Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 15th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I know that this is a matter of concern to a large number of Members of Parliament, and indeed to our constituents, who correspond with us regularly about it. The Government have long been committed to a two-state solution and we encourage conversation, diplomacy and moderation in the activities of everyone involved. I am aware of the demand for debates, but I would point the hon. Lady in the direction of the Backbench Business Committee, which I know is aware of the demand and interest in this subject.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

This week we debated and voted on the important issue of compulsory vaccination for care home staff. On 22 June, the draft statutory instrument was published, along with the words:

“A full impact assessment of the costs and benefits of this instrument is available from the Department of Health and Social Care, 39 Victoria Street”.

That would have been very useful because, as the Leader of the House will know, an impact assessment helps Members to decide on the merits or otherwise of the Government’s policy, but no such impact assessment was published. During the debate, the Minister for Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), said that

“the impact assessment is being worked on”.—[Official Report, 13 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 271.]

It seems to me that either there was an impact assessment, as the Department said there was on 22 June, or there was not, as the Minister said in the debate. But a third option came along, which was that in fact there was a full impact assessment but it was deliberately withheld from this House. Whichever is the case, this seems to be a very disappointing episode for scrutiny. This is a genuine request: could we have a statement from the Health Minister next week to clear up the situation, please?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Yes, I can assure the House that it was a matter of considerable concern to me that, when an explanatory memorandum said that an impact assessment was being published alongside it, no such impact assessment was published. I did make inquiries and am assured that the impact assessment was, as the Minister said, and as far as I am aware, still not complete. I reiterate the apology to the House given by the Minister for Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), towards the end of the debate that inaccurate information was given to the House. That sort of mistake should not happen and is taken very seriously by the Government. I add only one caveat and that is a general caveat about impact assessments: they tend to try to predict with certainty the fundamentally unpredictable.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 17th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman and I normally see eye to eye on most issues, but on this I must diverge from him. The New Decade, New Approach deal was an historic achievement that brought to an end the three-year political impasse in Northern Ireland. Commitments in that deal were negotiated and agreed by all parties in the Executive, but there has now been a delay, a problem, in bringing forward some fulfilment of those commitments. That is why the Government have now committed to delivering these important commitments through the United Kingdom Parliament. I say to him, as a Unionist, that ultimately it is this Parliament—and we rejoice in it being this Parliament—that is the uniting focus of our nation, so when something is agreed at a political level and then not implemented, it is absolutely right that it should be implemented through this Parliament. I happen to think that the other changes, which were done when there was no clear majority in this Parliament, were done for more political, rather than constitutional, reasons.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

On Monday at 3 o’clock, the media were given an embargoed statement on covid road map changes. At six o’clock, there was a glitzy press conference featuring the Prime Minister. It was not until 8.30 pm that evening that the Secretary of State came to this House to make a statement. Mr Speaker has already said that that is unacceptable, and he is meeting the Prime Minister. I will not ask the Leader of the House to comment on that, because the Speaker has ruled, but I would guess privately that he was making similar noises within Government. However, I ask my right hon. Friend whether he would like the Government to adopt my private Member’s Bill, which will be presented on Monday and which would increase his authority? He is an extraordinary parliamentarian and a great Leader of the House, but if this House in the future was to elect the Leader of the House—from the governing party—he would have further authority and could not at any time be put under pressure or removed. Will the Government adopt my private Member’s Bill, and then I will not need to present it on Monday?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Flattery may get you everywhere, but not on this occasion, because I think the question misunderstands the role of the Leader of the House. Up until Lloyd George, who handed the post over to Bonar Law, the Leader of the House was the leader of the governing party in the House of Commons—the Prime Minister when the Prime Minister was in the House of Commons and somebody like Stafford Northcote when Disraeli was in the House of Lords. The role of the Leader of the House is to ensure that Government business passes through the House, and that cannot be done by somebody who is not an integral part of Her Majesty’s Government. It could not be done in the way that a Chairman of a Select Committee does their job and has a mandate from the House of Commons, or indeed the Speaker does his job and has a mandate from the House of Commons.

So I fear that constitutionally my hon. Friend’s proposal does not work, although I can reassure him that the Leader of the House has a dual-facing role and also has to make representations to Government on behalf of the House of Commons. Members may have noticed that when it comes to issues relating to written questions not getting a reply or correspondence not being replied to in an efficient way, I do my best to ensure that the Commons’ views are represented.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I will do that, and I will ask my office to get in touch with the CMS. The CMS ought to be responsive to Members. I have said before that I have found it one of the most difficult organisations to deal with, as a Member of Parliament for my constituents. I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman and I am grateful that he has raised this point. The CMS must respond to Members of Parliament; that is the duty of that type of agency.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I am very much in favour of the Government’s policy on reducing overseas aid this year. We will still be giving ten thousand million pounds in aid, which is a higher proportion than France, Italy or, of course, the United States of America. But the House has a right to decide on this issue. Does the Leader of the House agree with me that it is very strange that the Government have given the opportunity, via an Opposition day this week, an Opposition day on 14 June and an Opposition day on 21 June, when that vote could definitely occur?

