Business of the House

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Thursday 3rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As it happens, I have often thought that the greater the openness the more understanding there is from other sides. This inadvertent mistake sounds to have been rather beneficial.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse reported its conclusions this week and made a number of findings about failings of police and local councils to protect vulnerable children. The report describes a horrific culture that forced survivors of child sexual exploitation to fight to be believed. Those who were heard were made to feel as if they had brought the exploitation on themselves. Investigations were hampered by poor data collection on a range of issues, including the ethnicity of perpetrators. Please can we find Government time for a debate on this issue, which affects so many communities across the country, including in Rother Valley?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that he has been doing on this particularly important issue. The Government are committed to considering carefully the inquiry’s recommendations and will respond fully within the inquiry’s deadline of six months. Obviously, I cannot comment on the recommendations at this stage, but the Government are delivering the action set out in our groundbreaking tackling child sexual abuse strategy, which sets out our whole-system response to tackling sexual abuse, including exploitation. The Government will shortly publish an updated child exploitation disruption toolkit to help the police and local authorities to prevent and disrupt organised exploitation. It is likely that there will be an opportunity for Members to discuss the work of the IICSA when it publishes its final report later this year.

Business of the House

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Thursday 27th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I am glad I am storing up credit for applications for future debates when it is not necessarily as easy as it may be now for me to see what the business of the House is going to be.

I completely understand the importance of the debates the hon. Gentleman raises, especially in relation to Taiwan, St David’s Day, dementia research and International Women’s Day. It is extremely helpful of him to give me advance notice, as it is of course for Members to give him advance notice of particular dates that are coming up. However, I am sorry that nobody, as far as I am aware, has asked for a debate on 30 January to commemorate, of course, the execution—the murder—of Charles, King and Martyr.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

On 5 January, former Labour councillor Lord Ahmed of Rotherham was found guilty of serious sexual assault against a young boy and guilty of twice attempting to rape a girl. Although he is no longer a member of the other place, he still maintains and uses his title of peer of the realm, and only an Act of Parliament can strip him of his letters patent. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me, and the 2,000 people from Rother Valley who have signed my petition, that we should have a debate in Government time on a Bill to strip him of his title, and to send a clear message that we will never tolerate any vile monsters who are guilty of such heinous crimes against children? They should never have such prestigious titles.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The last Bill of attainder, as far as I am aware, was in 1798, although there was the Titles Deprivation Act 1917 to strip royal dukes of their titles when they were traitors. My hon. Friend is right to say that it requires legislation to take away a peerage, although I do slightly wonder what satisfaction it will give to the person to whom he refers to be called “My Lord” while he is serving time at Her Majesty’s expense. The disgrace he has felt means that his title has become, I hope, wormwood.

Strengthening Standards in Public Life

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Wednesday 17th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that up, because, of course, that is one thing that my right hon. and learned Friend, the Leader of the Opposition, stated clearly in his speech yesterday. He said that the default setting should be that there are no second jobs. He did say that, in certain professional circumstances, there may need to be exceptions, but that should be up to the independent body to determine, not us. The way that the Government have behaved over the events of the past few weeks, including the case of Owen Paterson, former MP for North Shropshire, have shown us that the rules are obviously not strong enough. It seems to be too easy for the Government to try to rip them up when they fancy. They have sought to weaken and undermine the rules around standards, whereas our intention with our motion is simple: we want to strengthen standards and we want to restore the public’s trust in Parliament and this is the necessary next step.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

The hon. Lady made interesting points about MPs, but does she agree that those same standards should be applied to all parliamentarians, including those in the House of Lords? Three shadow Ministers in the Lords actually work for lobbying companies.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

For goodness’ sake—I am surprised that the hon. Member does not know more about the House of Lords. Unlike in this House, Lords receive not a salary, but a daily allowance, which is not the same. They work on an entirely different basis and they do not have constituents. I do not see any proposals from the Government on reforming the House of Lords in this way, so it seems hollow for the hon. Member to say that he wants such changes.

The Government created this mess. If they do not support our motion today, it will be yet more warm words but no action; they are very good at that. They created this mess by trying to undermine the standards process in the first place. We would not be here if they had not done so two weeks ago. They must back our motion today and not the Prime Minister’s amendment, because that is nothing but warm platitudes with no concrete action to strengthen our standards system. It has been open to the Government to strengthen the system for the past three years, since the publication of the report on MPs’ outside interests. It was down to the Government to respond to that report, but they have not—until they have been absolutely pushed, kicking and screaming, to back one or two little bits because it suits them to get out of a hole.

