Business of the House
Fleur Anderson Excerpts(2 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Rees-Mogg
Today is also the feast day of St Æthelgifu, who is the daughter of Alfred the Great and who became an abbess; I am more tempted to offer a debate to celebrate the virtues of one of England’s leading saints. This country should be incredibly proud of its reputation on corruption. We have the toughest anti-corruption laws on what goes on not just in our country, but in our companies trading abroad. We try to ensure that British companies obey the highest standards globally. We should be really proud of that and not talk down the nation. In league tables, we always come very near the top, because we have a good political system, proper representation in this House and a free press. All that ensures that we have a country that we can be proud of.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
We are only days away from the two-year anniversary of the Second Reading of the Bill that became the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. At that time, huge promises were made—£350 million a week would be given back to the NHS, and there would be huge trading opportunity and a decrease in the cost of living—but was it all worth it? Can we have a debate in Government time on the impact of Brexit and a report from the Government that would show the impact of Brexit, region by region, and what that has meant for us all? For good or ill, the country needs to know.
Mr Rees-Mogg
We can start Prayers every morning—I may propose this as a formal resolution of the House—with a celebration of Brexit. We should have the Brexit prayer and perhaps even the Brexit song, beginning, “Gloria in excelsis Deo”, because it has been a triumph for this nation in reasserting its freedom. The NHS already had the £350 million that was on the side of the bus. That was delivered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) in 2018, with an extra £34 billion uplift for the NHS by 2023-24. Just think of the vaccines that we have and the success of the vaccine roll-out programme. I believe that I mentioned earlier in the year the happy fish that we have, so there is general celebrating and rejoicing that we are now a free country once again.
Business of the House
Fleur Anderson Excerpts(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Rees-Mogg
I notice a theme across questions today: raising concerns about the HRA. We must be able to govern ourselves in this country in a way that secures safety and wellbeing for people trying to come here and people who are already here. I remind right hon. and hon. Members that this place is sovereign and we are always able to amend any and all Acts of Parliament if we can get a majority for it in both Houses. That is of fundamental constitutional importance.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
This week, I received an email from one of my local headteachers in Putney who said she has had a letter from the Secretary of State for Education that went out to all headteachers throughout the country. She is extremely concerned about the implied criticism of schools in respect of attendance. The primary school in question is battling with 56 positive cases, three members of staff having tested positive and attendance running at around 50%, despite the staff having put in all the measures asked of them and more. Will the Leader of the House provide Government time for us to debate support for schools, to undo the damage done by what has been seen as a veiled attack by the Secretary of State for Education on the fantastic staff in our schools?
Mr Rees-Mogg
There will be Department for Education questions on Monday 6 December, so there is time for the hon. Lady to put in for an oral question or, indeed, a topical question. It is always right for the Government to hold public bodies to account and to say, “Please explain why attendance is only 50%.” If schools have a good reason, they can send that in, but the Government would be remiss if they did not ask the question.
Strengthening Standards in Public Life
Fleur Anderson Excerpts(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
As many Members have said, it gives me no pleasure to be taking part in this debate. I would much rather be talking about jobs for the young people of Roehampton. On Friday, I will be holding a jobs fair in Roehampton, which I have previously invited Members of the House to attend— but not to get their own second jobs, I hasten to add. Instead, we have to be here stating the obvious: there should be high standards in public life.
So what is this all about? Is it that a U-turn a day keeps the electorate away for the Prime Minister? It is not even a U-turn. This amendment is a watered-down version of our own Labour amendment. It does not go far enough, it does not take the steps necessary and it will not content the people of Britain, who are watching this now. I urge Members to vote for the Labour motion in a show of cross-party support for upholding our standards.
We know that the public are watching, and asking, “Why didn’t the Government do this a long time ago?” Why have Conservative MPs got away with being able to take lucrative contracts from companies that, of course, have expectations of getting something back? Labour’s motion is clear. It
“endorses the 2018 recommendation from the Committee on Standards in Public life that Members should be banned from any paid work to provide services as a Parliamentary strategist, adviser or consultant; instructs the Committee on Standards to draw up proposals to implement this and to report by 31 January 2022—”
—a clear date. It orders action on that by two weeks later, or for an explanation to be given as to why not.