The Backbench Business Committee has been kind enough to announce the subjects of its debates in advance. Why are the loyal Opposition not telling us today that we are going to have that debate on Monday? Is it because they are pretty sure they are going lose the vote and the House will support the Government?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I must defend Her Majesty’s Opposition, because we changed the date of their Opposition day debate, so it is reasonable for them not to have put the debate forward. My hon. Friend lays down an interesting challenge to them, because they know the policy is hugely supported in the country. Polling indicates that a majority of Labour supporters support the policy, let alone Conservative supporters, who support it overwhelming. So, let us see, as time’s winged chariot passes along, whether or not they are brave enough to put their money where their mouth so often is.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 20th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)]

The 2019 MP intake had little time to get their feet under the green Benches and learn about parliamentary protocol before covid struck, and procedures in this House rightly changed so that Parliament could function. Structure replaced spontaneity and call lists replaced bobbing. As we emerge from the shackles of covid, does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to resume normal procedure as soon as possible so that we can scrutinise Government and represent our constituents?

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Hear, hear!

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is always difficult to suggest any degree of intervention with individual cases, because those are obviously matters for the court, although I will of course pass on what the hon. Lady has said to the Lord Chancellor. Let me just set out what the Government have done to try to ease this problem, because it is one that has been recognised and, along with other effects of covid, is one of the greatest seriousness. The Government have committed a quarter of a billion pounds of taxpayers’ money to a covid recovery. Additional space has been created to hear more cases, with 60 Nightingale courtrooms that have been opened, and plexiglass, as we see in our own Chamber, has been installed in 450 rooms. More than 20,000 hearings using remote technology are taking place each week, which is an enormous increase from March last year, so things are being done. Now, 2,000 cases a week are being completed in the Crown court, which is similar to pre-pandemic levels, so it is a question of working through the backlog. However, the issue the hon. Lady raises is one the Government take seriously, and as I have said, I will of course pass on the details to the Lord Chancellor.

[Mr Bone]

One of the great advantages of leaving the European Union was that we escaped from the protectionism of the superstate. Free trade agreements give more choice to the consumer and lower prices. Could the Leader of the House arrange a debate in Government time on a substantive motion, to allow Government Members to indicate how united we are behind free trade agreements and see whether the Opposition will support us?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: free trade is one of the great advantages of leaving the European Union, which has always been essentially a protectionist racket and has led to higher prices for many staples of daily life in this country. The Government are a believer in free trade. We have rolled over any number of trade agreements, with the fantastic work done by my right hon Friend the President of the Board of Trade in ensuring that this has happened and in the negotiations with other countries. Free trade is good for both sides, but it is particularly good for the side that reduces tariffs. Why? Because we lower prices to consumers, which means they have more disposable income to use on other things, be it on investment in their country or buying other goods and services. So we grow the overall economy, reducing the tax burden on individuals because tariffs are taxation, and taxation on staples is not necessarily the best way to lead to economic growth, but it also helps producers because producers have to be more competitive, and that means that, globally, they will do better. For economic growth, free trade has always been the way forward, and God bless the late Sir Robert Peel.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 13th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think that the hon. Lady is really calling for the agricultural reforms that are being put forward to ensure support for farmers who support the environment. Certainly, talking to farmers in North East Somerset, I know that they are well aware of their obligations to protect hedgerows, but this is not an obligation that they resent. They feel it is a natural part of their farming duty.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) [V]]

I am afraid that Parliament is not working. It is not properly holding the Government to account. It strikes me that Parliament should lead, so could we have a statement from the Leader of the House telling us when Parliament, and particularly the House of Commons, is going to be restored to its normal process? When will we end virtual proceedings, so that we can have proper voting and not have hundreds of votes in the Deputy Chief Whip’s pocket, and when will we end social distancing in the Chamber? We really need to lead and get Parliament back doing its job properly.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

A voice cryeth in the wilderness! I am tempted to say, “Physician, heal thyself.” Where is my hon. Friend? Why is he not in this Chamber holding me to account and leading by the example he wants? I entirely agree with him. I am waiting with joy for that day when we are back to normal, which I hope will be 21 June, when everybody will be back here and it will be safe, and we will not have to wear masks and the Dispatch Box will not be covered in perspex, and we will be back to a full and flourishing Chamber. I agree with my hon. Friend that scrutiny is good for the nation, good for the Government and good for our constituents, but I would encourage him to come to London, come to Westminster, and take his seat.

Electoral Commission

Peter Bone Excerpts

Monday 22nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) [V]]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) and the speakers before him, who clearly made the point that the panel has done a very good job in the selection of Mr John Pullinger.