The choice has never been clearer and the solution is here: our motion. If the Government do not back our motion this afternoon and choose to support the Prime Minister’s watered-down amendment, they are sending the message that they are content with the perception that their Cabinet Ministers and MPs put self-interest and private business interests above the interests of their constituents. They are sending that message not because I have said so, but because the Committee on Standards in Public Life said so, three years ago.

The message that the Government will be sending if they do not vote for our motion is that nothing needs to change, that they are happy with the headlines of the last few weeks of sleaze and corruption, and that this sort of behaviour is acceptable. They really will be sending the message that it is one rule for them and another for everyone else, and that if Government Members get caught out, the rules need not apply—they will just be changed to protect them—and the consequences do not matter. None of us should be prepared to accept that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I can go back to the list of things that Labour did: the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000; the ministerial code; freedom of information; public registers of donations and national election spending; the Electoral Commission. The clear difference here is that a Labour Government did not rip up the rulebook when one of their own was found wanting. This Government did. They did it two weeks ago and they tried to keep going. Only now that they are finding that the public do not like it are they being dragged here, kicking and screaming. But, unfortunately, from the reaction of Government Members, it looks to me like they have no intention of voting for our motion tonight. If they have no intention of doing so, let them come clean in their speeches as to why.

[Alexander Stafford]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman and I am coming to the end of my speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I do agree. It would also be an awful lot more seemly if the Government were prepared to follow through on their actions.

The Prime Minister said yesterday that he wanted to ban these paid consultancy roles. So vote for our motion: it is there on the Order Paper; it does exactly what the Prime Minister said. Do Conservative Members actually want to do what their Prime Minister says he wants? Perhaps they do not; perhaps that is what is going on. Perhaps they do not back their Prime Minister—but if they do, they could follow through on what he said only yesterday, 24 hours ago, and vote for the Labour motion.

[Alexander Stafford]

I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady’s speech and this is an important point that needs to be addressed. Could she explain, though, why she does not agree with the proposals put forward by the Prime Minister and how her proposals are better? What is the difference?

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I wonder whether the hon. Member has actually read the proposal by the Prime Minister. The proposal in the amendment—the only thing that is on offer to vote for today from the Prime Minister—weakens, waters down, takes away the deadline and takes away the vote, and the Leader of the House knows this.

Conservative Members need to accept that the time has now come. Today is the day. They need to stand up and be counted. If they want to follow through on what their Prime Minister said yesterday, they need to vote for the Labour motion today. Will they? We will see.

Business of the House

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Thursday 23rd September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

We need to speed up a little, in both questions and answers, if we are to get everybody in, as I would like.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

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

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

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

Business of the House

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Thursday 9th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am always willing to help right hon. and hon. Members with constituency issues of this kind, if they feel that they are not getting the support they need from other Government Departments, and I would be more than happy to do that. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can send me written details so that I can look into it carefully.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

The Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal was one of the worst scandals in our history, encompassing crimes across the spectrum of exploitation. That is why I have joined brave survivor and whistleblower Sammy Woodhouse to campaign for a criminal and sexual exploitation commissioner for children who will oversee all elements of supporting child victims to rebuild their lives. Can we have a debate on the creation of a child criminal and sexual exploitation commissioner? Will my right hon. Friend lend his support to our campaign for that and make representations to the Government so that we have a stand-alone statute definition of criminal exploitation and a joined-up approach to dealing with the legacy issues, so that women, boys and girls are protected from all types of illegality and abuse and that the Rotherham sex scandal can never happen anywhere else again?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I agree that the Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal was one of the worst scandals in our history. My hon. Friend is right to raise the matter; what has happened in his constituency has been appalling. Child criminal exploitation is one of the most heinous crimes, and the Government are determined to do what we can to tackle it. As there is already a Children’s Commissioner for England whose remit is that she

“promotes and protects the rights of children, especially the most vulnerable, and stands up for their views and interests”,

I encourage my hon. Friend in the first instance to put pressure on the Children’s Commissioner to focus time on this very important issue, because it is sometimes easier to use the tools to hand than to create new tools.

Business of the House

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

2nd reading & 3rd reading
Thursday 1st July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I have more confidence in my farmers; I think they can compete with the best in the world. The Australians are fantastic farmers who have high standards of animal welfare. We should not be so frightened, nervy and feeble in feeling that a bit of competition from Australia will do us harm. It will do us all good, and our farmers will flourish and prosper as they get access to new markets too.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

I need not remind anyone in this House about the scale and horror of the child sexual exploitation scandal that blighted Rotherham and affected many of my constituents, including courageous whistleblower and campaigner Sammy Woodhouse. That these children—because that is what many of them were when the abuse took place—were failed so monumentally by the system in the first place is horrific, but living as a survivor of sexual exploitation or any form of sexual assault is fraught with many issues, particularly for those girls and women who became pregnant as a result of their ordeal and are now trying to raise a family.

