Energy Bill [Lords]

Debate between Ian Paisley and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Report stage
Tuesday 5th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley]

Thank you for calling me in this debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. It has not been all jolly hockey sticks, despite the fact that this Bill has taken up quite a considerable amount of the House’s time over the last number of years and Sessions.

Northern Ireland has more than 60%, maybe approaching 70%, of its houses heated by solid fuel. As a representative of a constituency with a vast rural section that relies on coal and heating oil, I cannot put my name to something that will say to my constituents, “I don’t know what this is going to cost you, but this decision will actually inflict a higher cost on you when there is a suitable and available product there that you can use to heat your home or to drive your car.” That presses heavily on me, and it has pressed heavily, I notice, on some other Members across the House, because there are significant cost implications in going down the proposed route.

Northern Ireland is not behind in making change. It is actually front and centre in the hydrogen revolution. It has been making hydrogen products and will be part of the hydrogen hub and the most significant hydrogen manufacturer in the entire island of Ireland. I listened carefully to the points made from the Government Front Bench about the hydro levy, and it will be interesting to see how that follows through.

I was delighted by the comments made by the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice). I know he was not trying to hang anyone out to dry today, but it was important that we got from the Minister a clear indication of what is happening, not just in Northern Ireland, with regard to liquid renewables. It is important that the Government must support a variety of heating technologies to give the UK the best chance of hitting the 2050 carbon reduction target, if that is what they wish to do. They must reflect the diverse types of houses that people live in across the entirety of the United Kingdom and do something that is fundamentally fair to people. We cannot inflict this massive cost on people when we have an overreliance on solid fuels, especially in a country such as mine.

We heard some comments from the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) on the issue of battery disposal. It concerns me considerably that whenever a battery car has finished its life cycle, the battery largely ends up in landfill. What benefit is that, when there are other technologies out there being explored, utilised and developed that could give us a much better and more user-friendly experience?

A ban on new replacement fossil fuel appliances in homes from 2026 will put a substantial cost on people. I also agree thoroughly with the points made about the disruption to many people and about heat pumps. This Bill needs to have even more thought given to it.

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

In my point of order earlier I said that this was a 328-page Bill. That was what it was when it came from the House of Lords; it is now a 427-page Bill, which we are expected to debate in detail in three hours, on a day when we had two relatively lightweight statements. That really seems to me not the proper way to have scrutiny in this House. It does not allow this House to do its proper job of looking at the detail of legislation—it is as if we had abdicated it entirely to their lordships.

I have supported my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) in a number of amendments, every single one of which has basically the same aim: to ameliorate the burden this Bill will place on all our constituents. Throughout the Bill, we are creating cost, regulation, penalties and obligations. New clause 42 is there to say that the lowest possible cost should be at the forefront of the mind of the Government in everything that they do, irrespective of how the energy is generated. If that means fossil fuels, let it be fossil fuels. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) said, we need to keep people with us, and we risk losing them if we put undue burdens on them.

Energy Prices: Support for Business

Debate between Ian Paisley and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

This support is comprehensive across the non-domestic sector.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State has provided the clarity that many companies in Northern Ireland now require, but legislation will now be required to assist businesses. Thousands of businesses in Northern Ireland are small and medium-sized enterprises, and they cannot wait for legislation, so will he commit to an emergency instrument or provision before December of this year?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

This House, when called upon, can act remarkably swiftly. The intention is that we should introduce legislation in October, pass it by the end of October, and that it should take effect from 1 October, to ensure that non-domestic users in the whole of the United Kingdom are helped, and that everybody in Northern Ireland is helped. That is the broad timeframe, and I hope that the House will co-operate with it, because it is necessary for expedited legislation.

Achieving Economic Growth

Debate between Ian Paisley and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Wednesday 18th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

This Government are a free-trading Government, which is why we are negotiating around the world to improve access to other markets. That is a very important part of what Her Majesty’s Government are doing.

