Electoral Commission

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Tuesday 17th November 2020 General Committees

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the motion, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will re-appoint Dame Susan Bruce DBE as an Electoral Commissioner with effect from 1 January 2021 for the period ending on 31 December 2023; and Dame Elan Closs Stephens DBE as an Electoral Commissioner with effect from 13 March 2021 for the period ending on 12 March 2025.

May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Eagle? It is the first time I have ever had the privilege.

The Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission has produced a report, its fourth of 2020, in relation to this motion. It may help if I set out the key points for the record. Electoral commissioners are appointed under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, as amended by the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009. Under the 2000 Act, the Speaker’s committee has a responsibility to oversee the selection of candidates for appointment to the Electoral Commission, including the re-appointment of commissioners.

Dame Susan Bruce’s four-year term as the electoral commissioner with special responsibility for Scotland comes to an end on 31 December. Dame Elan Closs Stephens’ four-year term as commissioner with special responsibility for Wales comes to an end on 12 March 2021. Sir John Holmes, the chairman of the Electoral Commission, wrote to Mr Speaker in February asking the Speaker’s committee to consider whether to re-appoint Dame Susan Bruce for a further term of three years and Dame Elan Closs Stephens for a further term of four years.

Sir John provided the Speaker’s committee with appraisals of the commissioners’ performance. He described Dame Susan as

“an effective and valuable Commissioner, bringing a lot of experience of electoral processes through her previous roles in local government in Scotland, and a lot of knowledge of the political scene in Scotland”.

He also referred to Dame Susan’s role chairing the commission’s audit committee. Sir John said that Dame Elan had been

“a hard-working and committed Commissioner over the last three years, and has contributed a great deal at a time of great electoral change in Wales”.

He also noted Dame Elan’s service as a member of the commission’s audit committee. The Speaker’s committee consulted the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament about Dame Susan’s re-appointment and the Presiding Officer of the Welsh Assembly about that of Dame Elan. Having considered this feedback and Sir John’s appraisal, it agreed to recommend the two commissioners for re-appointment.

Once the Speaker’s committee has reached a decision, statute requires that the proposed appointment or re-appointment be the subject of consultation with the registered leader of each registered party to which two or more Members of the House of Commons then belong. The statutory consultation provides an opportunity for the party leaders to comment, but they are not required to do so. No objections to these candidates were received in response to the consultation. If the re-appointments are made, Dame Susan will continue to serve as an electoral commissioner until the end of 2023 and Dame Elan until March 2025. I hope the re-appointments will have the support of the Committee and ultimately the House.

Participation in Debates

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Monday 16th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) (Urgent Question)]

To ask the Leader of the House of Commons if he will make a statement on participation in debates.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this urgent question.

Throughout this year, the pandemic has posed unprecedented challenges to the everyday functioning of our parliamentary democracy, but thanks to your tireless efforts, Mr Speaker, and those of the House staff on whom we all rely, so much more has been possible than some might have feared. During the initial lockdown, the hybrid proceedings allowed scrutiny to continue, even if it were not possible for the Government to proceed with their legislative agenda in a timely manner. During the period after Parliament returned in June, we were able to resume legislative scrutiny both in the Chamber and in Committees, even if other aspects of our normal work, like Westminster Hall, remained silent. During recent weeks, Westminster Hall has resumed its work, even if it has not yet been possible for all Members to take part.

Throughout this year, our approach has been to maximise what is possible within the limitations placed upon us. This is a continuing process, and our arrangements remain under review. In practice, that means applying two principles consistently. First, we must continue to explore what more is possible. To that end, I have worked with the House authorities throughout the year in support of their efforts to surmount the technical and capacity constraints that they have faced. Secondly, both Parliament as an institution and Members individually should follow both the letter and spirit of public health guidance.

As an institution, we have treated Parliament as a workplace no different from any other in making it covid-secure. As individual Members of Parliament, we are no different from any other key worker up and down the country seeking to discharge their responsibilities within the constraints imposed by the pandemic. We as MPs want to do the best we can for our constituents within the context of varying personal circumstances and experiences, and of course developing national and local guidance.

In last week’s business questions, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) made a brave and moving appeal to be allowed to contribute more to our proceedings through virtual participation. This followed the appeals of a number of other Members. While my understanding is that capacity constraints prevent us from extending Westminster Hall debates to Members participating virtually, my hon. Friend has certainly convinced me that we should seek to do more to support additional virtual participation in the Commons Chamber.

I have therefore decided that, in line with the Government advice that the clinically extremely vulnerable should not go into work, we should work with the House authorities to find a solution. I am exploring how we can support additional virtual participation in the Commons, despite capacity constraints, for those who are clinically extremely vulnerable, and aim to bring a motion before the House. This is the latest step in our work to maximise what is possible within the limitations placed upon us, enabling the Government to legislate and the House to conduct scrutiny, thus enabling us, together, to carry out our collective duties to the British people.

[Mr Baron [V]]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. As someone who is shielding with his wife, who is herself clinically extremely vulnerable, and having, with others, raised this issue with you, Mr Speaker, with the Whips and with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House last week, we think that the Government have been wrong to forbid Members with proxy votes to contribute virtually to Chamber debates. After all, we have been able to ask the Prime Minister questions, we have been able to ask Secretaries of State questions, and we have been able to participate in all votes. It therefore makes little sense to us that we could participate in the debates only if we appeared in person—something that is not possible if shielding or living with people who are. Of course we accept that there is a balance to be struck between continuing the essential work of Parliament and accommodating the exceptional situation of the pandemic, but the current measures do not strike that right balance. They have, however inadvertently, created a hierarchy of MPs, which few MPs welcome.

I welcome this announcement from my right hon. Friend, in so far as it goes, and look forward to hearing how the review pans out. Many colleagues across the House will also be pleased at the announcement. However, he is still excluding Members who are shielding with wives, husbands or partners or who are themselves clinically extremely vulnerable. This exclusion is insensitive to family situations, and I ask him to think again, because it makes even less sense now, given his announcement to the House today. I suggest that there is little room for procedural purity in a pandemic. Will he therefore meet me, virtually, so that we can discuss this further?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I can certainly answer the last bit of the question first. I would always be delighted to meet my hon. Friend at any point, and we can do it virtually or simply by telephone, if that is convenient for him. As Leader of the House, I have made it clear always to all right hon. and hon. Members that it is my role to have as many meetings as right hon. and hon. Members want, so it would be a pleasure to see my hon. Friend. He raises a very important point and one on which I have the greatest sympathy with him and other right hon. and hon. Members: it is, of course, difficult for those with family responsibilities and those with obligations both to themselves and to others who are concerned about their safety and the safety of members of their family. There are, however, a number of constraints on what can be done practically, so these are the considerations we have to take into account before making the decision as to what we are to do in this Chamber and how we are to react to all the various circumstances of individual Members of Parliament.

First, it is important that the House of Commons is a covid-secure workplace, and— very much under your auspices, Mr Speaker, but also under the House authorities’ —that has been ensured. Great steps have been taken since March to ensure that covid security is of the highest level. I think there would be few workplaces in the country that can compete with that. That is important because ensuring that people who come into this place are safe has been your highest priority, Mr Speaker, and also, of course, the high priority of the Clerk of the House of Commons, who has the technical legal responsibility for the safety of this place.

The second point is that it is important that legislation passes and that the Government are held to account in an effective way. There, I look at what happened in May and June, when a number of activities were cancelled altogether: we did not have Backbench business days and we did not have Westminster Hall, but we had three days a week primarily of Government business. The Government business was very heavily truncated and Ministers, to my mind—and I think of many right hon. and hon. Members —were not fully or properly held to account during that period. It was, in the words of the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, “sub-optimal”, a word that became very fashionable. My right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) is very much a leader of fashion, and certainly in linguistic fashion she set the tone with the word “sub-optimal”. But it also meant that Government legislation was not getting through in a timely manner. Government legislation is not just important from the point of view of Government, it is important from the point of view of democratic propriety. The Government were elected just about a year ago on a manifesto and they have a duty to the British people to deliver on what was proposed, in addition to ensuring that we are prepared for 31 December, which is quite an important date, because on that day the transition period ends and legislation has to be in place to ensure that. Unfortunately, with the fully hybrid proceedings, that was not working and that is why we had to move back to a more physical Parliament to ensure that we could deliver on the manifesto commitments, ensure that the Government were held to account, allow for Backbench business debates and get on with business.

There is one other very important and fundamental point which I would like to make to my hon. Friend, because I am sure he will understand it and will sympathise with it. As Members of Parliament, we are key workers and we must behave as other key workers do. Last week, I had to write to a constituent of mine in exactly the same position as my hon. Friend. The Government guidance is that if you are living with somebody who is clinically extremely vulnerable, it does not mean that you should not go to work in a covid-safe environment. That is the advice of Her Majesty’s Government to our constituents, and I do not think it would be right of me to stand here and say that we should treat Members of Parliament differently from the way we are treating our constituents. Indeed, I believe it is of fundamental importance that, as we carry out our duty as key workers, we must consider how other key workers are operating, and we must be shoulder to shoulder with them. So to ensure the legislative programme and proper accountability, we are able to make further steps to allow more remote participation, but we are not able to make remote participation unlimited, much though I think everybody sympathises with my hon. Friend and other Members in similar positions.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) for securing the urgent question and you, Mr Speaker, for granting it. Why did the Leader of the House think it was necessary to make some sort of announcement on Twitter without having the courtesy to let the House know? He will know that I wrote to him on Friday, along with the chair of the Human Rights Committee, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), and the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), to ask him to look again at participation of hon. and right hon. Members in debates. The Leader of the House has been warned on a number of occasions that this would happen, and on each occasion he has said no, no, no, without even considering what we have been saying.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman: everyone was moved by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) when she asked at business questions why she was not allowed to take part in the debate—if she had been able to, imagine how someone going through what she is going through could have informed that debate.

I have previously raised the point that there are two classes of Members, and that that is undemocratic. The right hon. Gentleman says that it is our duty to be here but it is our duty to represent our constituents, and the Leader of the House is suppressing and extinguishing the voices of right hon. and hon. Members in that debate. Effectively, he is saying that all Members are equal but some are more equal than others. Where have we heard that before?

Will the Leader of the House now accept that he has excluded hon. Members from doing their democratic duty for their constituents, and will he please revert back to the world-leading system that worked? Such debates should be for every Member, not just a certain class. Why should hon. Members be identified as clinically extremely vulnerable? That is a privacy issue.

The contacts of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) may well have been identified and isolated, but he did not have a proxy and he was in the queue—that means that he has exposed all hon. Members who were in that queue. Will the Leader of the House look again at remote voting? He said that the system broke down, but that was once and it was corrected. We are so far down the road from the start. The Lords are actually undertaking seven to eight hours of virtual proceedings and they are now looking at the second Chamber. Debate is controlled by call lists, anyway, so will the right hon. Gentleman look at Westminster Hall and Public Bill Committees, which involve small groups and could be done by Zoom? Will he also confirm how long the proposed changes will last and commit to cross-party talks before they are removed?

Finally, I wish a speedy recovery to the Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Ashfield and all other Members who are isolating.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Indeed. We all wish all hon. Members who are suffering from covid a speedy recovery and let us hope that those who are isolating have not caught the disease.

I really would not hold up their lordships’ House as a model. Having a voting system that collapses is deeply unsatisfactory and meant that their business for a day was lost. That was a failure of their system—

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

Embarrassing!

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As the hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position, that was embarrassing—I happen to agree with him on this occasion.

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

No—you’re embarrassing!

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That is the risk of sedentary interventions; one hears part of them, but not necessary all of them in their fullness. I point out to the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) that that is why “sedentary chuntering”, as the former Speaker used to call it, is invariably not wise.

I turn back to the substance of the points made by the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz). She did indeed write to me over the weekend. It was important that these issues were in the public domain and being considered and that the Government, as they said they would, were keeping them under review. As I also said, I was very moved by the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). How could one not be? She is a remarkable person. It has to be said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) has also made similar appeals of a very moving kind.

It is important to recognise that the Government do listen to what right hon. and hon. Members are saying. The Government recognise the strength of arguments put forward and that there is a special set of people with the most troubling conditions who, under the current rules, which came in Thursday a week past, are being advised not to go to work. That was not the case before then, so when my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham made her requests, the Government guidance was not of that kind; it had changed by the time my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford made her appeal. It is an appeal that many Members feel should be answered, and that is what we are trying to do.

The right hon. Member for Walsall South rightly calls for there to be equality among Members, and indeed there is. Every Member who is not extremely clinically vulnerable is in the same position as other key workers, which is that, as long as their workplace is covid-secure—that is a fundamental qualification—they are not expected to stay away from work. I reiterate the point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) that we should expect to behave and be treated in the same way as other key workers. That is fundamental. The nation is facing this virus together, and there is not a different situation for us as opposed to other key workers.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

They are not shirking.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am not saying that anybody is shirking; I am simply saying that we are in the same position as other key workers, as I think is right and proper.

On the issue of people revealing their medical conditions, I have of course thought very carefully about that because I know that many people would not want to reveal what their medical condition is. The issue is that either we would have to have an entirely virtual Parliament with all Members Zooming in—otherwise one could say, “That person has something wrong and that person doesn’t,”—which we found from experience did not work, or we would have to have it for a very small group.

The very small group have a choice. They are free to contribute, with a very wide range of rights, in interrogative proceedings in a way that allows our business to be carried out properly. The limitation remains only in those areas of business that need debate and the flow of debate. Exemptions will be made for a limited number of people, who will have the choice whether to tell the House about their need to contribute virtually because they are severely clinically vulnerable.

If I may use you, Mr Speaker, as a case in point—I hope you will forgive me—you have brought your diabetes to the attention of people by being open about it, and some Members wish to do that. I absolutely understand that other Members do not wish to, and nobody will be forced to reveal a medical condition if they do not wish to do so.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I think the whole House will welcome the flexibility that is following on from my right hon. Friend’s review of the situation. May I put it to him that it might be better, when he has developed proposals in consultation with you, Mr Speaker, and the House authorities, for them to be put to the House for debate, with the possibility of amendment, and for it to be for the House to decide what instructions to give you on what should be allowed?

I think there is something inelegant—perhaps I am taking the words that my right hon. Friend would have used were he still a Back Bencher—about the Government saying what Back Benchers should be able to contribute in this House. We pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for the way he has conducted himself as Leader of the House; he has been helpful to most MPs most of the time. As he said on Thursday:

“With debates, we need to have the proper holding to account of Ministers, which is the purpose of the debates, and to have the interventions that make a debate, rather than a series of statements. It is a question of striking a careful balance, in these difficult times, between ensuring that Parliament can serve its constituents in full and making sure that Members can complete their duties as safely and as effectively as possible.”—[Official Report, 12 November 2020; Vol. 683, c. 1071.]

Those words match what our hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) said, and others. I think the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) spoke in the same way. I put it to the Leader of the House that the sooner the review allows extra flexibility, the better. We are not asking to go back to a fully virtual Chamber.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am extremely grateful to the Father of the House for his question and his, I think, generous comments. I will certainly interpret them that way, though they may have been slightly two-edged. It is very important that the House comes to a decision on this, and it is a matter for the House how it should be done. There will be conversations in the normal way, as there always are, and I hope that it will not be indiscreet of me to say that I spoke to you, Mr Speaker, on Friday after Thursday’s business questions. The House always comes to its own decision. The Government may propose, but it is for the House to dispose, and I am sure that the House will come to its conclusion in due course.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]]

Well, at least the Leader of the House has now accepted that, if Members are not able to be physically present, it is because of legitimate concerns they have about their own and the public’s health, rather than because they are work-shy and trying to avoid their responsibilities. Maybe we should be grateful for small mercies, but really, this is far too little, far too late.

The Leader of the House keeps suggesting that MPs are key workers, but that does not mean that we need to be in the Chamber in order to do our work. Indeed, in any other workplace, we would be criticising employers that did not provide facilities for their workers to work from home, especially when we know them to be available. Introducing virtual facilities on a restricted basis is not going to work. Members should not have to disclose private information about their health in order to have the right to represent their constituents. That is why he must trust that, if a Member chooses not to be here, it is for a proper and honourable reason, and he must therefore allow all Members to take advantage of the virtual facility.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am afraid I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The default position should be that Members attend the House to carry out the business of the House. We are key workers, and we have a job to do. I am slightly surprised that the Scottish National party values democracy so lowly that it does not think that it is important to be here and to be actively involved in the democracy of our nation. I know that the SNP is not perhaps the greatest admirer of this Parliament that we could find, but they are still Members of it, and they are here to represent their constituents—or at least some are—and this is an important contribution to the national debate.

The reason for making exceptional provision is exactly that—it is exceptional. It is exactly what other workplaces are doing to help, aid and assist those who are not able to turn up for work because of the Government’s advice, which is that if someone is extremely clinically vulnerable, they should not go into work. That is being facilitated. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman; it is not a matter of choice for MPs. The default position is that Members should be here to do their job. That is their duty. There are some people in exceptional circumstances who need alternative arrangements to be made, and the House of Commons is quite correctly facilitating those and helping them to work from home, to ensure that they have a good connection and to participate. I hope we will agree to help them participate in a broader range of our activities.

[Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

I thank the many Members who contacted my Committee following our call for evidence, wanting to see exactly this change. I am sure that they were very pleased when they saw the news on Twitter last night. I repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) said: this should be a matter for the House and needs a full debate. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that these changes will not impact on the work of Select Committees? It is very important that they are able to access digital services to carry out their important work.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend is right to raise that point about Select Committees. There is a limit to the broadcasting resources within the House and what they can do. That is why it has not been possible to extend this to Westminster Hall. Select Committees can continue to meet virtually. I would be nervous to give absolute carte blanche, because if every Select Committee wanted to meet at exactly the same time on one particular day and the Chamber was also in action, that may stretch the resources. Assuming that Select Committees arrange their affairs in such a way that a reasonable number of them are sitting at any one time, I do not believe that these proposals will make it harder for Select Committees to meet.

My right hon. Friend is right to explain that there is a balance in terms of the resources there are to ensure the participation of Members in the various activities that take place. Sometimes it is thought that all that goes on in Parliament takes place in the Chamber, but of course that is not the case. Business was not getting through in May and June because of the inability for other aspects of business to take place that are not necessarily seen, particularly the work in Public Bill Committees and statutory instrument Committees.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

The Leader of the House will know that I am a long-serving Member of Parliament and an active parliamentarian who so much wants to be back in the Chamber doing the job that I have been doing for over 40 years. But can I say that, if anything is sub-optimal here, it is the Leader of the House? The fact of the matter is: he knows it is the Speaker’s view—Mr Speaker, I hope I can quote you on this—that this is not a safe environment for us to attend. That is the fact of the matter and that is the truth. I would have to say to the Leader of the House that my responsibility, my key and prime duty, is to my constituents. He is the man who is stopping me serving as a full Member of Parliament. Indeed, I would not be able to do my Select Committee if it had not been for, not him, but the Speaker and his intercession. The fact of the matter is he is sub-optimal—he should resign.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Leader of the House, just one second. I did not know that was going to be raised. I think I need to put clarity around what I did say. If people are vulnerable, I did say that I do not want vulnerable people to be put at risk. Let us clear that up. This is a covid-secure workplace.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. That clarification is extremely helpful because the Clerk of the House, I think, would be extremely nervous if it were being said that this were not a covid-secure workplace. The work that has been done to ensure that has been absolutely extraordinary, and we ought to thank once again the House authorities, but also the Doorkeepers who have stewarded our Divisions, the security staff and the cleaning people who have worked incredibly hard and who have been here even when we have not been. The hon. Gentleman has expressed his view very clearly. It is not one I share.

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con) [V]]

I am slightly embarrassed by the kind comments about my question on Thursday because others—my good friend, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan), and my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), whose UQ it is—have been raising this issue for some time and really it is they, rather than I, who deserve plaudits. That said, may I thank the Leader of the House for calling me on Saturday to advise me of his intention to allow Members who are clinically extremely vulnerable to participate in proceedings here in the Chamber? I am looking forward to being able to raise important issues on behalf of my constituents as and when I can during the rest of my treatment.

I am sorry if I missed it, but could the Leader of the House confirm when the changes will come in? While I absolutely recognise his points about the technical challenges of participation in Westminster Hall, could he please reassure the House that he will continue to explore options for participation in the second Chamber? While here, will he join me in thanking the extraordinary efforts of the digital and broadcasting teams, who have done amazing things to allow Members to be here by, as the Prime Minister puts it, the “magic of modern technology”?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is enormously gracious in her thanks to the digital and broadcasting team, who not only have managed to introduce this new system since March, but have had to move offices at the same point and kept it going seamlessly. It is one of the smaller teams within the House service, so I think what they have managed to do is absolutely phenomenal.

I hope to introduce the motions as soon as possible. They are being written, I think, by wise Clerks as I am speaking. It is important, I think—I hope this answers my hon. Friend’s question about Westminster Hall—to recognise that, if we do it quickly, it must be limited. If we do it for the Chamber for the extremely clinically vulnerable, that can be done quite quickly; if we were to try to look at Westminster Hall, that would take considerably longer because we would need additional resources. But, as I have said before, things are under review, particularly for those whom the Government are advising not to go into work, and that is the extremely clinically vulnerable. So, yes, it will be done quickly and we will keep Westminster Hall under review.

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab) [V]]

Since the Leader of the House deliberately chose to exclude some MPs from debates, I have been trying to do my work in different ways. However, for example, it has taken up to five months to extract a response to my letters, not just on covid issues but on matters that are equally vital to my constituents, such as the combustible cladding scandal and the survival of local football clubs.

I welcome warmly today’s announcement, particularly in relation to MPs with cancer and other conditions, but what about the rest of us who are simply heeding the Government’s advice in not coming into the House? I have to say to the Leader of the House that we are not like other key workers, who can be replaced if they cannot attend; MPs have no substitutes. How can he continue to justify deliberately preventing my constituents from being properly and thoroughly represented in Parliament?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I very much doubt that any of the right hon. Lady’s constituents would say that she does not represent them effectively. She has always been a powerful campaigner and an effective voice of the Opposition and of the Labour party over many years, so I do not think anybody would dream of saying that.

May I answer the right hon. Lady’s question in parts? First, as relates to correspondence, that has been a problem that has been raised on the Floor of the House on a number of occasions. I have taken it up with all members of the Cabinet to emphasise the importance of timely responses to Members—not just to their written correspondence but to written questions. I reiterate the promise that I have made to all hon. and right hon. Members that if anyone has a particular problem with a particular Department, my office will take that up for them. I have done that for a number of hon. and right hon. Members from across the House, and it does seem to get answers. I can only apologise on behalf of the Government that there have been delays in responses because, to be fair, of the pressures of the pandemic earlier in the process. I am reassured that things are now getting better, but the right hon. Lady must feel free to raise with me any instances where replies are not being received.

As regards the decision being made today, we are following the advice that the Government have laid down, and that is that the clinically extremely vulnerable should not be going into work but that other people are able to go into work if it is a covid-safe environment. As this is a covid-safe environment, people are able to come in if they are not clinically extremely vulnerable. Shielding as a concept ended in the summer and therefore it is not part of the current Government advice.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con) [V]]

In his opening remarks, the Leader of the House referred to the possibility of maximising what was possible. Mr Speaker, through your good offices and that of your technical team, we know that a hybrid Parliament is perfectly— [Inaudible.] Not only that; it is exercised, for example, at Prime Minister’s Question Time every week. But hitherto, those of us who are not able to attend have been denied the opportunity to take part in debates.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) and my—[Inaudible.]—are both senior members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Throughout the last six months, we have been taking part in plenary sessions, debates and committee hearings perfectly satisfactorily in a hybrid fashion. I cannot believe that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House would suggest that this House is not capable of doing something that Europe is capable of, so my question to him is simply this. At the last vote, 200 Members were denied the opportunity to attend, speak or vote. This time, following the lead taken by the Father of the House, will he make sure that there is a proper debate and that every Member of Parliament who wishes to do so is enabled to participate and to vote?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend was momentarily interrupted, and that is one of the problems with remote participation; the quality of the audio is not invariably perfect. Although that works during Question Time, it is not a good enough way of having a debate, nor did we find when we had the hybrid Parliament that debates of legislation worked effectively. I would also point out that when we had the hybrid Parliament, we were meeting for only three days a week, and we were very short on Opposition days and had no Backbench Business days, both of which have now been restored. The act of holding the Government to account and, indeed, of getting legislation through was less easy, and that is why it was decided, by a vote of the House, to return to a more physically present Parliament, especially for debates and therefore particularly for legislation.

I would say to my right hon. Friend that we are ensuring that Parliament is working effectively, and we are going to make, I hope, with the agreement of the House, an exception for those who are clinically extremely vulnerable. He does, though, ask a question that is something of a conundrum, because we cannot change the rules until we have voted to change the rules, so the vote to change the rules will be of fundamental importance for allowing those who are clinically extremely vulnerable to attend and speak in debates.

[Mr Speaker]

We have a lot to get through, so I ask for speedy questions and answers. That will help us all.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

With due respect, I disagree with the Leader of the House. It has been proved that we can vote remotely, thanks to the wonderful work of the digital team, and that is what we should return to, but may I ask a question about Westminster Hall debates, which seem to be the crux of many of the issues that have been raised? If we cannot bring Westminster Hall debates back because of technical issues, will the Leader of the House please look into how Westminster Hall-style debates were brought back before October by conducting them in Committee Room 5, where there are the technical possibilities?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

There is an element of choice, as to what the House wants. We brought back Westminster Hall because regular representations were made to me that people wanted to have Westminster Hall back. If the House does not want Westminster Hall, that would be a matter for the House, but I would be very surprised if that were the case. The hon. Lady opened her comments by saying she disagreed with me. Dare I say it, Mr Speaker, but that is very reassuring. She is, after all, a Liberal Democrat, and I am always very nervous if a Liberal Democrat agrees with me.

[Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP) [V]]

It has been said in this House that it is the duty of Members to participate physically in debates to show people that it is safe to return to work. With England in full lockdown and “work from home” a message across the UK, is it not the duty of every Member to show that working remotely can be done effectively, or, unlike every other Parliament across the length and breadth of Europe, is that something that is simply beyond the wit of the House?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The advice is absolutely clear that people should work from home if they can do so effectively, but this Chamber does not work effectively when people are not physically present. To reiterate the points I have already made, to ensure that the Government are held to account and that the Government’s legislative programme can be proceeded with, we need to be here physically, because otherwise both of those cannot happen properly. One of them is to the advantage of Opposition Members, and that is the holding to account. They should be pleased to have the opportunity to hold the Government to account thoroughly, vigorously and with full vim, rather than thinking that the Government should have an easy ride over a virtual setting. I am rather surprised that they are so nervous about participating in the process of scrutiny.