The children born to survivors of sexual assault should not, as currently happens, be automatically identified as being at risk of abuse, and their mothers, many of whom have been failed once already, should not be threatened with the removal of their children on the basis of no other evidence than that they themselves were once victims. Does the Leader of the House agree that these women and their children should be better supported by social services, and can we have a debate in Government time on the disturbing findings of “The Case for Change” report, published by the chair of the independent review of children’s social care, so that we may right this historic wrong, which is still victimising survivors of child sexual exploitation and sexual assault today?

Business of the House

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Thursday 20th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I actually think that the civil service is a model of good employment practice. Since the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms in the middle of the 19th century, it has been merit based, and that is absolutely how it should be. People get on in the civil service if they are good at their job and perform it well. Our civil service does a remarkable job, and in some cases—looking towards the Box, if I may—an outstanding job, of serving the people of this country. In my own office as Leader of the House—a small office—we have an apprentice, and we had an apprentice before who has been promoted and is succeeding considerably within the civil service. That is a good way of improving accessibility to jobs within the civil service to a broader range. I have not read the report, although I have heard of it and heard some of the headlines about it. It seemed to be concerned that people in the civil service remained calm in a crisis. It seems to me that it is essential to remain calm in a crisis; that is exactly the sort of thing we need from our civil servants.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend knows that I have been an advocate for the Places for Growth programme, and he will bear witness to my fight to move Government Departments out of London to Rother Valley as part of the Government’s levelling-up agenda. In the light of this groundbreaking decentralisation, why cannot we have the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport based in Dinnington, the Attorney General’s Office in Aston, the Department of Health in Hellaby, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in Thurcroft and the MOD in Maltby? But levelling up is not just about moving Government Departments north. Will my right hon. Friend agree—and speak to the Government about this—that the Places for Growth programme should be expanded so that other bodies, such as the National Lottery, can move to Rother Valley, which will spread prosperity across the north, as was envisioned when the lottery was founded?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is a fantastic champion for his constituency, Rother Valley. I think the last movement of the capital of this nation was from Winchester to London, and he now suggests that it move from London to Rother Valley. I slightly warn him to be careful what he wishes for, because that would be quite a change in the nature and composition of the Rother Valley, but his broad point is really good: it is not just those organisations directly under the control of Her Majesty’s Government that should think of moving; quangos should also think about whether they best serve the nation by being in London or could move elsewhere. He has raised the idea and I hope they will take notice. I remind him that the Government plan to move 22,000 civil service roles to the regions and nations of the UK by 2030. To return to the previous question, from the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson), I think that will help by including more people who are more likely to apply for civil service jobs near where live, rather than our having the London-centric focus that we have. I am not, though, in favour of moving our capital city to the Rother Valley quite yet.

Business of the House

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Thursday 24th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I will deal with the last point first. When we had a completely hybrid House, we found it was deeply unsatisfactory for legislation and debates around legislation. Legislation effects changes and alters people’s lives, and it needs to be done thoroughly and scrutinised effectively by the House. Unfortunately, a series of monologues did not succeed in doing that, subject to very tight time limitations. That was the one bit of the hybrid system that did not work, which is why we have gone back to doing legislative business personally, and we will continue to do that for the foreseeable future.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and to members of other parties for their support for Monday’s debate, which is, of course, a change in business from what was previously announced, but I think the House as a whole wanted to have that debate. On the question of its being general, the difficulty is that there are many points that individuals wish to raise on behalf of their constituents. There is always a balance to be struck between the general nature of the debate and the specifics of what is going on, but allowing Members to bring forward individual issues from their constituencies is important.

As regards co-operation between the devolved authorities, devolution inevitably leads to differences, and that is part of its purpose, but the leaders of the devolved authorities have been attending Cobra meetings—they have been invited to some of them, where they have been able to contribute their views. Part of the way of tackling the problem is to have different local options. We have moved away from the one national approach to widespread national advice, followed by very clear but detailed regulations in local areas, and I think that that fits in with the devolved settlement.

