Business Statement

Debate between Anna Soubry and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 15th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (IGC)]

Will the Leader of the House confirm that there is no provision anywhere in the Act of Parliament that we recently passed—now called, quite properly, the Benn Act or the safeguarding Act—that says that this House must meet on Saturday 19 October? If there is, will he tell us which clause or subsection that requirement is in?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I thought that in my previous answer, I was pointing out the blindingly obvious to one hon. Member. I shall now do so to a right hon. Member: the Act sets the 19th as the deadline for certain things and votes to take place. Saturday is the 19th. Otherwise, consequences follow from that Act. It seems to me extraordinarily obvious.

Business of the House

Debate between Anna Soubry and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 26th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I take everything that my hon. Friend says with the greatest seriousness. She is the most wonderful campaigner and aims to make the lives of people in this country better by everything she does. I particularly admire her support for the family. The issue she raises is crucial, but once again it is much more a matter for the Backbench Business Committee.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (IGC)]

Will the Leader of the House please tell us which Ministers will be taking questions on which days, and whether the ballots are open so that we can submit our questions? Given that the Queen’s Speech will apparently be held on 14 October, when will Parliament be prorogued for that occasion?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As I understand it, the Chancellor will take questions on Tuesday, and it is normal for a three-day rota to be set. [Interruption.] Will it be Monday? It will be available in the Table Office, and I assume that the Prime Minister will make his normal appearance on Wednesday. The Table Office is the right place to go for those questions.

Business of the House

Debate between Anna Soubry and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Monday 1st April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think it is reasonable to quote speeches made in the German Parliament. It is not as great a Parliament as this one or as noble a House as this House of Commons but, none the less, it is the Chamber of a House of an important ally and friend. What was said was extremely interesting. Just referring people to what has been said is not necessarily an endorsement. As the hon. Gentleman may have noticed, I just quoted from the motion before us, not because I endorse it but because it is interesting and important, so perhaps he should not jump to weird conclusions.

The other problem with this motion is the time it allows for debate. We will have quite a number of motions to consider, as we did yesterday.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Ind)]

Last week.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The right hon. Lady, quite correctly, corrects me that it was at the end of last week.

We have motions (A) to (H) to debate, and the format of this business of the House motion leaves between 6 o’clock plus a Division, so 6.15 pm, and 8 o’clock for that debate to take place, which seems a very rushed approach to debating these important issues. When the Government were in control of the Order Paper, they allowed more days for debate than this motion allows hours.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman misses the rather obvious point. I have much more confidence in my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, or indeed any Conservative Member, to lead the country than I have in the Leader of the Opposition. It seems to me a very straightforward choice, and of course I back a Tory against a socialist.

[Anna Soubry]

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point in talking about the courage of our convictions. Would he like to tell the House why he voted against the Government’s withdrawal agreement a few weeks ago but voted for it on Friday? Why is he entitled to change his mind in a vote but the people of this country are not allowed to change their mind and have a people’s vote?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am deeply grateful to the right hon. Lady for intervening, which is much appreciated because it allows me to point out to her that she is the foremost campaigner for a second referendum and she favours votes at every opportunity except, having stood as a Conservative, she does not reoffer herself to her constituents to decide whether they wish to have somebody who has turned their coat as their Member of Parliament.

[Anna Soubry]

rose—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

If the right hon. Lady wishes to apply for the Chiltern hundreds, I will of course give way.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are in danger of straying somewhat from the narrow ambit of the business of the House motion, to which I hope we will return.

[Anna Soubry]

I think it is important to record that, of course, the majority of people in Broxtowe did not vote Conservative and, like all hon. and right hon. Members, I seek to represent all my constituents. As we all should, I put them and our country before narrow, sectarian party interest.

[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—

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Anna Soubry and Jacob Rees-Mogg

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

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend’s speech was absolutely brilliant. He got to the heart of all these matters, and indeed he provided a solution, which is that there should be such a good-spirited compromise that places some faith in the Government, as it is reasonable for Members of Parliament to do. We should recognise that it is better to have a clear response on Report that covers the whole problem than to agree an amendment that is constitutionally abnormal, because we should not agree to such amendments.

I follow the Minister’s argument that there are circumstances in which clause 9 could be useful. If an agreement comes relatively late on, I understand that there will be an urgency in getting statutory instruments presented. There also will be a Prorogation before May 2019, so there might be a delay in the proceedings on the withdrawal and implementation Bill and therefore a need for urgent action. If we pass a motion, as may be legislatively required, to accept the proposed statutory instruments, that will both maintain parliamentary control and give the Government the flexibility that they are likely to need.