I wish to mention briefly one of the other things that came up in debate, which was on the issue of public sector fraud.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Before the Minister moves on, will he take the opportunity to welcome from the Dispatch Box the first overseas deal that was cut between Northern Ireland and Australia? Wrightbus, in my constituency, and Volgren, in Australia, are now going to put hydrogen buses on the streets of Australia. That has come directly as a result of our new ability to cut free trade deals.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That is particularly good news. It is welcome that Northern Ireland, where there are difficulties over the protocol, is seeing genuine benefit from our free trade agreements.

I wish to make a point about fraud, which was an issue raised during the debate. Two years ago, it was of fundamental importance to get money out to businesses quickly. That was the right thing to do and it was supported across the House. It is now right to follow up to make sure that all that money was used honestly, and that if people did not use it honestly, they are subject to proper processes. So £750 million of taxpayers’ money is being committed to following up on fraud. We are setting up a public sector fraud agency and we are working with the banks, who own the loans, to ensure that the bounce back loans are repaid properly and honestly. But it was right to get the money out quickly two years ago and everybody wanted to do it.

Business of the House

Debate between Ian Paisley and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 27th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I join my hon. Friend in sending condolences to Mr Hill’s family. I know that he was a very important, well-known local figure. Not only should drivers obey the speed limit, but my hon. Friend was right to highlight careless driving. It is not always speed, but sometimes the carelessness and lack of consideration for the area that they are driving through that leads to the greatest number of accidents. The enforcement, advertising and decision making on speed limits is a local matter, so in her constituency it is a matter for Lancashire County Council, and the local police force has the responsibility for enforcement. However, it is worth pointing out that the Department for Transport launched a call for evidence last autumn as part of a wider roads policing review—an examination of roads policing in England and Wales and its relevance to road safety. The Government will publish their responses in the summer and I hope they will be reassuring to my hon. Friend.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP) [V]]

I am sure that the Leader of the House agrees that Lord Hall has very serious questions to answer regarding the re-employment of Mr Martin Bashir at the BBC. Will the Leader of the House let me know whether there is any mechanism that can be deployed, or that has indeed been examined, that would allow for the removal of Lord Hall’s title and privileges here in the other House, because of the alleged serious breaches that he has been engaged in? Is that being examined and is there a process, given the serious nature of his misdemeanour?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I notice a slightly raised eyebrow or slightly furrowed brow, because by convention we would not talk about individual peers in a disobliging way. There is an ancient practice for removing peerages, which is by Bill of attainder, but looking at the Clerk at the Table, I do not think that it has been used in at least the last 200 years, and probably not beyond the early part of the 18th century, so it may be that a Bill of attainder is an unlikely procedure.

There is a procedure for removing the peerages of Lords who go to prison for a certain period, which came in relatively recently. The House of Lords has exclusive cognisance of its own affairs and can, of course, suspend peers in certain circumstances. It was on the cusp of suspending all sorts of peers for not attending the valuing everybody training, but it seemed to step away from that, in the end, when a particularly distinguished noble baroness was one of the people who had not done that training.

There are mechanisms, but they are at the highest end of our constitutional activity for the most serious misdemeanours, and whether it would be right to go into them in a specific circumstance is a matter I cannot go into at the Dispatch Box.

Business of the House

Debate between Ian Paisley and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 4th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend raises a crucial point. The NHS long-term plan, published in January 2019, outlines commitments to improving stroke services, including better stroke rehabilitation services and increased access to specialist stroke units. Stroke services across England continue to provide rehabilitation and post-acute services to stroke survivors and their families and carers during the pandemic. In part, this has been helped by innovative methods of care delivery alongside face-to-face contact. Almost half of stroke survivors have had virtual care since covid began. More than 80% of them reported positive or very positive experiences. There are 20 integrated stroke delivery networks, giving full coverage across England. Integrated stroke delivery networks were established in shadow status in October 2020 and we expect them to be fully operational by spring 2021. Ninety per cent of stroke patients will receive care in a specialist stroke unit and more patients will have access to disability-reducing treatments of mechanical thrombectomy and thrombolysis. This combined with increased access to rehabilitation services will deliver improved long-term outcomes for stroke patients. I thank my hon. Friend for raising this very important issue.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP) [V]]