On the other hand, the Government amendment is unclear. It deliberately fudges the issues and could lead to no changes whatsoever on second jobs, if that is chosen to be the end of the process. If any Members present want to tell their constituents that we are tackling the issue of second jobs, they should vote for the motion and not for this weak, wavering and watered down amendment.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister wrote to the Speaker to try to pretend that he wanted to accept our binding motion on dodgy second jobs for MPs, and that is what the press have been told. That was then watered down and kicked into the long grass. This is a Prime Minister who says one thing, only to do another. We do not trust a word he says because he has proved that he says one thing and does another. Let’s get real; it has taken too long to get here to duck out now. It is clear what people want. Now is the time for Conservative Members to support the motion, rather than having to make tortuous negotiations with their Whips, only to be told there will be another U-turn tomorrow. If Conservative MPs really want to clean up our politics, they should vote for the Labour amendment.
Let me go through a little of what the Government amendment says, and how poor it is. Perhaps I will give it a little more time than it had in its actual writing. The amendment
“believes the rules which apply to MPs must be up to date, effective and appropriately rigorous;”.
We would all agree with that, but it does not say anything extra. It
“recalls the 2018 report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life into this matter;”.
Well, we can all recall it, but again no action. It
“believes that recommendations 1 and 10 in that report form the basis of a viable approach which could command the confidence of parliamentarians and the public;”.
Yes, we all believe in those recommendations. We believe in them—fantastic—but again, no action. It
“believes that these recommendations should be taken forward; and supports cross-party work, including that being done by the House’s Committee on Standards, to bring forward recommendations to update the Code of Conduct for MPs by 31 January 2022.”
Of course a date had to be put in there, otherwise it would be entirely criticised, but I suggest that supporting “cross-party work” could start right now, by supporting the Labour party motion.
It has taken too long just to duck out now. The Leader of the House opened this debate by sort of arguing that MPs should have interests outside the Westminster bubble—no disagreement—and implying that second jobs are needed to provide that. I am suspicious that at the end of the process outlined in the amendment, we will get to somewhere, with a lot of lobbying by other MPs who have second jobs, that actually will not stop second jobs.
On the day after I was elected nearly two years ago, I went to the community centre where I had been employed and I resigned immediately. However, I brought all that experience with me to the House. I do not need to go back to the community centre and carry on working there to have that experience. I have brought it with me. I do not know of many jobs where we say to our new boss, “Sorry, I have to keep working at my old job to have the experience to do my new job.” That is not how it works.
We have been here for a while. Labour secured an Opposition-day motion in 2015 that called for an end to MPs holding paid directorships or consultancies, and 250 Conservatives—many of whom are still Members—voted against it, along with 38 Members of the Liberal Democrat party. Why did they not vote for this recommendation back then? It would have saved the Committee on Standards in Public Life from having to do all the reports, and it would have saved a lot of dodgy dealings along the way. The recommendations were made in 2018. Why did the Government not support them then? Instead, it has taken a Conservative MP being found to have broken the rules many times. It has taken a botched attempt to rig the system of standards, and the threat of this Opposition day debate to make the Prime Minister do what the British public wanted him to do a long time ago, and even then, it is not a very good amendment.
The Prime Minister knows that he cannot ask his MPs to vote against what the motion suggests. He knows about the unprecedented letter from all five living former Cabinet Secretaries. He knows that there are calls for an investigation into links between the second jobs of several MPs and Government contracts. He has been backed into this.
But why has it taken so long? Is it because Conservative MPs feel that it is only right—it is only fair enough—to earn a bit on the side? Do they feel that their worth is not in doing public service but in comparing how much they earn against their wealthy pals? Is there a Conservative culture of entitlement and disconnect with most working people in this country, which means that Conservative MPs feel that their salary is not enough, that they need more?