On the other hand, from the Government’s point of view, we wish to ensure that the legislative agenda on which we were elected just under a year ago is proceeded with, and that is our democratic right, because we have a mandate to do it. On the one hand, proper scrutiny, and on the other, a legislative programme. Those require us to be here to do that properly. We need to stand with or, in socialist terms, show solidarity with other key workers who are continuing to go into work. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) points to the Lords. I remind her again that they had a vote that failed—a failure of the Lords—which upset the business for the next day. We have not had a single failure in this House, thanks to our model speakership.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

May I report to the House through you, Mr Speaker, that the Liaison Committee met last week and discussed this matter at some length? Will my right hon. Friend respect how strongly many Chairs of Select Committees feel that a significant number of them are unable to carry out their constitutional function, because they cannot risk exposing themselves or their families to covid infection? It means that they are unable to speak to their own Committees’ reports during debates, to make statements to launch reports by their Committees, to lead debates on those reports or to speak on legislation that their Committees have scrutinised. Will my right hon. Friend please address that urgently?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am very concerned and sorry to hear that so many members of the Liaison Committee are extremely clinically vulnerable. That is certainly troubling, but I hope that the steps that are being proposed and will be taken will be helpful to them.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I applaud the Leader of the House and also you, Mr Speaker, for the guidance and leadership that have been given. Does the Leader of the House not agree that engagement in this place is what we are elected to do, and that the proper process should be followed? Does he agree that the proxy voting scheme, for example, is an essential component of moving forward in a different way in these peculiar times? Can he envisage a time-limited way of allowing greater engagement during these times?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is an absolute model of parliamentary engagement and of the ability to stand up for constituents and ensure that they are represented. He does it with aplomb and vigour. Yes, we need to ensure that there is as much engagement as possible, and the point I am trying to get across is that having a functioning, active democratic Chamber is not simply nice to have, like some sort of additional bauble on the British constitution; it is fundamental to how we are governed. It is fundamental to how the extraordinary laws that have been introduced are scrutinised, and that requires almost all of us to be here, but we can make exceptions for those who are extremely clinically vulnerable.

[Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) [V]]

I would like to echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), the Chairman of the Liaison Committee. I am one of those Select Committee Chairs who do not feel that we are able to fulfil our function—not as a bauble of Parliament as the Leader of the House has just suggested—because we are unable to attend for medical reasons. I have not been able to participate in a debate since the middle of March and I do not feel that I am fulfilling my function as a Member of Parliament properly. This was brought home to me only last week, as I am one of the two current MPs who are commissioners of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and I was unable to participate in the Armistice Day debate on 11 November, despite having asked for a special dispensation from your office, Mr Speaker, which you were quite properly unable to give me.

Also last week, had it not been for the consequences of these new restrictions, I would have been introducing on Friday the only private Member’s Bill that I have ever been fortunate enough to have drawn in the ballot. I urge my right hon. Friend please to give some urgency to his deliberations on introducing this new measure, which I welcome wholeheartedly, to ensure that by the time my private Member’s Bill comes back to this House on Friday 15 January, I will be able to deliver it in person.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I completely sympathise with my right hon. Friend. It must be very frustrating not being able to participate in the activities of the House, and I hope that the proposals being brought forward to help those who are extremely clinically vulnerable will be of assistance. It is important that this House actively holds the Government to account and scrutinises them, and that the legislative programme is proceeded with, and that is exactly the balance that the Government are trying to achieve, by ensuring that scrutiny is properly done and that legislation is properly debated, and by allowing those who have exceptionally difficult circumstances to be able to participate more fully. But it is a balance, and it has been a balance as to what can or cannot be provided all the way through. We have had different requests in different directions for what the resources should be devoted to—hence the question raised by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) as to whether we should close Westminster Hall and use the resources for something else. There is always a balance to be struck.

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

It has been fascinating listening to the Leader of the House, and I cannot help but think that he is not only gaslighting MPs but gaslighting the whole country in his responses. Paragraph 4.7 of “Erskine May” says that the Leader of the House is

“primarily responsible for the arrangement of government business”

and

“has a general responsibility to safeguard…the decencies and to ensure that Business arrangements have regard to what is right and proper in the interests of the House as a whole.”

It goes on to state:

“The leadership of the House is not a statutory office, and nor is the Leader of the House formally appointed by the Crown.”

I think the Leader is somewhat overreaching in his suggestion that he should decide who should take part in the debates in this House as a Member of Parliament. The current arrangements are not in the best interests of the House as a whole. I love being in the House of Commons and I love debating, but we are in a pandemic at the moment and covid is asymptomatic. This place is full of it, whether we like it or not, and we are putting 600 people at risk every time we are here.

My Remote Participation in House of Commons Proceedings (Motion) Bill could just be adopted by the Government instead of being debated in January. I urge the Leader of the House to adopt the Bill and meet me and other Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), to talk about how we can have proper participation and ensure that our democracy is safe and that we hold the Government to account.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I reiterate the point I made earlier: I am always willing to meet hon. and right hon. Members, in part because of what it says in “Erskine May” about the responsibilities of the Leader of the House, which I am well aware of. That is why I have made it so clear that I expect Ministers to respond in a reasonably punctual way to Members’ letters and other communications. It is important that this House is respected by the Executive; that is absolutely fundamental.

I am sorry if I gave the impression that I will decide who speaks in debates. I certainly do not do that; that is decided on a daily basis by Mr Speaker. Terms of reference for any proposed changes would have to be decided by a motion that has to be passed by the House. It is a matter for the House to decide, as it will do. The Leader of the House does not have, or would want to have—certainly I would not want it—the ability to decide who speaks in debates. That is a matter for the Speaker on a daily basis and otherwise by a motion of the House.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]]

It is somewhat ironic that when my right hon. Friend brings forward his proposals the only people who will not be allowed to participate in the debate are those who are forced to shield. They will therefore not be able to participate in the decision making, other than having a proxy vote. There is clearly no reason why Adjournment debates could not be accorded a position in the Chamber in future if we are to have virtual proceedings. I realise my right hon. Friend enjoys, as I do, the cut and thrust of debate in the Chamber and the opportunity to intervene, and clearly we need to make sure that that is still enabled. Will he set out the requirements on Members of Parliament to provide their reasons for shielding or being forced to be clinically vulnerable? Will he also consider the fact that the current lockdown in England will expire on 2 December? By the time we get around to this motion, it may be that we are out of the lockdown and into a new structure completely.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point about the timeliness, and I am very keen to ensure that this motion is brought forward soon so that it can be decided by this House soon. He makes the point that things may change again on 3 December. It is my view, but it will warrant further discussion in the House, that the length of period for this proposal should coincide with the duration of the other motions, which all expire on 30 March. It would be unfair and unreasonable to create uncertainty for people who are extremely clinically vulnerable by having a very short timeline on this proposal or a separate one from the other existing exceptions to our normal proceedings.

[Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) [V]]

I welcome the fact that the Leader of the House has finally decided that increased remote participation is possible for some once again. I am sure that it will come as no surprise to him, however, that I and many other colleagues wish he had done this so much sooner, rather than shutting us out of numerous important debates. I hear what he has just said about the timeframe, so will he confirm that these arrangements will stay in place until we are safely through this pandemic, thereby enabling us fully to represent our constituents in this place?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Madam Deputy Speaker—I got it right this time and actually noticed that there had been a change of Chair—I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the point that she raises. It is important to have a degree of certainty, so I reiterate that it is proposed that the measures would be in place until 30 March. I think that is the right approach to take. I do not want to pre-empt the decision that will be made in March, because—who knows?—we could be in a very different position by then, but I assume that if other virtual participation continues at that point, if we are still in the midst of the pandemic, it would be reasonable to continue with such proposals as are likely to be brought forward in the near future.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) [V]]

With UK productivity at a staggering 22% lower than that of France, Parliament is hardly helping when I can vote faster, when enabled, in a byre on a croft in the Outer Hebrides than I have ever managed to at the Palace of Westminster. Recently, while chairing the Select Committee on International Trade in 21st century fashion, I had to suspend so that Members could go back to 18th century fashion and vote in a Division in the House of Commons. Those who were interested in the Japan trade deal watched the Secretary of State for International Trade having to leave for the indignity of such time wasting. Surely, productivity and the involvement in the democratic process could now be improved by having a sensible system again during the pandemic. We did it before; can we not do it again? The main job of parliamentarians is to vote and to speak. Are those things not curtailed by the Leader of the House?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is nice to see the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar back and smiling at us. We missed him greatly in the debate last week on parliamentary boundaries. As he was not there, I do not know if he noticed that I proposed that his seat should be made permanently in his honour, as such a fine representative of his good constituents. However, as regards to whether we are in the 18th century or the 21st century, it is important that Members of Parliament have the opportunity to meet Ministers, speak to Ministers, lobby Ministers, speak to each other, lobby each other and raise their complaints. I think we need to be physically present to do that. The hon. Gentleman makes an enormous contribution, normally on a daily basis, to this House, when he sits in his usual place and lobs in little grenades of wit and wisdom that keep Ministers on their toes and Opposition spokesmen paying attention, so the sooner he is back here the better. [Interruption.] I am being heckled by his own Front Benchers. I am not sure they are as keen to have his wit and wisdom as I am.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) [V]]

I would like to hold the Leader of the House to account on his misquoting of covid guidance, which clearly says that if people cannot work from home, they can go to work—not the other way around. He also said that a fully virtual House would impede the Government’s legislative programme. The Institute for Government has clearly shown that that was not the case in the spring. Many right hon. and hon. Friends have made a strong case that current proceedings are discriminatory. In line with equality legislation, in particular section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, it is the Government’s duty to identify and address the barriers that are contributing to that and to make reasonable adjustments. As such, what equality impact assessment have the Government undertaken in relation to restricting the participation in debates of Members who may not be physically on the parliamentary estate for public health reasons? And why, if the Lords has a fully virtual system, doesn’t the Commons?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

To answer the last point first, we are not copying the Lords because the Lords’ system, as I keep on saying, breaks down and it is really important that we have votes that actually happen. On the hon. Lady’s other point, it is simply inaccurate to say that the Government’s legislative programme steamed ahead in May and June. It did not, because we had no Public Bill Committees.

Yes, we could have Second Reading debates, but they were extraordinarily limited. Legislation always has an effect on people’s lives. It is always important. We do not legislate over trivial things. We legislate on things that have an effect on the people we represent, usually to remove some liberty that they have previously enjoyed. To take that away lightly, after two hours of debate, hardly seems to me a proper way to legislate. Not only did we find that the programme was not advancing with any speed, but that it was completely clogged up at the Committee stage. We were also not serving our constituents properly by not debating fully the issues that were being considered.

As regards the Equality Act, the House authorities worked tirelessly to respond to the challenge created by covid-19 and put in place measures to protect those who work here and ensure the participation of those who have not been able to attend in person. What we are doing on the remote participation of those who are extremely clinically vulnerable is a further step to ensure that those who cannot come physically, because of health reasons outside their control, will be able to do so. That seems to me to be fully in accord with best practice in equalities.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) [V]]

I am sure that my right hon. Friend and, indeed, the Deputy Speaker are in no doubt that, if I could do so safely, there is no question but that I would be in the Chamber participating in business. While I welcome my right hon. Friend’s decision, will he consider a specific exemption mechanism for MPs who are not classed as clinically extremely vulnerable but who have been told in no uncertain terms by medical professionals to stay at home? I am a pregnant woman in my third trimester, and the Royal College of Midwives and all clinicians advise that if I contract covid, I am 60% more likely to end up on a ventilator or risk the pre-term birth of my baby. Other key workers in their third trimester have been exempted by employers, so will he consider the same mechanism for MPs?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and I would say that it is a matter on which she should consult her doctors. If they think that the risk is such that she is de facto extremely clinically vulnerable, I think that she would be covered by the proposals that will be introduced. She absolutely right to raise this, and it is necessary for people to work out with their doctors whether they are extremely clinically vulnerable. From what she is saying, the risk sounds to me, although I am no expert, to be high, and consultation with her doctors may well put her in that category, but that is a matter for her to take up with her doctors.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]]

May I tell the Leader of the House that I would love to be there—I love the cut and thrust of the Chamber. He may not know that I contracted covid-19 in early March, and it developed into long covid. Eight months later, on my good days, I struggle only with cognitive brain fog, but on my worst days, it is still sheer exhaustion and debilitating headaches on top. Thankfully, the good days now outnumber the bad, but I cannot plan which it is going to be. Virtual participation in questions, UQs, statements and Select Committees has been a godsend, but I have had to miss out on important debates, including on key issues that affect my constituency and, indeed, on the subject of long covid. Will he look at that again?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very sorry to hear that, but I did know that the hon. Gentleman had been suffering from long covid. I wish him extremely well—it sounds extraordinarily debilitating and difficult for him. I am not unsympathetic to the requests that have been made, but this is all a question of getting the balance right between ensuring that the House has effective debates, with legislation introduced in a timely manner and following the guidance that we are giving to the country at large—I reiterate that it applies to people who are extremely clinically vulnerable—as we need to ensure that provision is made for those who are told not to come into work. I wish him extremely well in his recovery, and I hope that it goes from strength to strength.

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) [V]]

I congratulate the Leader of the House on uniting the House almost entirely, although in opposition, to what he has said. He makes great play of the fact that the House is a covid-safe environment, and I praise the House for that. What he cannot do is guarantee that my journey from home by tram to Manchester, by train to London and by tube across London can ever be covid safe. That is the reality for those of us who are not London-based. I have the necessary clinical exemption, but I can still not take part fully as a Member of Parliament to defend the rights of my constituents in Westminster Hall debates. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain that to my constituents and place on the record the evidence that says that at the moment it is not technologically feasible to make that happen in Westminster Hall?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The issue around Westminster Hall is what I am told by the House authorities, which seems to me to be a reasonably authoritative position. It is a question of resources. As I said earlier, the broadcasting team is relatively small and has been working under a great deal of pressure to try to deliver not just the Chamber but Select Committees performing remotely. Those resources are not unlimited and have to be shared in a way that gives the greatest satisfaction to the most people. Westminster Hall cannot be broadcast currently with remote participation unless resources were to be taken from somewhere else. That is a question ultimately for the House if it wanted to lessen, perhaps, the facilities available to Select Committees or take resources from somewhere else. That is what I have been told by the House authorities, and I am sure that what they have told me is accurate.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

After nearly an hour of being battered from all sides, it is about time that someone supported the Leader of the House and did the unpopular thing of defending the Government. May I say that I welcome what he said and the moderate way in which he said it? While I am happy with extending this provision to people who are clinically vulnerable, may I urge him not to bow to pressure and extend virtual debating to everybody, giving everyone carte blanche? We are in danger in this country of creating two worlds: an Aldous Huxley “Brave New World” where middle class people can sit in the comfort of their own homes and do their jobs and ordinary people are forced out into the workplace. Our job is to set an example and be here. “Parliament” comes from the French “parler”, and it does not mean talking at people but talking with people. There is a practical point: if we are having a debate, we do not want to be like the Council of Europe with its dead debates where people read out speeches; we want to have people here and intervening on each other.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am naturally grateful to my right hon. Friend. He is right that we do need to be here. I share his concern that we think we should do things differently from other people. That is why I have consistently tried to set out a case where the House behaves in the way that other key workers are.

Yes, I know right hon. and hon. Members have to travel from their constituencies to get here, but other key workers have to take journeys, too—we are not alone in that. We are not alone in needing to go to our workplace because it does not operate properly without us. We should, in fact, be proud of the fact that we are key workers and, alongside other key workers, doing our duty to make democracy function.

My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point about there being two groups of people, which we should bear in mind. As I said, we should be standing shoulder to shoulder with our constituents, recognising that they have to face these difficulties as well. We are not, in this sense, unique. As we can help those who are extremely clinically vulnerable, it is right that we should do so. However, that will be a limited change, because the resources and the ability to have proper debate are limiting factors in what can or should be done.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Many of us in this place would not ask the Leader of the House for different circumstances from those we represent. We are actually asking for the same consideration. Many of us come from constituencies quite some distance from London, from areas where there is no lockdown at the moment, and the public have been asked not to travel to areas where there is a lockdown. Many of us doing that—despite being asked not to do so—also have underlying health conditions and therefore every day have to decide what comes first: the risk to our health or representing our constituents. Most of us choose representing our constituents. I do not think that is a decision we should be asked to make, because we would not ask any of our constituents to put their health at risk. I ask him to take that into account.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the point she makes and for her attendance at the House. I recognise that the issues she raises are problems for right hon. and hon. Members. Where I disagree with her is in the view that our constituents are not also having to do that. Our constituents who are key workers do have to travel and go to different places, and that is why there are not travel restrictions on key workers. That is of fundamental importance. That is why it is right that she is here and why it is important that other Members are here. As I said earlier, democracy is not a nice-to-have bauble; it is essential to the governance of the country.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) [V]]

I am astonished that the Leader of the House continues to insist that anyone who is a designated key worker is having to work normally. That is simply not the case. Key worker status has nothing to do with whether someone has to attend work. It was invented at the start of the pandemic to provide prioritisation for key workers who needed, for example, childcare arrangements so that someone could look after their children while they went to work. The Office for National Statistics estimated last year that about one third of the workforce would be categorised as key workers.

If the Leader of the House is suggesting that one third of the workforce should be going about their normal day-to-day work as if nothing had happened, that is surely a recipe for disaster. He does not understand what “key worker” means; he does not understand the fact that Select Committees have already seen their meeting schedules torn to pieces by the restrictions on broadcast capacity within the House; he does not even understand the statement from his own Prime Minister, because the Prime Minister said that anyone over 60 should minimise contact with others. It would take out about 140 Members of the House of Commons, including me, if we followed the Prime Minister’s advice.

May I suggest to the Leader of the House that he goes and finds out the facts of what he is talking about and then come to the House with a proposal that allows anybody who has a legitimate reason for not being able to travel to the House to play a full part in the proceedings by video call—by remote means—in exactly the same way as the national Parliaments in Scotland and elsewhere are able to work perfectly satisfactorily?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

If anyone looks around the Chamber, they will see that we are not working normally. It is not a question of working normally: we see the markings on the floor, the tape, the stickers, the “no entry” signs where prayer cards normally go. The House is not working normally; Perspex screens have been put up. This has been done to make it a covid-secure workplace. I do not think there is any question that all key workers are working normally, but it is important that they are at work, and most need to be at work, as we do. That is the point that I would make, but is it normal here? No, and the issues the hon. Gentleman raises about Select Committees are absolutely right. Of course it has been difficult to make Select Committees run in the same way as they did before the pandemic. The issues have applied in Westminster Hall, too, where the numbers who can attend are limited, and Members are not able to intervene in the way they normally would. That is true; we are not working normally, but we are continuing to work.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) [V]]

Equality is not a “nice to have”; it is essential. Pregnancy and maternity, disability and age are all protected characteristics by law. Employers in the NHS and in education have made reasonable adjustments so that pregnant workers can work in those environments, and some have been enabled to work from home. Why will the Leader of the House not do the same for the key workers in Parliament?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I hope Hansard got a bit more of that than I did, but I think I got the fundamental point. We have made the right provisions to ensure that people can come to the House and can participate in our debates, and this is a further step on this road. Therefore, I fundamentally disagree with my right hon. Friend.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I have always been a bit suspicious about the concept of normality; it has always seemed to me to be a moving feast. One of the great strengths of British history and the constitution is that tradition always adapts to reality. The Leader of the House will remember the 15th century. In 1439, when pestilence was abroad, the House of Commons and the House of Lords jointly petitioned the King to say, “Could we dispense with the business of kissing the King as a sign of our liege duty?”; and the King agreed. Is not the truth of the matter that in every generation, when there are classic moments like this one of national crisis, we have to abandon our hidebound traditions? We have to adapt to the moment, and surely to God it must be invidious to be asking individual people to declare whether they are clinically extremely vulnerable. As it happens, I have had six letters, I think, now to say that I am; my doctor says that I am not. I am quite happy to talk about it, but I do not think individual Members should have to declare that.

Why can we not just trust Members, and say that every single Member is treated equally in this House and has an equal right to debate until the end of this parliamentary Session, and then we can revise what we want to do in the future? Why on earth is it going to be right that if the Government table a motion next week—perhaps at the end of this week—the Government Chief Whip will have more than 200 votes in his pocket to be able to dispose of? Would it not make much more sense for us, at least on this issue, to have voting online so that everybody can cast their own vote?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman wants to change things, and then when they are changed he does not like them. That makes him very difficult to satisfy.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) [V]]

I strongly welcome the move that my right hon. Friend has made today. I think it will make a significant difference. I do agree with him that Parliament should definitely be open and that those MPs who can attend should do so, because it sets an example to the nation. I know him to be a kind and thoughtful man, so when he considers these issues in future, may I ask him to ensure that the Government do not give the impression, however unwittingly, that sometimes they care just about the survival of the fittest and that we are not just supporting Darwinian Übermenschen MPs in Parliament?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He puts things so well. He is a most effective campaigner in the very many fields in which he campaigns, and I absolutely share his view. The Government are not trying to be macho about this; they are just trying to ensure that the Government themselves are held to account properly, but that the legislative programme is also proceeded with. I agree with him entirely that Parliament needs to be present, and I also agree with him that we are showing an example to the nation as a whole. May I add that he often personally shows a fine example to the nation?

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]]

I fundamentally disagree with the Leader of the House: the remote voting system in the House of Lords has been working, and is working, effectively. However, does he recognise how insulting he was when he implied that shielding Members were shirking their duty by not being able to come to Parliament, and will he apologise?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

What I have said is that those who are clinically extremely vulnerable will be able to have remote participation, I hope, subject to a motion before this House. There is no question of accusing those people of shirking; that would be quite wrong and I have never done so.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

I welcome what the Leader of the House has brought forward, but I have listened carefully to what has been said and I really do not understand why we cannot extend participation in debates. It might have to be limited; I accept that interventions might be difficult. My concern is this: I do not think he said whether those who have family members who are clinically extremely vulnerable would be covered by this provision, and that is essential. I have a real problem, but, frankly, I am not convinced that making all of this public is a very good idea. I do not think that compelling people to disclose quite private medical information widely is something that we should be in the business of doing. I would prefer it if it were left to Members. Those who are able to participate in interrogative proceedings virtually ought to be able to do so in debates, and I urge him to reflect on that further before he brings the motions before the House.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The advice of the Government broadly, not specifically to this House, is that it is extremely clinically vulnerable people who should not be going into work, not members of families where a member of that family is extremely clinically vulnerable. It is important that we follow the same advice that we are giving to our constituents. I said earlier that last week I had to write to a constituent saying exactly that, and that I do not feel it is right for this House to take a different approach from the one that we are expecting our constituents to take.

As regards people revealing their medical details, nobody will be expected to go into any detail as to what their illness is. They will merely need to be extremely clinically vulnerable, and it will be a choice for those people. I think the difficulty with allowing anybody who can participate remotely to participate in all aspects remotely is that we would then not have debates; we would have a series of monologues and we would have the risk of the system going down. We have already had a couple of people on calls this afternoon whose words were muffled or distorted. The technology is not perfect. The efforts of the broadcasting team are absolutely admirable, but the technology does not work perfectly and people being here physically is important for proper democratic accountability.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]]

After my recent treatment for breast cancer, my oncologist advised me to reduce my contacts as much as I can during the pandemic. That is the reason I have not been travelling to the House. That does not make me clinically extremely vulnerable, so I would fall outside the changes suggested by the Leader of the House unless they are widened. I am glad we are discussing the extension of remote participation, but the plan by the Leader of the House to restrict it to Members who are clinically extremely vulnerable is just wrong. With the right support, Members can do their job remotely, but we have been denied that. I call on the Leader of the House to do the right thing and confirm that all MPs who are not able to travel to Westminster safely for a health reason or a reason related to the pandemic can participate remotely

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I begin by wishing the hon. Lady well in her recovery.

I am sure the whole House would like me to do that.

[Valerie Vaz]

indicated assent.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I doubt the hon. Lady can see, but the shadow Leader of the House is nodding. I know everyone here wishes her well.

As I said earlier, this is a balance between ensuring that parliamentary business is carried out properly and allowing those who are extremely clinically vulnerable to be able to participate. That will not be perfect in terms of debate—they will not be able to take interventions, nor will they be able to intervene. It is hard to see how that could function effectively. The greater the numbers who were involved, the harder it would be to make the system work effectively. I think we have the balance about right, although I absolutely understand that it will be difficult for some right hon. and hon. Members.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call Bob Stewart.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab) [V]]

May I recommend that the Leader of the House read the gov.uk guidance? The guidance is different this time from last time: it is just really clear that people need to stay at home and only go to work if they cannot work from home. We can work from home, and to show an example to the rest of the country, we should do that. I have been self-isolating for the last nine days, because the covid app told me to. I really wanted to raise a campaign that I and my constituents were doing to try and honour the 34 people in Croydon who have lost their lives in conflict since the second world war. I had wanted to raise that in the Armistice Day debate and I was not able to do so. Given that the technology is available and that thousands of key workers, including my husband, are working perfectly well from home, why did the Leader of the House think it was right to exclude me from that debate last week?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady and I simply disagree on whether the House can operate effectively remotely. We have the experience to go on of May and June when it did not work effectively. The legislative programme was bunged up and we lost all the private Members’ days—all the Fridays were cancelled—Westminster Hall was closed, and we had limited availability for Opposition days and no availability for Backbench business.

The House has to carry on a wide range of activities, not just in the Chamber but in Committee Rooms. No Public Bill Committees or statutory instrument Committees took place. We need to get legislation through, both because of the deadline of 31 December, which is an important one, and because we have to legislate on covid. That is of course in addition to the democratic obligation to deliver on the manifesto commitments that were made in the election last year. With all these things, I think it is unquestionable that we need to be here physically to do it properly.

[Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)]

If we are to have some Members attending virtually, which I agree with, can we lengthen the debates on important issues? For instance, last week’s Remembrance Day debate was only three hours, but 59 people had put in to speak and only 28 Back Benchers caught the Speaker’s eye. Personally, I have put in for four debates and not been called in each one, even though I have spoken only seven times this year. Could we extend the debates so that everybody can contribute, as well as the people having to self-isolate at home?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

One issue with which I am not the first Leader of the House to wrestle is that Members want a clear time for the ending of business but also the ability to speak in debates. Trying to balance the two is extraordinarily difficult. I completely understand what my hon. Friend is saying and am very sympathetic to it. I must confess that I was pleasantly surprised by how many people put in for the Armistice Day debate; when we discussed it as a possible subject for debate, we were not at all certain of how many people would want to speak in it. When a debate is brought forward and attracts great interest, there is some feeling that we are getting the order of business right. We will know for next year that there is a considerable desire to speak in that debate.

My hon. Friend’s general point is a very valid one: how we structure business to allow people to make the contributions that they want to make is fundamental. I am afraid that, perhaps rather feebly, I suggest that she contacts the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), because it is a subject that ought to be of interest to that Committee.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House keeps quoting the Government guidance, so while he has been answering questions I have looked it up. Last updated on 14 November, the guidance says, under the heading “Going to work”:

“To help contain the virus, everyone who can work effectively from home should do so.”