Welcome to North Antrim, Mr Speaker. I know that the Leader of the House cares passionately about this Union, and has growing concern about the breakdown of the following relationships: the internal relationships in Northern Ireland; north-south relationships across Ireland; and the UK-EU relationship, as a result of the outworking of the Northern Ireland protocol. Yesterday, during Northern Ireland questions, three Back-Bench Labour Members and one Labour Front-Bench Member expressed hostile and growing concern about the impact that the protocol is having on GB businesses trying to do trade with Northern Ireland. The Loyalist Communities Council wrote to the Prime Minister at the weekend to express concern and withdraw its support from the Belfast agreement. The Leader of the House will know the unanimous position of all strands of Unionism in their hostility and opposition to the protocol. Of course, businesses also tell us daily of the upset in respect of trade.

Will the Leader of the House inform us of when the Prime Minister will come to the House to make a statement about the extension of the grace periods put in place unilaterally by Her Majesty’s Government? What next steps will the Prime Minister take to protect the Union, to protect Northern Ireland businesses and to ensure that the genie does not get any further out of the bottle?

Business of the House

Debate between Ian Paisley and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 14th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I commend my hon. Friend’s advocacy for the people of the Dales and her efforts in the campaign for the Ashbourne bypass. I understand from the Derby Telegraph that there has been progress towards making the bypass a reality, with the local authority considering the results of a consultation. That ties in with the Government’s announcement of a £27 billion package to spend on our strategic road network. It will provide essential upgrades and new roads across the country.

I remind my hon. Friend that the Parliament Act 1911 refers to itself as a temporary measure, and it is 110 years old this year. A hundred years seems like a long time, but in a parliamentary context, perhaps not always.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I add my voice on behalf of our party to wishing Steve Jaggs well on his retirement. I understand that, as Keeper of the Great Clock, he was responsible for more than 2,000 clocks in this place and making sure that they are all synchronised and on time. The Leader of the House said that the job was perhaps more jealously desired than that of the Prime Minister, though I do not know whether we would ask the Prime Minister to wind up 2,000 clocks. Anyway, we congratulate Steve Jaggs and wish him all the very best. I know that he will find, as St Paul did, that time is undoubtedly short and we need to get on with life.

When Mr Johnson was Foreign Secretary, he commenced the process of appointing William Shawcross to investigate the victims of Libyan—

[Ian Paisley]

I beg  your pardon, Madam Deputy Speaker. When the Prime Minister was Foreign Secretary, he commenced the process of appointing William Shawcross to investigate how victims of Libyan-sponsored IRA terrorism should be compensated. On 3 January, a letter calling for the publication of the Shawcross report was published in The Daily Telegraph. The letter was signed by members of the Conservative party, the Labour party, the Liberal party, the Social Democratic and Labour party and my own party, so it really did attract cross-party support. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that it was too complicated and some way off finding a solution. Will the Leader of the House arrange a full statement on this matter? If that is not possible, will he agree to allow the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee to call the author of the report, Mr Shawcross, to give evidence, and ensure that that is not prohibited or blocked by the Foreign Office?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The House has wide powers, subject to a small number of limitations, to call people in front of it to give evidence, although the evidence they can give is sometimes limited by the confines of confidentiality. It is for the Select Committee to decide who it wants to call. Regarding the activities of the Prime Minister and his interest in this, I think the fact that he ordered the report when he was Foreign Secretary, is paying close attention to the report now and is ensuring that the report is thorough and full indicates the concern of Her Majesty’s Government about this whole area and does, I hope, give the hon. Gentleman some reassurance.