This issue becomes very significant because, as we leave, we will want legislative continuity and clarity. The date has been set, and that has been debated, but the key is that the date has been set by previous decisions of Parliament. It is in no sense an erosion of parliamentary sovereignty, because the date is set out in the Act triggering article 50 and in the Act incorporating the Lisbon treaty into UK law. The timeframe was set under voluntary Acts of Parliament requiring things to be done by 29 March 2019. It therefore follows that there is some pressure on time, so it is perfectly reasonable for the Government to ask for such flexibility.

I conclude on the vote at the end—the final meaningful vote. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), as he so often does, made an elegant point when he said that this is a metaphysical decision for us about the meaning of meaning. The issue is that Her Majesty’s Government have already promised that we will have a vote on the deal before the European Parliament does, but there is no deal until the European Parliament has voted. The European Parliament has to agree to the deal—as part of the article 50 package, this is decided by an enhanced qualified majority vote, subject to the approval of the European Parliament—but we have already been promised a vote before the matter is voted on by the European Parliament.

[Anna Soubry]

My hon. Friend is probably right, but my understanding is that the definition of withdrawal agreement clearly says “whether ratified or not”, so we do not have to follow the European Parliament. However, unless we get a meaningful vote, it may well end up being able to vote on something that, frankly, we will not be able to vote on.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, but the Government have already said that we will have a chance to vote on the withdrawal agreement before the European Parliament.

[Anna Soubry]

A meaningful vote.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Well, that vote must by its nature be meaningful. As we know, it is very easy to have a meaningful vote: we just table an Humble Address, and then it is binding on Her Majesty’s Government, as is quite clear from all previous parliamentary and constitutional procedure. We can engineer a meaningful vote even if the Government are trying to be a bit slippery, which I happen to doubt very much, because I think Her Majesty’s Government would never dream of being slippery—they would not know how to be slippery. It is hard to think of a Government in the whole of history being slippery.

In the whole schedule leading to the ratification and approval of the withdrawal agreement, there is a requirement for a vote in this House. There is also a requirement, now agreed with the European Union, that there will be a withdrawal and implementation Bill—[Interruption.] I am sorry that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) is getting impatient, but this is a very important matter. The rights of Parliament will absolutely and clearly be preserved, and I hope that Her Majesty’s Government will listen to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset, because his is a solution with which I think everybody can be happy.

Exiting the EU: Sectoral Impact Assessments

Debate between Anna Soubry and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Wednesday 1st November 2017 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) on his motion. The Opposition are absolutely right to table motions on Opposition days that force the Government to do things. It has been a general waste of this House’s time to have motions on motherhood and apple pie, which has been the tendency in recent years. To ensure that we have a serious, substantial matter on which to vote is a very encouraging trend and one that I hope will continue.

I have no doubt that the motion is, in all senses, binding. It is not parliamentary wallpaper. It is exercising one of our most ancient rights, to demand papers. It is interesting that in the instructions given to Select Committees they are given the right to send for people and papers, but that is the right of this House delegated to those Select Committees. It is not something inherent in Select Committees, and it is therefore something clearly that this House can, at any time, call back to itself, as, quite rightly, the Opposition have proposed today.

As to the papers themselves, I have no particular view—this is, in normal circumstances, a matter for the Government—and I would have gone along with the Government had they wished to oppose the motion. But in the event that they do not, they must publish these papers to the Brexit Committee in full. The motion does not allow for redaction, and a happy chat across the Dispatch Box between the shadow spokesmen and the Ministers does not reduce the right of this House to see the papers.

However, it may well be that the Select Committee, of which I happen to be a member, may decide not to publish large sections of those papers, for confidentiality reasons, but on the basis of the motion, unless a further motion is passed to amend it at some stage, that right must be with this House, not with Her Majesty’s Government.

My one criticism of the motion is that I think it a marginal discourtesy to the Select Committee not to have asked it in the first place whether it wanted this motion to be tabled, but in the grander scheme of things that is a minor complaint.

The Canadian example is important, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) criticised me for referring to the Canadian Parliament, but it is in a way a sister Parliament of this one.

[Anna Soubry]

I am grateful to give my hon. Friend an extra minute and say, “Hear, hear!” to everything he says.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very grateful, because I have always campaigned—this is one reason I was so keen to leave the EU—for the rights of this House. One of the great rights of this House is to hold the Government to account and to use the procedures and facilities open to it to do that in a powerful and real way. That is something the motion does.