Many Conservative MPs have tried to blur this debate by talking about second jobs as doctors, nurses or reservists, or even about the private-public divide, but that misses the point. The distinction is clearly about being a parliamentary strategist, adviser or consultant. It is about using influence for private gain.
There have been excellent contributions to this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) took us to the heart of the debate, saying that constituents feel that it is contemptuous for Members who are paid more than four times the average salary to be paid more. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) stood up for decency, giving us a sorry list of times that the Government have failed to uphold standards, saying that this needs to stop.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) said that MPs should not be available to the highest bidder and that people who want to earn more should not seek office. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) reminded us—though his Opposition colleagues do not need reminding—that MPs are here to serve constituents, as he does, and revealed that Conservatives have earned an extra £8 million on top of their salaries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) said that this is a matter of standards and trust, and that it is not only about second jobs but about second sources of income. My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) said that while the majority of MPs work very hard, a small minority damage our reputation by earning large amounts of money.
My hon. Friends the Members for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley), for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne), for Newport West (Ruth Jones) and for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) all shared the anger felt by their constituents that at such a difficult time for our country, MPs are voting for cuts to universal credit at the same time as topping up already high salaries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) showed that this debate is exposing cash for connections—it is drawing aside the curtain and revealing what is happening. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East quoted a Conservative MP saying that they could not cope on £80,000, which makes me worry about where we would end up with this amendment. Will the Government really cut second jobs? My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) said that the Government need to show leadership in standards. That should not need to be said, but it will be cheered on by people across the country.
Why is it wrong to be paid to be a strategist, lobbyist or consultant? First, our responsibility is to our constituents, not to whoever pays us. I feel, every minute of every day, that I have 100,300 bosses—that is how many people live in Putney. They are my bosses, not whoever might be paying me. That would mean that I had a conflict of interest—of course it would—and receiving no payment would immediately cut that conflict of interest. The bottom line is: how could any Member of this House say that their constituents are their first priority and then devote valuable hours to advising private companies?
That brings me to my second point—time, which has been mentioned by many Members. Since I was elected less than two years ago, I have received more than 1,500 emails a month, I have sent nearly 40,000 emails back to my constituents, and I have spoken in Parliament more than 300 times and tabled more than 500 questions, alongside very regular meetings with constituents in Putney that inform everything I say in this place. How would I have time to work an extra hour a year—let alone 70 hours or more—on top of that for a private company? No matter how good the money is, I could not fit it in and properly serve my constituents.
The third reason is the clear links to Government contracts. We talked lengthily about Randox in an earlier debate today, but why do businesses and lobbying companies pay MPs? It is not for the fun. It is not just for the advice. It is clearly for the influence.
I listened carefully to the Leader of the House argue that a ban on second jobs will see a lot of expertise and skills lost from this House, but I again say that I do not think we need to be paid for a second job to bring in all our skills and expertise to be able to talk to a wide range of interests and people in the constituency. There does not have to be a link between payments and private interests, and the public interest we serve. What are our motivations as public servants? That is at the heart of this debate.
To close, whether Conservative Members like it or not, the party is over. It is a matter of when, not if. The public have made their feelings loud and clear to the House and in the House during this debate. The party stops now. We have an opportunity in a few moments to end it tonight once and for all, or to dither and delay and pass the watered-down Government amendment which will potentially not end it at all. Who knows what will come up at the end of January with the Government amendment? Instead, we should go back to our constituents with our heads held high and say, “No more dither, no more delay. We have heard you loud and clear. No more MPs for hire. Less cash, more case work.” Vote for the Opposition’s motion today.