Business of the House

Debate between Ian Paisley and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Wednesday 30th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The problem is that the rates have been increasing very rapidly even in areas where they are very low, and this new strain seems to be infecting people more quickly. Obviously, there is hope from the vaccine. I assume that my hon. Friend did not get in on questions to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care; if I may, I will pass on his question directly to our right hon. Friend for, perhaps, a more comprehensive answer.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all the House staff, for making today possible.

This Friday, Northern Ireland enters into its celebratory centenary year. What an exciting year! Nationalists tell us that it is the end of the Union, but we are just beginning. Could the Leader of the House, who I know wants the Union to flourish, bring together all his Cabinet colleagues to put together a list of things that they intend to do to promote Northern Ireland throughout the coming year, to help us all celebrate, and to establish that this is the first year of the second century of Northern Ireland? I look forward to the party that the Leader of the House intends to throw for Ulster.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That sounds like a date. Once the restrictions are lifted, we must celebrate the 100th anniversary of Northern Ireland, and of the United Kingdom in its current form. We should always celebrate our nation. The hon. Gentleman has given me an excuse to have a second glass of champagne tomorrow night—and in the spirit of good will to our European friends, it will of course be champagne. I can have one at 11 o’clock to celebrate the end of the transition period, and another at 12 o’clock to celebrate 100 years of the United Kingdom in its current form. It has to be said—I do not know whether you know this, Madam Deputy Speaker—that the parties in Northern Ireland are absolutely fantastic. I went to speak in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, and it was absolutely brilliant: at the end of their events, they all stand up and sing the national anthem. I am tempted to suggest that we do that at the end of the Adjournment debate every evening in the House of Commons.

Business of the House

Debate between Ian Paisley and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 10th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Supporting people with disabilities to find dignified and fulfilling work is one of the most important things our welfare system can do. The coronavirus pandemic has posed huge challenges to our welfare system, and I am pleased to say that the Department for Work and Pensions has managed to withstand and address them. We are actively working on policies to prevent ill health-related job losses, and we provide specific employment support for disabled people out of work. I suggest to my hon. Friend that he might wish to be called in the pre-Adjournment debate, when he can raise the issues specific to his constituency and praise those firms he is working with to help disabled people find employment.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s 10-point green strategy for the entire economy. I wonder whether the Leader of the House agrees with me that the £600 million spent each year through the bus operator grant to subsidise the purchase of diesel fuel for buses is no longer fit for purpose in the light of that green strategy. Will he agree to a debate on a policy shift that would allow and encourage the purchase of zero-emission buses and allow for a green transport strategy across the entire country to increase employment for our entire people?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Government are committed to spending £2 billion of taxpayers’ money to improve local bus services and we are committed to buses that have low emissions. I understand that some of those buses are made in Northern Ireland, possibly even in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, so I hope that there will be employment, prosperity and success in his constituency and in Northern Ireland as a whole.

Business of the House

Debate between Ian Paisley and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 24th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The Times recently reported that the Prime Minister is “energised” by a “hydrogen-fuelled future”. It is not often, Mr Speaker, that you will hear this Unionist calling for the country to go green, but I am enthused and energised by what the Prime Minister has said. I wonder whether the Leader of the House can tell us if there is going to be a statement by the Prime Minister on this subject. Is there a planned policy announcement coming soon, or even a debate on the horizon? We want to ensure that we build on our hydrogen advantage as a nation and stimulate supply and demand, in parallel with the creation of a hub, hopefully in Northern Ireland, to build buses, heavy goods vehicles and cars, all made in green Ulster, to advantage our workforce.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That the hon. Gentleman has gone green shows that the peace process really has worked. I can assure him that the Government are committed to ensuring that the UK meets its green energy commitments and that hydrogen plays an important role in that. I am in full agreement with the Prime Minister—well, I am always in full agreement with the Prime Minister, but particularly on this subject. I think the opportunity for hydrogen is extremely exciting and interesting, and it may be good enough to overturn this anti-car prejudice that some people have. If we have hydrogen cars, we can go back to enjoying all our motoring.

