Business of the House
Debate between Adam Afriyie and Jacob Rees-Mogg(4 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Rees-Mogg
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this is at the forefront of what the Foreign Secretary is doing; I heard him say that only this morning. He is ensuring that people who are in difficulties in remote areas receive as much support as the Foreign Office can possibly give.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, may I thank Mr Speaker for the pace at which he brought through the changes to the way we operate here in respect of social distancing and our practices? That was the right thing to do. It seems to me that, given the scale and pace of the coronavirus spread and the threat to life, health, incomes and jobs throughout the country, it is quite right that the Government bring forward emergency legislation briskly and want to see it go through the House briskly, but it is equally right that Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise the legislation. I have a couple of questions along those lines. First, is there a particular reason why the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 was not used? It already contains many of the safeguards that I suspect the House will wish to see.
Secondly, if the emergency legislation is passed—I hope it is, given the circumstances, albeit possibly with a few modifications—what other opportunities will there be for the House to question particular measures? This is a dynamic and fast-moving situation, and it may well be that within literally 48 or 72 hours one of the measures adopted results in perhaps 1 million or 2 million unemployed people with nowhere to go. What other opportunities will there be for the House to hold the Government to account quickly, should it prove necessary
Mr Rees-Mogg
Unfortunately, the Civil Contingencies Act would not have worked in these circumstances, because the problem was known about early enough for it not to qualify as an emergency under the terms of that Act. The legal experts say that if we can introduce emergency legislation, we should do so rather than using the Civil Contingencies Act, because if we have time to introduce emergency legislation, we obviously knew about it long enough in advance for the Act not to apply. That is why that Act could not be used.
On future scrutiny, one reason why it is so important that we keep the operation of this House going—to which, as I have said before, the Government are committed—is to ensure that scrutiny takes place. The Government of this country are the Executive and the legislature; they are not purely the Executive. We need to ensure that the legislature is operating efficiently, even if it has to operate differently, to ensure that we carry out our proper role.
The Government's Plan for Brexit
Debate between Adam Afriyie and Jacob Rees-Mogg(7 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Rees-Mogg
Parliament is indeed sovereign, and Parliament, in its wisdom, passed a referendum Bill; and my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council said that it was advisory. Just think about that. Who was it supposed to advise? Did Parliament pass a Bill to advise itself? Surely not. If it had been to advise Parliament, Parliament would have made the Bill automatically effective, because we do not need to advise ourselves on the Bills that we should pass. It was clearly an exercise of parliamentary sovereignty to advise the Crown in the exercise of the prerogative. Parliamentary sovereignty has already been expressed and ought to be fulfilled.
Those who are appealing now to parliamentary scrutiny are in fact rejecting an Act passed through this House, and worse, they are rejecting our employers—our bosses, our liege lords—the British people, who decided this matter for us. They use a glorious language, of which Lewis Carroll would have been proud—a Humpty-Dumpty-esque approach to saying what they really mean. Even in this motion—when it was first brought forward, before the Government had managed to corral it into, in effect, a Government motion—they say how much they respect the decision. Respect! The word has been changed by the lexicographers. It used to mean that one held something in high esteem and high regard and believed it should be implemented; now it means “condescend to, think ridiculous, think unwise”. The word “respect” has been utterly devalued by those on the Opposition Benches, as they feel the British people got it wrong. Let us not use the word “respect” of the electorate any more; let us say, “Obey,” for we will obey the British electorate.
And yes indeed, we have a plan. There is a plan set out clearly, and that is that we will leave. Everything else flows from that—everything else is leather or prunella. Leaving means, as the Prime Minister said, that there is no more superiority of EU law; the European Court of Justice may advise and witter on but no more will it outrank this House, and any contribution we make to the European Union will be from our overseas aid budget, because it will be supporting poor countries.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am extremely grateful for the extra minute.
Leaving is everything. That is the point. The rest of it is subsidiary. It is the ordinary activity of government, which the Government do as long as they command a majority in this House. The ultimate parliamentary scrutiny, which all Governments have suffered from going back at least to the 19th century and probably before, is the ability to command a majority in this House. If a Government can do that, it is then quite right that they are able to exercise the royal prerogative in the details of negotiation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) so rightly put it, if we were to tie down every jot and tittle of what the Government were negotiating, we would spend our whole time in the law courts. That makes government impossible.
It is not a man, a plan, a canal: Panama—a wonderful palindrome. It is a lady, a plan, freedom: Brexit.