Business of the House
Fleur Anderson Excerpts(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Rees-Mogg
I hear gossip that my hon. Friend is actually working in collaboration—whisper it quietly—with the Liberal Democrats in his area against these schemes. It shows how completely lunatic they must be that they have created an alliance between my hon. Friend and the yellow peril. I congratulate him on his broadmindedness. We have to remember the convenience of motorists and the need to have capacity on the roads for motorists, and cycle lanes need to be safe and take into account the views of locals. I understand that my hon. Friend has extended the consultation period to 25 July. I am sure that many people will want to send in their views to this terrible socialist council.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I have asked the Leader of the House this question before, but I will ask it again. Hammersmith bridge is still closed to vehicles, which is pouring between 500 and 4,000 extra vehicles a day into Putney, increasing congestion and air pollution. The £141 million bill to restore that historic suspension bridge is unaffordable for Hammersmith and Fulham Council and unaffordable for Transport for London; only the Government can now fund it. Will the Leader of the House make Government time available to debate the ownership and funding of all London’s bridges, so that we can get the capital city moving again?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady is right to campaign for this, but wrong to focus on the Government. The Conservative candidate, Shaun Bailey, had a proposal for dealing with it really quickly and getting on with things, had he been elected. Unfortunately, a socialist Mayor and a socialist council cannot run a whelk stall, let alone keep bridges open.
Business of the House
Fleur Anderson Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Rees-Mogg
My right hon Friend raises a very good point—that dredging worked extraordinarily well in the Somerset levels. The Government have a major policy plan to deal with flooding, including £5.2 billion to be invested in flood and coastal defences—double the previous expenditure of taxpayers’ money—which will protect 350,000 homes over the next six years, on top of the nearly 300,000 properties that are already better protected compared with 2015. So he has raised an important point and, yes, I hope, as always, the nation will learn from Somerset.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Families are struggling across the country, and one of the biggest bills they face is the school uniform bill. A school uniform Bill has been brought in—a private Member’s Bill—by my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury). I was on the Bill Committee back in September, and I know it has cross-party support. It is a small Bill that will make a big difference to families across the country. Will the Leader of the House set a date for that Bill to be brought back to this House, debated and passed, so that it will have that impact on families before September? Time is of the essence.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I can never promise that a Bill will be passed, but I said I would ensure that Fridays were brought back as soon as was practicable and possible. There are discussions going on at the moment, and I am full of hope that something will happen and that I will be able to make an announcement, possibly next Thursday, but I do not want to make an absolute promise of that kind.
Virtual Participation in Debate
Fleur Anderson Excerpts(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Valerie Vaz
It is appalling that, for some of our colleagues, their right to be here has been restricted in such an appalling way. As I said in a previous speech, and as we keep repeating over and over, we are approaching some of the most important legislation that this country has ever faced. We are coming up to the most important juncture in our history, when we leave the EU on 31 December. Before that, we have to do something with the agreement, whatever it is and whenever it is made. We look forward to statements on that. To give effect to that agreement, legislation will be required, and it has to be introduced before 31 December. As a result of this motion, unless the amendment is agreed to, our colleagues will be prevented from taking part in a debate on one of the most important pieces of legislation ever to come before the House.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend share my bafflement that, as soon as there was a health need, the Prime Minister was allowed to participate remotely, yet he was not immediately clinically vulnerable? Other Members, however, are not allowed to speak. Does she share my view that all constituents are equal in electing us and should be equally represented? [Interruption.]
Valerie Vaz
I do not know whether my hon. Friend wants to intervene on me again. Perhaps she would want her question to be heard properly—there was a fair bit of heckling—so does she want to ask it again?
Fleur Anderson
I hope that I can now be heard. Does my right hon. Friend share my bafflement that the Prime Minister could speak under arrangements for virtual proceedings, although he does not have a clinically vulnerable condition that we know of? It is quite right that we should not know any of the ins and outs—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. That means that the hon. Lady should sit down. I am making a point of order. Let us make sure that we get the facts correct about what we are debating. The motion before us is about participation in debates. Participation in questions, urgent questions and statements is a different matter which has been dealt with. In questions, urgent questions and statements, every Member has the right to participate virtually. I just want to make sure that the facts are correct, because that is a matter for the Chair.
Valerie Vaz
The hon. Member is absolutely right. When the Government want EVEL, they have it; when they do not want it, they do not have it, even though SNP Members have made the arguments frequently. We are now getting to the point where this is discriminatory.