The chairman of the Electoral Commission is an extremely important appointment. This evening, we have to decide whether a humble address be presented to Her Majesty requesting her to appoint John Pullinger as chairman of the Electoral Commission, with effect from 1 May 2021 to 30 April 2025. In making this decision, we should consider two factors: first, whether Mr John Pullinger is a fit and proper person to chair the Electoral Commission; and, secondly, whether there will be an Electoral Commission for him to chair until 30 April 2025. In helping me to consider this issue, I met Bob Posner, the chief executive of the Electoral Commission, and Louise Edwards, the commission’s director of regulation, on Monday 1 February. I also took the opportunity to watch the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission on Monday 1 March, which held an appointments hearing with Mr Pullinger.

I would first like to say that I have absolutely no criticism of Mr John Pullinger. I do not know him personally, but his experience speaks for itself. His time as the House of Commons Librarian will certainly stand him in good stead when it comes to building a rapport with Members from across the House. His role as national statistician shows that he can run an organisation that is in trouble. I therefore think the answer to my first question is that he is a fit and proper person to carry out the role.

However, I am seriously concerned that Mr Pullinger is joining an organisation that is in very serious trouble and that I do not believe will exist in its current format by the end of this year. How can we appoint someone to an organisation that will, in my opinion, disappear in a few months? The Electoral Commission is politically corrupt, unfit for purpose and is damaging democracy in this country. The chairman of the Electoral Commission must set the overall strategic goals for the organisation and ensure public confidence in the institution and democracy. Unfortunately, I think this will be an impossible task for Mr Pullinger.

Given the state of affairs at the Electoral Commission, rebuilding public trust and respect among people from across all political persuasions will not be possible while it is in its current form. I am not seeking to block Mr Pullinger’s appointment, but he is joining an organisation that is being investigated by two parliamentary Committees: the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. The previous chairman’s request to extend his tenure was turned down by the Speaker’s Committee, and the commission has been widely criticised across the political spectrum. How can Mr Pullinger truly change this failed organisation in its current form, when all trust and respect for it has been lost? The answer is that he cannot.

I have a great deal of personal experience of working with the Electoral Commission, and Members of this House will know that I have raised my concerns time and again through oral and written questions, including questions to the Member who speaks on behalf of the Speaker’s Committee, to the Leader of the House, to the Prime Minister and to the Select Committee. My own close experience of the Electoral Commission goes back to the winter of 2015 when I founded Grassroots Out alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove). Grassroots Out—or GO—was a nationwide campaign whose aim was for us to leave the European Union. We worked with individuals of all political persuasions and none, and travelled the length and breadth of the United Kingdom spreading our message of a better life for the UK outside the European Union. The GO campaign was not a party political organisation.

From the very beginning of the campaign, before we even finalised the name, we were in discussions with the Electoral Commission. I held meetings with officials in Parliament and at the head office. We filled in its pre-poll reports, and we broke off campaigning to hold meetings with it. We went to extraordinary lengths to ensure that we were correctly observing the electoral regulations—which were often extremely unclear—even in relation to putting our imprint on ties, umbrellas and pens. Throughout the campaign, we kept up a dialogue with the commission to ensure that we were abiding by the rules, and at no point were we told of any wrongdoing or any concerns that the commission had with the campaign. So I have probably had more detailed experience of the Electoral Commission than any other Member in this House. When the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union on 23 June 2016, there was—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I am not stopping the hon. Gentleman; I am merely drawing his attention to the fact that this is a very narrow motion. It is specifically about the appointment of Mr John Pullinger as the chair of the Electoral Commission. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman wishes to draw to the attention of the House his concerns about the Electoral Commission, but I do hope that he is not going to give us a history of the actions of the commission with which he personally has been engaged over these last several years. Everybody here present is nodding; we all remember these matters. It has also been made clear that the Committee that took the decision to appoint Mr John Pullinger was well aware of the matters that the hon. Gentleman is bringing before the House, so I hope that he is going to be brief in his description of his concerns, which have been noted by the Leader of the House and everyone else who is present.

[Mr Bone]

Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker; my remarks are in fact going to be brief, but I want to draw the House’s attention to some things, and to one particular thing that Members may not be aware of, which my experience will lead to. I hope that this will help the House to make a decision on whether we are right to make this appointment for such a long period. That is my question; it is not about Mr Pullinger, but about whether we are right to make the appointment for such a long period—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is well aware that Mr Speaker did not did not select his amendment about the time. Therefore, the House is considering not the length of time of the appointment but merely whether the appointment should be made. We are not considering how long it should be made for, or any other circumstances surrounding it. This is a simple question of yes or no.

[Mr Bone]

Absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker. I just want to point out my concerns before I decide how to vote on the motion, and before I listen to what the Leader of the House says in conclusion.

My challenge for Mr Pullinger is whether he will get the commission to apologise unreservedly for the wicked and bullying way in which it treated responsible people. Hon. Members may not know this, but each campaign group had to have a responsible person. They were not the political leaders or the politicians; they were not the David Camerons and the Nigel Farages; they were not the people on the television screens; they were not the people making political decisions. They were honest, hard-working people of great integrity who were making sure that the campaigns kept to the election rules.