The only person in this Chamber who is standing in the way of Members of Parliament effectively doing their jobs from home is the Leader of the House. He has got himself into a ridiculous position because he has dug himself in by insisting that people attend this Chamber, but that is a ridiculous approach during this crisis and he should change his mind.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman might have been well off listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who has left his place but said that he had already heard the question asked several times so offered to withdraw it. I am more than happy to answer the same question once again, which is to say that we do need to come here to do our job properly and that is the fundamental point. That is what the Government guidelines exist for: if people cannot work from home effectively, they need to come into work. We are in that category. I do not know, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether you would like me to set out the reasons why, going back through April, May and June—the absence of Westminster Hall, the loss of Fridays for private Members’ Bills, the limitations on the work that can be done and the slowness of legislation getting through—but I will happily repeat myself if that is your command.

[Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)]

May I take this opportunity to thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the staff for helping to provide a covid-secure workplace in the House? We must not lose sight of that among this debate about all the different interests. I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is doing and this announcement, and in particular the compassion that is evident in what he has said and the flexibility he has shown in trying to address some of the concerns expressed. It occurs to me that there are competing interests here. Perhaps my right hon. Friend could confirm that, given that we cannot find a perfect model of what has gone before and what we have had before, it is his difficult—even unenviable—task to find a point of balance at that very difficult place that takes into consideration the constraints of time, technology and the many Members who want to make their points in debate?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend puts it absolutely perfectly: this is all a question of balance and trying to ensure that Members can participate—particularly those with difficult circumstances, whom everybody wants to facilitate if possible—while also recognising that there is a Government agenda to be worked through and the job of holding the Government to account. My right hon. Friend—my hon. Friend; I dare not promote him quite so quickly—has managed to say in one sentence what I think I have been saying over the past hour and a half. Perhaps he should be Leader of the House.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

This may be deemed a covid-secure environment, but every day I am here I witness breaches of the “hands, face, space” criteria set out by Her Majesty’s Government, so someone who is clinically vulnerable is at risk and therefore this is not secure. Secondly, may I say that it is completely reprehensible that the Leader of the House discussed the clinical diagnosis of a Member of this House from the Dispatch Box and that calling on Members to declare that they are clinically extremely vulnerable is also reprehensible? I have two suggestions for him. The first, on equality, is that he ask the Equality and Human Rights Commission to carry out an investigation into the discrimination that is occurring as a result of his practices. Secondly, I ask for a short independent commission to see what is possible with regard to making the whole of Parliament virtual for those who require it.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am concerned to hear the hon. Lady say that this is not a covid-secure workplace. If we look around, we see the precautions that have been taken: the advice given to people to wear masks, which most people are doing as they walk about the Palace of Westminster; the gaps that have been placed; the covid-security of this Chamber; the lack of spaces within this Chamber, which is problematic for many Members, who regret the fact that they are not able to attend debates and that we have only about 50 people in the Chamber, rather than the 400 or whatever the precise number is that we can normally contain; the changes that have been made to the Tea Room, which are not enormously popular with all Members, to ensure that it, too, is a covid-secure workspace; and the encouragement of people, which has been continual since the beginning of this pandemic, to wash their hands. I must confess that I would be very surprised if right hon. and hon. Members are not washing their hands regularly, and no doubt she will encourage them when she sees them failing to do so. I am surprised by what she says and think that the work done by the House of Commons authorities to ensure that this is a covid-secure workplace has been most impressive. As regards the equalities issue, we are doing exactly what she would want to see done in ensuring that those people who have illnesses are able to participate in our proceedings.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

I welcome this urgent question and the prospect of the clinically extremely vulnerable being able to participate remotely in this place, particularly as a temporary and expedient measure. As a wider point, may I ask the Leader of the House for assurance that the House authorities are working up a plan for how this Chamber returns to normal and when?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That will be a happy day, a day of jubilee and song, and I hope we do not have to wait until the platinum jubilee before it happens. But it will happen partly automatically, because the motions will one day expire. Of course I am enormously keen to get back to normal, when it is reasonable to do so, and in that we will be following the rest of the country. The fact that we are able to do as much as we can do should make us proud of our democracy. We have shown that democracy is essential and it is being carried out, and it is working in the interests of the nation. People are here and they are arguing over the contentious issues, and this is so fundamental, but it is slightly sotto voce compared with the full-blooded call we have for the interests of our constituents when the Chamber is packed, the Prime Minister is at the Dispatch Box and that roar goes up, when the real pressure is on, to ensure that, on behalf of the British people, we hold Her Majesty’s Government to account.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]]

On 2 November, the Leader of the House suggested that MPs such as myself, who are unable to attend the House, are shirking their duty, but it is he who has excluded me from important legislative debates. I welcome the fact that he will now reconsider, but he keeps referring to the “extremely clinically vulnerable” and yet says that this will not include MPs in the shielding category. So may I ask him: exactly who will decide which MPs are accorded the right to speak and will he clarify what medical qualifications they will hold?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is not for me to determine the medical advice that is received by Members of Parliament, but if they are told by their doctors that they are extremely clinically vulnerable, they will be extremely clinically vulnerable; I am sure we can trust doctors to know which of their patients are extremely clinically vulnerable or not.

[Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) [V]]

I know the Leader of the House will do everything he can to make virtual access to Parliament as widespread as possible for those needing to work remotely, but does he agree that maintaining a personal presence in Parliament is key in delivering Parliament’s work and key in setting an example to all those we are asking to carry on working?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am in great agreement with my hon. Friend. It is important that we keep working here, and I would encourage those who can to come in. Indeed, I would go further and say that they have a duty to come.

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

I am sure the Leader of the House would agree that it is not appropriate, or indeed proper, for him to announce these types of changes on Twitter, so will he first apologise for that, given that, as great champion of this House, he should have made the statement here and not announced it on Twitter on Saturday? I also know that he will think that it is not appropriate to suggest in a tweet that this is a capacity issue within the House service. That simply is not correct. These things have been in place with increased capacity since May of this year, and he knows that.

On Bill Committees, I cannot believe that we are back to the same debate of April and May. The Leader of the House knows, on the record, that it is not correct to say that there was a blockage of Bill Committees. Labour Members had been put forward and there had been trials for hybrid proceedings. The official Opposition had put forward Members for either hybrid or physical Bill Committees. The Leader of the House knows that.

This is not about interventions in this House; it is about the right of Members to take part in a debate. The Leader of the House knows that it was a simple change of Standing Orders to allow that those who take part in a Back-Bench or Opposition day debate in a hybrid system would accept not having interventions while Members in the Chamber could. He knows he is not correct in what he is saying. This is deeply unfair to those Members. It is about time he acknowledged his fundamental duty as Leader of the House to represent all Members of this House to the Government.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman stands up and says that what I am saying is something that he does not believe. At some point he made a little comment about the enormous enthusiasm with which the official Opposition are trying to help Her Majesty’s Government to get their business through. I say to him: pot and kettle.

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) for his question. I put on record my sympathy with his circumstances and indeed the case he is making. However, does my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House agree—I feel this quite keenly as a new Member—that Parliament should be an assembly, and not just for the quality of scrutiny and deliberation but because of the learning from each other that takes place here? Does he therefore agree that those who can assemble in a covid-secure way should do so?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. We ought to be assembling because we are not, as Edmund Burke put it, ambassadors representing countries —individual areas that are not as one—but representatives sent to a single Parliament where we come together to look at the overall interests of the country at large. That needs people to come together and talk to each other, not just lecture each other remotely, which is clearly not a satisfactory way to run a Parliament. He is right: we need to come together. That is why we do come together and why we must come together.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)]

The Government, I presume, will soon be outlining a ratification process for any deal that they sign with the EU. In all probability, these will be the most important deliberations we will have here in this Parliament. Given that, is it not his responsibility as Leader of the House to ensure that all Members of this House can take part in debates and votes no matter what their circumstances?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his typically reasonable and helpful question. Obviously, if there were to be an agreement with the European Union and votes and debates on it, that would be a matter of interest to the whole House. I feel that what is being proposed and will come forward in a motion will allow that to happen. All Members are currently able to have a proxy vote, and therefore their vote will be recorded. It is very important to note that, although the proxy vote may be in the hands of Whips, individual Members are absolutely entitled either to give it to somebody else or to ask the Whip to vote in a different way from the way the Whip wants them to vote. It is not a vote that is handed over for good, and that is fundamental. The individual right of a Member to direct his or her vote is maintained, and these proposals will allow those who are clinically extremely vulnerable to participate in debates remotely. I hope that there will be an outbreak of union between the Conservative party and Plaid Cymru, though we may disagree about the status of our nation.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

Does the Leader of the House accept that he has probably not commanded the support of the entire House for the Government’s approach? Will he therefore allow the House to amend any motion he tables, so that we can take the full view of the House on how its proceedings should be governed during this crisis?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I mistakenly looked at the screen and thought it had gone blank, but may I say how nice it is to see my hon. Friend here physically? He and I were great troopers together on the Back Benches for many years, and I am glad to see that he continues to hold the Government to account. The Government will bring forward a motion. I will announce the schedule of business on Thursday, although if I keep going at this rate, I may still be speaking on Thursday morning.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) [V]]

The Leader of the House said that, as key workers, every Member is in the same position. During this pandemic, I have had to drive over 10 hours on several occasions to attend Westminster, and I am not the furthest away. Not everybody can do that. The lockdown in England has meant that transport options have practically stopped in many constituencies for those who are far from the easy travelling distance to Westminster that he enjoys. For example, only one flight leaves Inverness today, and that is to Stornoway. How does that sit with every Member being in the same position?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The distance between Inverness and Westminster has not changed during the course of the pandemic, as far as I am aware; I am unaware of a great movement of the tectonic plates. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his commitment to Parliament in wanting to come here and the importance of a Union Parliament welcoming MPs from across the country, who come together to express their views, with the enormous contribution made by SNP Members who dutifully come to Westminster to inform and contribute to our debates and hold the Government to account. They are dutiful public servants—key workers—doing their bit for the United Kingdom, and I thank the hon. Gentleman warmly for his service to the UK.

[Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement about the extended rights of participation for the clinically extremely vulnerable. The fact remains that there is a category of Member of Parliament who is effectively excluded from participating but who is not clinically extremely vulnerable, and that is pregnant women. I dovetail this question with the one put by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns). The Health Secretary has confirmed that pregnancy does not leave someone clinically extremely vulnerable. The reason for their exclusion is compliance with the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. If my right hon. Friend was satisfied that there were MPs who were excluded and could not participate but did not meet the clinically extremely vulnerable criteria, would he consider extending the right to participate in debates to that category?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Perhaps it would be helpful for me to explain why the view is that this should cover the clinically extremely vulnerable, which is very straightforward. That is the group that is currently advised by the Government not to go to work. If the Government were to advise other specific groups not to go to work, of course it would be right to consider whether they ought to be added to the list.

I must add one caveat, and that is on the overall numbers. To ensure that we still have proper debate and a functioning Parliament, the numbers need to be limited. That is part of the balance that I, as Leader of the House, and others are seeking to achieve, to ensure that we can maintain our business—both the legislative agenda and being held to account—but also facilitate people in particular conditions. I am not unsympathetic to anybody in a difficult situation, but we need to follow what the Government are suggesting to see which categories may be included. So far, the category is the clinically extremely vulnerable, but I am not as much of a stick-in-the-mud as some people might think.

Business of the House

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Thursday 12th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)]

The business for the week commencing 16 November will include:

Monday 16 November—Remaining stages of the Pension Schemes Bill [Lords].

Tuesday 17 November—Second Reading of the National Security and Investment Bill, followed by a motion to approve a money resolution relating to the Botulinum Toxin and Cosmetic Fillers (Children) Bill.

Wednesday 18 November—Motion to approve the draft Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, followed by a motion to approve the Construction Products (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by a general debate on covid-19.

Thursday 19 November—Debate on a motion on regulation and prevention of online harms, followed by a general debate on International Men’s Day. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 20 November—The House will not be sitting.

[Valerie Vaz]

I thank the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business.

We have a result: there is a new chief of staff at No. 10. No, seriously, what I actually wanted to do was to congratulate President-elect Joe Biden and Vice-President-elect Kamala Harris. It was a historic victory, winning not only the popular vote but the electoral college. Despite the closing of mailboxes, I think democracy won, and I agree with the President-elect that the integrity of the peace agreement in Ireland is vital. He has also made a statement on Iran, which gives hope for Nazanin, Anoosheh and Kylie. It is interesting that Nasrin Sotoudeh, the human rights lawyer, has been released, and it gives hope to Luke Symons too.

I do not know whether you saw the strapline yesterday, Mr Speaker, but while there were squabbles behind the door at No. 10, we reached the terrible statistic of 50,000 deaths. We are the highest in Europe and the fifth highest in the world, and it is a terrible statistic because the other countries ahead of us have larger populations. Everyone in the Conservative party, from the Prime Minister to the bag carriers, was focused on the power struggle at No. 10 for jobs and influence. What this country needs is proper leadership and the Government to focus on the job at hand: saving lives and livelihoods.

The Leader of the House will have to come up with an answer—I asked him this last week—on when the Session is going to end. I hope he gives us the answer soon, because we would like another Opposition day.

Government Members will be interested to note that there was a U-turn on school meals—the Rashford turn—but they must be pretty annoyed because they were asked to vote for it, and then the announcement was made by the Prime Minister to the ether, not to the House. We could only glean what the details were from the press. It is no wonder that the Leader of the House does not want a return to remote voting, where Members actually have to vote themselves. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) was right, was he not, when he said that it is an affront to the House and everything that it stands for that there were 203 proxy votes cast by a Whip? More seriously, there are factions—the common sense group, the northern group, the covid recovery group. What the Opposition want to know—the Whips are asking us—is: do they all have their own Whips? Do we have to deal with each individual group? So I ask again, in the interests of democracy: can we have remote voting?

The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport made a written statement on Tuesday on a new advisory panel for the UK system of public service broadcasting. The panel, interestingly, is this: the former Conservative Prime Minister’s director of communications, who has been helping GB News to challenge the BBC; a Conservative peer; and a former Conservative Prime Minister’s press secretary. After the claims from the Leader of the House about political impartiality earlier this week, can we have a statement on the recruitment process? We do not want this to be another assault on public broadcasting.

I do not know whether the Leader of the House is aware of the interactive map, “My Little Crony”, which has been created by Sophie Hill. I raised last week all the contracts that have been handed out to those connected to the Tory party and I did not get an answer, but it is well worth a look. He will know that I think it might be time for a public inquiry, particularly on the £670,000 that has been allocated by the vaccine tsar for public relations. If you look at the My Little Crony interactive map, it links directly to the special special adviser’s relation. I do not know whether that is because they are essential workers, to enable them a visit to Barnard Castle, but it would be interesting to know what they do, because they are actually based in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, where there are 100 comms staff. But if it is something about a vaccine, I would rather Dr Van-Tam told me about it, instead of a public relations so-called expert.

There are more concerns about the use of public money, so will the Leader of the House find time for a full debate on the Public Accounts Committee report into the towns fund? It concluded at page 5:

“The selection process was not impartial.”

He was fond of saying that word earlier this week and it is a cross-party Committee. Is it the kind of Committee that the Leader of the House does not actually like, given his comments earlier? The Committee said that it was

“not convinced by the rationales for selecting some towns and not others.”

We have a crowded programme coming up in the next six weeks. We have the comprehensive spending review on 25 November, and already nurseries have contacted me to say, “Can the Chancellor find long-term funding for us?” They will be part of the recovery after the pandemic, with parents going back and children being looked after. One of the heads apparently described the Secretary State for Education as “missing in action”, so can we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Education, particularly ahead of the comprehensive spending review?

Will the Prime Minister come to the House and update us on the trade talks that are going on with the EU? I think he made a statement to the press, but not to us.

Last week, the Leader of the House highlighted his love of heritage, and I ask him to join me in lying down in front of the bulldozers at Stonehenge. Professor Mike Parker Pearson said:

“When we’re looking at prehistory, the buried remains are the only evidence we have. It’s rather like burning ancient manuscripts…There will be almost total destruction of all archaeological remains within its path”,

referring to the road scheme. Will the Leader of the House help us to stop it?

Finally, I wish everyone a happy Diwali. It represents good over evil, light over darkness and knowledge over ignorance. I know that is a sentiment that the whole House agrees with.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Absolutely, we are in favour of the triumph of good over evil, and we wish everyone a happy Diwali. I think that conservatism is very generally the triumph of good over evil. As regards Stonehenge, as I take the A303 to Somerset, the sooner it is a dual carriageway the better. I fully support the proposals to have a dual carriageway, though I would add that one of the great joys of going on the current A303 is that one gets a glimpse of Stonehenge. That is a benefit and is uplifting for people to see.

As regards statements by the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend has been incredibly assiduous in updating the House, coming to the House, making statements, answering questions and leading debates. His appearances here have been exactly what we require, and he has met and exceeded the expectations of the House.

The right hon. Lady rightly congratulates the President-elect of the United States, as Her Majesty’s Government have. The Government look forward to working with—

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Go on then, say it.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

What do you want me to say?

[Chris Bryant]

Congratulate him!

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I have congratulated him. The Government congratulate him, and I am speaking as a Minister for the Government. It is very important, as the Prime Minister rightly said on Wednesday, that the British Prime Minister has a good relationship with the American President, and that is in the interests of the United Kingdom. It has to be said that one person who was particularly good at that was the former leader of the Labour party, Tony Blair, who was able to get on with different American Presidents of different ideological outlooks, and that I think is a model for British Prime Ministers.

I know that the Foreign Office has responded to the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) about Nazanin and the other people improperly held, and her campaign is an important campaign to ensure that they are kept at the forefront of people’s minds.

It is of course a deep, deep sadness, and a tragedy for the families, that 50,000 have died with covid, but it is too early to be making international comparisons, because the statistics are not calculated in all countries in the same way. But the Government have made enormous efforts to limit the effect and to ensure that the interests of safety are paramount. That is why we entered into the second period of lockdown and, indeed, had the first period of lockdown. It is why £200 billion of taxpayers’ money has been provided in support to the economy in these very difficult times. Yes, it is a deep sadness, but it is not, I think, a matter of party politics, one way or another. The Government have made every possible effort, strained every sinew.

The right hon. Lady mentions my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who of course himself gave a proxy to the Deputy Chief Whip and proved the efficacy of the system, because he was able to take his proxy away and vote the way he wanted to, having listened to the debate. This is a way that is working, it is effective and it has reduced the queues in the Division Lobbies, which I know is a great concern of the right hon. Lady. I do my best to accommodate her, but I feel sometimes that she models herself on the deaf adder, and charm I ever so nicely, still no notice is taken of the efforts I have made to meet with her approbation. In spite of having made every effort to help, still more is asked for, but I am afraid we need to be here in person. Government business has to be carried through. Important legislation has to be scrutinised. This is best done in person, as we found when we were hybrid earlier in the year, so there will not be a return to remote voting.

As regards the questions about the vaccine and the vaccine tsar, and the money spent on publicity, may I say from this Dispatch Box what a fabulous job Kate Bingham has done? She deserves credit, plaudits and praise—paeons of praise—for what she has done for free. She has been working for free. She has not been charging the British taxpayer. She has brought her energy and her enterprise to ensure that we are one of the best-placed countries to have supplies of the vaccine when it comes through.

Of course, we have to tell people what is going on. There are a few nutters around, Mr Speaker—I am sure you have never met them—who are anti-vaxxers. They go around spreading rumour and causing concern to people. We need to put out the true information to reassure people. That is a reasonable and a proper thing to do. The attacks on Kate Bingham are discreditable and unpleasant.

[Valerie Vaz]

When did I attack her?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The reference to the vaccine tsar in disparaging terms, but more generally than the right hon. Lady. Kate Bingham has done enormous public service and we should be grateful to her for what she is doing.

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con) [V]]

The Leader of the House will be aware that today there is a debate in Westminster Hall on breast cancer, in which, because of his ruling, some of us with real and current life experience of the disease are disappointingly unable to participate. While I respect his commitment to traditional parliamentary procedures, I am sure if he was on the Back Benches, and not the fine specimen of health and fitness he clearly is, he would be arguing forcefully for Members to be able to contribute more often in proceedings via modern technology, perhaps even currying favour with you, Mr Speaker, by suggesting that not every contribution to a debate requires an intervention.

Given that hybrid proceedings have been extended, will my right hon. Friend please stop thinking those of us at home are shirking our duties—in fact, quite the opposite—and urgently reconsider virtual participation, even if just for general Back-Bench and Westminster Hall debates?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I begin by wishing my hon. Friend well? I think the whole House joins me in praying for her swift recovery. She knows she is one of the most popular and respected Members of the House, who has campaigned cross-party on a number of issues very effectively, so we all wish her extremely well.

The point about bringing back Westminster Hall is that at one point the broadcasting facilities were already being fully utilised, so it was not an issue then of whether we wanted to do it or not. It simply was not an option. But the demand to bring back Westminster Hall was great across all parts of the House. Members who are shielding—who are seriously, critically vulnerable—are able to participate in many aspects of the House’s business. They are able to participate in interrogative sessions such as this, vote by proxy and participate in Select Committees, but we have to get a balance between the needs of hon. Members and the needs of the House as a whole to proceed with its business.

With debates, we need to have the proper holding to account of Ministers, which is the purpose of the debates, and to have the interventions that make a debate, rather than a series of statements. It is a question of striking a careful balance, in these difficult times, between ensuring that Parliament can serve its constituents in full and making sure that Members can complete their duties as safely and as effectively as possible.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]]

I have two procedural points to start. By our calculation, we are overdue a third party Opposition day. As St Andrew’s Day approaches, can the Leader of the House tell us when we might get it? Secondly, we are increasingly concerned not only at the lateness of the advance sight of the Chancellor’s statements, but at the level of redaction therein, especially as we know that media outlets are being provided with full, unredacted copies before they are delivered in the Chamber. This is not good practice. Can the Leader of the House stop it?

I want to ask for a debate on the shared prosperity fund. We are exactly seven weeks from the end of the transition period, yet we have no idea whether and how this fund will work. I would like a Government assurance not only that Scotland’s funding will be maintained, but that decisions will be fully devolved, in much the way that EU structural funds are currently managed. After all, how hard can it be?

Uncertainty over Brexit, of which that is one glaring example, is partly why Scottish public opinion is turning to independence. You know that I like to keep the House informed on these matters, Mr Speaker. This week we have another opinion poll showing an 8% lead for independence. It is the 12th poll in a row to show majority support for yes. These developments have prompted former Prime Minister Major to call for not one but two referendums on independence. Sadly, though, the current Scottish Secretary just burrows further into his bunker. He declared this week that Scotland should not be able to consider this matter again for another 40 years. At least Donald Trump waited until after the election before denying the result. It seems that the Scottish Secretary has gone one better: he is denying the result of the election even before it has taken place. I agree with Joe Biden that it is not for one politician or another to decide the outcome, but for the people themselves. Can we have a debate on whether the Government will respect the outcome of next May’s election in Scotland; for if they will not, what is the point in having one?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman perhaps does not see the irony of what he has just said. There was an election in 2014 and I am afraid that it is the hon. Gentleman who is the Trump of Scotland, because he is denying that result. He is trying to pretend that it did not happen and that the people of Scotland, in their wisdom, did not vote to remain in the United Kingdom. May I beg to remind him that the people of Scotland voted to remain and that at that time the Scottish National party leadership said it was generational? That is why my right hon. Friend the Scottish Secretary is right to say that it must be for a generation. The hon. Gentleman cannot say that he does not like the result and therefore he is going to sulk and, in a state of high dudgeon, complain and moan and object, because the people of Scotland have spoken, and in their wisdom they wanted to remain in the United Kingdom.

Is that any surprise when £8.2 billion of UK taxpayers’ money has gone to the benefit of the people of Scotland? In addition, 779,500 jobs have been saved or supported by the furlough scheme, and £806 million has been paid out to help 157,000 people in the self-employed scheme. This is the success of the United Kingdom.

The hon. Gentleman says that he gets redacted statements. The good news will be boasted about later—such as the £8.2 billion and the 779,500 jobs—but it is routine for a Chancellor’s statements to have market-sensitive information not provided at the time. That is an obvious thing to do.

Opposition days are provided—I am well aware of the Standing Orders requirements—and, on the shared prosperity fund, Scotland shares in the prosperity of the United Kingdom.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the Father of the House, Sir Peter Bottomley.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

In the 45 years I have been here, I have worked for tenants and leaseholders in tower blocks. For the last 15 years, I have been trying to get Government Ministers to accept the need for changes and leasehold reforms so that at least tenants are not exploited. There are 6 million of them, with 1 million affected by cladding-type issues and many more affected by the apparent increased cost of lease extensions. The Government have got the Law Commission to produce some very good reports, and Ministers sometimes say that something is going to happen.  When will the Government make a statement about implementing the needed reforms and when will we have a Government debate so that we can support the Government when they take the necessary action? At the moment, the praise and plaudits cannot come in full because the Government have not supported lease tenants the way that they should.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

On the issue of cladding, which my hon. Friend raises, we are providing £1.6 billion of taxpayers’ money to speed up the removal of unsafe cladding. That will be of help to some leaseholders in buildings that have cladding that has not yet been removed. The issue of compounding ground rates has been raised in the House before and is clearly a problem. I shall ensure that the Secretary of State gives a full answer to my hon. Friend.

[Mr Speaker]

Let us head up to Gateshead to the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, Ian Mearns.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) [V]]

May I say what a pleasure it was to see the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) from her home? It was really good to see her up and active—it is fantastic.

Following last week’s exchanges, I thank the Leader of the House for writing to the Home Secretary on my behalf and that of my constituents. I also thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s Backbench Business Committee debates on Tuesday. We are getting through the queue, but we still have some way to go.

I have the privilege of being the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for football supporters, and I have written to the Prime Minister in that capacity. I know that the Leader of the House has previously admitted to not being a great fan of association football, but he may be a great fan of adherence to the Government’s manifesto commitments, in particular to a fan-led review of football and its governance. The resignation of the chair of the Football Association after his frankly embarrassing appearance before the Select Committee on Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has thrown a bright light on the need for urgency in this review, which was promised at last year’s general election. Will the Leader of the House be so kind as to remind the Prime Minister of his Government’s commitment to this now pressing issue?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening comments, and I would remind the House and Members here this morning that if I ever can be helpful in facilitating answers from Government Departments, that is very much part of my role. The hon. Gentleman must not confuse my ignorance of football with a lack of concern. It is a matter of great concern to my constituents and his, and although I would never hold myself up as somebody who could win a pub quiz on football, I recognise that it is an issue that people are interested in across the country and one of great seriousness. He is right to note the resignation of the gentleman from the Football Association after his really extraordinary comments and the need for football to lead the way in doing things better and more appropriately. I am sure that the Government will fulfil our manifesto commitments, because that is what the Government do.

[Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on unexplained deaths through epilepsy? On 16 November, SUDEP Action will be publishing a report that details how people with epilepsy have coped during the coronavirus pandemic. It makes some excellent recommendations, and I do hope that the Government will act on them.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I commend my hon. Friend for his campaigning on a range of health issues. He is a credit to this House and I am always happy to see him at business questions supporting these important causes. The Government welcome all research into the important topic of sudden death from epilepsy and look forward to the forthcoming report from SUDEP Action on the impact of the pandemic on epilepsy. Once it is received, the Department of Health and Social Care will consider its findings carefully and I will be sure to pass my hon. Friend’s question to Ministers in that Department. In the meantime, this may well make an important Adjournment debate.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Yesterday saw the sad passing at the age of 90 of Theresa Stewart, the only woman so far to lead Birmingham City Council. She represented the people of Billesley for a total of 31 years and was a champion of childcare and the payment of family allowance and child benefits to the mother, a pioneer of women’s representation and equality and a co-founder of Birmingham Pregnancy Advisory Service. May we have a debate on the contribution of Theresa and other recent civic leaders who have given so much to local government in this country?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the contribution made to civic society by people like Theresa Stewart. It is the backbone of our nation. These are people who give up their time and often go above and beyond the call of their duty to ensure that local government is as strong as it can be. Whether time can be found for a debate in Government time I cannot promise him, but I think a debate in Westminster Hall in praise of those who engage in civic life is well worth having.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) [V]]

People in Dudley South, such as my constituent Amy in Kingswinford, often find pavements unusable because of inconsiderately parked cars. May we have a debate in Government time on action to tackle pavement parking and progress made since the excellent Pavement Parking (Protection of Vulnerable Pedestrians) Bill, promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) in 2015?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Although I always view myself as a friend of the motorist, there are, it has to be said, limits, and pavement parking can be a serious inconvenience for pedestrians, particularly those with mobility or visual impairments or—something that has had a great effect on me in recent years—with perambulators or pushchairs. [Interruption.] Even I sometimes push the perambulator! I have done it myself, I can confirm. I see that my reputation lies in tatters as I admit to having pushed a perambulator, but actually it is quite fun.

Cars parked on the road get in the way, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset succeeded with his private Member’s Bill. The Government are consulting on options for tackling the problem. One must not always assume that the answer to every problem is ensuring that more fines are issued. Sometimes gentle encouragement and telling motorists that they ought to behave themselves is a good way of proceeding.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

Zoos and aquariums play an important role in the visitor economy. My constituency is fortunate to have not only the Blue Planet aquarium but part of Chester zoo within it, and like everyone else, they have been struggling. The Government set up a £100 million fund to support zoos and aquariums, but the criteria for it are so restrictive that only about £2 million has been paid out so far. The deadline for applications for the scheme is Monday, and at the moment, it does not look like it will achieve its purpose. Can we have a statement from the Secretary of State on Monday on what he will do to ensure that this scheme benefits zoos and aquariums as it was intended to?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The scheme was set up to help zoos and aquariums and to ensure that they are given particular support during the pandemic. As with any scheme, if there are issues, it is quite right that they should be raised with Ministers and that Ministers should be held to account. If the hon. Gentleman has not been successful in doing that with the relevant Minister, I will of course facilitate a full answer to any questions he has.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con) [V]]

In response to the impacts and challenges posed by covid-19 to aviation, the Prime Minister rightly established the global travel taskforce to consider further how Government can support the sector. When will it likely report, and may we have a statement at that time?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I share my hon. Friend’s concerns. The global aviation sector has suffered exceptionally badly from the pandemic, and it is right that we find ways to support aviation in Britain. On 7 October, the Secretary of State announced the establishment of the global travel taskforce to explore a testing regime for international arrivals and to support the safe recovery of international travel. The global travel taskforce will consider how a domestic testing regime for international arrivals could be implemented to boost safe travel to and from the UK and allow UK residents to travel with confidence. The taskforce will report back to the Prime Minister very shortly. We have previously explained that we do not currently endorse testing passengers immediately on arrival at airports as a means of avoiding the 14-day self-isolation period, but I will of course pass on my hon. Friend’s comments to the Secretary of State.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

May we have a debate in Government time on encouraging people to participate in the civic process? If we did so, it would be an opportunity for me to encourage my constituents in Broomhouse, Mount Vernon and Baillieston to object to the planning application from Patersons to increase both the capacity and the lifecycle of a site that has blighted the residents of my constituency for many years.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise these sorts of issues on the Floor of the House. It is one of the opportunities that we have as Members—to make it clear that we have concerns about local decision making. He is being an active champion for his constituents. It may not surprise him to know that I do not know the details of the planning issue at hand, but he has raised it on the Floor of the House successfully.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Earlier this week, I received a letter from Forrester Boyd, which is a major chartered accountancy company that serves my constituency. It has drawn my attention to the fact that the major banks are refusing or holding long delays in opening new accounts for businesses and the self-employed. At a time when many businesses are having to diversify and new ones are setting up to meet specific needs during the pandemic, this is an intolerable situation. Could I ask the Leader of the House if he could arrange for a Minister to come to the Dispatch Box, show how much the Government deplore this situation and urge the banks to provide a decent service to new businesses?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am exceptionally glad that my hon. Friend has raised this matter, because I have had exactly the same issue in my own constituency. I had thought that it was a one-off, with just one or two people getting in touch to say that they could not open business accounts, but it is clear from my hon. Friend that this is a more widespread problem. As the Leader of the House, it is difficult to raise issues on one’s own behalf as full-throatedly as one can sometimes from the Back Benches, so my hon. Friend raising the matter gives me the opportunity to raise it more full-throatedly. The Government have always made it clear to lenders that they should be open to new customers if that is operationally possible for them. I hope that the banks will ensure that they are able to do so, although they are, of course, operationally independent.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) [V]]

Bath it is a world heritage site and its protection is of national importance. Currently, 40-tonne heavy goods vehicles can go over the grade 2 listed Cleveland bridge, causing structural damage on a regular basis. The Leader of the House, as my constituency neighbour, will know exactly the bridge I am talking about. In 2012, the council sought to establish an 18-tonne weight limit to fulfil its duty under the law to protect this heritage asset, but the Department for Transport said that the council could not do that. The Government’s preferred option is to resolve the issue via the Western Gateway transport board, but after eight years the people of Bath are still waiting. How do the Government intend to resolve the situation?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As the MP for the countryside surrounding Bath, I am only too aware of the problem, and, indeed, of the congestion in the city represented by the hon. Member. The council, under its previous administration, was considering a bypass to link the A46 with the A36, which would of course mean that Cleveland bridge would no longer be needed. I am not entirely sure that the current Lib Dem control of the council is as enthusiastic about this plan as its predecessors, but it would provide a solution and it is a matter that the local council could push forward.

[Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)]

I have a number of extremely concerned Carshalton and Wallington residents who live in a block of flats with cladding on. I will not name the block so as not to prejudice their case, but the residents are essentially trapped; they cannot move, sell or rent their property. I know that this is not the only block in the country facing problems like this, so can we have a debate about support for such residents, who are essentially trapped through no fault of their own?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), also alluded to this issue. It is a matter that the Government take extremely seriously, especially following the Grenfell tragedy. The Government are providing funding to get dangerous cladding off homes. We are proposing the most significant building safety reforms in almost 40 years, and are committed to ensuring that people are safe and feel safe in their homes. Some £1.6 billion of taxpayers’ money is being spent to speed up the removal of unsafe cladding, making homes safer as soon as is practicable. I thank my hon. Friend for raising this question and for the work that he is doing for his constituents to bring the issue to the attention of Ministers. I will certainly pass on the details that he has brought to the House to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On disused coal tips, the Leader of the House knows well that a large part of the Tylorstown tip fell into the river at the beginning of the year, after Storm Dennis. I understand that the Coal Authority, a UK Government agency, has done some investigation of all the disused coal tips in the country. There are some 2,000 in Wales alone, but there is no full list of coal tips in every part of the country. Could we have a debate on this subject as a matter of urgency? I have a terrible fear that with further climate change problems, we will see more coal tip landslides. Of course, we want to make sure that people’s houses and livelihoods are safe, but if we do not even know the nature of the problem, we cannot work out how much money there is for it. I have written to the Chancellor of the Exchequer; could the Leader of the House encourage him to see me before the spending review is compete?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman raises an issue of which I am aware, not least because my constituency is a former mining area. There is a disused coal tip in the constituency that has become a feature of the landscape in the decades since mining stopped. The anniversary of Aberfan was not that long ago, so this important issue is at the forefront of people’s mind. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the UK-wide agency, and I will ensure that what he has said in the House is passed on to it, in the hope that a fuller answer can be obtained for him from it. I cannot promise to be the Chancellor’s diary secretary.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) [V]]

The Speaker was outraged that the new national lockdown was leaked to the media, rather than announced in Parliament first. The Prime Minister was furious and set up a leak inquiry. Last week, I asked the Leader of the House for a statement this week, so that Parliament could scrutinise the process. Instead, we have had media reports that Cabinet Ministers have been cleared of any involvement, and that the focus is on No. 10. Now we have the resignation of Mr Lee Cain, and the suggestion that he is responsible for the leak. This is not good enough. Parliament must be able to ask Ministers questions about this. Will the Leader of the House guarantee a statement next week about the leak inquiry?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend mentions Lee Cain; may I say what a fantastic public servant he has been? He was instrumental in ensuring that the Vote Leave campaign was successful, has made a huge contribution to this Government, in which he was an important figure, and will be a loss to it.

As regards announcements to this House, the Prime Minister and Mr Speaker were indeed seriously displeased by the leak, and that the House was not informed as the Prime Minister had intended, but there are opportunities to question the Prime Minister about the leak inquiry at Prime Minister’s questions; I am not convinced that it deserves a specific statement of its own.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

On top of the pandemic and the economic crisis, York has experienced two floods this year. Last week, the River Ouse reached 4.22 metres, which is a real stress and strain on businesses and residents, not least as it is only five years after the devastating floods of Storm Eva. We have yet to see mitigation; we have only had the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs promising a flood conference in York this year, which clearly is not happening. We need more than promises: we need action. Will the Leader of the House ask the Environment Secretary to come to the Dispatch Box and make a statement about how the Government will approach flood resilience? My constituents have had enough of flooding, year in, year out.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) last week, it is a terrible concern for people when they face flooding, and recurring flooding. That is why the Government have an unprecedented plan of expenditure—I think that over £5 billion will be spent on flood relief, and that Yorkshire will get the largest amount. I understand that the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) has specific concerns, and I will certainly pass those on to the Secretary of State.

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

For too long, second home owners in Cornwall and elsewhere have been able to avoid making any contribution to local services by registering their homes as businesses, thus avoiding council tax, and then benefiting from small business rate relief. The sense of injustice has deepened this year as some of the second home owners have gone on to benefit from the grants that the Government made available to support businesses through the pandemic. In 2018, the then Local Government Minister, who now happens to be the Chancellor, stated that the Government would look into closing that loophole. Can we have a ministerial statement to update the House on what action the Government are intending to take to close the loophole as soon as possible?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I know this is a matter of significant concern to my hon. Friend. The Government are aware of the concerns that some second homes that are also available for letting are listed by the Valuation Office Agency as non-domestic properties and therefore liable for business rates rather than council tax. Depending on their rateable value, many of these properties qualify for small business rate relief. The Government have consulted on possible measures to strengthen the criteria that need to be satisfied for holiday properties to be assessed for business rates, and the Government’s full response will be set out in due course.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Yesterday in the covid-19 debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), revealed:

“When the pandemic started, we produced 1% of our PPE needs in the UK. By December, we will be providing 70%”.—[Official Report, 11 November 2020; Vol. 683, c. 1022.]

She seemed to regard that as cause for self-congratulation. However, although it is a tribute to British industry and British workers, it reveals shocking complacency in allowing the situation to develop, which has meant lost resilience, lost industry and lost jobs—and that is the case across public spending. Can we have a debate so that we can demand that the Government put Britain first and prioritise buying to support British jobs, and send a clear message to any bureaucrat who wants to stand in the way of change: “Get on board or get on your bike”?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The right hon. Gentleman must be absolutely delighted, therefore, that we have left the European Union and will end the transition period on 31 December, because once we are out of the European Union we will be able to develop our own procurement policies. We will not be bound by EU red tape. We will be free to adopt either what he suggests or not. It will be liberty restored and a day of legend and song.

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)]

In recent weeks, a number of colleagues from across this House have been subject to an increase in abuse, including threats against them and, most concerningly, against their families. This should not be something that is just accepted as part of the job. Will the Leader of the House update the House on whether the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights will be actioned in due course?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I agree that nobody in this House should feel unsafe. Mr Speaker himself, as a Deputy Speaker—the Chairman of Ways and Means—ran a very effective procedure of ensuring that Members could get access to safety installations in their homes, have personal safety devices, and could make their offices safe as well. I would urge all hon. and right hon. Members to look into what support can be given. It is available and it is there to be taken up. As regards the report of the JCHR, the Government apologise for the delay in their formal response, but the Home Office will be responding shortly.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP) [V]]

In the UK we have a Government willing to break international law and in America we have a President who refuses to accept the result of a democratic election. Does the Leader of the House share my concern about the dangers posed by such acts, particularly the example they set to others across the globe, and does he therefore agree that the defining principles of democracy and the rule of law should be debated by Members in this House as soon as possible?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am sorry to say—actually, I am rather glad to say—that I am not answering for the United States Government; I am answering for Her Majesty’s Government. The United Kingdom Internal Market Bill is an excellent piece of legislation. It is quite right that we defend the British national interest and that is what this Government will do. The Bill was debated fully in this House.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Can we have a statement on the impact on lives and livelihoods of the blanket measures that we are now under, and when we are released on 2 December, will we ensure that such blunt measures are not used again?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

There will be a general debate on covid on 18 November, when my right hon. Friend will have the opportunity to raise these points. I cannot pre-empt the decisions that will be made prior to 2 December, but everybody hopes that our liberties will not be destroyed. Nobody wanted to take them away, but as the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) pointed out, 50,000 people have died with covid. It is a very serious problem, and difficult decisions needed to be made.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House, as well as every other Member of this House, will be acutely aware of the 3 million excluded people who have fallen between all the Government covid schemes. Many of them are facing, and have faced for the past few months, destitution and poverty. We had a debate about two or three months ago on the 3 million excluded. Would it be possible to have another debate, but this time in Government time, on those people who are facing such gut-wrenching problems?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

We all have great sympathy for those people who have been excluded. We all have constituents in that situation, and it is important to raise their cases. Inevitably, even though £200 billion of taxpayers’ money has been spent, as the Chancellor set out, it is not possible to save every job that is in existence at the moment or was in existence at the beginning of March, but enormous efforts have been made. As regards a debate, the Government have set out a lot of Government time for debating covid. That is an opportunity to raise the subject in the round, and that obviously includes the people who are excluded.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

Britain’s heritage is under attack, ironically from those missioned to be the guardians of it. The National Trust, while losing money and sacking staff, has commissioned an expensive review of its properties’ links with colonialism, including Churchill’s Chartwell; unheroic characters at the National Maritime Museum are re-evaluating Nelson’s heroic status; and the custodians of the Churchill War Rooms are claiming that they need to look again at Churchill’s legacy. Can we have a debate on how these charitable organisations’ purpose is being perverted by political posturing, as they all seem to be in the thrall of the militant Black Lives Matter movement? Mr Deputy Speaker, defending our history and heritage is our era’s battle of Britain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I would like to reiterate the points made in the letter sent by my right hon. Friend the Culture Secretary to museums recently that they are not political campaigning institutions and they should not be intruding into today’s politics. But

“Some talk of Alexander, and some of Hercules,

Of Hector and Lysander, and such great men as these

But of all the world’s brave heroes, there’s none that can compare

With”—

Boadicea, Alfred the Great, Richard the Lionheart, the Black Prince, Henry V, Francis Drake, Prince Rupert, Marlborough, Wolfe, Nelson, Moore, Wellington, Gordon and Montgomery, among others. These are great heroes and we should celebrate them, and I have not even mentioned—but I will now—Caractacus. Caractacus so impressed the Romans that, when they took him to Rome in chains, they freed him because they thought he was a fine and noble warrior. We should be proud of our history, and proud of Caractacus.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Sir John, you were on personal terms with a lot of those people, weren’t you? [Laughter.]

[Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab) [V]]

Throughout this pandemic, staff at Coventry City Council have stepped up to the challenge, doing amazing work to support residents in need, but a decade of vicious Conservative cuts to budgets have taken their toll on local authorities, and now this crisis has further hit finances at the city council. Will the Leader of the House give Government time to discuss not only compensating councils for the financial hit of the pandemic, but providing them with funding to invest in the city and meet the community’s needs—from building more council houses to reopening youth centres?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It would be a great pleasure to have a debate praising the Government for the amazing support we have provided to local councils during the pandemic—taxpayers’ money—with £3 billion to help councils through this period, £400 million to support children, £1.1 billion to support local businesses, £919 million in additional un-ring-fenced funding, £465 million to support test, trace and contain activity, £100 million to support leisure centres and £32 million to support the clinically extremely vulnerable. There is £7.2 billion in total for local authorities and £24 billion of taxpayers’ money for their local businesses. Should the hon. Lady want to ask the Backbench Business Committee for a debate to praise Her Majesty’s Government, I hope it will be granted.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

The situation on covid remains very grave, but there are some encouraging signs that in our capital city the number of cases continues to be considerably lower than in much of the rest of the country. With that in mind, will the Leader of the House ask the Health Secretary to come to the Commons to enable us to discuss a regional approach, which might enable London to leave lockdown more quickly than other parts of the country in order to safeguard our economy and save livelihoods?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The plan, as my right hon Friend knows, is that we will move back to a local system on 2 December, but it is certainly worth passing on her point to my right hon. Friend, and I will ensure that he gets that message shortly.

[Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)]

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has said that there is evidence that human rights standards may not have been upheld in the way that people in care homes, particularly those with dementia, have been treated during the pandemic. There is a Westminster Hall debate later today on the effect of covid on people with dementia, but, given the seriousness, importance and urgency of this finding, can we have a ministerial statement on what the Government are doing to rectify this matter?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady always raises the most important points at business questions and I am grateful to her for raising that because, across the whole House, there is concern about the suffering of people with dementia during this incredibly difficult period. As she rightly says, there is a Westminster Hall debate later on today and there will be a ministerial response to that. If, after that debate, she feels that the response is not complete enough, she can contact me or raise it again next week at business questions, and I will see what I can do to get her further information.

[Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)]

As a proud vice-president of the Cotswold Canals Trust in Stroud, I want to place on record my huge congratulations to the trust on winning an awful lot of money—over £8 million—from the Lottery Heritage Fund to connect our canal towns. This is the culmination of years and years of work that has included local people, hundreds and hundreds of volunteers and our councils as well. Will the Leader of the House join me in praising all involved and find time for a debate, so that we can look at the importance of our canals and waterways in our post-covid recovery?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s support for the canals of the Cotswolds and her hard work to support them as well. I offer my congratulations to the Stroud canals team and welcome the fact that lottery funds—£8.9 million—are being awarded to such causes. I am happy to say that, thanks to the stewardship of the Canal & River Trust, our canals are in rude health and well-funded by a mixture of commercial and charitable donations. England’s canals are a beautiful reminder of our industrial heritage and today provide some of the defining characteristics of our country’s landscape, from Birmingham’s Venice-beating network of canals to the picturesque Kennet and Avon canal in my own constituency, which is even better than those in Venice.

[Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) [V]]

Numerous Members have asked about virtual participation for those of us who are unable to attend the Chamber owing to Government advice—in essence, requesting reasonable adjustments. The answer of the Leader of the House has been no. On the 25th anniversary of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the 10th anniversary of the Equality Act 2010, what message does this send to clinically extremely vulnerable people? What advice would he give me, and to anyone requesting reasonable adjustments, for seeking legal recourse to ensure that no one is discriminated against?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I would say that reasonable adjustments have been made, because extremely clinically vulnerable MPs are able to contribute. They are able to have a proxy vote, so their vote can be recorded. They may participate, as the hon. Lady has just shown, in the interrogative parts of Parliament’s activities. We need to get the balance right between what can done by MPs who are extremely clinically vulnerable and what allows Parliament to carry on doing its job. I fear that that is the key point.

I hope Members will understand that although their contributions have reflected their experiences and their concerns, and those of their party, it is our responsibility to consider Parliament’s work as a whole. It is not just about the duty of individual MPs, but about the duties of our Parliament to the British people. That means that we need to be here physically for debates, votes, Bill Committees and statutory instrument Committees, because the business of Parliament needs to continue. Therefore, where it has been possible and sensible to adapt, where business has been able to continue with adaptations, that is what has been done, which is how the hon. Lady was able to appear moments ago.

[Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)]

Further to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), may I say that my constituents and I are very patriotic people but we are worried that aspects of our history are being woke-washed? Will the Leader of the House invite the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to make a statement on the protections we can afford our nation’s war heroes from the left-wing, culture-cancelling attacks we are now observing?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Woke-washing sounds extremely painful, and I hope we will be woke-dry-cleaned pretty quickly, so that we get rid of the wokeness. I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question, because we have had an avalanche of miserable, Britain-hating nonsense about our history and our culture filling the airwaves in recent months. We have only to look at Extinction Rebellion’s behaviour at the Cenotaph yesterday to see that. Left-wing troublemakers are determined to ignore our history and smear our past heroes, and not even show respect to those who gave their lives for our freedom. Her Majesty’s Government are clear about our history and our culture: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a fantastic nation with a first-class history. As my right hon. Friend the Culture Secretary said, we should never bow to the activists who want to scrub our history bare and start from year zero. We must retain and explain all aspects of our noble island’s story for the benefit of future generations.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

Coastal communities, such as the gorgeous South Shields, have been hit hardest by regressive Tory policies and now by the pandemic. Members from across this House signed my letter to the Communities Secretary in September asking for a release of dormant assets to aid coastal community recovery. I know that the Communities Secretary and his team have been preoccupied recently, after his prosperous constituency was awarded £25 million earmarked for deprived areas, but will the Leader of the House please urge his colleague to respond to us?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The towns fund, to which the hon. Lady refers, is a really good way of helping high streets to improve and of ensuring their viability, and it is available up and down the country. It is an important and successful initiative, which is helping to restore high streets that faced such difficult times and have found it even harder during the pandemic. I refer her to what I said about the amounts of money made available to local government bodies during this pandemic; unprecedented levels of support have been provided, showing the strength of the centre in supporting the localities, including her constituency.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

May I congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the Leader of the House on the success of Parliament Week last week? In Beaconsfield, I took part in several virtual question and answer sessions with secondary schools, where the question raised time and again was whether secondary schools and students could have a definitive answer on future exams in England. There was much anxiety about that. Students just want to know and to have the ability to plan for the future, so may we have a debate, in Government time, on the importance of school exams in England for the future and wellbeing of young people? Given that it is perfectly possible to hold exams in a socially distanced manner or online, does he agree that we need a definitive agreement or commitment from the Department for Education on exams continuing next year?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Exams will go ahead next summer, as they are the fairest and most appropriate way to measure a pupil’s attainments. We are ensuring that students now have more time to prepare for their exams next year, and AS-levels, A-levels and GCSEs will mainly be held three weeks later to help to address the disruption caused by the pandemic. We are taking great steps to support all children to ensure that they do not fall behind because of the pandemic, with a £1 billion catch-up plan, £650 million of which was in the catch-up premium, helping pupils to make up for lost time in education, and £350 million in the national tutoring programme, a package of targeted funding for the most disadvantaged pupils. So steps are being taken, and exams will take place because they are the best way of judging students’ progress.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

It is now some four months since Baroness Cumberlege produced her report “First do no harm” on the problems caused by vaginal mesh, Primodos and sodium valproate. After four months, we have still had no firm action on this, so can we now have a debate in Government time to discuss this important issue and hear what the Government are proposing to do to implement the recommendations of the Cumberlege report?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I actually gave evidence to the Cumberlege report, as I think the hon. Lady knows, on the question of Primodos, so I have an interest in the response to that very important report. I will therefore take this up, as the hon. Lady is asking me to do.

[Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)]

Last year I was elected on a clear promise to level up in Burnley, and a key pillar of that is securing the towns deal that we have missed out on for so long, which will help to drive forward our local economy. Can the Leader of the House confirm that the Government remain committed to extending towns deals to even more places, and will he go further and give his support to Burnley’s bid?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am not sure that I can freelance and support Burnley’s bid, but I wish my hon. Friend every success with it and commend him for being such a dedicated campaigner for his constituency. The towns fund is a wonderful opportunity for regeneration throughout the regions, and he has been making a very good case for Burnley. I would say, as regards the criticism of the towns fund, that the Government completely disagree with the Public Accounts Committee’s criticisms of the towns fund and its selection programme, which was comprehensive, robust and fair. The towns fund will, as my hon. Friend says, help to level up the country, creating jobs and building stronger and more resilient local economies. Those on the Opposition Benches should be ashamed of themselves for not welcoming this effort to help—

[Valerie Vaz]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It has been discredited only in the minds of those who never wished to give any credit to it in the first place. It is a great scheme. It is an important scheme, and I am afraid the Public Accounts Committee got it wrong.

[Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) [V]]

Given that the ongoing restrictions relating to social gathering numbers will prevent businesses from hosting their annual much deserved Christmas parties, could the Leader of the House tell us whether the Treasury and HMRC plan to review the use of the social benefit allowance this year? If they do not, will he join me in urging them to do so and perhaps to allow for a transfer of the tax allowance to enable employers to provide our key workers with a gift equivalent to thank them for their efforts throughout this most challenging of years? Does the Leader of the House agree with me, and will he support me in ensuring that this can happen?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is always dangerous for any Leader of the House to trespass on matters relating to decisions that will be made by the Treasury. The Treasury will make its decisions and announce them in the fullness of time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I should like to thank the Leader of the House for his statement. Before the next ministerial statement, on Her Majesty the Queen’s platinum jubilee, we will have a three-minute suspension to enable the safe departure and arrival of Members of Parliament.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 10th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Lords amendment 2, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 3 to 5.

Lords amendment 6, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 7, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 8, and Government motion to disagree.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Government’s commitment to ensure that the House has updated and equal parliamentary constituencies has been reflected in the tenacity of my hon. Friend the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution. I apologise to the House that I am a mere stand-in for her today, because her efforts to legislate to that effect have been unstinting throughout this Parliament.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend think it appropriate just to take this moment to send our best wishes to the Minister, our hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), who is suffering very bad ill health at this moment?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Yes; my hon. Friend has momentarily pre-empted me, because that is exactly what I was about to do. The whole House has noted our hon. Friend’s positive approach to the challenge that prevents her from being here today. She is a wonderfully popular and singularly effective Minister, and I know that Members across the House wish her the speediest of recoveries. None the less, she is continuing to work very hard, and I have therefore had the opportunity to discuss the Bill with her. I am pleased to report to the House that she is delighted, as am I, that the principle of updated and equal constituencies is shared by both Houses and across parties. That is in no small part down to the efforts of my noble Friends Lord True and Baroness Scott of Bybrook, and I extend our thanks for their sterling efforts in taking the Bill through the other place.

It is of course right that this short but important Bill has enjoyed extensive debate and scrutiny in both Houses, and we will always welcome the thoughts of their lordships, but it is important to remember that this is a Commons Bill about the composition of the House of Commons based on the mandate of the elected Government. This is an area in which I have taken a great interest during my years as a Member of Parliament, so it is with a spirit of gusto that I now roll up my sleeves and prepare to delve into the detail of their lordships’ amendments. I will speak to each amendment in turn.