The Canadian example—over Afghanistan—shows that failure to meet the requirements of this House is a breach of privilege, and there is no protection for any information that the Government have received from outside sources on the grounds of confidentiality once it is required by this House. Any agreement the Government have made is superseded by the powers of this House and cannot be challenged in any court because it is a fundamental privilege of this House that it should be guided by its own rules.

I have no particular view on whether it is right or wrong to publish these papers—I would trust the Government on that—but I am pleased that the House of Commons is exercising its historic power, albeit from a 19th century precedent, and I welcome the Government’s response.

Tobacco Packaging

Debate between Anna Soubry and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Friday 12th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

I do not give in to pressure from anybody, and neither does anybody else in my Department or indeed in my Government. We have taken a decision to wait for the emerging evidence from Australia, and that is the right thing to do.

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

May I welcome the wise statement made by my hon. Friend today, and remind her that it is often the case that parties in opposition are all in favour of freedom, and when they get into government they are suddenly in favour of the nanny state?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I did indeed; I was very fortunate. [Laughter.] It is a pity some Opposition Members did not, but never mind.

When liberties are removed, it should always be done, as my hon. Friend says, on the basis of evidence, because freedom is very precious, and the state does not have the right to interfere willy-nilly.

[Anna Soubry]

I agree that the state does not have a right to interfere willy-nilly, but of course standardised packaging does not prevent anybody from buying cigarettes or inhibit their right to smoke cigarettes if that is their choice, so with respect to my hon. Friend, this is not a nanny state argument at all. The packaging would be affected, but people would remain free, as ever, to buy cigarettes and to smoke them.

Assisted Suicide

Debate between Anna Soubry and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 27th March 2012 Commons Chamber

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

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker; patience is rewarded in this important debate. I will make my own position extremely clear. I start as a Catholic, and I believe that human life is sacred, which I take from the Catholic catechism:

“Human life must be respected because it is sacred. From its beginning human life involves the creative action of God and it remains forever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end.”

That is my view, but I accept that it will not be the view of all my constituents or of everybody in this country, and that although many of us have personal and deep beliefs, the legislature must think beyond that, to the practicalities involved in the DPP’s advice, and see how that fits with our consciences.

I want to look at some of the areas of concern in the Director of Public Prosecutions’ advice, which is in many ways very sensible. It places a particular obligation on doctors and nurses not to be involved in a suicide, for example, but I am concerned that, in two areas, its flexibility could lead to problems. The first involves the requirement to determine whether the victim has

“reached a voluntary, clear, settled and informed decision to commit suicide”.

In such circumstances, we are dealing with very vulnerable people who are ill and at the end of their lives. How voluntary is that decision really going to be?

[Anna Soubry]

A constituent of mine has written to me at length and with great feeling on this subject. He is a bright, intelligent man at the end of his life who might fall into some unfortunate condition. He therefore has every ability to make a decision, as a grown-up person, about how he wants to end his life. Why should he not have that right?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

We have to legislate for everybody, not just for my hon. Friend’s most able constituents. We have to legislate for the weak and vulnerable, and for those who have nobody to defend them. Yes, of course we can all cite examples of highly intelligent, capable people who would be able, for example, to resist pressure from family members who might be after an inheritance, but what about those who feel that they have become a burden to society? My greatest concern for the elderly and the frail is that, although they might be enjoying their lives, they might feel that they have become a burden and therefore selflessly propose that their own end should be hastened. That is my concern about the term “voluntary”.

I am also concerned about the terms “clear” and “settled”. People might clearly settle something in their youth, then change their mind as the time gets closer. We read the saddest cases in the newspapers of people who have taken overdoses of paracetamol, then regretted their action and decided that they want to live. As the moment comes closer, how settled is that decision that was taken at an earlier stage?

I am also concerned about the word “informed”, Mr Speaker. Informed by whom? Are you going to set up a committee, perhaps with the two of us, to advise on the different options available to people who are at a late and vulnerable stage of their lives? Or will they in fact receive that advice from people who favour a particular course of action? How will we decide whether that information is fair, reasonable, and sufficient to allow them to make a choice that will protect their friends or family from a prosecution for assisting in their suicide?

The guidelines also state that a prosecution is less likely when a suspect is “wholly motivated by compassion”. Of course the family and the spouses involved should be motivated by compassion, but who in this House clearly knows their own motivations when they do particular things? Most motivations are mixed in a number of ways.