I want to concentrate for a brief moment on four: Richard Murphy for Grassroots Out, Liz Bilney for Better for the Country, Darren Grimes for BeLeave and Alan Halsall for Vote Leave. I have worked with two of them, and I know one very well as a personal friend, but what linked them all was their great integrity—yet the Electoral Commission set out deliberately to destroy that integrity.

That is the challenge that I want Mr Pullinger to address. The individuals were threatened with criminal prosecution, their names were rubbished, their professional reputations were attacked and they had to endure the worst malicious treatment from a state-funded organisation that I have ever known. I do not say that lightly. In 50 years in politics, I have never known a state-funded regulator to act in such a way. Remember that these people were not guilty of any wrongdoing. Quite the contrary: they helped to facilitate the greatest democratic debate—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is giving us a long history that does not appear to be relevant to the very precise “yes or no” matter before us now, which—as on the Order Paper—is whether Mr John Pullinger should or should not be appointed. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to give us a history lesson at this point. I hope that he will bring his remarks to a conclusion.

[Mr Bone]

Madam Deputy Speaker, you are bringing me to the very crux of the matter. I have four points for Mr Pullinger to answer; I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to respond to them, since obviously Mr Pullinger is not here.

In my opinion, if Mr Pullinger is to be the next chairman of the Electoral Commission, he must accept that what happened in the past to responsible people was unacceptable. He must offer a personal apology to the responsible people—to Richard, Liz, Darren and Alan. He must accept that the Electoral Commission acted in a totally unacceptable way and that it must offer compensation. I hope he will.

I listened very carefully to what the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission put to Mr Pullinger at the public hearing. He answered its questions very well—my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) referred to his answer about impartiality—but we cannot forget the past when we decide the future. Mr Pullinger said that one of the Electoral Commission’s biggest mistakes over the past few years related to

“bureaucracy and timeliness—some things seem to take an inordinate length of time”.

I could not agree more. The Electoral Commission would demand answers from responsible people, but then take months and months to reply. Those delay tactics left the individuals with so much anxiety and concern, even though they did absolutely nothing wrong.

The question tonight is whether we can appoint a chairman to an organisation that has failed so badly and has treated people so badly. If I am right that the commission will be split in two later this year, which half will Mr Pullinger chair? Will it be the bit that is responsible for regulation and running elections, or will he be responsible for a separate organisation that does enforcement? At the moment, the Electoral Commission is investigator, judge, jury and executioner. That cannot continue. However, we are being asked to appoint somebody to that organisation, which is likely to be split. I ask the Leader of the House whether, in the contract that is being given to Mr Pullinger, this situation has been considered, because we cannot go on as we have.

In conclusion, we have a number of people who were bullied by the state. I take bullying very seriously, but this is the sort of thing that happens in totalitarian regimes, not in this United Kingdom. We pride ourselves on our democracy. I think Mr John Pullinger is an excellent choice of chairman, but as the chairman of a new Electoral Commission, so I am going to make my decision on how to vote at the end of this debate, after hearing from the Leader of the House.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 18th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point and I think everyone shares his concern for people working in the steel industry, but particularly in the Trinity Steel plant. The Government are following these developments extremely closely and are going to remain involved in looking at what is happening. The Secretary of State co-chaired the UK Steel Council on 5 March and met interested MPs on 15 March to have an update on developments. My noble Friend Lord Grimstone also met the sector and co-chaired the steel procurement taskforce on 12 March. I will take up the hon. Gentleman’s question with the Secretary of State so that he is informed of the concern within the House. The Government have helped the steel industry with the £500 million in relief for the steel sector since 2013 in relation to electricity costs, but this is an important issue and I understand the hon. Gentleman’s desire for further information.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) [V]]

I was first elected as a councillor to the County Borough of Southend-on-Sea, so I am glad to hear that it is moving towards becoming a city. I am also delighted—I give the Government great credit for this—that the Government are pushing ahead with the elections on 6 May, when we are going to have local elections, police and crime commissioner elections and now a parliamentary election, and are allowing campaigning to be carried out during the period up to those elections. That is the cornerstone of our democracy and the Government should be credited. However, the regulator of those elections is the Electoral Commission, which is inefficient, arrogant and politically corrupt. It is not fit for purpose, so could we have a debate in Government time about a new regulator that would be acceptable to people of all political persuasions?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Serious concerns have been raised about the Electoral Commission, not least by my hon. Friend and, as he knows, I was very concerned about some of the points he raised when this was last debated on the Floor of the House. With a modicum of ingenuity and with a benign Speaker or Deputy in the Chair, there is a debate on Monday on a motion relating to the appointment of the chairman of the Electoral Commission, which being a motion under an Act lasts for up to 90 minutes, where I think my hon. Friend may be able to say a few words of this kind. I have a feeling that I may be responding to that debate, so I may well say a few words in response.

Electoral Commission

Peter Bone Excerpts

Wednesday 20th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the shadow Minister and the Leader of the House. I have concerns about today’s motion. Hopefully, the Leader of the House will be able to reassure me in his closing remarks. This is a very important appointment. There are only 10 electoral commissioners, and they have, overall, five different strategic reasons for being there. The most important, perhaps, is to set the overall strategic direction of the commission, to ensure delivery of its strategic goals, and to ensure public confidence in democracy.