Business of the House

Debate between Ian Paisley and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 9th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Six billion pounds is an important amount of support, and my hon. Friend is right to highlight the work being done by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and HM Treasury over the past week to support local jobs in his constituency. Aviation and aerospace companies are vital to the economy, which is why the support has already been there, including time to pay, support for employees and loans. These are designed to ensure that companies of any size receive the help that they need to get through this difficult time—airports, airlines and the wider supply chain. We will continue to work closely with the companies affected and we are open to offering further support, so long as all other Government schemes and commercial options have been exhausted, including raising capital from existing investors. We will consult on what we can do on aviation taxes. The Chancellor will say more on that in due course.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I welcome the answer that the Leader of the House has just given, because aviation, aerospace and our local airports are all struggling and need help. I hope that there will be time for a full and proper debate, but was the Leader of the House as shocked as I was by the Northern Ireland Health Minister, who proposed to close air links between Great Britain and Northern Ireland as part of his public health strategy? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is completely and totally unacceptable, and will he ensure and make a commitment from the Dispatch Box that links with Northern Ireland will remain open as a priority?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am as astonished as the hon. Gentleman, and I was even more astonished when I discovered that the comment was made by a Unionist. It sounded more like Nicola Sturgeon’s famous wall that she metaphorically wishes to build, and I am sorry that a Unionist would ever take that view. We are one United Kingdom and we must maintain all our links.

Proceedings during the Pandemic

Debate between Ian Paisley and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 2nd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That is not really a point for today’s debate. I completely accept what the hon. Gentleman says about representation on Committees for minority parties, but that is really a matter for business questions rather than today’s debate. I might add that the voice of Strangford is always heard in this House, and that is our good fortune as Members of Parliament.

Just before the hon. Member for Rhondda intervened, I was talking about having Members intervening, and we have seen in the past few minutes how that enhances, develops and evolves the debate. It ensures that Ministers are held to account, and allows the debating of amendments clause by clause in the Chamber, so that constituents’ views can be represented to Ministers; then to vote physically ensures that we are here, coming together as a single Parliament.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The Leader of the House is, of course, a strong advocate of the Union. He must appreciate that at the present time it is incredibly difficult and not at all straightforward for Members from Ulster to get here to the British mainland. As a result, I wonder whether he accepts that the social distancing queueing arrangements that are now to be trialled actually defeat to some degree the purpose of our having those debates, because they will eat so much into parliamentary time that we are eager to use for debate and cut and thrust.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The temporary measures that are to be used will mean that voting takes a little bit longer than using the ordinary Division Lobbies. That is true, but it will depend to some extent on how many Divisions right hon. and hon. Members demand—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] I note a certain amount of caterwauling in the background, but I point out that a Division is not demanded on every item that comes before this House. If it were, the Budget resolutions would take a day to be passed. That is a perfectly routine matter. Members decide what they wish to vote on, and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, asked if notice could be given beforehand. Of course we will look for faster ways of providing for Divisions to take place.

Why should Divisions be physical? Why is it important for votes to be physical? It is because we are coming here together as a single Parliament and voting on things that have a major effect on people’s lives. Every piece of legislation affects people’s lives one way or another. We should not vote quietly and secretly. Some people tweeted that they were doing it while going for a walk and things like that. Is that really the way to be voting on laws?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think the right hon. Lady makes entirely the wrong point. Parliament meets to represent the nation as a whole. We come here together not as ambassadors representing various powers; we come here as a United Kingdom Parliament. That is the nation— the United Kingdom—that we come here to represent, and we come here together. As a collective, we are a single United Kingdom Parliament and a strong legislative body that represents the whole people of the United Kingdom, and we each participate in that in our different ways on a daily basis.