Fleur Anderson
I am grateful for the opportunity to mention discrimination. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a double discrimination—that not only are some people barred from being here and speaking, but they also cannot speak on behalf of their constituents? All the people who Members have been sent here to represent are discriminated against, as well as the Members themselves, so it is doubly hard.
Valerie Vaz
It is doubly hard for everyone not being able to take part in what we do in this House, which is to debate legislation. To debate—that is what the Leader of the House has said we should do, but hon. Members cannot take part.
Chris Bryant
I sympathise with the argument. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham has expressed that argument to me. The problem is that the only people who have responsibility for the way we do our business this evening are the Government. The only people who can grant us time to have a row on another day and allow other people are the Government. So far, what we have seen over the last two weeks is that they are passionately, adamantinely opposed to allowing a further extension of people, so the only moment at which we can possibly insist is this moment.
I have heard the argument, “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good”—I have heard it so many times in my life and sometimes I have even made it myself. I made it myself, oddly, on the issue of gay marriage, because I said to Members in my party, “Let’s just go with having civil partnerships, because maybe the country won’t wear gay marriage.” Lots of people, quite rightly, metaphorically slapped me in the face and said, “You’re an idiot. You simply don’t know where history is going.” So I say to hon. Members tonight: the perfect is within your grasp. Vote for the amendment and the whole motion will go through as amended, and we will be happy. The Government could say now, having heard so many Conservative colleagues and others in the House say that they would like to take part in debates, that they are going to accept the amendment.
Business of the House
Fleur Anderson Excerpts(3 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Rees-Mogg
Ah, the wonder of Woolies. May I commend my hon. Friend for his incredible ability with pick’n’mix? We are all looking forward to some sweets after business questions. High streets are essential to our towns and our sense of community. The Government are committed to supporting the businesses and communities that make our high streets and towns successful. That is why there is the £3.6 billion towns fund, which Labour does not much like, the purpose of which is to bring much-needed investment to towns and high streets across the country. We are also supporting local leadership through the high streets taskforce, which is giving them the expert advice that they need to adapt and thrive. Adapting and thriving is going to be essential for high streets, and I am glad to say that taxpayer money is there to support it.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
The future of the Putney boat race is at stake. Not only that, but the closure of Hammersmith bridge is causing misery to thousands of people across south-west London. Does the Leader of the House remember me asking a question back in February about the restoration of Hammersmith bridge? He advised me to keep on making representations in the House. Well, here I am, keeping on making representations in the House. The Government have set up a taskforce. It has been meeting for five weeks, but there is still no sign of any Government funding, and that is what we need. Will the Government urgently make time to debate the funding of the restoration of Hammersmith bridge?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady is right to keep raising this point, and perhaps we can raise it with the Mayor of London, who has lots of money, which he spends extremely badly, or with the socialist Hammersmith Council, which has responsibility as well. Not everything falls on Her Majesty’s Government; there are local authorities that have responsibilities, and they need to fulfil those responsibilities with the funding provided to them centrally from taxpayers.
Business of the House
Fleur Anderson Excerpts(4 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Rees-Mogg
The progress on setting up Committees is continuing, as I mentioned, and they will all be established as soon as is reasonably practical, but I heard the Prime Minister say yesterday that the excitement over the Russia report is really rather overdone.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Hammersmith suspension bridge is a national treasure, built in 1824. Its necessary closure for repair works has caused chaos across south-west London. There are additional vehicles on roads that are already congested, people are spending an hour extra each way to get to work on buses, and people are unable to get to hospitals—we do not have an A&E in Putney. Will the Government make time to debate Hammersmith bridge and especially funding? The lack of funding will stop the repairs going on, but a debate could unlock the funding and open the bridge.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I congratulate the hon. Lady on standing up for her constituents, and many people who drive through London, on this considerable inconvenience, which has affected so many. The bridge is owned by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and it is for the borough to maintain and repair the bridge, but the Government are considering a proposal submitted by Transport for London on behalf of the borough for funding to repair the bridge and intend to respond in due course. I cannot promise a debate until after that response has been given, but I strongly encourage her to carry on making representations on this, because nagging away in this House can be very effective.