As the Leader of the House rightly said, the process was started way back last year, and many things have changed since that process began. If the Electoral Commission had widespread support, a routine appointment of another electoral commissioner would be no problem. I fear that both the Leader of the House and the shadow Minister are treating it in that respect. I have a great deal of personal experience of dealing with the Electoral Commission, before and during the 2016 EU referendum. Since the appointment process started, there has been a huge amount of criticism of the Electoral Commission, and we do not know what Mr Attwood’s views on the proposed changes are.

I have absolutely no criticism of Mr Attwood. I do not know him, but his CV looks very good and he beat the Liberal Democrat and Plaid Cymru nominees for the post, but he is joining an organisation that is in serious trouble. As the shadow Minister referred to, one of the criteria was: “How are you going to deal with hostile criticism?” I wonder why the Electoral Commission had that as such an important point. It could be because it is not fit for purpose; it is an awful organisation.

What struck me as strange about this Humble Address was the length of time of the appointment. Nominated commissioners for the smaller parties are usually given only a two-year term. This motion calls for a three-year term. Nowhere in the report from the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission can I see why it changed it, and I notice that the Leader of the House did not explain why there was this change. It would seem to me, given the state of affairs in the Electoral Commission, that the term should have been shorter.

I am not seeking to block Mr Attwood’s appointment; I am just seeing whether the Leader of the House will consider withdrawing the motion and appointing Mr Attwood for a shorter period. I will explain why I think that is essential. I also hope that the Leader of the House will be able to answer some of the questions that I would have liked to pose to Mr Attwood personally, because the House needs to know his views on certain things to do with the Electoral Commission to see whether he is the right person to set its goals.

As the Leader of the House said, it is up to the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission how it makes its appointment of an electoral commissioner. It could, before this stage, have recommended pre-appointment scrutiny, perhaps via the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and the questions I am posing now could have been posed then. I understand that if we were appointing the chairman of the Electoral Commission, the Committee may well have gone for a pre-appointment hearing, but we have not had one on this occasion, so I am going to have to press on with the questions I would have liked to ask.

The process outlined by the Leader of the House was exactly how it happened, and it is recorded in the sixth report of the Speaker’s Committee. But of course, that Committee meets in private, so we do not really know what the thinking is about the Electoral Commission. We do know, however, that the Speaker’s Committee has rejected the application for the existing chairman to have a new term of office, which I would have thought implied some criticism of the way the Commission has been run. I think that the situation is so grave, and what the Electoral Commission has done is so wicked, that I want to know what Mr Attwood’s views are on certain things.

I mentioned the fact that PACAC was looking into the looking into the Electoral Commission. In fact, it is a wide-ranging inquiry that started sometime last year, and there are eight areas that the Committee is looking into. The third area asks whether the remit of the Electoral Commission should be changed. The sixth covers public and political confidence in the impartiality and ability of the Electoral Commission, and the eighth asks what, if any, reform to the Electoral Commission should be considered. I would like to know whether those points were put to Mr Attwood and what his answers were.

I also think it is unfair to Mr Attwood to appoint him for three years when he does not know what he is actually going to be appointed to. I have no doubt that PACAC will recommend massive changes to, if not the abolition of, the Electoral Commission, yet he is being appointed for three years to something that could be completely different after only a few months. I hope that the Leader of the House can tell us what will happen if the Electoral Commission is abolished later this summer. I understand that the Committee is likely to report during the summer.

I suppose the question I would have most wanted to ask, and which I hope the Leader of the House can shed some light on, involves the wicked behaviour, political corruption and nastiness of how the Electoral Commission dealt with people who were involved in the details of the 2016 referendum. It has been widely reported, and it will not come as any surprise to the House, that the Electoral Commission tried to persecute people who were heads of the leave campaign—the directors of legal organisations, like myself. I was a director and founder of Grassroots Out, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove). There was widespread coverage of this, and perhaps the most well known and vicious attack was on Mr Arron Banks. In the end, the Electoral Commission had to fight a law case and lose. During that period, Mr Banks suffered malicious attacks in the media. His reputation was damaged: commercially, bank accounts were closed because of the ongoing investigation, and press leaks from the Commission occurred. This was done by the Electoral Commission, whose electoral commissioners are responsible for its actions, yet they used the power of the state, the money of the state, to persecute people who had headed up leave campaigns. I would like to ask Mr Attwood what his view is on that and what he would do in future to stop it happening again.

The area that has not got much coverage, and should have done, is the position of what was called the responsible person. Every leave campaign had a responsible person. I will just mention four of them. For Grassroots Out, it was Mr Richard Murphy; for Better for the Country, it was Liz Bilney; for BeLeave, it was Darren Grimes; and for Vote Leave, it was Alan Halsall. They were threatened with prosecution. Their names were rubbished. Their professional reputations were attacked. They had to endure the worst of malicious state treatment. The money that the Electoral Commission could use in legal fees was endless, yet the individuals had to fight back. They had no support. Quite often the Electoral Commission would demand lengthy explanations of things and give a very short timescale to reply, and it then got months and months to come back. It was disgraceful.