[Ian Paisley]

The Leader of the House is absolutely correct on that point, but where it falls down is when Members are obstructed from actually getting here because there are not sufficient flights to bring Members to the House. That is where it falls down from Northern Ireland’s point of view. Will steps be taken, through the Government, with the airports and the airlines to ensure that Members from Northern Ireland can get here? Frankly, the issue of shielding, as far as I am aware, does not affect the eight Members who attend from Northern Ireland.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman in his place, and I absolutely appreciate that it is harder for some Members to get here than for others. I am very glad to see the Westminster leader of the SNP in his place, because his constituency is particularly far away from Westminster. I think he had a 16-hour journey to get here, and I think it shows a proper commitment to our parliamentary democracy that he is here. [Interruption.] Perhaps he is a secret Unionist, but it is a pleasure to see him here because we bring a Parliament together to have debate on the matters that are of concern to our constituents, and I absolutely accept that it is more difficult for some than for others.

Business of the House

Debate between Ian Paisley and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Wednesday 6th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter, which, as he has said, has been a concern for many who made travel plans prior to the covid-19 outbreak. There has been no change to either the package travel regulations or EU regulation 261, so consumers retain their right to request a refund. In line with existing legislation, the Government have been clear that if a consumer asks for a refund it must be paid. We recognise the challenges that businesses are facing in processing large volumes of such requests and the regulator is taking a balanced and proportionate approach to enforcement to help manage and mitigate covid-19 impacts. We have been clear, however, that it should not be unduly difficult for passengers to receive a refund and this should be done in a timely manner.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP) [V]]

Mr Speaker—[Inaudible].

Proceedings during the Pandemic and Hybrid Scrutiny Proceedings

Debate between Ian Paisley and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 21st April 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think we must wait till tomorrow for tomorrow’s business, but I do expect further motions to be brought forward on how this House will operate and move forward to substantive business. Those motions will be laid in the normal way before the rise of the House, so that we do not have to have the extraordinary situation of bringing forward motions without notice, but there will be further motions.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I obviously understand the extreme circumstances under which we are working, and I commend the Government and the Officers of the House for what they have done. In his comments, the Leader of the House has indicated that nothing controversial that would lead to a vote will be brought before the House. In those circumstances, is he guaranteeing that nothing to do with the extending of abortion in Northern Ireland will be brought to the House during this crisis period?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I was referring to the period of next week, when we expect the business to be business that will be agreed without a Division. We are looking to having remote voting, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) mentioned, and motions will come forward—or have to come forward—to cover that. The point at which that is in place will be the point at which controversial business will be taken that is unlikely to go through without a Division. We are not looking to Divisions next week.

Business of the House

Debate between Ian Paisley and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 21st April 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend is right to raise this, and it is part of bringing this House back into a functioning state and having a virtual Parliament. It will allow, tomorrow, for the First Secretary of State to be questioned, and I am sure he will be questioned on these issues, as, likewise, will the Health Secretary. Next week, with questions and statements, this process will be able to continue. It is right that these questions should be raised in this Chamber.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the Leader of the House indicate when the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be able to take questions and make a statement on the impact of covid-19 in Northern Ireland? When can we have a debate that will allow us to address the issues that have had a specific impact on our Province? In line with other questions that have been asked, may I ask him to say that no attempt will be made to usurp the powers of the Northern Ireland Assembly, now that devolution is up and running again, on any matter, including, most importantly, those to do with the life of the unborn child? Finally, we know how people in Northern Ireland love to march and to celebrate, so will he consider having, at the end of all this, a march for our health workers across the United Kingdom? May we have a “march for health”, to encourage and thank them in a very public way, more than just what the round of applause has done every Thursday night? May we have something that will tell them how grateful we are for the great work our doctors, nurses and careworkers have given to our entire community?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

First, on the easy question to answer, Northern Ireland questions will next be held on Wednesday 13 May, and that will be an opportunity to raise with the Secretary of State the hon. Gentleman’s second question, about how the relationship between the Secretary of State, this Parliament and the Assembly will work, which is a matter for him. As for marches, what a wonderful idea. I know that in Northern Ireland there is a great affection for marches, although they are sometimes controversial. Speaking as a Catholic, I always think it is worth remembering that the Holy Father in 1690 had a Te Deum sung in honour of the victory of King William at the Battle of the Boyne because he was not getting on very well with Louis XIV at the time.