Lords amendments 1 and 2 provide that a boundary review would be carried out every 10 years. This is a significant change from the current legal requirement for a review every five years. The Government’s approach, as in the Bill before it was amended, is to mandate a boundary review every eight years. The Government’s aim, as set out in our manifesto, is to ensure that parliamentary constituencies are updated regularly, but without the disruption to local communities and their representatives that might occur with the current five-year reviews.

While developing this Bill, my hon. Friend the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution discussed the Government’s proposal for an eight-year cycle with parliamentary parties and electoral administrators and shared with them our broad plans for the Bill. Concerns were expressed about the importance of up-to-date data—particularly local government boundary data, hence clause 8—but the Labour, Liberal Democrat, Plaid Cymru and Scottish National party representatives from the parliamentary parties panel were among those content with our approach.

If reviews were to happen only every 10 years, as these amendments propose, the data used in boundary reviews would be older and less reflective of current local government boundaries and demographic change. That would also create an unfair situation for electors, because where boundaries were not regularly updated to ensure that they more accurately represented changing demographics, there is a risk that some would feel that their vote was not of equal value to the votes cast in a neighbouring constituency. We believe that the middle ground of eight-year cycles, as proposed in the unamended Bill, is the right way forward. It removes the disruption of a review happening roughly each time an election occurs, but as not too much time will pass between reviews, it also delivers boundaries that are up to date and fair. I therefore trust that the House will disagree with these Lords amendments.

Under Lords amendment 6, members of the Boundary Commission would be chosen using a bespoke appointments procedure that would sit entirely outside the existing public appointments process. The Bill as originally drafted did not make changes to the current processes, and there has been no dispute or controversy to date with the manner in which the commissioners have been appointed. The automatic implementation of the boundary commissioners’ final recommendations is crucial to achieving regular and effective boundary reviews.

Automatic implementation also shines a light on the boundary commissioners themselves. As parliamentary scrutiny is not involved in the process, we must be able to trust that the commissions are effective and independent. We need to be able to satisfy ourselves that the process of appointing all Boundary Commission members is thorough, independent and fair and that there is no room for any undue influence of any kind. I can reassure the House that our current processes fulfil all those criteria. Let me first outline how the deputy chairman and the ordinary members of the commission are appointed at present and then look at how the amendment would change the status quo.

The deputy chairman position in each Boundary Commission must be filled by a High Court judge. The amendment is unnecessary for two reasons. First, the judges appointed to the Boundary Commission have already undergone a rigorous recruitment procedure that gives reassurance that they are able to act independently and impartially. Secondly, the Lord Chancellor consults the Lord Chief Justice over these appointments in any case. This provides the views of the head of the English and Welsh judiciary. The appointment of ordinary members of the Boundary Commissions are public appointments. The four commissions are listed alongside many other public bodies and independent offices in the Public Appointments Order in Council 2019. The order is the legal basis for the governance code on public appointments and the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments, who regulates appointments processes.

The governance code and oversight of the commissioner ensure that appointments are made openly, fairly and on merit to the Boundary Commission and many hundreds of other public bodies. The governance code includes robust safeguards to ensure the political impartiality of the two ordinary members of the Boundary Commissions. These members are appointed by Ministers, having been assessed by an advisory assessment panel that includes a representative of the organisation in question. For Boundary Commissions, the representative is the deputy chairman or an ordinary member if the deputy chairman cannot attend. It is the job of the panel to assess which candidates are appointable, so that Ministers may make an informed and appropriate decision. At the application stage, all candidates are asked to declare political activity over the previous five years. Future advisory assessment panel decisions should not be prejudged, but it would seem likely that recent significant political activity would present a degree of conflict that would be incompatible with the panel finding a candidate appointable as a boundary commissioner.

The Bill, as amended, creates a bespoke system for Boundary Commission appointments in primary legislation. There are three main reasons to oppose that amendment. First, the existing public appointments system has secured dedicated and expert members for the Boundary Commission for decades; in simple terms, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Secondly, a separate appointments regime could cast doubt on those appointed to public office under the current system. That doubt would be unjustified, as the current system is independently regulated and ensures that talented individuals with the right skills and experience are appointed to many hundreds of bodies across government to carry out vital public work. We should use it wherever possible and resist the urge to create new, niche systems.

Thirdly, I have already mentioned that the deputy chairman’s previous appointment as a High Court judge will have been sufficiently robust to ensure their ability to act impartially. The Government are also unconvinced by the argument that the Lord Chancellor cannot be trusted to act impartially when making such appointments. The role of the Lord Chancellor—the Lord High Chancellor—occupies a unique and significant position in our constitutional firmament, defending the judiciary and its independence through a duty to rise above party politics where required.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am spoilt for choice. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman because I heard him marginally earlier, probably because of the distance factor.

[David Linden]

The right hon. Gentleman speaks about how independent the Lord Chancellor has been of late. Given the attacks on the judiciary by this Government and the attempts to break international law, does he really think that stands up to scrutiny?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think it is of fundamental importance; the Lord Chancellor is there to say to Ministers that they should not criticise judges. That is one of his roles, to ensure that proper application of the separation of powers. The current Lord Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend, carries out his job with absolute aplomb, but he is not alone in this; Labour Lord Chancellors have done exactly the same.

[John Spellar]

Unfortunately, now that the Lord Chancellor is, rightly or wrongly, in the House of Commons, can they not be subjected to political pressures? Indeed, has a previous Lord Chancellor not been expelled from his party and therefore, in effect, expelled from Parliament?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Lord Chancellor being in the House of Commons is something that happened earlier in our history, too. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that Thomas More was Lord Chancellor in the House of Commons, so it is hardly unprecedented for this to happen, although there may be quibbles about the constitutional reforms that took place under the Government headed by Tony Blair. I think that the ability of the Lord Chancellor to be the voice of judicial independence and of the rule of law in the highest councils of government is one of fundamental constitutional importance.

Where I draw different conclusions from those of the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman is that I think the role should be enhanced, protected and recognised as being one of exceptionality and above the cut and thrust of day-to-day party politics. I would mention distinguished Lord Chancellors from other parties here. Jack Straw and Lord Irvine of Lairg were two particularly distinguished Lord Chancellors, as were Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Hailsham. They were great figures who all recognised that they had a political affiliation but that their solemn responsibility required them to rise above the fray. We should defend this as something precious about our constitution.

The gravity of the responsibility placed upon their shoulders means I have no doubt that future Lord Chancellors, one of whom could one day come from the Liberal Democrats or the Scottish nationalists—[Interruption.] The Scottish National party may be pushing it a bit, and one from the Lib Dems is not much more likely, but the principle is that the gravity of the responsibilities placed upon their shoulders means that Lord Chancellors will continue to uphold the highest traditions and respect for the judiciary. The notion that they would seek to undermine or compromise this through appointments to the commission is anathema to us all and would certainly be unconscionable to all past and present keepers of the Queen’s conscience—one of the roles of the Lord High Chancellor.

The amendment also proposes that there should be a single, non-renewable term for boundary commissioners as a way to avoid any potential for an appointee’s actions to be influenced by their desire for re-appointment. If an individual were to serve only one term, it would need to be for 10 years to align with the current cycle of 10-year reviews—or eight years if the House agrees to overturn their lordships’ change to 10 years—which is a long term of office. We are not aware of any similar examples for non-executive style roles such as this. It could be off-putting to some worthy candidates from an inevitably not limitless pool of applicants for such positions. It may also be beneficial to retain the experience of a commissioner after their initial term, which is a principle that applies across public appointments. Not prescribing a non-renewable term in law would retain flexibility in the event that a commissioner did or did not wish to serve longer than the current norm of a four or five-year term.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it should be the aim of the boundary commissions to try to hit the electoral quota number as closely as they can and that the tolerance is, as he outlined, merely for circumstances that may be out of their control? The message from the House to the boundary commissions should be true equality and please try to hit the number as well as they can.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend makes a fair point. We all recognise that the numbers will diverge from the moment the commission finishes its work as people move around the country. Therefore, the tolerance of 5% either way—10% in total—gets the balance about right in the knowledge that, by the time of an election, it will inevitably have changed regardless A 15% tolerance range has been thoroughly debated in both Houses and twice rejected by this one—in Committee and on Report—so the settled view of the elected Chamber, to which, after all, the Bill relates most directly, should prevail. I therefore urge the House to disagree with the amendment.

As I turn to amendment 8, I will first pay tribute to Lord Shutt of Greetland, who tabled the amendment in the other place and sadly died recently. Lord Shutt was a stalwart campaigner and advocate on electoral issues, as reflected in his recent excellent chairmanship of the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 Committee. I am sure I speak for the whole House when I say he will be much missed and offer my condolences to his family on behalf of the House. The amendment would require the Government to make proposals for improving the completeness of electoral registers for the purposes of boundary reviews. It suggests two possible ways in which the issuing of national insurance numbers could trigger 16 and 17-year-olds being included on the registers. I will look first at the completeness of the registers and then discuss how the amendment proposes to register 16 and 17-year-olds. It is important to note that recent elections have been run on the largest ever electoral registers, despite the removal of 1 million ghost entries from the register when the transition from household registration to individual registration was completed in December 2015. People who want and are eligible to register to vote find it easy to do so.

The Government believe that every eligible elector who wants to be included should be on the electoral register, but that it should be up to each individual to decide whether to engage with the democratic process. The Government seek to make registration as easy as possible and to work with many others to reduce any barriers to registration. For example, we introduced online registration. As a result, it became simpler and faster to register to vote; it now takes as little as five minutes to register. Similarly, we are focused on ensuring that electoral registration officers—with whom the statutory responsibility for maintaining complete and accurate registers lies—have the tools they need to do their jobs efficiently and effectively. For example, the Government have made many resources to promote democratic engagement and voter registration freely available on gov.uk. Furthermore, our changes to the annual canvass of all residential properties in Great Britain will improve its overall efficiency considerably. The data-matching element of the initiative allows electoral registration officers to focus their efforts on hard-to-reach groups. This is the first year of the reformed canvass, and anecdotal reports so far suggest that administrators have found the new processes much less bureaucratic.

The amendment makes two suggestions on what the Government may include in the proposals they would be required to lay before Parliament to improve the completeness of the registers. The first would see a form of automatic registration introduced for attainers—16 and 17-year-olds who can register to vote in preparation for attaining voting age—and their inclusion in the electorate data used in boundary reviews. We are opposed to automatic registration for attainers or any other group, in both principle and practice, as we believe that registering to vote and voting are civic duties. People should not have these duties done for them or be compelled to do them. That was one reason why we introduced individual electoral registration in 2014. The evidence shows that an individual system drives up registration figures. After individual registration was launched, the registers for the 2017 and 2019 general elections were the largest ever. Electoral registration has worked.

There are a number of practical concerns about automatic registration. Among others, it is almost certain that an automatic registration system would lead to a single, centralised database of electors. We are opposed to this on the grounds of the significant security and privacy implications of holding that much personal data in one place, as well as the significant cost that such a system would impose.

[John Spellar]

But surely the electoral registers are held by the local electoral registration officers and the local councils, and if they are provided with that information, they can automatically register people. That is what is in the amendment. A virtual national database would be a good idea, but it is not inherent in the proposition. It would mean that we did not have to spend a lot of money chasing those people up. Will the Minister explain why he thinks it desirable that we have such low registration rates of youngsters when we should surely want to engage them in the democratic process at an early stage?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I point out that we have record levels of registration. The right hon. Gentleman undermines his own argument, because as soon as the Government have all that information, they have it. If they send it out to electoral registration officers, that does not mean that they have lost, forgotten or abandoned it; it might do under a Labour Government, but it would not under a Conservative Government. I seem to remember some Inland Revenue figures were lost under the last Labour Government, but that is all ancient history and a long time ago. If the Government have that information, they have it; if has not been forgotten or wiped from the central mind just because they have sent it out to local officers. The risk of having a large, centralised system is that it would be expensive, and there would be risks in terms of security and privacy implications.

[John Spellar]

National insurance already has a national database—that is inherent to that system. That information would not be distributed to every local authority; information would be distributed on those who are resident within the postcodes in the local authority. What the Leader of the House is saying makes no sense at all. There is already a national database of national insurance numbers; logically, that has nothing whatsoever to do with telling local councils who is in their particular area so that they can chase them up.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That is not actually accurate. The national insurance database does not consist purely of voters; it consists of people who have national insurance numbers because they are eligible for tax in this country, and they may be foreign nationals. That is another problem: we would be trying to match together a database that is held for an entirely different purpose. It would have to be scrubbed to turn it into an electoral database, at which point we would have an electoral database held centrally, which is exactly the problem we are trying to avoid. I think we are on strong ground on this one.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that although we want to encourage mass participation in the democratic process among the young, old and everybody in between, it is an inherent right in our democracy that people get to choose whether they partake in that democracy? If someone chooses not to register to vote, that is up to that individual, and that is something that we respect.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Freedom of the individual in participation is of fundamental importance. People have to decide whether they wish to vote—whether they wish to be actively involved. It is worth saying, again, that individual electoral registration has increased the number of people who are registered and increased the accuracy of the database. As I said, a million ghosts—phantom voters—were removed, and that is important. The integrity of the electoral register is of fundamental importance to the confidence that people have in the honesty of our system, and we have a very robust system.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I note that the Leader of the House has not yet made any reference to Wales, where we are extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. We value the voice of young people—16 year-olds—in Wales, and I have long supported that idea for the whole of the UK. Will the Leader of the House set out what steps the UK Government are taking to support the Welsh Government in the democratic process of ensuring that 16 and 17-year-olds have the right to vote in the Senedd elections in May?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Devolved matters are for the devolved authorities to take care of, not for Her Majesty’s national Government to take care of. The Welsh Government have made that decision and will be able to implement it. If they cannot implement the decision, one has to ask why they made it.

[Stephen Doughty]

The Leader of the House is trying to have it both ways as well. The reality is that the UK Government hold sources of information—whether it is the national insurance database or one of many others—that can assist in ensuring accurate electoral registration in all parts of the UK. Would it not be better for the UK Government to co-operate with the Welsh Government? They might take a different view for England, but they should co-operate with the Welsh Government to ensure that that democratic mandate is fulfilled.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is a matter for the Welsh Government to decide how they draw up their register. If they want help from HM Government, I am sure they will have ways and means of getting in touch to ask for it, but it would be disrespectful of HMG to involve themselves, without being invited, in decisions that have been made by the Welsh Government. If we were doing something like that in Scotland, the fury of the Scottish National party would know no bounds—but then it has to be said that the fury of the SNP usually knows no bounds.

Let us take note of the experience of other jurisdictions that have introduced automatic registration: the point that I was trying to make in response to interventions is that registrations may have increased, but so have concerns about errors and inaccuracies. Automatic voter registration would lead to less accurate electoral registers, especially if people had recently moved homes. Computers and—dare I say it—algorithms might add to electoral rolls people who did not live in the area, because of out-of-date entries held on other databases. They might also add people who had a residence but were not eligible to vote.

The Government are not prepared to undo all the benefits of our individual registration system by introducing the errors and inaccuracies that automatic registration would make more likely. After all, inaccurate registers facilitate voter fraud and undermine faith in the integrity of our democratic processes. [Interruption.] The one point at which those on the somnolent Opposition Benches wake up is when I say that inaccurate registers facilitate voter fraud.

They clearly want inaccurate and phantom voters. The only thing that seems to excite them is phantom voters. That is why I urge the House to disagree with the Lords amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Randall]

I believe that the guidance sets a maximum, and I think we are within that guidance. I am not sure that the conclusions the hon. Gentleman has drawn on that are entirely correct.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Just to confirm that the Venice Commission’s “Code of good practice in electoral matters” states that the permissible departure from the norm should not be more than 10%, and I think that is a very good point.

[Tom Randall]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for confirming my recollection. Lords amendment 8 proposes ways in which the completeness of the electoral register might be improved. It is important that one registers to vote and does so. That should be encouraged; it is one’s civic duty. However, underpinning any civic duty is the notion that one takes some steps to actually engage with the process. Registering to vote is now very straightforward: one can, as we have heard, log on to one’s council’s website and do it in a matter of minutes. While it is good that registration should be easy, it should require some degree of citizen participation, which amendment 8 would remove. The amendment also fails to recognise the introduction of individual voter registration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins). It is an absolute pleasure to follow her. I used to find that I was very often in agreement with her distinguished father on matters relating to the European Union, though it has to be said not on anything else. I thank all Members who have contributed to this debate on their lordships’ amendments. It has been a pleasure to be part of this important Bill, and I am very grateful for all the kind words that have been said about my hon. Friend the Minister for the Constitution. I will ensure that a copy of Hansard is sent to her so that she knows how highly respected and valued she is both as a Member of this House and as a Minister.

I also spoke on Second Reading, and both then and now, it has been a genuine pleasure to hear about the constituencies of hon. Members. In particular, I noted the plea from the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), who basically said that he loved his constituency and likes it as it is. I think that many Members across the House have huge sympathy with that view. It makes these types of debate extremely difficult for us, because all of us have an enormous affection for the places that we represent and we have incredible ties to them. I did not agree with all of his speech, but I must confess that I sympathised very much with the bit when he was praising his own area. However, this Bill will meet the Government’s manifesto commitment to have updated and equal parliamentary boundaries, and I am glad to see that it has broad support across the House, even though there are differences over some of the details.

If I may come to those, I will not try to repeat the points that I covered in my opening remarks, in the interests of time, but the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith)¸ made a point about young registration. I would point out that we have seen a significant number of 18 to 24-year-olds register since online registration came in, with 8 million of them taking the opportunity of that.

The hon. Lady referred to the appointment of the deputy chairmen. It is worth reiterating that they are High Court judges anyway, so their independence has already been proved at the earlier appointment. I do not think we need have any worry about their continued independence. The hon. Lady also accused the Government of appointing a crony as the BBC chairman. As the appointment has not yet been made, I am not sure how we can have appointed the crony, unless the hon. Lady is accusing the Government of being Billy No Mates, which may possibly be the case, because no appointment has been made.

The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), as always, made an extremely charming and well-informed speech, with his one aim clearly in sight. His one aim is, of course, the independence of Scotland. That is his view; that is what he campaigns for. I fundamentally disagree with him, but he always puts his case elegantly and in the best traditions of this House. I just remind him that there are particular protections for Scotland, with the regulations relating to constituencies over 5,000 square miles and, of course, the protection of the constituency of Na h-Eileanan an Iar. I think that should be in entrenched legislation to keep the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) safely in this House, as he is a great figure and contributor to our debates. I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I did not notify the hon. Gentleman that I was going to mention him, but I hope he will not mind.

I am also relieved that the hon. Member for Glasgow East, when he read out at the end of his speech my words on an earlier occasion, had not looked through my speeches on the parliamentary constituencies Bill when it was passing through the House in 2010 and 2011 and did not quote those back at me. That might have been rather more embarrassing.

I come to the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) and the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). I am afraid I think they should stand for election to the House of Representatives, because they seem more interested in American politics than in British politics. Fascinating though that is, this House is concerned with the politics of the United Kingdom.

The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) is not in her place, but she made the point that there will be an extensive change with the 5% level. That is inevitable because this change has been so long delayed. English constituencies are based on the register for 2000 and therefore are 20 years out of date. She made the very fair point that the difference between 5% and 7.5% is a variation on a theme, which is why I think we can reasonably, as a House, agree on 5%. It is a matter of getting the balance right. I think 5% is reasonable.

If I may come to my hon. and right hon. Friends, a number of them—my right hon. Friends the Members for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson)—raised the issue of ward divisions. It is important to note that the Boundary Commission—the independent Boundary Commission—has the ability to use smaller areas, and therefore if it wants to use smaller areas to meet the 5% requirement, it will be able to do so.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke asked the specific question whether, basically, the Boundary Commission will have to follow the law, to which the answer is of course yes, it will have to follow the law, although in doing so it is independent. She also pointed out that Lords amendment 7 basically seeks to undermine the principle of the Bill by widening it, and if we end up widening it too much, we get away from what we are trying to achieve.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Tom Randall) made a telling point about the different purpose of data that has been collected. Suddenly using it for one thing rather than another raises all sorts of problems. He also kindly pointed out that the deputy chairmen are already impartial judges, which I reiterate because it is fundamental to the fairness of this process.

My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton made, I must confess, both a wise and entertaining speech and noted the partisanship of some of the amendments. I must confess that we have seen through the Opposition’s tricks and noted that the amendments are partisan, and that is why we will have pleasure in voting against them. Let us be honest about it: the Opposition know they are partisan too, but they felt they had to make some complaints on a principle—that we should have equal seats—that most people across the House agree with.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) pointed out the size of his own constituency and the right of people to choose whether they participate in the electoral process or not. Of course that is a freedom that we have.

I loved the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) that we should follow Malta, and we must—what a great thing to do. Malta is a wonderful place, and one thinks of its fantastic history in surviving not one but two sieges, one in the 16th century and one in the 20th century. I will not say the joke about making a Maltese cross, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you might think it out of order, and it is very old and hackneyed.

Committee on Standards

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)]

I beg to move,

That, in accordance with Standing Order No. 149A, Professor Michael Maguire CBE be appointed as lay member of the Committee on Standards for a period of six years, with immediate effect.

The motion today gives the House the opportunity to approve the appointment of Professor Michael Maguire CBE as a lay member of the Committee on Standards for a period of six years. Between 2012 and 2019, Professor Maguire was the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. His previous role, from 2008 until 2012, was chief inspector of criminal justice for Northern Ireland. He will bring a wealth of experience to the Standards Committee.

The lay members of the Standards Committee play a vital role in providing an independent voice to the Committee’s decisions. When lay members were first proposed over a decade ago, the rationale given by the Committee on Standards in Public Life was that they would be

“a step towards enhancing public acceptance of the robustness and independence of the disciplinary process for Members of Parliament.”

The independent and impartial status of lay members is therefore critical to maintaining confidence in our process. If today’s motion is agreed, it will ensure that one of two lay member vacancies is filled with immediate effect. I ask the House to support Professor Maguire’s appointment.

Standing Order No. 149A requires that the House of Commons should decide on the appointment of lay members. It also stipulates that the decision should follow a debate of up to one hour. As I said in business questions on 22 October, it is only right that time is properly provided and that the House has the right to take a decision and debate a matter so that we should not assume that such a debate is simply a rubber-stamping exercise.

The House will have realised that only one of the two candidates put forward by the House of Commons Commission is named in the motion today. As I have previously said, this has no bearing on the character of the other candidate. Instead, it reflects the fact that there is disquiet in certain quarters, as well as wider concerns over the recruitment process, and in particular the criteria relating to impartiality that were applied.

That brings me to amendment (a) in the name of the shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz). My intention had been to keep the timing of the motion to appoint Ms Carter under review pending continuing conversations. That motion has been tabled under remaining orders. However, the amendment seeks to bring forward the appointment now. It is a matter of regret that the right hon. Lady has expedited the decision on this matter. We have been striving to achieve a resolution through correspondence and conversations, which I had hoped would lead us to a more desirable outcome. It is regrettable that we now find ourselves debating this matter on the Floor of the House at an early stage.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

In the discussions I had yesterday, I was led to believe that the Government Chief Whip had indicated that the Government would be voting against that motion next week. That is the reason the amendment has been tabled tonight—for no other reason than because the Government were letting it be known that they were going to vote against.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It was a leader of the hon. Gentleman’s own party who once said that a week is a long time in politics and an opportunity for considerable discussion to take place.

Let me be clear: across public appointments as a whole, political activity is not and should not be a bar to appointment. Membership of a political party is an important right under freedom of association. However, some public appointments will necessarily be independent, where individuals must ensure they are separate from party politics precisely because of their public functions. This is especially the case for quasi-judicial or disciplinary roles, as in this case. The Standards Committee is an especially sensitive parliamentary Committee, with significant powers to adjudicate on the conduct of Members of Parliament. Its lay members must be able to command absolute trust and confidence across the whole House.

[Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is vital for lay members of the Standards Committee not only to be impartial but to be seen to be impartial?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend makes an absolutely right and important point. The perception of impartiality is as important with lay members of the Standards Committee as the reality, and just because somebody says “I am impartial” does not mean that they are necessarily impartial or that others will accept that assurance.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I very much regret it, but I do not think I can support my right hon. Friend on this particular matter, because I do not believe that being a member of a political party makes someone incapable of being impartial. Indeed, all the members of the Standards Committee who are Members of this House are members of political parties and we strive to be impartial, but my right hon. Friend has just indicated that we are not capable of doing that. Will he explain what he thinks was wrong with the appointment process that arrived at these two names? If there was no unauthorised departure from the appointment process—this is a question not of rubber-stamping but of making sure that a proper appointment process has been followed, and that seems to be the case—for us just to say, “We don’t like the look of this particular person so we are not going to approve them” does not seem to me to be a respectable way to conduct the business of this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Had my hon. Friend been a little more patient, he would have heard more details and may have come to an understanding as to why the motion has been introduced. I disagree with him: this House, when a motion comes before it, has a right to make the decision. Motions of this House are important and our Standing Orders provide for an hour’s debate; they do that not for entertainment value but to ensure that the House is satisfied with the appointments process. It is important that if the House is not satisfied with the process, it has the right to debate it. Let me continue, because if I do, I think my hon. Friend will see why the opposition to this particular individual has arisen and why the question over impartiality is quite fundamental.

I became immediately concerned on learning from House of Commons Commission papers that this candidate was a member of an unspecified political party. It was not material to me—I said this both in the Commission and to my private office—which political party she belonged to—[Interruption.] I said that in the Commission. The point of principle that mattered was that the politicians on the Standards Committee should be the Members of Parliament, not the lay members.

[Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House confirm that both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) first raised objections before knowing which political party the person was a member of?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct—that is absolutely true. The initial Commission papers did not say which party, and both my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) and I raised exactly the same concern before we knew that it was a member of the Labour party under question.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House is a member of the House of Commons Commission, which is of course responsible for the oversight of the whole process, including the issuing of the recruitment pack, which specifically indicated what party political activity would and would not be acceptable in a candidate for appointment. Why did he not raise his objection about the nature of the political activity that would be acceptable at the time that the Commission commenced the recruitment?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Commission looked at a broad paper setting out the way the recruitment would take place; it did not look at the details and the questions that the Committee would ask in terms of political affiliation. The issue—[Interruption.] That is just such a fatuous point. It is not about packing it; it is about having people who do not have a political affiliation of a recent kind.

As I said, objections were raised before we knew what party this lady belonged to, because the politicians on the Standards Committee are the Members of Parliament, not the lay members, who need to be impartial. Lay members should be genuinely independent and that did not seem to be the case, so questions were raised. It was at that point that it emerged that Ms Carter had joined the Labour party this year to vote in the Labour party leadership election. It seemed to me that anyone who had recently joined any political party in order to cast a vote in favour of an individual to lead that party, believing that doing so would ensure a viable Opposition, would find it hard to persuade people that they were genuinely impartial. Under those circumstances, it is perhaps not surprising that the House of Commons Commission did not achieve consensus in approving the appointment.