I joined the Conservative party when I was 15, so I have now been in local and national politics for more than 50 years. Often I have disagreed with things and often I have been upset about things—very upset, quite often, by things my own party did—but at no time did I think there was an organisation that was maliciously undermining the democratic process and attacking individuals because of their political views. Let us remember this: the responsible people are not politicians. They are not the Peter Bones or the Arron Bankses; they are just people who want to be involved in the political process and have knowledge of how to do campaign returns. Anyone who thinks the Electoral Commission treated those people fairly either has no idea of what happened or is not telling the truth.

Many of these people had their health severely damaged, their reputations tarnished, and their finances destroyed by having to raise thousands and thousands of pounds to fight the Electoral Commission. Every time, those people won, and not a single one of them was ever charged with anything. They were honest, decent people who were attacked by the state through the Electoral Commission. I want to know from Mr Attwood what he thinks about that, and what the other commissioners think, when we get a chance to debate this. It really was the most disgusting thing that I have ever seen a state organisation do.

We should be immensely proud of the referendum and the debate that surrounded it. It was the greatest exercise in democracy in this country. Whether you were on the leave side or the remain side, it was a great debate. From my point of view, as I said, I formed Grassroots Out. I did not know at the time that Richard Murphy, who was put there to look after the paperwork and everything relating to the requirements of the Electoral Commission, would be in such a terrible, terrible state because of the Electoral Commission—and the electoral commissioners did nothing to stop it.

I put on this rather garish GO tie to show the extent that we went to to comply with the rules. I doubt if anyone else in the country has a tie that has an imprint on the back of it with Richard Murphy’s name on it. That is because we were assiduous in making sure that we did everything right. We went to the Electoral Commission’s buildings when we registered—we went throughout the process. We filled in its pre-poll reports. We broke off campaigning to deal with some return or other it wanted at the last minute during the campaign. My hon. Friend the Member for Corby and I toured the UK, going up and down the country, talking to people and having three meetings a day, but we would break off, if necessary, to deal with the Electoral Commission.

When we finished the campaign, we did the return, which was not that complicated; we had spent a few hundred thousand pounds, which was way under any limit that we could possibly have broken. Being a chartered accountant, I looked at the paperwork we were submitting and it was fine, but we took the extra precaution of going to the Electoral Commission’s offices—I, Richard Murphy and my hon. Friend the Member for Corby—where we went through the return line by line before we submitted it. We said, “Is there anything wrong with this? If there is, we will go back and check it.” It was given the all clear, but months later we are dragged through months and months of an inquiry by a commission whose only reason to do it was that they hated leave campaigners. Instead of being at the heart of the democratic process, encouraging democracy, the commission did exactly the reverse. I would like to know from Mr Attwood how he is going to restore trust in democracy for any future referendum. I would bet a few pounds that none of the responsible people in the EU referendum would take the job on again—I could not advise anyone to do it. They do the work and do it properly, and do not get paid for it, but then the state organisations use all the power of the state; first, it does the regulation, then it does the inspection, and then it becomes the jury and judge and executioner. That cannot be right.

Mr Attwood, I want to know what you think about the reforms necessary to bring confidence back to the Electoral Commission. It may well be that it has to be abolished and that the culture in the Electoral Commission is so wicked, bad and unfair that it has to be scrapped and we have to start again. I fear that we are appointing a commissioner to carry on in the same old way, for a three-year term. It must be clear to everyone that there is not cross-party support for the Electoral Commission and it has lost the support of people. This is not party political; Conservatives, Labour members, United Kingdom Independence party members and people of no party all found themselves being persecuted by this organisation. It is a disgrace. It spends more than £15 million of our money each year. So if Mr Attwood was standing there now, I would say, “What are you going to do about all this?” It may well be that he could give me the answers and I would be able to support him, but this system does not stand the test of scrutiny. I hope the Leader of the House will be able to reassure me on these things when he answers, but I doubt it.

In 2016, we had a revolution. It was not a bloody one; it was a democratic revolution. It changed our relationship with Europe peacefully. More people voted in that referendum than ever before. The Electoral Commission should be helping and encouraging a repeat of that in the future. Its wicked persecution of responsible people after the referendum is a disgrace. I have nothing against Mr Attwood personally, but I think we are being put in a very difficult situation tonight; we are being asked to ask Her Majesty to appoint him as an electoral commissioner when we do not know the views.

Business of the House

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 14th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Mr Speaker, I think that was a reference to association football, so I congratulate you as well.

Before I respond to the right hon. Lady, I pay tribute to Godfrey Cameron, whose death was referred to in the Chamber yesterday, but not by name. Mr Speaker, you referred to him earlier today. He has been one of our security personnel. He worked incredibly hard for the House. He died suddenly at the age of 55. He was an heroic figure; he managed to stop a young lady jumping off Westminster bridge. He is a model of the type of service we have been so fortunate to have in this House. His death will be much mourned by his family, his wife, Hyacinth, and his children, and we pray for the repose of his soul. Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord, and may light perpetual shine upon him. May he rest in peace.