Business of the House

Debate between Ian Paisley and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 6th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

There is always a balance with these things. By and large, people do not want the nanny state, however keen they may be on nannies. Before I get heckled by Opposition Members, let me say that nannies are splendid, the nanny state a little bit less so. There are Digital, Culture, Media and Sport questions next Thursday, but it is a balance between free speech and the ability of businesses to carry on their business, and protecting young people.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I was tempted to ask if the legislation on the release of terrorist prisoners should be made retrospective in Northern Ireland, but that would probably be a bit cruel on the Government. Lord Dunlop was asked to write a report on promoting the Union. When will that report be published? Will it be published? Will its findings be debated and will there be a debate on the benefits of the Union?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think we see the benefits of the Union every day, not least in the contribution the hon. Gentleman makes to our debates—and indeed in the contribution of our friends on the SNP Benches. Despite the fact they do not really approve of this place, they make a wonderful contribution and keep our debates going extraordinarily well. The Union is at the heart of our nation. The Prime Minister has made himself Minister for the Union and I share my right hon. Friend’s desire to promote the Union at every possible occasion.

Business of the House

Debate between Ian Paisley and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 23rd January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That is a very important point. I have noticed that many questions are raised on the general railway provision in this country. In relation to specific constituency issues, the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), is holding meetings with all Members—any Members who want to go—and I suggest to the hon. Lady that it would be a good idea to seek one of those meetings to persuade him of the necessity of what she is recommending.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The House, and indeed the nation, was misled about the true cost of HS2, so perhaps the Leader of the House could tell us when the Government actually intend to publish the full costs, when there will be a debate on them, whether that debate will be in Government time, whether there will be a vote at the end of it and what the purpose of such a vote will be.

Business of the House

Debate between Ian Paisley and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend raises an important point. It would be wrong of me to pre-empt what I will say tomorrow, but I encourage him to keep his hopes up.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Yesterday was an excellent day for burying awkward news, and the awkward news that emerged way down on the bulletins was that the National Crime Agency had decided that there is no evidence of any criminal activity whatsoever by Leave.EU, or by its founder and key supporter, Mr Arron Banks, for that matter. That has not brought forward any apologies from Members who asked the NCA to begin that investigation.

Will there be scope in the debate on the principles of democracy and the rights of the electorate for Members who had wrongly raised that matter, causing great burdens on individuals in that organisation, to apologise for abusing the court process?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend makes a crucial point. Members of this House must be very careful when they use parliamentary privilege to raise accusations of crime, not just in relation to Leave.EU but in relation to certain senior figures who were accused of very horrible crimes, all of which turned out to be untrue and the work of a fantasist. Indeed, tomorrow may well be an opportunity for people who have, or ought to have, a guilty conscience to come to the House and ask for forgiveness of their consciences.

Adjournment

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.— (Mr Marcus Jones.)

Business of the House

Debate between Ian Paisley and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 25th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That is an absolutely brilliant point, which follows on from what I was saying. I think we should have days of debate on the wonderful successes of this Government. Some £13 billion has been spent on the northern powerhouse, and the Minister for the Northern Powerhouse is now attending the Cabinet. Triumph after triumph achieved by this Government and we have only had our new Prime Minister for 24 hours. It is absolutely amazing, but the issue that my hon. Friend raises is probably in the purview of the Backbench Business Committee.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I congratulate the Leader of the House. He appears to be very well fitted to the role. I am very disappointed that in the first week back we do not have business with regards to a draft historical Bill on abuse for Northern Ireland. Will that be in the second week when we are back, as indicated by the Northern Ireland Secretary?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend should be aware that there will be Northern Ireland questions on 11 September, when he can raise that with the relevant Minister, but I accept that it is a really important issue.