In the light of this candidate’s noted support for one particular Labour leadership contender over another, I find myself in the perhaps unexpected position of juggling the interests of the rival factions of the Labour party. A lay member of the Standards Committee should be impartial towards politics that I do not like as well as politics that I do like.

As Leader of the House, I have a responsibility to all Members to protect their interest, which extends to all Members who competed in the Labour leadership election, some more successfully than others. Let me ask the House what view it would have taken of somebody who applied to join the Standards Committee who had joined the Conservative party just to vote for my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) in the Conservative leadership contest because they believed in the need to get Brexit done. Under those circumstances, we would not be having this conversation. The same principle applies to somebody who joined the Labour party to support one particular candidate.

I do not make these points in an academic, theoretical or philosophical way. It is likely that, in the near future, the Standards Committee will be asked to consider a case relating to the activity or conduct of an MP. In this instance, there is a real risk of the appearance of bias, because this proposed member has made clear her support for one candidate over another and joined a party specifically to vote for that one candidate over the other. We cannot have a situation where a lay member of the Standards Committee is perceived as being linked to a faction within a political party—as it happens, within the Labour party, but it would be just as unsuitable if someone were to be linked to a faction within the Tory party, although of course the Tory party does not have factions. What happens when that lay member is asked to make a judgment about the activity or conduct of an MP from within that faction?

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House just said that this individual is a member of a faction. Is it not the case that that individual might have just wanted to vote for one candidate? Does he have any evidence that she is organised as part of a faction within the Labour party, because that is what he just implied?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The point is self-evident: if somebody joins a party specifically to vote X, they also specifically vote against Y. Y is a Member of this House. The person in question who joined the Labour party clearly has a view that is unfavourable to Y and favourable to X. Y may appear in front of the Standards Committee. At what point could Y possibly have confidence that this lady, who claims not to be anything other than impartial in normal circumstances, should be impartial against them after she voted against them and specifically joined the Labour party to vote in that direction?

[Mr Jones]

I have to say the Leader of the House is tying himself up in knots, because that is not the question that I asked. He said that she is a member of a faction. Does he have any evidence that, apart from casting a vote for a candidate in an internal Labour party election, she has been organising with others to support a certain candidate? If he does not, he should correct the record.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I said quite clearly that she supported a faction. If someone supports one candidate in a leadership election, they are self-evidently supporting a faction. That is just normal use of English, which I am surprised the right hon. Gentleman questions, because he is quite hot on that normally. Any perception of partiality undermines the important role of lay members, who are there to provide a vital balance to the political membership of the Standards Committee. That is why we ask for lay members in the first place.

[Chris Bryant]

I can honestly say that I do not think a single member of the Standards Committee, whether they are a lay member or an MP, thinks of themselves as a politician when they are engaged in the work of the Committee. It is a really important part of the way we try to do our business. There is no partisanship—party membership is completely irrelevant. The only reason why anybody knows about this particular person’s party membership is because the Leader of the House asked about it. I have no idea whether all the other lay members on the Committee have been members of a political party, or were recently. The specific point is that the criterion for appointment was explicitly that party membership was not a bar, provided a candidate had not held office or campaigned on behalf of the party. She has done neither. I am afraid that this is turning the Committee into a party political football.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think that is completely wrong, and I also think that the hon. Gentleman is trying to put the cart before the horse. The House is not bound by the rules set for it by the selection process. It is entitled to challenge and question that process. That is the job of the House. We are not a rubber stamp, here merely to approve it.

I come to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). She is a lady of considerable integrity, and I do not and would not question—and would not even think of questioning—that, but the process undertaken by the selection panel has inadvertently created the appearance of a political pas de deux, because the person who was selected by a Committee that had only one Labour politician on it was somebody who had joined the Labour party to vote for a candidate for the Labour party leadership. It is the recruitment process that is at fault here, so I make the observation that we must do better than we have done in this sorry affair and that any future recruitment process for lay members should not make the same mistakes. I reiterate that had somebody been a recent member of the Tory party joining to vote in the leadership election, my view in the Chamber would be exactly the same.

[Kate Green]

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way again. I note what he said about learning lessons for the process in future and I think that is very good advice, but is it not unfair to the candidates who applied for appointment this time to move the goalposts at this point in the process? Does that reflect well on this House, and does it speak to a process that is conducted with complete integrity?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The process is quite clear and it ends with an hour’s debate in this Chamber. The hon. Lady did not tell the candidates that that was the process—that is a matter for her, not for me. That is a right of this House and we must use our rights in this House; that is what we are here for. There has been no change to the process.

[Chris Bryant]

The process in Standing Order No. 149A says very clearly that the person who tables the motion does so

“on behalf of the…Commission”—

not on behalf of themselves or the Government, but on behalf of the Commission. I think that this is only just in order because, frankly, the Commission made a decision—it voted on it; it decided—and this should be a single motion coming from the Commission that should be here tonight. All the rest, I am afraid, is party political shenanigans.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is wrong and, as so often, overstates himself. The Commission makes a recommendation to the House and the Commission motion has been brought forward—there is one on Standing Orders and there is one we are debating now. If the motion were not in order, it would not be on the Order Paper, and I assume the hon. Gentleman is not questioning the decision of Mr Speaker.

In conclusion, I would like to take this opportunity to express my thanks to the outgoing members of the Standards Committee, the lay members Ms Charmaine Burton and Sir Peter Rubin, for their contribution to the Committee on Standards and to the standards system in the House more widely. I urge Members to consider the points I have made carefully. The decision of this House is an important one and an essential part of the recruitment process.

[Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)]

I speak as a member of the Standards Committee. I have listened to the debate this evening and, I have to say, I would vote against a member of the Conservative party, were they to be put forward to represent lay members on the Standards Committee. It is deeply regrettable that we are having this debate this evening and that the name of an individual has been released to the public. I am very sorry that the Opposition tabled this motion. It has been discussed at great length in the Standards Committee. I recognise fully that the lay members are an important part of the Standards Committee, but this is a very sensitive position. This involves making judgments on Members of this House. Everybody should have certainty that there is impartiality and integrity.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very grateful. The issue of impartiality is a fundamental one and Caesar’s wife should be above suspicion. Unfortunately, that has not been achieved in this case. My hon. Friend is right: it would have been better if this name had not come to this stage, because it is not a great thing for the person who put her name forward. I recognise that. This has been a very unsatisfactory procedure. It has led to somebody who joined the Labour party recently and for the specific purpose of supporting one candidate in the leadership election having her name brought forward. It seems to me to be a self-evident mistake, so should the House agree to the appointment of Professor Maguire today, I wish him well as he takes up his new role, and I commend the motion to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). If I were on the other side of this issue and it were a Conservative under question, as I said earlier, I would still think it was an unsuitable appointment.

The shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), made points about the panel, the discussions within the Commission and the CV of the lady in question. I have always tried to make it clear that I do not wish to question the lady’s bona fides—it is merely the impartiality issue.

There is a fundamental point, which the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) raised in his speech: the reason we have lay members is that, for better or worse, the political members were not trusted to sit in judgment upon themselves and therefore needed non-political members. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden that being a member of a party is something that one should be proud of—it is civic activity. I also think it is perfectly reasonable for people to put their political beliefs behind them. The hon. Member for Rhondda was a member of the Conservative party at university; that does not remain the case, for better or worse. It is merely a question of whether the membership is immediate and close to the point at which the appointment is made.

[Chris Bryant]

I understand that the Leader of the House is saying that he is not questioning the bona fides of Melanie Carter, but that he is questioning her impartiality. I hope he is not. She is a tribunal judge. She shows her impartiality every day of the week. He is simply saying that, under his new rule, which he has invented, because she has been a party member, she cannot be a lay member of the Committee. Is that right?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am questioning her impartiality between various factions within the Labour party, because she joined the Labour Party to support one particular faction. The right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) slightly gave the game away, because I think he thinks that it was his faction that she supports. I do not know that and I am not stating that for certain, but he seemed to imply that in his joy at welcoming the proposed appointment.

The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) asked what the Commission knew. The draft person specification that was approved by the Commission in February made no reference to the issue of whether or not it was suitable for a prospective candidate to be a member of a political party. If that information made its way into the more detailed recruitment pack to candidates, that was not with the authority of the Commission.

We come to the failures of the recruitment process. It would have been absolutely reasonable and wise and sensible for the recruitment process to say that somebody who had been immediately involved in politics—not 20 years ago or not five years ago—could not be certain of being impartial and would not give the impression of impartiality to Members of the House. The hon. Member for Rhondda says that, absolutely, prejudices should be put to one side, but as I said, if people had confidence in that being so easy, we would not have lay members in the first place. The reason we introduced lay members is that we thought people could not put their prejudices aside. From a panel on which, as the hon. Lady the Member for Stretford and Urmston told us, she was the only politician—a Labour politician—we get somebody who was a supporter of a particular candidate in a very recent election. That seems to me to leave the impression, the risk, the danger of partiality.

[Kate Green]

I know that the Leader of the House would not question my integrity; he was kind enough to say so a few moments ago. I am probably the only person in the House who knows who Melanie Carter said she had joined the Labour party to support, and it may help the House to know that it was not the same leadership candidate who I supported.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The point is that we have the presentation of partiality. That is why I was so careful to say that I have the highest respect for the hon. Lady’s integrity. I was careful in my speech not to say that I have the greatest respect for the hon. Lady, because everybody knows those are bogus words; I chose the word integrity because I think it is genuine. However, I think her panel made a mistake, and that is why we are here.

Yes, of course, it is a shame that we are here, but if Opposition Members were to think for a moment, had this person joined the Conservative party to vote for my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), they would unquestionably think that that smacked of partiality. I am afraid it is the same the other way around and I will therefore oppose the amendment. I obviously support the motion.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Business of the House

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Thursday 5th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)]

The business for the week commencing 9 November will include:

Monday 9 November—Second Reading of the Financial Services Bill.

Tuesday 10 November—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Parliamentary Constituencies Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by a motion to approve a money resolution relating to the Forensic Science Regulator and Biometrics Strategy Bill, followed by a motion to approve the draft Ship Recycling (Facilities and Requirements for Hazardous Materials on Ships) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, followed by a motion to approve the draft Food and Feed Hygiene and Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, followed by a motion relating to the appointment of a lay member to the Committee on Standards.

Wednesday 11 November—A general debate on remembrance, UK armed forces and society, followed by a general debate on covid-19.

Thursday 12 November—Debate on a motion on the effect of the covid-19 pandemic on refugee communities, followed by a debate on a motion on achieving the ambition for a smoke-free England by 2030, in the light of the covid-19 pandemic and public health reorganisation. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 13 November—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 16 November will include:

Monday 16 November—Remaining stages of the Pension Schemes Bill [Lords].

[Valerie Vaz]

I thank the Leader of the House for the business. I should like to start by thanking Parliament’s Education and Engagement team for all the excellent work they have done to support UK Parliament Week. They have enabled all our constituents to understand what it is to participate in a democracy so that we know that every vote counts and that they will all be counted equally.

Will the Leader of the House please tell us when this parliamentary Session is going to end? They usually last about 12 months, and it would be useful to know because we would quite like another Opposition day and, as he knows, we get them pro rata. The private Members’ Bills have now been moved to next year. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, has asked whether the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill could be looked at by the Government so that it can be taken forward earlier, rather than waiting until next year.

I am pleased that the Leader of the House has realised that voting in the way we vote at the moment is unsafe and that he has extended proxy voting, but I want to remind him that the Procedure Committee said in its fourth report that

“the system of remote voting used in May was a more effective means of handling divisions in the House under conditions where the division lobbies could not be used in the traditional way”.

I do not know whether he has seen the record, but even those hon. Members who are on the estate have a small p next to their name to indicate that they have cast their vote by proxy. This will give the impression that some hon. Members are not here when in fact they are, so we need to look at that.

I wonder whether the Leader of the House could explain how he thinks democracy works, when some hon. Members can take part only in urgent questions and statements, and Members who are being careful and responsible but cannot be here cannot take part in debates. Debates are the very stuff of what we do, ergo this is not a democratic process. I know that he will be aware that “Parliament” comes from the old French word “parlement”, which means “a place to speak”.

I do not know what it is about this Government, but they are obsessed with tiers, and we now have two tiers of hon. Members—we could say two classes of hon. Members—which is not right and not fair. I want to remind the Leader of the House what he said on Monday:

“We have to ensure that these new coronavirus regulations…are properly debated and that the Government are held to account.”—[Official Report, 2 November 2020; Vol. 683, c. 62.]

I should point out that although the time was extended to three hours, it was not sufficient to hold the Government to account because hon. Friends were unable to take part if they could not be here. They could not do so remotely. That is why this has to change.

Those hon. Members cannot hold the Government to account, but we need to find ways to hold the Government to account because they seem to be bypassing the normal procurement process and helping the VIPs to win lucrative Government contracts for personal protective equipment. How do we hold PPE Medpro to account? It was incorporated in May this year with share capital of just £100, yet it was awarded contracts of £200 million. It was set up by a former business associate of a Conservative peer. How do we hold SG Recruitment to account? It is a staffing agency, and it won two PPE contracts worth over £50 million, despite auditors raising concerns about its solvency. A Tory peer sits on the board of its parent company. How do we hold P14 Medical Ltd to account, which is controlled by a former Conservative councillor and has been awarded three contracts worth £276 million, despite having negative assets?

Parliament is giving the Government unprecedented powers, so could the Government prove to us that they are not misusing public money? Decisions so far have been characterised by cronyism and incompetence—and I have not even got on to Randox yet. I ask again, could we have a list of all the contracts that have been awarded under the coronavirus regulations and any declarations of interests? The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has asked for an inquiry. It would be very simple to publish every single contract.

We need an urgent ministerial statement on what the head of the Vaccine Taskforce has said. If it is an official, sensitive Government document, why was it disclosed to people who spent $200 to hear that inside information? If it is not, why do we not all know about it? Could we have an urgent statement on who the head of the Vaccine Taskforce is accountable to?

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting an urgent question to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) on Nazanin. That was the sixth urgent question about her. The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa said nothing about Anousheh, although he accepted that the debt is 40 years old—that is older than Nazanin. We also have to remember Kylie and Luke Symons. I look forward to receiving the letter from the Foreign Secretary that the Leader of the House has kindly facilitated.

Finally, Sergeant Matt Ratana’s funeral was held yesterday. We remember all those police officers and frontline staff who have given their lives in the line of duty. I know that Remembrance Sunday will be slightly different this year, but nevertheless, we will remember everyone in the same way. It will be more poignant because of those who have given their lives to save us. I think the Kohima epitaph will apply to everyone, which says:

“When you go home

Tell them of us and say

For your tomorrow

We gave our today.”

We will remember them. We will remember them.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The right hon. Lady is so right and puts it so well. We will remember them. I am very glad that there will be a chance on 11 November for a debate in the House where remembrance may take place properly, in a year when the full remembrance that we normally have will be curtailed. I am pleased that we are able to have time for that debate.

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for once again raising the case of Nazanin, Kylie, Anousheh and Luke. As always, the proper processes of this House are being used, and the Government are being held to account with urgent questions. I will say one thing: it is very important not to conflate any question of money with the proper treatment of people who are held improperly. The British Government have a very clear policy of not connecting the two, and it would be open season on British citizens if we were ever to be in a position of paying for people’s releases. It is fundamental that those two are not conflated.

May I echo the right hon. Lady’s comments on UK Parliament Week? It is a fantastic week, and we would have done much more had we been able to go out and about. Mr Speaker and I would have been up and down the country making speeches and receiving plaudits for Parliament and all the work it does.

[Valerie Vaz]

And me!

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

And the shadow Leader of the House too. We would have shared a charabanc as we went around the country praising Parliament. It is none the less a very important week, and we should be really proud of our democracy and proud that Parliament is here doing its duty. That, I am afraid, is where the right hon. Lady and I fall into a level of disagreement. It is so important that we are here to do our job—that we are here to debate and to challenge. She says that some Members cannot be here for debates. I recognise that, and I sympathise with them, but they are debates; that is the point. We have seen how many times somebody comes on to complain that they cannot come here, and the connection goes down. We have seen in the House of Lords remote voting fail, so business does not happen.

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

Once!

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Once and we lose a day’s business and have to do it all again, whereas we have a system that is tried and tested, works and means that we are leading by example. We expect teachers to be teaching; we expect MPs to be voting. We expect people to do their job at their place of work when they cannot do it from home, and we cannot be a proper scrutinising legislature without being here in person; that is of fundamental importance.

I note the right hon. Lady’s appeal on the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill. It is on the list for private Members’ Bills. It is very difficult to find extra time. There was a suggestion that the sitting Fridays be moved, which the Government listened to and accepted. That is the situation that we are in. Changing the PMB Fridays does allow a few more people to work from home one day a week, which slightly helps with the overall balance of risk. I therefore think that we will have to come back to all private Members’ Bills in the new year.

The right hon. Lady asked a question on procurement that is important and a crucial act of parliamentary scrutiny, but which is also misplaced. The two positions are not contradictory. It is the job of this House—and has been for centuries—to ensure that public money is well spent. That is why the Public Accounts Committee is so highly respected. In defence of what the Government have done, when we go from a standing start to try to ensure that the country deals with a pandemic, we have to act quickly. Our usual processes for procurement assume that there is plenty of time. In this instance, there was not.

Let me give the House some of the facts. There is now capacity for 519,000 tests a day. We have delivered over 10 million testing kits to 14 million care homes. This type of work has had to be done extraordinarily quickly. On vaccines, we have secured early access to over 350 million vaccine doses through a portfolio of promising new vaccines, to ensure that we are best placed to get the vaccine when one is tested and turns out to be workable. The increase in personal protective equipment delivery has been phenomenal. To do this, things have had to be done quickly. Yes, of course, they must be scrutinised—that is absolutely right—and when they are scrutinised, the Government will have turned out to have behaved with impeccable propriety.

[Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)]

Throughout the pandemic, places of worship have helped to maintain social cohesion. They have mitigated the impact on the mental health of worshippers, and, more importantly, have been a sign of hope. Churches, Islamic centres and synagogues across Radcliffe, Whitefield and Prestwich have gone above and beyond to become covid-safe environments. Will my right hon. Friend, as a man of faith himself, join me in commending their efforts to protect the health and wellbeing of worshippers, and will he look to undertake an urgent review of places of worship so that they can continue to provide these most vital of services during these difficult times?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The relationship between Church and state is one that sometimes proves rather difficult. Who can forget 29 December 1170, when Thomas à Becket was murdered in his own cathedral by the agents of the state sent by Henry II? The relationship between Church and state has not always been smooth. It was a great matter for discussion by medieval scholars, who concentrated on Luke 22:38: “there are two swords”. The question is which sword is superior—the spiritual sword or the temporal sword. The temporal authorities often think that the temporal sword is the superior sword. The ecclesiastical authorities were very happy to argue with that, and Pope Boniface VIII put it at its highest level in his 1302 papal bull “Unam Sanctam”, which claimed that all secular authorities were secondary to the spiritual authorities. We have seen this argument rage over the centuries, with greater powers taken by the state and then freedom of religion reasserting itself. My hon. Friend raises a point of fundamental importance, but the hope that we may all take—the reassurance that those of us who have faith may be certain of—is that the highest authority is unquestionably immortal, invisible and only wise, and even outside the control of the House of Commons.

[Mr Speaker]

And I always thought that the Templars were too powerful, and that is why their power was taken away.

[Mr Speaker]

I do apologise that no picture was put up of the SNP spokesperson when the line went down—the sound quality was good, although the screen is just a blank at the moment—but I will ask the Leader of the House to respond.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is a great pity that we could not see the hon. Gentleman’s cheerful countenance, cheering us all up and bringing sweetness and light to this Chamber, as he does on a weekly basis.

The point the hon. Gentleman raises on the furlough scheme has been responded to by the Prime Minister any number of times with considerable clarity—that it is a UK-wide scheme. That is how it is operating and has operated. It continued until 31 October, and was then renewed. It remains a UK-wide scheme, and that is as it should be. I have pointed out to the hon. Gentleman before, but it bears repetition, that the UK taxpayer has provided £7.2 billion of funding to Scotland and saved 779,500 jobs under the furlough scheme, in addition to the £770 million for the self-employment scheme. The United Kingdom, as a single entity, has protected the interests of Scotland, and will continue to do so.

On communication, I think the hon. Gentleman is advocating a counsel of perfection. Of course it is important to try to give notice, but it is also important to try to ensure that briefings are provided quickly, and getting that balance right is something the Government strive to do. I think, by and large, that right hon. and hon. Members appreciate the opportunity to have briefings, and that we should not delay briefings because of the risk of some people missing the relevant notification.

As regards voting in person, people need to be here—they need to be here to speak in debates, they need to be here for legislative procedures—and people are still free to go through the Division Lobbies. They have the opportunity to use a proxy if that is what they choose to do. We are a party that believes in choice, liberty and freedom.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) [V]]

The Leader of the House may have seen the sad news this morning that hundreds of Argos stores will close, including the one in Alfreton in my constituency, which is a terrible blow for the employees and for the high street. Could he find time for a debate on how we can reinvigorate our high streets once this covid crisis is over?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Yes, I had indeed heard that sad news. It is a real problem, and high streets are facing enormous challenges, mainly from developments that were taking place before the coronavirus, but exacerbated and made faster because of the coronavirus. The Government have of course got the £3.6 billion towns fund that is helping high streets, and I think there is more work to be done on that. As regards a debate, I think that is a question for the Backbench Business Committee.

[Mr Speaker]

Let us head up to Gateshead and the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, Ian Mearns.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) [V]]

Of course, the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) is a member of the Backbench Business Committee, so he would be asking himself for a debate.

I thank the Leader of the House for the business statement and for announcing the Back-Bench business for next Thursday. The first debate will be on a motion on the effect of the covid-19 pandemic on refugee communities, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali). The second debate will be on achieving the ambition of a smoke-free England by 2030, in light of the covid-19 pandemic and public health reorganisation, the lead Member for which is my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy).

The Home Office had a huge backlog of cases and processing applications by refugees and asylum seekers prior to the pandemic. The Home Office has now contacted my office to ask my staff whether they would accept verbal updates on individual cases, as it says it does not have the capacity to do it in writing. That would mean we would have to take note of what was being said and relate that to the constituent concerned, which is most unsatisfactory. The system was a mess before the pandemic and it is now a mess that is getting worse, leaving constituents completely in a void. May we have a statement from the Home Secretary about what is happening in the Home Office and its immigration management system?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

First, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the work he does as Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee and for bringing forward important debates that have support across the House. The point he mentions is clearly not one that Members must feel under any obligation to go along with. We expect responses from Departments to be proper responses. It is not for us to take notes of conversations and pass them on, because that is likely to lead to misunderstanding, error and imprecision. I will certainly take this up with the Home Office afterwards, but I would make the general point that the Government have been absolutely clear in all their guidance that people should work from home if they can do their job. If there are people in any sector who cannot do their job at home, and are therefore failing to answer MPs’ correspondence because they are all working remotely, they ought in fact to be going into work. That is what the guidance says.

[Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)]

For over 50 years, the Mottram bypass has been endlessly promised, delayed, cancelled, argued over and consulted on. I am delighted that the Government have finally committed to build the bypass, but, today, yet another formal and legally required consultation has been launched. After that is completed there has to be a development consent order, a process that lasts a minimum of a further 17 months. May we have a debate on the process around how we build key infrastructure projects, and how we can make it more efficient and faster? The people of Glossop and Hadfield have waited long enough.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend makes such a powerful point. It is deeply unsatisfactory that it has taken 50 years to deal with this issue and that there will be further delays. The Government do have plans to improve the planning system and to speed up infrastructure projects. Let us hope he does not find any newts, because they are often an absolute nuisance—a newtsance, one might even say, Mr Speaker—when it comes to building projects. I will pass on my hon. Friend’s comments to my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary, who will be answering questions in a month’s time, on 3 December.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]]

The new Government guidance on care home visits requires them to take place outside, at a window, or with a floor-to-ceiling Perspex screen separating people. For many of the cases I have had raised with me, that is not a solution as their loved ones have dementia or are bed-bound, or the care home lacks the resources to make the adaptations required. I would like to apply for an Adjournment debate to raise those cases with the relevant Minister, but because I am participating virtually I cannot do so, even though the Chamber is already set up for virtual participation and, as we know, Adjournment debates are primarily for the hon. Member and the Minister. Will the Leader of the House consider changing Standing Orders so that Members can apply for and lead an Adjournment debate virtually, and enable them to do their jobs?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady is proving that she can do her job  by raising this important issue. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has made regular statements where he can be questioned. Adjournment debates do allow other hon. Members to intervene. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is sitting in his usual place, regularly intervenes very helpfully in Adjournment debates. It is important that the debates in this House are with people who are physically here, but the hon. Lady has proved that she can raise her point in these interrogative sessions.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]]

Mr Speaker, you quite rightly have held the Government to account for releasing statements to the media before they have been announced to this House. Last weekend, when the funding deal to bail out Transport for London was negotiated and embargoed until Monday, I was outraged and horrified that the Mayor of London broke the embargo and released a press release on Sunday, setting out the details, incorrectly, of that press release. Can we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Transport to the House on exactly the terms of the bail-out for Transport for London, so that we MPs can hold him to account and ensure that the record is set straight in terms of what the deal is?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The record is something that we must set very straight, which is that the Mayor of London is incompetent and that he has run Transport for London hopelessly. That is what we get when we have socialists in Government. The London transport network has been run very poorly and its finances are in a bad state because of a political refusal to increase any ticket fees over four years. Anyone who thinks that TfL is any good needs look only at Hammersmith bridge, which remains unrepaired, inconveniencing tens of thousands of people and causing great inconvenience without Transport for London managing to lift a finger and saying, I think, that it will do 7 feet a month and that it will take it so long to do it. Moreover, Crossrail continues to be delayed. It is an extraordinary record of failure, and it is a record of failure that should be put straight. We should have a Conservative Mayor next year and then it will be broad sunlit uplands.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) [V]]

Hull Trains, the open access providers of direct rail services between east Yorkshire and London for the past 20 years, today ceases its services in this second lockdown. Open access has been one of the most successful aspects of the 1990s rail industry reforms and the Transport Secretary claims to be as keen as mustard on open access, so, given the Government’s support to the rail industry and Transport for London, I am perplexed as to why Hull Trains has not been given the relatively modest Government support, beyond just the furlough scheme, that would secure its future post-covid. Can we please have a statement about how we can ensure a post-covid recovery for all rail operators, including open access?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady raises an important point. The Government have taken huge steps to support as many industries as possible, while recognising that not everything can be supported. I will certainly take up her point with the Secretary of State because, as she rightly says, open access has been one of the real advantages of railway privatisation.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Ind)]

As the University of Oxford is regularly rated the finest in the world, may we have a statement from the Government ensuring that what passes for statistical analysis by the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies should in future be checked and confirmed by the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine before it is inflicted on our sceptical and suffering constituents?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I fear that I should declare an interest, because some years ago I was at that university.

