week is an emergency? Is that not the real difference between us?

[John Redwood]

We are going beyond the business of the House motion, but of course it is not an emergency. We have had two years and nine months to prepare for it, and the Government have assured us that they are ready to leave without an agreement, if necessary. More than half the public now think it is the right thing to do, but that is a matter of substance and not a matter of the business of the House motion.

I will briefly mention three elements that give the Government an advantage so that they can claim to be the Government and behave as the Government, if they have the wit and the votes to do so—of course, they need to keep enough votes enough of the time to fulfil their role.

The first element is control of the Order Paper. Of course the Government should not have complete control of the Order Paper and, by convention, they agree with the Opposition on providing Opposition days, which they must do, and allow the Opposition to debate the things they wish to debate, either in their own time or in Government time. If the Government do not do that, things can break down and become a matter of controversy, and the public may side with the Opposition, so the Government have to behave in a sensible way through the usual channels on business.

By tradition, for many years now, the Government set a Queen’s Speech programme of legislation, which is meant to be a coherent and consistent programme—and under a good Government it is—that reflects what they have persuaded the electors to vote for, because they have more seats than anyone else in the House. The programme is presented by Her Majesty, usually annually—we are in a strange Parliament because we only do Brexit, so there was no need for a new annual speech because this Parliament has been on groundhog day for two years and nine months.

As someone who used to be interested in this subject, I actually want to go on and talk about some of the other subjects in which I am interested. I would like this done. By convention, we have an annual Queen’s Speech in which the Government present what they think is a coherent programme of legislation that fits into how they are trying to govern the country, and then it is up to Parliament to rip it apart, amend it, improve it, say that bits of it are not acceptable and try to influence the future programme.

[Andrea Leadsom]

My right hon. Friend is making some good points, and I add that not only would the House usually have much more time to consider a Bill of such constitutional significance but, of course, the Bill would, previously to coming before the House, go before a committee consisting of the business managers, the Law Officers, the territorial Ministers and many others to test both the policy and the handling plan. There would be significant cross-House engagement, and it is for that reason that, in this Session alone, 43 Bills have received Royal Assent. I completely agree with him that due process is incredibly important.

[John Redwood]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend.

The second big issue that is relevant to this business of the House motion is that, traditionally, only a Minister may move a money resolution in support of legislation that requires the expenditure of public funds. Again, there is very good reason for this, because the Government have to be responsible for the Budget, and they normally understand that, if they want to spend more, they have to raise more through taxes or borrowing. The Government are responsible for both sides of the account.

Again, the House can criticise, refuse to agree or try to get the Government to shift their position, but it is the Government who are financially responsible to the markets and for all the other reporting that has to be done. This proposal could have very significant financial consequences indeed, because staying in the European Union is an extremely expensive thing to do, and I think it would need a money resolution, which should be moved by a Minister of the Crown.

[Sir William Cash]

I intend to raise a point of order on this question but, as my right hon. Friend is the first person to mention it, he may be interested to know that I have already prepared a comprehensive note on the question of a money resolution. It would cost UK taxpayers some £36 billion if our contributions are extended for up to two years, which is a vast sum of money. I have written a paper for Mr Speaker and others explaining why I believe a money resolution is required, and at least 50 Members have backed my letter to Mr Speaker on this question. That will come up later.

[John Redwood]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. Again, it is important to have it on the record in this debate for the House’s consideration that we are dealing with things that could have precedents with wide ramifications that go way beyond the next few days and whether we leave in accordance with the views of the British people or not.

The final of my three points is perhaps even more relevant to this particular proposal: it is tradition that the Government have vested in them Crown prerogative, and the Prime Minister and Ministers act on behalf of the Crown in all international negotiations. That is not just our view, important though that is, in this House of Commons; while we still remain subject to the superior law of Brussels, it is also the law of Brussels. The Brussels authorities—the European Union—do not wish to negotiate with groups of MPs. They wish to negotiate with the UK Government, because it is the UK Government who are the signatory to the treaty and the UK Government who have sought the agreement of the EU to our withdrawal—or indeed to our automatic withdrawal under article 50 should no agreement be reached.

[Kate Hoey]

Does it concern the right hon. Gentleman that so many groups of MPs, ex-Prime Ministers and so on—not official Select Committees, which might have gone to the EU to see Michel Barnier and others—seem to have been trotting over to see the European Union as though they are almost negotiating on behalf of this Parliament and almost advising Michel Barnier as to what to do to make sure we end up either not having a Brexit or having a very soft Brexit? Does that not worry him?