Succession to the Crown Bill (Allocation of Time)

Debate between Ian Paisley and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Is it the hon. Gentleman’s understanding, as it is mine, that significant subsequent legislative changes will be required to no fewer than nine Acts of Parliament—the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement, the Union with Scotland Act 1706, the Coronation Oath Act 1688, the Princess Sophia’s Precedence Act 1711, the Royal Marriages Act 1772, the Union with Ireland Act 1800, the Accession Declaration Act 1910 and the Regency Act 1937—and that we require more time to explore the implications and impact of those changes?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Again, I am in agreement with the hon. Gentleman. We need time to consider constitutional issues properly, because they have complex knock-on effects and their phraseology is crucial to how the Crown might pass in future. If mistakes are made now, we could discover that we end up with consequences that we do not want, or indeed—this comes back to my amendments to this allocation of time motion—that we are not able to consider matters that are very pertinent to parts of the Bill because the phrasing is too narrow and things have been done within a time limit that makes it very hard to extend into these issues.

My amendments seek to allow for an instruction to be debated that would widen the scope of the Bill to include the consequence of a marriage to a Catholic. I speak as a Catholic or, in the terminology of the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, as a “Papist”—as a member of the “Popish” religion—and I am happy to do so. I find no shame in being called that; I rather prefer it to the more politically correct phraseology of “person of the Roman Catholic faith”, which is rather middle-management-speak, if I may say so.

It is proposed in the Bill that a Catholic may marry an heir to the throne but may not then maintain the succession by bringing up a child of that marriage as a Catholic. The reason I object to that is because it is an attack on the teaching of the Catholic Church. Canon 1125 states specifically that the bishop, who can give a dispensation for a Catholic to marry a non-Catholic, is not to do so unless

“the Catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power so that all offspring are baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church”.

When I got married, it was with great pleasure and joy that I was able to make that promise, because there is no finer thing to be able to pass on to one’s children than one’s own religion; there is nothing finer than to have that hope of faith, that joy of salvation that comes from passing on what has come from one’s own forebears through the generations. In this Bill and under this allocation of time motion, the House is not allowed to consider the natural consequence of what is being proposed by Her Majesty’s Government. I would therefore like the amendment to be made so that we are able to consider the natural consequences of what the legislation proposes.

I would like us to also be able to amend the legislation so that a child of such a marriage that the law would allow could be a Catholic, but to protect the position of the Church of England, which obviously cannot be led by a non-member of that Church, so that under the Regency Act 1937 a regent would be appointed to take on the role of Supreme Governor of the Church of England and to hold the title “Defender of the Faith”—a papal title that has been taken by the Crown since the reign of Henry VIII. That is an entirely logical extension of what is proposed in the Bill and time ought to be allowed to debate it, because when we start these changes and decide that in this modern age we need to be more politically correct and allow Catholics to marry into the throne, we have to consider the consequence.

The consequence of what is being proposed is to leave in the deeply hostile anti-Catholic language contained in the Act of Settlement and the Bill of Rights. Such language would not conceivably be used by any Member of this House in this more modern age. The consequence is to leave all that, but to take out just a few words. If I may, Mr Speaker, it might be worth my reading out a little of this language:

“And whereas it hath beene found by Experience that it is inconsistent with the Safety and Welfaire of this Protestant Kingdome to be governed by a Popish Prince or by any King or Queene marrying a Papist the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons doe further pray that it may be enacted That all and every person and persons that is are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or shall professe the Popish Religion or shall marry a Papist shall be excluded and be for ever uncapeable to inherit possesse or enjoy the Crowne and Government of this Realme”.

We are proposing to remove from that fewer than a dozen words and leave the main substance intact. I would happily accept no change at all, because that is the history of our nation.