[Dr Lewis]

As indeed was I.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Yes, I thought that the right hon. Gentleman might have been, too, though he is a much greater scholar than I am, if I may place that firmly on the record. It is only right that all statistics provided by the Government and by their advisers are challenged. That is one of the reasons for this place’s existence and for the ability to hold the Government to account. I am sure that he will use the resources that are available to him to challenge all statistics. We remember what Disraeli supposedly said about statistics when discussing this matter, don’t we, Mr Speaker?

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

Many Angus constituents have contacted me concerned that Scotland’s high teaching standards will be diluted as a result of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, with the potential for creating a UK-wide bureau of teaching standards, as the Bill, as currently set out, seeks to do. That risks imposing lower standards in Scotland that threaten the very fabric of Scotland’s separate and independent education system, which, as the Leader of the House will know, was provided for in the 1707 Act of Union. Teachers regularly come and teach in Scotland from other jurisdictions and are highly valued, but in every case their professional standards under the requirements of the General Teaching Council for Scotland must be met. Can we have a debate in Government time regarding the need to protect the Scottish education system from the UK Internal Market Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman knows that the UK Internal Market Bill involves a great deal of powers—I think 70—that were with Europe now coming back to the United Kingdom and going to the devolved authorities. If we were to have a debate on standards in Scottish education, it would be about why the SNP has been running them into the ground in its period of running the Scottish Government, because the record of the SNP is absolutely appalling, as the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends know only too well. Scotland, as he rightly says, used to have one of the best records, and it is the SNP that has undermined that while it has been in government.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Back on Boxing day 2015, my constituency was terribly affected by flooding. Since that time, the same homes and streets have repeatedly suffered from flooding, which once again reared its ugly head earlier this week. It is bad enough that the same people are repeatedly flooded, but the trauma for those people is worse. Every time it rains heavily, fearing the worst is a torture that is hard to imagine. Will my right hon. Friend therefore ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to come to the House to make a statement to let my constituents know when he will implement the flood prevention measures for my constituency proposed by the Environment Agency?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The difficulties families face when they are flooded and the worry that they must have when the rain beats down again is something with which every Member of this House would have sympathy. A great deal of taxpayers’ money is being spent, and Yorkshire is receiving more than any other region—£496 million has been spent since 2015, protecting 66,000 properties. Across England as a whole, £2.6 billion is being spent on flood and coastal defences between 2015 and 2021. In March, there was a commitment of £5.2 billion to build 2,000 new flood and coastal defence schemes across England by 2027. I appreciate that that does not necessarily give my hon. Friend’s constituents the comfort that they desire, but he will have the opportunity to raise the matter with the Secretary of State on 26 November. I will also take it up on his behalf and try to get him a detailed answer on when the programme will actually start.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Last week, the Home Secretary ended the exemption in relation to the numbers of people who can take part in a protest, meaning that for the duration of lockdown the maximum number of people who will be able to demonstrate is now two. Why did the Leader of the House allow that to happen without the Home Secretary coming to this House to explain why? Why was there not a statement as to why this most egregious and draconian restriction on our liberties would be necessary?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Prime Minister himself came and made a statement, and the Prime Minister himself opened yesterday’s debate on the new regulations. He is senior to the Home Secretary, so it was done at the highest level. A large number of restrictions are being imposed which nobody wishes to impose. Nobody wishes to restrict the freedoms of the British people. It is being done, with the support of Opposition Members, in response to the coronavirus crisis. The person to whom the Home Secretary reports came to make the statement. As the Queen is not allowed to come into this House, there is no more senior authority who could have come.

[Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)]

Despite the various national restrictions, can the Leader of the House confirm that this House, and indeed the other place, will continue operating whatever the situation, so that Parliament can continue to hold the Government to account for decisions being made in this global coronavirus pandemic?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Yes. I actually think this follows on from the question by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), because the House is ensuring that the Government are held to account when other means of doing it have been curtailed. People cannot protest, but we can be here—and we must be here, because if we are not, how are we going to check that the rules that are being introduced are debated, are considered; that anomalies within them are sought out; that people make representations about people in care homes or complain about the limitation of protest? We must be here; it is our duty to be here. We have a legislative programme to get through; we have to ensure that that happens. We have to hold the Government to account and seek redress of grievance; it is our historic duty. We do it in this Chamber, we do it in Westminster Hall and we do it in Committees, and that must carry on.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Concerns have been raised about the accuracy and efficiency of some of the new tests being used to increase testing capacity. Mass testing is essential if we are to control the virus, and the Liverpool mass testing pilot must be a success. So may we have a debate to enable us to scrutinise the effectiveness and accuracy of the new tests being proposed?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Next week, on Wednesday 11 November, there will be a general debate on covid, where it would be right to raise this issue. Testing is increasing enormously and has now reached 500,000, and 9.6 million people have been tested at least once, but obviously those tests must be accurate; otherwise, they serve no useful purpose, so to question that is a reasonable thing to do. But of course that is being done within the process anyway, to ensure that it is reliable and robust. However, there will be an opportunity to debate it on Wednesday.

[Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)]

I am sure that the Leader of the House will be as disappointed as I am that services of remembrance in Warrington and across the UK will not be happening this year because of the restrictions that we introduced yesterday. Those restrictions also mean that poppy sellers—many themselves veterans—will not be able to stand on the streets and raise funds for the Royal British Legion. I want him to join me in encouraging everyone to log on to the Royal British Legion website, download a poppy and donate, so that the work of the Royal British Legion may continue to support veterans and their families.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend should tell his local authority that it can organise a remembrance service, provided that it is outside and that social distancing can be maintained. I would encourage him to have a word with Warrington Borough Council and ask it to crack on with it, because there is not a lot of time left.

Poppy sellers are such a wonderful part of the fabric of our nation—they are such a varied group of people, who have such commitment to remembering those who gave their life to ensure that we could live in freedom. Therefore my hon. Friend is right to say that people should go to the website and donate that way, if they cannot do what they would usually do and allow some coins, or preferably notes, to clink—although notes obviously do not clink—into a poppy collector’s tin; it is not a tin but a plastic container, but I think everyone in the House knows what I mean.

[Mr Speaker]

Well recovered.

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]]

While foster care is a devolved matter, employment law is not. Foster carers do not set their own working hours or rates of pay, cannot subcontract their work and are highly supervised, with regular performance reviews and training, and they are limited to working exclusively for one local authority or an agency at a time. It is clearly employment in all bar name. May we have a debate in Government time to address their lack of employment status?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman raises a point that has been considered and debated, and I think has even been taken to a tribunal. It is obviously a matter that he feels strongly about, and I think in the first instance a letter to you, Mr Speaker, asking for an Adjournment debate may well be in order.

[Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)]

Unfortunately, there are many vulnerable young people within Don Valley who are likely to fall victim to county lines drug gangs. Usually, grassroots sports clubs are a fantastic way to keep children off the street while ensuring that they are fit and healthy. As a result of the renewed lockdown, however, that will no longer be the case. As a firm believer that the devil makes work for idle hands, will my right hon. Friend inform the House whether the Government will allow grassroots sports clubs to reopen as soon as possible, so that children can remain on the right path, keep healthy and achieve their goals?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. The devastation that drugs cause is shocking and saddening, both to individual lives and to communities. Keeping young people active is important. People may have limitless outdoor activity and recreation, as long as it takes place alone, with a household or with one other person socially distanced. Children under school age may join a parent, a carer or a nanny even when seeing one other child of under school age with one other person, and they are allowed then to exercise. I appreciate that that is not fully the answer that he would want, so let me suggest that children may enjoy telmatopedesis, a word provided to me by The Times.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Fertility treatment on the NHS is subject to age restrictions and people are losing out because of coronavirus delays. I asked in a parliamentary question 30 days ago whether the Department would stop the clock. It is not ready to respond yet, but more people are losing out while we wait. Could the Leader of the House arrange a clear answer, a statement or perhaps even a leak so that we do not unnecessarily create another group of covid victims?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is always important that Departments respond punctually to letters and queries raised by Members of this House. I have said a number of times from this Dispatch Box that if Members are not receiving replies, my office will do everything it can to facilitate a swift reply.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)]

As an ex-coal miner, I am very proud of my mining roots in Ashfield and believe we should do everything we can to remind ourselves of our industrial past. I am currently working with ex-Silverhill colliery miner Alan Batterham and Craig Gould at Make Consulting to get the old headstock wheels renovated and sited around the old colliery. Will my right hon. Friend agree to a debate on our industrial heritage, and will he say a big thank you to Alan Batterham, Craig Gould and all the ex-Silverhill colliery miners for working on this project?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend knows my weakness: debating our heritage is something I am always tempted to agree to. However, the Chief Whip might think I had gone slightly rogue if I did that in the midst of a session. I would like to thank Alan Batterham and Craig Gould, and recognise that Ashfield is an important area for both our industrial and cultural heritage. Silverhill colliery, which sits above Ashfield, is now a monument to Britain’s industrial revolution and mining past. On top of that hill stands an evocative statue of a miner testing for gas, commemorating the miners of Nottinghamshire, who worked the coalfields for nearly 200 years. My hon. Friend makes the right tribute, and I sympathise with it because mining plays an important role in my constituency’s history and heritage, with the town of Radstock boasting a long mining history and wonderful local museum. Although I know that many Members would enjoy a debate on this, I do not think I can promise it in Government time. With a bit of luck, the Backbench Business Committee will look favourably upon a request.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Does the Leader of the House think it reasonable that named day questions asked of Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care six weeks ago are not answered even when the Department clearly has the information sought or that letters written to that Department in May are replied to by civil servants, not Ministers, in October—in at least one case, after five months, the answer was to refer it to another Department? We know that that Department is under particular stress but this is an abuse of the rights of Members. Will the Leader of the House interrogate his colleagues and try to get better response rates than that?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Although it is 5 November, I think interrogation may be a little beyond the powers currently given to the Lord President of the Council. However, what the hon. Gentleman says is of the utmost seriousness. Named day questions must be answered within the named day period. I had a great deal of sympathy, particularly with the Department of Health and Social Care, early in the pandemic, but we are now in November and questions should be being dealt with in timely fashion. I would say to any hon. or right hon. Member who receives a letter from officials that they should send it back. That is what I have been doing when I get letters from officials. We are not answerable to officials. We are answerable to Ministers, and every Minister knows that. In April, May and June, it was forgivable, but in November, it is just not a proper treatment of the rights of Members. I will do whatever I can, short of an interrogation. As I say, the Tower of London may be closed under current circumstances.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

I am sure my right hon. Friend will be fully aware of the parlous state of the UK inbound tourist industry, which is losing circa £557 million a week due to the drop in international visitors to the United Kingdom. He has been to my constituency, albeit briefly last year, to see Her Majesty at Balmoral, so he is aware of the importance of tourism to my constituency, because it has some of the most visited locations in Scotland. Will he consider a debate in Government time on the importance of the industry to Scotland? Will he consider commending to his colleagues in Government the fantastic report published by UKinbound this week on how we might support this industry, which is very important to vast areas of our country?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The tourism industry is indeed fundamental to our national economy, and I had two trips to Aberdeenshire last year. The first was campaigning for my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) to become leader of the Conservative party. The second was, as my hon. Friend quite rightly says, for a Privy Council to be holden at Her Majesty’s castle of Balmoral, which was a very interesting occasion about which, fortunately, I am sworn to secrecy under the Privy Counsellor’s oath.

My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the Government are supporting our tourism industry throughout the pandemic with a range of measures, including £10 million of grants to small businesses in the tourism sector, as well as £50 million delivered this autumn to support infrastructure projects, which will boost visitor numbers and help access to tourist destinations as we recover, but it is a fundamentally important industry. It has to be said that Aberdeenshire is an extraordinarily beautiful part of our United Kingdom.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

All of us from across the House will appreciate the importance of children being back at school and learning, especially those from more disadvantaged or poorer sections of our community, since it is they who would otherwise be most detrimentally impacted and fall further behind. However, despite ministerial statements that transmission in schools is very low, hundreds of individuals in my Slough constituency have contacted me or signed a petition to request that they be given the right to withdraw their children from school, if they so wish, in the midst of a pandemic. Given that I have thus far not been able to acquire that data, will the Leader of the House please arrange to furnish me with constituency data, so that I can forward that to my constituents to help allay their concerns?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman makes such an important point when he says that education is of the greatest importance to those from the most deprived backgrounds. That is why it is so fundamental that schools remain open. The figures on transmission by children seem to be extraordinarily good. There was a report in the newspaper only yesterday. I am not in a position to promise him constituency-level data—I do not know that they exist—but I will certainly look into that, because it is important to reassure parents that is not only important for their children to go to school, but safe, and I am very grateful to him for his question.

[David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)]

In recent months, I have had a number of constituents contact me because they have been waiting significant periods of time for responses from agencies such as the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and in particular the probate office. Those delays are attributed to covid, and we understand the challenges that provides, but emails and calls are going unanswered for weeks and months, and that is very distressing for my constituents. Can we have a debate on how those agencies can maintain an acceptable standard of service in this time?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Yes. It is of fundamental importance that our constituents can access the Government services they need, particularly during a pandemic. Government agencies, as I mentioned earlier, are covered by the “work from home if possible” instruction and ought to be continuing with their routine work. If they cannot do it from home, they ought to be going into work to do it. There are some areas where that is not possible because of social distancing—for example, driving tests are problematic—but the service delivery by Government agencies ought to be continuing in most cases. I cannot promise him a debate in Government time, but he has raised the issue and if there are any specific agencies he wants me to follow up with, I will be more than happy to do so.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab) [V]]

The Leader of the House expressed enthusiasm for our heritage, and as well as being the anniversary of the gunpowder plot, yesterday was also the anniversary of the Newport rising. That took place in 1839, and 22 protesters were shot dead by troops because they were campaigning simply for the right to vote. With the current spectacle of mobs being organised by the so-called leader of the free world to try to stop votes being counted in the United States, would this be a timely moment for us to debate the history of people’s struggle to achieve the vote, and to consider how we can protect our democracy from that kind of toxic politics in the future?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It would be a great pleasure to debate the way that the glorious American constitution grew out of our wonderful constitution, and how we have two of the most beautifully formed constitutions in the world—two really beautiful constitutions that work enormously effectively and protect democracy. That has worked effectively both in their country, and in ours, and all I can say is: God bless America, but the United Kingdom first.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

May I follow up on the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) about help for local high streets, because I think we need a debate about that? The Leader of the House spoke about the Towns Fund, which is doing great work, but it does not cover every local high street. We perhaps need a return to the grants that were available during the first lockdown, because small businesses on our local high streets that were just getting back on their feet before this lockdown are now being hit once again. We need time in the House to debate the future of our local high streets.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

There is a great deal of discussion about local high streets, and it is worth reiterating what the Government have done in terms of economic support that has helped large and small businesses. That support adds up to about £200 billion, including £40 billion on the furlough scheme that supported 9.6 million jobs, many of which will have been high street jobs. Three million self-employed individuals have been supported to a value of over £13.5 billion, and £21 billion has gone to coronavirus business interruption loans for small and medium-sized enterprises and large businesses. Some £40 billion has gone to over 1.3 million bounce back loans, £11 billion in business grants, and £10 billion in business rates relief, which will particularly have helped smaller businesses. There has been £27 billion in VAT deferrals—again, helping high streets and nearly 500,000 businesses—and nearly £33 billion in the summer economic update. That important support is helping high streets and businesses across the country, and the Towns Fund on top of that will help high streets to be rejuvenated once the pandemic has ended.

[Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP) [V]]

I thank the Leader of the House for his previous answer. Owners and directors of SMEs, and freelancers, are a group of voters that the Conservative Government have tried to attract in the past, yet those are the people who are being let down and excluded from the Chancellor’s support measures. Now is not the time to leave hard-working people behind, or to leave those with a get-up-and-go spirit excluded from support. This is a matter of great concern for the House and for our constituents, so will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time on that crucial issue as a matter of urgency?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I agree that this is a crucial issue, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be making a statement and answering questions immediately after the business statement.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) [V]]

Last weekend the details of the national lockdown were leaked to the media, and instead of the Prime Minister being able to announce it first in the House of Commons, it was announced in newspapers. I know the Prime Minister was furious about that, and has started a leak inquiry. May we have a statement next week about how that inquiry is progressing, who is in charge of it, and whether the mobile phones of the people at the meetings have been checked? Or, is this leak inquiry like the one in “Yes Minister”, where there is no intention of finding out who leaked the information?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

This is a leak inquiry that wants to find out what happened, and I know that the Prime Minister was far from gruntled over what happened last week. He had intended that the announcement should be made in the House first, and it needs to be looked into thoroughly. I would say there is something deeply distasteful about this culture of leaking. We want the House to hear first, we want a proper process and that is what was intended. It then came to the House and we had a vote yesterday, I would say that is also important: the commitment to have votes on important issues of national significance has been maintained and the rights of the House are therefore being protected.

[Mr Speaker]

I did ask for the House to be updated as well.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab) [V]]

Please can we have an update on when the Government will respond to the review of access to benefits for the terminally ill? I know the Minister at the DWP has been receptive to the issues raised by the Motor Neurone Disease Association, Marie Curie and others, but we need action to change this unfair system as soon as possible.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That is an important issue with which the House will have every sympathy. I will take it up with the Department and get an answer to the hon. Lady.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) [V]]

I recently met a Harlow beauty salon owner who was in real distress because of the devastation of her business due to covid, even with the Government grants. Small businesses in Harlow such as beauty salons and gyms are really struggling because of the coronavirus lockdown and despite being covid-secure, particularly gyms, they are not allowed to open, yet estate agents are. Although I reluctantly accept the new need for the lockdown because of the rise in covid, may we have an urgent statement to address these anomalies and do everything possible to ensure that these small businesses in Harlow survive and thrive?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I certainly understand the frustration of my hon. Friend and the disappointment for all business owners affected by the re-imposition of restrictions. I would like to quote the Prime Minister himself, who said:

“I am truly sorry for the anguish these measures will impose, particularly for businesses that had just got back on their feet—businesses across the country that have gone to such trouble to make themselves covid-secure, to install Perspex screens and to do the right thing.”—[Official Report, 2 November 2020; Vol. 683, c. 25.]

No one wants to impose these kinds of measures, but we cannot ignore the evidence in front of us of rising hospitalisations from covid, which is why the decisions have been taken. They are decisive but temporary and they should reduce the spread of the virus. The Government will continue to do everything possible to support jobs and livelihoods for the next four weeks. May I thank the people in my hon. Friend’s constituency and across the country who run beauty salons, gyms and other outlets that are being closed for their perseverance in the face of adversity?

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

May I raise with the Leader of the House the question of access to pension credit and the fact that more than 1 million older people who are entitled to it do not take it up, for many different reasons? It would lift 400,000 pensioners out of poverty, meaning that we would have the lowest levels of pensioner poverty in this country ever. Will he request that DWP Ministers make a statement on how they intend to advertise pension credit take-up or, indeed, grant a debate on access to pension credit so that pensioners can get the credit that they are allowed and deserve, and that they should feel no shame in taking up?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Government always make efforts to ensure that people have access to the benefits to which they are entitled. They are there for people to claim and not to be hidden away. I would say that we all have a role in that. We have a role as constituency MPs to highlight them to pensioners who get in touch with us when they are facing difficulties, or to use the newspaper columns that most of us have to remind people of what is available. I must confess that the hon. Gentleman has in fact given me the topic for my next article for the Somerset Guardian, because I think that particularly in winter it is really important to emphasise to people that there is help available, that it is there for them and that it is not anything to be ashamed about.

[Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)]

May I thank the shadow Leader of the House for mentioning my private Member’s Bill a little earlier? I would like to re-emphasise, if I may, to the Leader of the House that it is a Bill of great importance to me. However, as we have gone through Second Reading, we are in Committee, and the lockdown should not delay the Bill unless there are further restrictions at the Government’s behest. I hope that the Committee stage can continue and that the Leader of the House will support that. May I briefly say as well that yesterday in this House we had one of the most difficult votes that we have to take? I am very grateful to the Leader of the House for extending the debate to three hours, but I hope if there are further such debates on matters of national significance, we may be afforded a longer debate still.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Mr Speaker, is it indiscreet of me to say that it was your lobbying that got the debate extended to three hours? If it is indiscreet, it is too late now, but thank you very much. It is always important that proper time is provided, but one of the great difficulties of organising Government business is that there are so many pressures for time, including for my hon. Friend’s important private Member’s Bill, which I think is popular across the House.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Early on the morning of 30 October 2020, Cuban authorities in the city of Santiago de Cuba demolished an Assemblies of God church. The pastor of the church, Pastor Palomo Cabrera, was taken away by Government authorities, and it was reported that he was put under pressure to sign a document saying that the church demolition was legal. According to Christian Solidarity Worldwide, that church has been in the crosshairs of the Cuban Government since 2015. Its arbitrary destruction is a serious violation of freedom of religion or belief. Will the Leader of the House make a statement or agree to a debate on this matter?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The UK remains deeply concerned about the severity and scale of violations and abuses of freedom of religion or belief in many parts of the world. We are committed to defending these freedoms for all and promoting respect between different religious and non-religious communities. Once again, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman. He is one of the House’s most diligent campaigners for the rights of Christians suffering persecution around the world. The Government regularly communicate with the Cuban Government about a range of human rights issues, in both London and Havana, and also address these issues through multilateral human rights forums, including the UN universal periodic review. While we welcome the new protections that underpin freedom of religion or belief in the 2019 constitution, we call on the Cuban authorities to confer in practice those rights that the constitution enshrines. As regards a debate, I think an Adjournment debate or Backbench Business debate would be suitable. We had a debate in Government time earlier in the year.

[Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)]

Many gyms, fitness spaces and leisure centres in Redcar and Cleveland have gone above and beyond to become covid-secure and prevent transmission of the virus. We know the benefits of exercise for both mental and physical health, but in winter it is difficult for many to exercise outside in the dark, cold and wet. May we have a statement from the Government on the importance of indoor exercise facilities in society, and will the Leader of the House confirm that the Government will not keep gyms closed beyond 2 December? This is a public health emergency, and gyms are essential to public health.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Yes, but I caveat that by saying so long as I do not have to do it myself. I gave up exercise as a schoolboy and always tried to avoid it, even then, but I absolutely accept my hon. Friend’s point that exercise is important for some people’s mental health and obviously for dealing with obesity and things like that. Endless outdoor activity is allowed—he is right that the weather is obviously not as nice as it was in the first lockdown—but it has to take place alone, with a member of the household or with one other person, socially distanced. It is obviously the plan that these restrictions end on 2 December; that is what was voted for yesterday. At that point, things will reopen.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP) [V]]

My constituent’s savings are invested in buy-to-let mortgages in flatted properties. The block height is less than 18 metres, so post-Grenfell regulations on cladding inspection and local authority certification do not apply. Despite that, surveyors are zero-valuing the properties, lawyers will not handle sales and replacement mortgages are impossible, so properties in that specific height range are currently worthless. May I get a Government statement on how they will address this issue?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Yes. The issue of cladding and its effect on people trying to sell properties has been problematic. The Government have been spending a great deal of taxpayers’ money to remove unsafe cladding on bigger buildings, but I accept that for buildings of a lower height the problem may not always have been addressed, or they may not be in a programme to be addressed. I think it will be best if I take this up with the relevant Secretary of State and get a fuller answer for the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Speaker]

In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.

Business of the House

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)]

I should like to make a short business statement following on from the earlier announcement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Tomorrow’s business remains as previously announced. However, the first item of business on Wednesday 4 November will now be a motion to approve the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (No. 4) Regulations 2020.

This will be followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Agriculture Bill and consideration of Lords amendments to the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill.

The House will then be asked to approve the following regulations: the draft Blood Safety and Quality (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020; the draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020; the draft Human Tissue (Quality and Safety for Human Application) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020; and the draft Quality and Safety of Organs Intended for Transplantation (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.

The business for Thursday remains unchanged to that previously announced, and I shall also make a further statement announcing future business on Thursday.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The right hon. Lady is aware that, just before the recess, the House took the decision to extend the current arrangements for virtual participation to March 2021, to ensure that people who cannot be here for a range of reasons can vote by proxy and participate in interrogative proceedings. I therefore think it is inaccurate to say that there are Members who cannot vote, because proxy arrangements have been put in place that allow them to do so. Those arrangements were agreed without either debate or Division, so they had consensus across the House. If there were to be any changes to our voting system, they should be introduced through consensus. As the right hon. Lady knows, I am looking at the option of expanding proxy voting to make it available to all Members of the House, regardless of whether or not they need to be away from the parliamentary estate. I hope to bring forward a motion to that effect soon, which the House will have an opportunity to agree.

It is important that Members are here and that the business of the House carries on. Why is that? We have to ensure that these new coronavirus regulations—some of the tightest restrictions on the freedoms of the people of this country ever introduced—are properly debated and that the Government are held to account. We have to ensure that constituency issues can be raised freely, fairly and clearly by hon. and right hon. Members. We have to ensure that the transition period legislation is introduced and passed into law by 31 December. It is crucial that we are able to do those things.

We found during the fully hybrid proceedings that we were not able to carry on with the full range of activities. I am glad to say that Westminster Hall has returned. We are operating a full schedule of business, so that democracy is allowed to flourish. I think the right hon. Lady underestimates the need for democratic accountability. Being present in this House is as important as any other essential service.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

May I ask the Leader of the House to confirm—forgive me if I missed this—that the debate on the second lockdown on Wednesday will be a full day’s debate? I do not think that 90 minutes would really do it justice. In his statement earlier—in answer, I think, to the question from the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones)—the Prime Minister said that all the scientific information that underpins the decisions that the House is being asked to take would be published. May I ask the Leader of the House: by when will that information be published so that we can make a proper decision on Wednesday?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The motion on Wednesday will be a motion under an Act and it will be a 90-minute debate. I understand my right hon. Friend’s pressing for further time for debate and I would normally be very sympathetic to it, but immediately after I have finished, there is a day’s debate on the situation relating to covid, the Prime Minister has just answered questions for two hours, and on the Thursday before we went into recess there was a full day’s debate on the coronavirus. I therefore think that the time for debate has been as ample as it can be considering the pressures of business. One of the problems is that there is never enough time to debate all that one would wish to debate, but under the circumstances it is right to follow the normal proceedings of this House. I am sure that if a commitment has been given to publish information, it will be published in a timely way.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]]

The measures to be debated on Wednesday will be for England only and it is not for Scottish MPs to determine what restrictions the people of England should suffer. But I do hope that the Leader of the House will understand the real anger and frustration that the people in Scotland will have when they look at what is happening. For months we have asked for an extension of the furlough scheme and for months we have been told no, but now that stricter measures are thought necessary in England, furlough is to be extended across the UK. Despite repeated questioning earlier, the Prime Minister was ambiguous about whether furlough would now be available to support measures undertaken by the devolved national Governments if such measures were not felt necessary in England. As it stands, we must therefore assume that if the measures proposed for England are discontinued on 2 December, furlough support will be ended in Scotland too—even if businesses there were still mandated to close. This is not acceptable and it means that we need an urgent debate on the inadequacy of the devolved settlement when it comes to dealing with this matter, and on the need for greater policy and fiscal competence to be given to the Scottish Parliament.