May I now move to happier news? I have not had a chance to congratulate all those who were rewarded in the new year’s honours. It is a fine list: the Counsel for Domestic Legislation, Daniel Greenberg, has been made a Companion of the Order of the Bath—that is well deserved, and for one of the cleverest people I have ever had the opportunity to engage with; Marianne Cwynarski has been made a Commander of the most excellent Order of the British Empire, which is most thoroughly deserved, for all the work she has done in keeping this place covid-secure and operating; John Angeli has been made an Officer of the Order of the British Empire for services to Parliament, particularly for broadcasting; John Owen, Director of Strategic Business Resilience at the House of Commons and House of Lords, has been made an Officer of the Order of the British Empire for services to Parliament; David Smith, Deputy Managing Director of the Parliamentary Digital Service, has been made an Officer of the Order of the British Empire for services to Parliament; Matthew Stutely, Director of Software Engineering, Parliamentary Digital Service, has been made an Officer of the Order of the British Empire for services to Parliament; Avi Dussaram, Member Services Officer, Parliamentary Digital Service, has been made a Member of the Order of the British Empire for services to Parliament; Rupert Hay-Campbell, Head of Architecture, Parliamentary Digital Service, has been made a Member of the Order of the British Empire for services to Parliament and to the community in Essex; Barry Underwood, Head of Distribution Services, Vote Office, House of Commons, has been made a Member of the Order of the British Empire for services to Parliament, particularly during the covid-19 response, and for voluntary services to football—you will like that bit, Mr Speaker: as I understand it, that is one of your great interests. I really take pride in congratulating all of them, as this is symbolic of the wonderful service that this House receives from so many dedicated members of staff.

How fortunate we are to have Mr Jaggs in the Chamber so that I can add my tribute to him. I think the title “Keeper of the Great Clock” is most wonderful; it is hard to think of one that could be better—many people would swap the title of “Prime Minister” to be known as Keeper of the Great Clock. The enormous amount of work that is done is something for which we are very grateful. Thirty years’ service in this place is terrific—I did not know about the five years in Buckingham Palace, but I note Mr Jaggs’ affection for royal palaces, as well as his willingness to turn his hand to everything.

It is a comment on the enthusiasm and support we have in this House that before I came to the Dispatch Box today, Mr Jaggs, our very distinguished Keeper of the Great Clock, was cleaning the Dispatch Box—he was doing everything. When we had a leak in the ceiling, it was Mr Jaggs who dealt with it. I do not really know how this place is going to run after your retirement, so if you get an urgent call to come back, you will know that we need you as a matter of priority. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]

I am sorry for that long preamble, Mr Speaker, but I think it was important. Let me move on to the right hon. Lady’s questions. The end of the Session will be announced in the normal way. She will ask about this every week and I will give the same answer every week: it will be announced in the normal way.

The news on the developments for Westminster Hall is encouraging. As I said yesterday, it is important that we maintain scrutiny. I take extremely seriously the right hon. Lady’s questions on ministerial responses. It is my aim to help any Member of the House who is not getting responses to try to speed the process up. I am grateful for her praise of my own office, although I must confess that the volume of correspondence that I receive is on an entirely different and lower scale from that received by the Treasury and the Department of Health and Social Care, so it is perhaps a little easier for me. One should have had sympathy for them at the beginning of the pandemic, but I think answers should now be coming through much more swiftly.

As regards the statutory instrument on repossessions, there always has to be a balance between renters and landlords; it needs to be a fair system to ensure not only that people’s rights of property are protected, but that people, during the pandemic, have their housing protected. It is all about getting that balance right.

The right hon. Lady raised the issue of council funding, which has been enormous, with £3 billion of additional support to councils announced in the spending review, more than £10 billion in additional covid funding, more than £22 billion for their local businesses and £4.6 billion of additional un-ringfenced funding. Councils have received the money that they need, and this has been an important part of what the Government have been doing with taxpayers’ money.

The right hon. Lady mentioned that the Education Secretary is here answering questions on Monday, which is the opportunity to raise those questions, rather than using me as the postbox between Thursday and Monday. I am sure he will answer all those questions if they are of interest to other Members.

The Prime Minister was clearly exercising reasonably within all the rules—both the spirit and the letter of the rules. This game of trying to pick holes in what people are doing when they are obeying rules is undignified, and I think there is clarity in the rules; I think people know what they are supposed to do. People are allowed to exercise, and at the moment they are allowed to meet one person while exercising. These rules are absolutely clear, and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis said that she did not believe people do not know the rules by now. They do, and the rules are being followed.

I obviously share the right hon. Lady’s concern about Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe; that is a truly important issue. I raise it every week after business questions, and I will continue to do so. I hear her request for a debate. I am not sure I will be able to grant that, but I certainly think that keeping the pressure up via the House of Commons is the right thing to do.