The hon. Gentleman also refers to the money issue, and it is worth reminding him that £6.5 billion has gone from the UK taxpayer to Scotland—[Interruption.] I said the UK taxpayer, and that does include Scotland for the time being. We are still a United Kingdom, I am glad to say—[Interruption.] May it remain forever, and I am glad to see some support coming from the Democratic Unionist party for that view. So £6.5 billion and 157,000 people have been helped on the self-employed scheme and 779,500 on the furlough scheme. I am glad to say that money is going where it is needed because of the strength of the United Kingdom. With regard to the Budget, one cannot make decisions on policy until one has the facts available to make those decisions upon, and this is such a rapidly changing situation that it would be premature to give any commitments on the Budget.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

The Leader of the House will be aware of the distressing decision by the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation to sell the Maltby Miners Welfare Institute, the Stute, which has for years been paid for by subs from miners, is a key part of our area’s history and culture, and is meant to be a community asset. We have seen other welfares sold off with a devastating impact on the community, such as the one in Dinnington. Will he join me in encouraging CISWO to take the Stute off the market and to explore all possible options to keep it open, and encourage them to work with groups such as the Maltby Miners Welfare and Recreation Protection Group and others to find a solution, so that there is a positive mining lasting legacy for future generations for Maltby and across Rother Valley?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is a brilliant campaigner for his constituency and for the interests of his communities. He is right to draw attention to the importance of the Maltby social club and recreation area. Such places often sit at the heart of the community, drawing together people of all ages and interests, and he serves his constituents so well in his support for the Maltby Miners Welfare Institute. If a community nominates a building or recreation ground as a local asset, the council has an obligation to delay the sale for six months to allow time for funds to be raised to purchase it under the Localism Act 2011. So I urge him to continue his campaign and have an Adjournment debate, and perhaps he should set up a crowdfunding scheme to try to raise some money to help in this really important activity that keeps his excellent community together.

Restoration and Renewal

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

Let us be honest: this is not a building; it is the home of our nation. Great events happen here. From Charles, King and martyr, who was condemned to die here, to William Rufus building Westminster Hall, this is such a monumental building that needs to be preserved and protected. We cannot have another Notre-Dame happening here. We need to protect it; we all agree with that. The question is: how do we do it and what do we need to preserve?

We have talked about the costs. Let us not see this as a cost. Money will be spent, but in the long run and in the medium term, it will save money. On top of that, as we are spending money, let us spend it on British work- men, British goods and British building materials. Let us use this as an opportunity to revitalise our economy—to invest in Britain. As I am sure hon. Members know, the very stone in this building comes from Rother Valley—from North Anston. I commend hon. Members to read a book by my constituent Christine Richardson, which is all about the stone that comes from North Anston. Everyone should enjoy that and get more stone back here from Rother Valley.

On the question of whether we should decamp or stay, I do not think we should decamp. We have a big building here. Yes, there are issues, but we were bombed in the second world war and we moved down to the other place. It is not just a bit of redecorating and refurbishment. We should not leave this building. We should move down to the other place. We should be where the lords are and they should decamp. We are the beating heart of democracy; the other place is not. We need to stay here. It is not beyond the wit of man to understand how to do that. Frankly, to say otherwise is defeatist. I will not have defeatism; I want to invest and continue building here. As I said, we need to use this opportunity to bring back and invest in British quality architecture and British redecorating, and use it to turbo- boost our economy post covid.

Business of the House

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I announced the business forthcoming at the beginning of the statement.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will be only too aware of the recent Turkish ruling that Hagia Sophia, that Byzantine masterpiece inscribed on the UNESCO world heritage list, should be turned into a mosque. This architectural wonder was built by Justinian the Great, then turned into a mosque and finally dedicated as a secular museum by the great reformer Atatürk. It now risks having its beautiful murals, mosaics and frescoes damaged or destroyed. That would be a loss to the whole world and, furthermore, would exacerbate community tensions. Will my right hon. Friend hold a debate in Government time on Turkey’s actions, UNESCO’s response and the protection of this important world heritage site?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

We have noted President Erdoğan’s decision to turn Hagia Sophia into a mosque, and while that has caused concern internationally—I particularly note the comments of the Holy Father—the Government regard this as a sovereign matter for Turkey. However, we would expect that Hagia Sophia, as part of a UNESCO world heritage site, remains accessible to all, as testament to Turkey’s rich and diverse historical and cultural legacy, and that its precious artefacts are preserved. We therefore welcome the public statements by Turkish leaders that this historic building will continue to be accessible to people of all faiths and nationalities, which is consistent with the Turkish constitution’s provision for freedom of conscience and religion for all.

It is for states party to the world heritage convention to ensure that their designated world heritage sites comply with the terms of the convention. We work closely with UNESCO, its advisory body and partner Governments to promote the highest standards of heritage protection. That will ensure that designated sites are protected effectively for the whole of humanity and for future generations.