[John Redwood]

It worries me, but I am a freedom-loving young man and I think that people will do what they want to do; I do not want to stop MPs expressing their views and going to talk to people with whom we are trying to negotiate. I also have a right to a view on it and I agree with the hon. Lady that if those MPs went there with the express intention of delaying or sabotaging Brexit—if they went there to weaken the pretty feeble position the Government had already adopted in the negotiations in order to make it more difficult for us to get any kind of agreement that I could agree to—that is a matter of grave regret. That will be judged by the British people in subsequent elections. It is not for me to make the misery of those MPs greater; they will need to answer to their constituents about that.

[Sir William Cash]

When I was talking about the money resolution, I ought to have mentioned that it is not just me who has made these submissions; I understand that a Minister has also made representations. I just want to confirm, on the record, that it is not just Back Benchers doing this, but the Government, because a Minister has told me that he has raised them.

[John Redwood]

I am pleased the Government have made that representation, as it adds force to the case I was making.

On this Crown prerogative point, the EU position and the internationally agreed position is that only the Government can formally represent and negotiate on behalf of the UK. So one of my problems, which I raised directly with my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), is how far can this House go in instructing and controlling the negotiation? He gave me a sensible answer, saying that the House was not going to try to say that there had to be a delay, because he fully understood my point that that is ultimately in the EU’s gift. As I pointed out, it is in this House’s gift to insist on a Minister seeking a delay. He rightly added that it is in this House’s gift to decide whether to accept any delay should the EU grant it, but the central point is that, assuming this House wanted a delay, most of the power rests with the EU. As we saw the last time a needless delay was sought and granted, quite a long delay—to 30 June—was requested, but the effective delay turned out to be only until 12 April.

The point I am making is that we do not want to take time debating something that misleads people. A lot of people outside this House think that today we are debating a Bill that will require and achieve a delay, whereas it cannot possibly guarantee to do that. People must also understand that even if this House reaches an agreement with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, she may not end up with anything like that which the House was seeking.

The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), who has disappeared, said that she had discovered that we could do anything. I have to disabuse her of that notion in two ways. First, even this House and all Members of Parliament—sometimes the public do not understand this—have to obey the law. Our advantage is that we can change the law if enough of us wish to do so.

Secondly, the hon. Lady also has to understand that great though this House can be once we are out of the European Union, and powerful though it is even still within the European Union, there are a lot of things for which it cannot sensibly legislate. Let us suppose that all working people would like it to rain on Mondays and Tuesdays, and be sunny on Saturdays and Sundays. That would be very convenient and an extremely popular law to pass, but there is no point in passing such a law, because even this House does not control the weather. I feel the same about the European Union.

There is absolutely no point in this House legislating for how the EU should respond, what its conduct should be or what laws it should pass—although they are a matter of great interest to me and many others—because we have absolutely no power over it. Indeed, that was at heart of the referendum campaign. What the SNP never accepts when it uses our phrase, “take back control”, is that the control that we wish to take back is all those mighty powers granted to the European Union, which the SNP is relaxed about. As soon as the Executive here wants any power to behave as a normal Government, however, the SNP says that that is unacceptable and Parliament needs to take it back.

I hope that the House will consider the business motion carefully, that more will come to my view—this is too little time to discuss such fundamental issues—and that they will agree with me that the big issues are to do with our future procedures and with the balance between the Executive and Parliament. I am one who often criticises the Executive, but I do not want to go too far this afternoon so that all government is in effect impossible. They must retain control of the agenda and of the money.

Business of the House

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Monday 1st April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I say to my right hon. and learned Friend that the problem with the process of indicative votes is that MPs are free to pick and choose whatever policies they like, without any responsibility for what happens afterwards. There is an obvious flaw in that process—I look particularly at Opposition Members. Especially in a hung Parliament such as this, it is not unreasonable to suspect that individual Members might have ulterior motives for supporting or opposing particular measures, rather than voting just on their merits. After all, the House of Commons is a theatre, within which different political parties compete for power, either by trying to avoid a general election or trying to get one by collapsing the Government. Amid that chaos, who is to be held accountable for what is decided?

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Is that not particularly the case when Parliament is trying to issue instructions to the Government about an international negotiation, but only the Government can negotiate on behalf of the United Kingdom? We cannot have little groups of MPs who fancy their chances turning up in Brussels, purporting to represent the UK. It makes it a difficult exercise when Members are trying to influence a negotiation that only the Government can handle.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. I have some criticism of the way in which the Government have conducted their European policy, but they cannot be held responsible for decisions for which they did not vote or prove impossible to carry out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

What was it the late Earl of Beaconsfield said of Mr Gladstone, “A prolix rhetorician inebriated by the exuberance of his own verbosity”? I would not dream of saying such a thing about the right hon. Lady.

Let me return to the motion in hand, which is discourteous to you, Mr Speaker, does not allow sufficient time for debate—

[John Redwood]

rose—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I will not give way again, because others wish to speak—apologies. The motion is discourteous to you, Mr Speaker, limits time for debate and is fundamentally against the constitution.