Finally, on the US Administration, we are right to be allies of democracy. It is really important that we get on with the incoming American President. I must confess that the actions of the outgoing President were a matter of the gravest concern. I do not think it is the business of Government Ministers to criticise the leaders of friendly countries, but what happened in Capitol hill is a reminder of how delicate and fragile democracy is and the responsibility of politicians to protect democracy and not to be what one might call an accessory before the fact to disorder. That is a real problem, and let us hope for better things in the United States and that our special relationship will be able to flourish.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) [V]]

I do not know whether the Leader of the House is a fan of “The West Wing”, the fictitious political drama about an American President, but in that drama C. J. is the press secretary to the President, and every day she strides to the podium, announces the President’s policy and answers questions.

Apparently there is now a television studio built in Downing Street, and we are going to have our own C. J.: Allegra Stratton. However, we have a very different system of government. Ministers are supposed to come to the Dispatch Box to announce new policy first in the House of Commons and answer questions from MPs, not announce new policy to the media and take questions from journalists. Could we have a debate on this new situation in Government time at the earliest possible moment?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As it happens, I very much enjoyed “The West Wing”. I found it compelling TV watching and even bought the DVD set, which may sound surprisingly modern. Allegra Stratton’s role is one that has been carried on in the shadows for an extremely long time with the lobby briefings. Of course the Government have to brief journalists from both the newspapers and electronic media, to ensure that Government policy is advertised to the world at large. There are two lobby briefings every day; one of them will now be filmed and in public. This is open government, which I thought my hon. Friend might like, but it will not in any way change the requirement of the ministerial code that policy announcements are made to this House first.

Sittings in Westminster Hall (Suspension) (No. 2)

Peter Bone Excerpts

Wednesday 13th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) [V]]

It is a great pleasure to follow the Chairwoman of the Petitions Committee, and I agree with her entirely in her desire to have hybrid proceedings in Westminster Hall. I also support what has already been mentioned on remote voting, because that improves the democratic process—it is an improvement on having the Deputy Chief Whips walking through the Lobbies with hundreds of votes stuffed in their pockets.

In the short time that I have, I want to talk about private Members’ Bills. The Standing Orders are the bible of the House of Commons. Without Standing Orders, the Government could ride roughshod over the democratic process. I fear that today, that is what is proposed. If the motion goes through unamended, it is effectively abolishing private Members’ Bills for this Session, because there will be no way to get 13 sitting Fridays in before the end of the Session. The Session has already gone on for over a year, and it would mean the abolition of private Members’ Bills.

Many may say that does not matter; I think it does. I think the ability of private Members—Back-Bench Members—to bring in private Members’ Bills is an important part of our democratic process. That is the only time that it is possible to get legislation through the House that was not introduced by the Government. People may say, “That never happens.” Well, let us have a look at the last Session. Sixteen private Members’ Bills completed the statutory process and became Acts of Parliament, including the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018; the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Act 2018; and the Health and Social Care (National Data Guardian) Act 2018, which was in fact taken through the House by me. All were important Bills that became Acts of Parliament.

Of course, there are also nationally important things. I might consider the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 to be an infamous Act of Parliament, but it was passed and eventually led to a general election. In fact, it led to a proper Brexit, which probably was not what the proposers of that Bill wanted. Nevertheless, such Bills are definitely important parts of our democratic process.

The last time that a Government tried to abolish private Member’s Bills was when the Labour Government tried in 1945. I have listened to the arguments quite rightly put forward about the dangers of participation, and about the fact that we are in a covid pandemic and therefore we should put off private Members’ Bills days and Westminster Hall debates. The amendments tabled to the motions we are debating do just that—they stop private Members’ Bills days and Westminster Hall debates in their tracks—but they also require them to be looked at again by the Government and this House after the February half-term. I think that is the right way forward. It gives the Government exactly what it wants—in fact, it is in line with what the Leader of the House has said today. I cannot understand why there is this blanket abolition of private Members’ Bills days when we could bring them back after the February break. If they needed to be changed then, we could of course look at the matter again at that time.

I think this is an attack on democracy, and in particular an attack on Parliament. I looked back to what happened in 1945. Sir Alan Patrick Herbert was the Member for Oxford University and a great parliamentarian who loved the House of Commons—in fact, he was rather like my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope). The last time that a similar motion was brought to the House—the debate then was titled “Business And Sittings Of The House”—he concluded his speech by saying something that I find has stood the test of time:

“I have a Bill here dealing with the provision of legal aid and assistance for the poor. That is something fundamental, but there is not a word about it in the Gracious Speech. What am I to say to all those people who write to me? I must tell them to stop sending their letters and to save their stamps, because I can do no more to help them if this Motion goes through; I might just as well be a Member of the German Reichstag or a stuffed exhibit in the Natural History Museum. If the House will not have my Bills on the Table I cast them on the Floor, as a monument to Parliamentary liberty and a challenge to despotic power.”—[Official Report, 16 August 1945; Vol. 413, c. 144.]

I can do no more than the same.