With England in lockdown and people being told by the Government to work from home if they can, I, too, ask the Government to lead by example and now introduce procedures to allow virtual participation in debates and electronic voting. Most people will find it difficult to understand why MPs are being encouraged physically to travel across the country and gather in one place when they do not need to do so. Certainly, representing our constituents is essential, but we do not need to be here to do that. The Leader of the House knows well that the technology exists to allow Members to fulfil their duties while working remotely. If this second lockdown is not sufficient, what will it take for him to authorise switching those systems on?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Well, it is very fortunate that we were able to hear the hon. Gentleman in full this time; the last time that he appeared, the technology did not work and we lost his dulcet tones momentarily. It is also worth reminding hon. and right hon. Members that the other place lost its remote voting system, and that hindered the progress of business. It is important that just as hospitals and schools provide essential services in health and education, so Parliament is performing its essential constitutional role of scrutinising the work of the Government, debating key issues, and, above all, making and changing legislation. Our role has been a vital one throughout this year and continues to be so throughout this month—a time when the House is holding the Government to account for their approach to tackling the widespread impact of coronavirus, legislating to shape the nation’s response to the pandemic and legislating in order for our country to be ready for the end of the transition period. Now is not the time to hinder the ability of MPs to scrutinise Ministers and legislation, but that is exactly what would happen if we were to follow the hon. Member’s suggestion for a full return to hybrid proceedings and ending elements of our business entirely. I therefore continue to say that we have our duty to do, and our duty is to be here, to hold the Government to account, and to legislate for the needs of our nation.

With regard to the hon. Member’s earlier point, I have referred him week in, week out to the many billions of pounds and the hundreds of thousands of jobs that have been protected in Scotland thanks to the United Kingdom taxpayer. It is unquestionably the case that the strength of the United Kingdom has allowed all parts of that United Kingdom to cope with the pandemic. That would have been harder to do that without that support and without that unity. It seems to me sometimes that the Scottish nationalists want devolution when it suits them, but that when there are bills to be paid, they want somebody else to pick up the bill.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

Can I ask the Leader of the House to ensure that we have adequate time to debate the consequences of this new lockdown on those people who for many months have hardly seen their relatives in residential care? This is one of the most painful aspects of the covid emergency, particularly for people whose capacity is impaired by dementia or learning disabilities. It is hugely painful for them that their relatives are not allowed to visit them. We are apparently allowed to exercise with one other individual outdoors, so is there any way in which that could be extended to enable people to see their relatives in care homes, albeit using an outdoor setting?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I have the greatest sympathy with what my right hon. Friend is saying. I have referred in this House before to a constituent of mine who wrote to me about going to see a parent with dementia and having to do so from the other side of a window, which was difficult and upsetting. For people in these circumstances, it is really tragic that the coronavirus has made it so difficult for families to be together. In terms of time for debate, there is a debate immediately after this, and I hope that my right hon Friend will be speaking in it and raising this point, because it is one of such great importance.

[Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) [V]]

The Government’s advice to clinically extremely vulnerable people is to stay away from their workplaces and work from home where possible. Will the Leader of the House commit to setting a good example and allow Members such as myself to participate in debates and votes remotely, as we could at the start of the first lockdown? I know that he is reluctant to do that, but as the Prime Minister has said, we must make sacrifices to save lives. This is not just about keeping MPs safe; we must also consider everyone who works on the parliamentary estate.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady has the opportunity to vote by proxy, and her vote can therefore be recorded. She also has the opportunity, as she has just shown, to participate in interrogative proceedings. On debates, the whole point of a debate is that there is a back and forth, and that requires interventions. It is not possible to do that remotely, and I must therefore refer her to the answers I have already given.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his response to the letter I sent on behalf of the Liaison Committee concerning what might change as tighter restrictions were applied. His letter arrived before the Government’s announcement. Is there anything in it that would change as a consequence of the announcement?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As I have referred to the letter, I think that a copy must now be put in the Library, if it has not already, in accordance with the guidance offered by “Erskine May”. The letter is, I think, an answer to my hon. Friend’s earlier letter. If he wishes to write to me again, he will get a further reply.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab) [V]]

Can I urge the Leader of the House to provide a specific debate on dementia, for two reasons? First, we saw in the last couple of days the revelation that Sir Bobby Charlton is, sadly, now suffering from dementia. That means that half the team that started in 1966 have now been diagnosed with dementia, and several have died with it. It is about time, therefore, that the football authorities in this country and overseas took the dangers of playing football and concussion seriously, because, otherwise, we will be letting down a whole generation of footballers who need proper support. Secondly, as I understand it, there is now a nine-month waiting list in the Court of Protection, which means that, this year, many families whose relatives have been diagnosed with dementia will simply not be able to go to court to sort out their loved ones’ financial and health arrangements—they are simply waiting months and months and months to be able to get things sorted. That adds phenomenally to families’ anxiety and depression, so can we please have a debate on dementia—not as part of covid, but just on dementia?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am extremely sympathetic to what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and I think it is an issue that is of concern to the whole House. I was unaware of the issue that he raised with respect to the Court of Protection, and I shall take that up after this session with my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor. Government time is very pressed, as I said in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), and therefore it is difficult to provide all the time for all the debates that I would like to provide time for, but the cause that he mentions is one with such widespread support that it is very much one for the Backbench Business Committee.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

The Leader of the House has been encouraged to lead by example during this lockdown. What example does he think it would set to those teachers and other key workers whom we are asking to go to work on the frontline if Members of Parliament decided that they could do just half their job elsewhere?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend puts it absolutely brilliantly. We have to lead by example. We expect our schools to remain open, and, as I have said in this House before and I will say it again, we see in this House the cleaners working every day and the security staff working every day. We should be joining them. We should be proud to be doing the same as them and working here physically. Duty may not be a fashionable word, but it is the right word to use. It is our duty to hold the Government to account and to legislate, and to do that properly, we need to be here.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

During the last lockdown, secure procedures were put in place for MPs to work fully remotely. That is contrary to the image that has been created that we worked only part-time and that democracy ceased, which it did not. May I ask the Leader of the House again: should we, as rule makers, not lead by example and demonstrate through our own actions that this lockdown is different from being in tier 2 or tier 3? We all need to adapt our work practices to the new situation and put the safety of our citizens first and make sure that we recognise that covid is still a killer. We should lead by example and adapt our working practices.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am surprised that the hon. Lady, my constituency neighbour, should ignore so much of the work that goes on in the House outside the Chamber. During the previous lockdown, there were no statutory instrument Committees and no Committee stages of the House upstairs, so legislation could only go through if it went through on the Floor of the House. There was no Westminster Hall, which is a major means by which the Government are held to account. She says that business carried on fully remotely—it did not. We did a fraction of our job and it is our duty to be fully back at work to ensure that there is proper accountability. To think that all that ever happens is in this Chamber is, I am afraid, a misunderstanding of how Parliament works.

[Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to ensure our constitutional rights and duties as Members of Parliament to attend this House, to put to the Government any issues that our constituents need to be raised and to retain a fully functioning legislature?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have to have a fully functioning legislature. We have to be here to do that. Without being here, business simply was not getting through. We have the important date of 31 December by which time legislation to end the transition period has to be through. We have the very important coronavirus regulations to pass as well, and they need to be discussed and debated on the Floor of the House. The idea that this can be done properly in an absentee landlord way is absurd.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We have a comms issue with Debbie Abrahams that we hope to rectify before the end of the business question, so we go straight on to Marco Longhi.

[Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House be kind enough to again reinforce the importance of this House continuing to meet in person? We should be setting an example as key workers. We are asking other key workers to go to work for us to keep this country going, so should we not set that very example by continuing to work here ourselves?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

We have the most brilliant broadcasting team who have worked like billy-o to make a hybrid system operate and to allow virtual participation, but still we find that people do not come through. So my hon. Friend is absolutely right: we need to be here physically so that we can have proper accountability, and we need to be an example to the rest of the country. There is this feeling that seems to arise on the Opposition Benches that we are a separate type from all our constituents—that we are workers who can just not do it physically and allow others to take their role in hand. No, we must be here physically; we must do it thoroughly. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

I have been overwhelmed with emails and contact from constituents very angry at the Government’s dither and delay and the mixed messaging and lack of support. The Leader of the House is absolutely right to say that I need to be able to represent that anger in Parliament—in the Chamber and in Westminster Hall—but I do not need to be here physically to do it. I do not need to get the train and put people at risk, and put people here at risk, in order to represent my constituents. Will he not build on the fantastic work that the House officials did in developing a virtual Parliament and let us be able to have a virtual Parliament that works for the people and keeps people safe?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady does herself an injustice, because she does need to be here, as she has just shown. The passion about her representation of her constituents comes across thoroughly and robustly when she is here in person; when it is remote, at this point she is cut off and we cannot see her sighs, her gesticulations and her concern. All of that goes—it is all cut off in its prime—whereas when she is here she is able to represent her constituents forcefully, and she can do so in a safe way because the House has ensured that measures have been introduced. There is a Perspex screen over there. The Dispatch Boxes—the gift of New Zealand given to us after the war—are cleaned after every Minister or shadow Minister has stood at them, ready for the next session. We have three-minute intervals to ensure the safe exit of people and entry of the new lot. The Commons has done a phenomenal job. The authorities, Mr Speaker himself and his Deputies, the Clerks, particularly, and Marianne Cwynarski have done brilliant work to make this a covid-secure workplace. Therefore, the hon. Lady should do what she does so magnificently and hold people like me to account.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has just spelled out the terms of the second national lockdown, and I do hope the House supports these important measures. However, we are six months into a national crisis and yet the Cabinet-led decision-making structure has not fundamentally changed, and the bandwidth of government is being severely tested, impacting on other important issues such as a fully funded, integrated review. With at least another six months to go, could I suggest a review of how this crisis is being managed and by whom, with a separation of strategy design and operational delivery, and improved command, control and communication?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comments. I think the question really is that we are dealing with a changing situation and changing facts, and therefore government has to be flexible in its response. He may be suggesting rather inflexible ways of managing the response to the crisis, which, of necessity, needs to have flexibility and adaptability at its heart.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Let us hope this works—by video link, Debbie Abrahams.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) [V]]

My apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker; a thunderstorm seemed to interrupt us before.

I want to express my profound disappointment in the Government’s delay in announcing a national circuit breaker, which, as we have heard, will have cost lives and livelihoods. My concern is that the Government will have learned nothing from the first wave of this pandemic and will carry on with a privatised test, trace and isolate system, which has never been fit for purpose, is a key reason why we are where we are, and will unfortunately hit our cash-starved local authorities as they will be left to pick up the pieces from this Government’s incompetence. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Government report directly to Parliament, not through the press, on what they will be doing differently in the second lockdown, including when local authorities can expect, as promised, reimbursements for the spending that they have already had to bear during this pandemic?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The testing capacity is now at 480,000, 9.6 million people have been tested at least once, and 30.5 million virus tests have been carried out, which is more than in any other European country. I saw my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care lurking behind the Speaker’s Chair, and I think he deserves a great deal of credit for the enormous amount of hard work he has done to get up to those 30.5 million tests. That is not to pretend there is not more to be done—there is, but what has been done so far is absolutely remarkable, from a standing start.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I think the expression of sheer despair from my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) in response to that answer has just demonstrated that we can see people’s reactions on screen.

The Leader of the House is waxing lyrical about how important it is for us to be here and fully play our role as representatives—I am asking my third question of the day, and I am more than happy to do that—but he cannot say that on the one hand and then allow only 90 minutes for the regulations to be debated on Wednesday. Surely at least half that time will be taken up by the Front Benchers. That means that there will be very little time and very few Back Benchers will be able to speak up on behalf of their constituents. That is just not right.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

We are having a debate immediately after this session, we have had two hours from the Prime Minister, and we had a debate on the Thursday before the House rose. Therefore, a great deal of time has been made available out of the scarce resource that time is within this House for debating the coronavirus, and our Standing Orders provide for 90 minutes under an Act.

[Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend mentioned earlier the security staff, the Doorkeepers, the cleaners, everybody who keeps us safe in this place and the catering staff. He did not mention our personal staff who work in our offices. I would like to make a plea to him that he does not decide, or that it is not decided in this place, that we do not need those staff. We employ them because they do a job for us. I know we are supposed only to have two, and I do—and I only need two in this place—but I need them to work with me to prepare me and get things ready for when I am in this House. If I did not, I would have them in the constituency. I make a plea that we do not say to many young people who are our assistants here that they have to sit in their bedsits or small flats in inappropriate seating, in inappropriate rooms—maybe only on their bed—to work from home, because I do not think that is appropriate and professional.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend makes an important case for those who work for Members of Parliament. It is a matter for the House of Commons Commission, rather than for me personally, but I do know that the Commission will be urging Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority-funded staff to work from home between now and 2 December. I know that this will be difficult for some members of staff, as it has been before, but it is important to minimise the number of people on the estate to those who have an absolutely essential function here that is to do with the operation of the Chamber and the House at large.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]]

A significant number of MPs, like myself, have been excluded from speaking in debates on legislation for the last five months, due to being at high risk from covid or having a vulnerable family member, and I take great offence at the inference of the Leader of the House that I am somehow shirking my duty by not being willing to travel hundreds of miles each way every week. With England going into lockdown, the Prime Minister has just said that the most vulnerable should only work from home, so I, too, call on the Leader of the House to restore and maintain full virtual participation until next year to ensure that all Members can fully represent their constituents throughout the covid crisis and the end of the EU transition.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave some moments ago.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

Further to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), I think the Government will regret holding a 90-minute debate on Wednesday. I appreciate the Standing Orders, but the Government are the Government and could make changes if they wanted to.

The Leader of the House mentioned duty, and our duty is to be here. It is about being not just here in the Chamber but in the Committee Rooms and in Westminster Hall, and the conversations that are had that allow us to do our jobs and hold Ministers to account. The Prime Minister said a lot today about next-generation tests—quick turnaround, 15-minute tests. If we can do it every week for premier league football clubs, given the importance of this Parliament sitting and doing the job that the Leader of the House rightly outlines, have he and the Commission examined the idea of weekly tests for Members of this House?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I would have enormous sympathy with those calling for more than a 90-minute debate if we had not already had so much time for debate. The overall time needs to be taken into consideration, given our challenging and full programme. I assure my hon. Friend that there will be more time to debate the issue over future weeks, and no doubt more statements by my right hon. Friends.

As regards testing, I hope it is not indiscrete of me—I look at my opposite number, the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz)—to say that the Commission did have a discussion on testing and we did have a presentation, and that it is something that is under consideration. We would, though, have to look at what other demands there were on the capacity.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Leader of the House for and fully support his statement on the forthcoming business. I understand the reasons he gave and they were very well put over. Will he confirm that debates in Westminster Hall—including the one scheduled for Tuesday 10 November that I have secured to highlight obesity and the covid outbreak and the need for urgent intervention—will go ahead? Will there be an opportunity on Wednesday to ask questions on the statutory instruments on blood safety, human tissue and the quality and safety of organs intended for transplantation?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

There will be three hours available for the grouped debates on SIs, and Westminster Hall debates will continue. One of the really important reasons why we are continuing to meet in the way that we are is to ensure that the other activities that are so important in holding the Government to account and representing our constituents do continue.

[Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)]

Over the weekend, I mulled over the question of a second lockdown and considered the seemingly binary choice between lives and livelihoods. In that scenario, I feel compelled to support lives, but of course it is not that simple, is it? In his statement earlier, the Prime Minister mentioned that all the information available to him either is or will be available to us. In order to make a proper decision, surely we need to know what other options have been considered, because in truth it is not a binary choice. We need to know why those options were written off; the projections of the economic and health impacts of lockdown; and why we have chosen the course that we have chosen. That is really important so that we can make a proper decision on Wednesday, so will my right hon. Friend do everything he can to make as much of that information available to us as possible?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend said that he listened to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I think that is the greatest reassurance that any of us on the Conservative Benches can have. There has not been a more freedom-loving Prime Minister of this nation in decades, if not in over a century. The most freedom-loving Prime Minister we could think of having has come to this very difficult decision. Against the Opposition’s siren calls to close us down ages ago, he did it when he was convinced that that was what had to happen. He did not want to take away our liberties and our freedoms, and he did so after proper deliberation and consultation and, as he said in his statement, with a heavy heart. That should give my freedom-loving friends on the Government side of the House and across the House the confidence that the Prime Minister has made the right decision on the best information, which I am sure will be published according to the schedule that he will set out.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Leader of the House for his statement.

Business of the House

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)]

The business for the week commencing 2 November will include:

Monday 2 November—General debate on covid-19.

Tuesday 3 November—Remaining stages of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill.

Wednesday 4 November—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Agriculture Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill, followed by motion to approve the draft Blood Safety and Quality (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, the draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, the draft Human Tissue (Quality and Safety for Human Application) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 and the draft Quality and Safety of Organs Intended for Transplantation (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.

Thursday 5 November—Debate on a motion on coronavirus business interruption loan schemes, followed by general debate on the UK Government’s role in ensuring innovation and equitable access within the covid-19 response. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 6 November—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 9 November will include:

Monday 9 November—Second Reading of the Financial Services Bill.

[Valerie Vaz]

I thank the Leader of the House for the business next week and for the motion extending proxy voting until 21 March. I do not know whether he has heard the outcome of the Public Health England visit, but I say again that the voting queues are not safe. On Monday, as we were walking round and round, it felt like something out of the book “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich”. We want remote voting because it is safest for Members and, most importantly, for staff, and it is quickest for staff behind the scenes.

The Leader of the House continually talks about democracy and “Erskine May”, but he is excluding Members from taking part in debate at this really difficult time, because some of them are in tier 3 areas that are in lockdown. Will he please reconsider remote voting? It is just for the pandemic, not for life. He will know that proxy votes do not count as a quorum for private Members’ Bills on Friday. We know that more than 25% of Members have proxy votes. I wonder whether he could consider, perhaps through the usual channels, a fairer way of enabling Members to take part via a proxy, so that those votes are not wasted.

Again, there is no update from the Foreign Secretary on Nazanin, Anousheh and Luke Symons, even though Iran is now in its third lockdown and other countries are having some success.

They came for our public money and wasted it. The Government have already spent £12 billion on Test and Trace, and yet they have accounted for only £4 billion, with the private sector consultants being paid £7,000 a day and everyone saying that this is a failed Test and Trace programme. The worst thing is that the Care Quality Commission has been told that its inspectors cannot have weekly testing when they go into care homes. That is one of the most important jobs that needs to be done at this time. Could we have a debate on the whole Test and Trace programme? Who is getting the money? Let it be laid bare. It is difficult to get answers from the Government. Even if we table written questions, the responses are taking a long time to come back. The Government need to be accountable for public money during this pandemic.

Then they came for the Labour Mayors. The Government are now dictatorially moving areas from one tier into another. The Mayor of Greater Manchester has brought everybody together. The Conservative leader of Bolton Council, the hon. Member for Bolton West (Chris Green), who has resigned as a Parliamentary Private Secretary, and the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady)—a really serious person who has been in the House for a long time and is chair of the 1922 committee—have all said that they want to do the best for their community in Greater Manchester. On Tuesday, in response to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said:

“the cases were shooting up before we took action and then levelled off.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2020; Vol. 682, c. 1032.]

It would be nice to know what figures he is using. If cases are levelling off, why are the Government taking this action?

Let us look at the facts. Liverpool city region has received £44 million; that is £29 per person. Lancashire has received £42 million; that is £28 per person. After three months of restrictions, Greater Manchester was offered—by text—£22 million; that is £8 per head. Will the Government publish the funding formula behind those decisions? The shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), has called it a “phantom” formula.

Then they came for the trade unions. The union learning fund is about to be abolished, at such an important time. It was established in 1988, in the time of Margaret Thatcher. It is one of the most successful learning, training and reskilling projects currently running in British industry. It is value for money. For every £1 invested, there is a return of £12.30, with £7.60 going to the worker taking part and £4.70 going to the employer. The Trades Union Congress said that it contributes £1.4 billion to the economy at a cost of £12 million. Can we have an urgent statement on that decision or a reversal of it?

Yesterday marked the 54th anniversary of the Aberfan disaster when 116 children and 28 adults lost their lives. There was a one-minute silence on Wednesday at 9.15. We must remember them.

Our thoughts are also with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), who is in hospital after testing positive for covid-19. We wish her well, as we do my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), who is an assiduous attender in the Chamber, and all other Members who may not have said that they have got covid.

Yesterday, the deputy leader of the Labour party, despite grieving for her aunt, Anne Irwin, who died of coronavirus last week, came to the Chamber and said:

“I come here wanting the Government…to succeed, because lives literally depend on it.”—[Official Report, 21 October 2020; Vol. 682, c. 1081.]

We say that there is another way: Labour in Wales’s two-week circuit break and £300 million package, just as was done in New Zealand. The Prime Minister of New Zealand memorably said that the tooth fairy was an essential worker, and we congratulate Jacinda Ardern and Labour party on their historic landslide victory. As they in New Zealand, “Mihi.”

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I hope the right hon. Lady will provide a translation for the benefit of Hansard.

[Valerie Vaz]

Congratulations.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The right hon. Lady kindly translated not only for the benefit of Hansard but for me. I believe the Prime Minister has also congratulated the Prime Minister of New Zealand.

I absolutely align myself with the right hon. Lady’s remarks on the anniversary of Aberfan. I am sure it will be remembered. It was a great tragedy, and it was acted on, with most coal tips removed for safety reasons. I also very much join her in sending best wishes to the hon. Members for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) and for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi). The hon. Lady is an assiduous campaigner, and the work she has done on Primodos is of fundamental importance. I supported her strongly from the Back Benches, and I hope that she will soon be back to resume her effective campaigning and holding Government to account.

On the union learning fund—£1.4 billion on £12 million? That sounds a little bit exaggerated. One can always find experts to come up with some figures if they are asked. With that sort of return, they ought to be in my former profession of investment management rather than in a union learning fund.

As regards the Manchester issue, the Government have provided £60 million of taxpayers’ money, not £22 million. In Lancashire, Liverpool and South Yorkshire, agreement was reached with the Mayors, whereas in Manchester we had this ridiculous fandango with the Mayor pretending he did not know when he had been told by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government hours earlier. It was as if he was trying to go on the stage. It was the most ridiculous prancing performance that one could imagine when he should have been seriously trying to help the people of Manchester, which is what Her Majesty’s Government were doing. I am afraid he was playing party politics of the cheapest and most disagreeable kind, whereas people such as the Mayor of the Liverpool city region, who was clear in his political opinions when he was in this House, were able to work with the Government and put aside party political differences. He has shown himself to be a model of how to behave.

As regards Test and Trace in care homes, 120,000 test kits are made available to care homes on a daily basis, so the Government are doing everything they can to ensure testing in care homes. Of course, it is expensive to set up a system from scratch—that is not something people should be surprised about—but the system is now testing up to 300,000 people a day from zero earlier in the year, because nobody knew that Test and Trace would be needed. One should recognise that significant achievements have been made. Of course, I accept that it is expensive.

I will, once again, take up the issue of Nazanin, Anousheh and Luke Symons with the Foreign Secretary. I do so every week on the right hon. Lady’s behalf. She is right to carry on raising it. The Government are doing what they can, but obviously there are limits to what the Government can do when dealing with foreign regimes that are undemocratic.

As regards remote voting—we have discussed this on a number of occasions—it is important that MPs are here. MPs have a right to be here. They are essential workers, and all the advice that the Government have given, whether it be in tier 1, 2 or 3, states that people who have essential work to do must carry on doing it. We are in that category. We expect people to teach schoolchildren, and we expect other people in other categories to go to work, so we should do the same. We have, as yet, received no formal response from PHE on Divisions, but they seem to me to be working well and efficiently. We are getting through them in about 15 minutes, which is in line with the time that a Division takes ordinarily. The system is one that I think you came up with, Mr Speaker, and it is working extremely well.

[David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)]

In recent months, a number of constituents have written to me about completing processes online, and how it is assumed that they have a mobile phone that can receive a code, a smartphone on which they can download an app or, indeed, a good enough internet connection that will hold through multiple stages of a process. Given that more and more processes are going that way, may we have a debate about how we can ensure that our constituents are not indirectly excluded from being able to perform everyday tasks?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend raises a really important point, and I am sure that many Members across the House understand the challenges facing some of our constituents in today’s digital age, especially in the covid-19 era, which is replete with essential smartphone apps and fast-moving data. I assure him that the Government are driving forward access to the digital world, with £5 billion of spending to ensure that the whole UK benefits from world-class broadband infrastructure. Mobile coverage is improving, and 91% of the UK is covered by a 4G signal from at least one operator. Although 91% sounds quite good, I must confess that when I am at home in Somerset and I have no mobile signal, 91% is not good enough, so it needs to get better. As we become more digital, this becomes more pressing.

[Mr Speaker]

Let us head to the SNP spokesperson in Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tommy Sheppard]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

We should, I suppose, be grateful for small mercies, so I welcome the Government’s intention to extend the limited virtual participation and proxy voting until Easter. At least that represents a recognition that normal service will not be resumed any time soon. It is a slightly more mature and considered approach than the histrionics of last week, when the Leader of the House likened MPs to essential service workers.

To be clear, this decision establishes a default position that, although it is better than nothing, hardly represents the optimum or enthusiastic use of technology to deliver democracy. Will the Leader of the House allow a debate at the earliest opportunity after the recess on how we can do it better, which includes switching the remote voting system back on and allowing full virtual participation? I know that he does not support either of those approaches, but he must accept that there is now a majority across the House, including many in his own party, who do so. Let us have an open debate on a Government motion that can be amended by others and, crucially, since individual MPs are affected in different ways, let us have a free vote on the matter.

This week will have brought home to many in northern England what it feels like to be Scottish. Devolved structures are created to allow the voice of people in particular areas to be heard, but if that voice differs from Westminster’s, it is ignored. Moreover, the representatives of the people are then attacked and vilified, just to be sure. I feel much empathy for the people in the great regions of England, but my principal concern is that the Government’s piecemeal approach in England has grave consequences for Scotland. The Barnett formula provides Scotland with a proportion of new public expenditure in England, but what happens when the extra spending is in only 10% or 20% of England? The Barnett formula was not designed for such a situation, and that is why I ask again for a debate on helping the Scottish Government to fight the covid emergency by removing the fiscal and policy constraints that the UK has placed on it.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman’s initial silence spoke eloquently for why we do not need a difference in the technology that we use. It showed why it does not actually work and why we are keeping this House sitting primarily in a physical sense, certainly for legislation: so that there can be proper scrutiny. It may be that some people like silence from the hon. Gentleman—most of us enjoy his questions—but that is not how to scrutinise Her Majesty’s Government.

As regards the funding for Scotland, UK taxpayers have contributed £7.2 billion to help Scotland, protecting 779,500 jobs. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) heckles me, saying “We are UK taxpayers.” Does that not prove how beneficial it is to have the United Kingdom? I am hoping that he will now become a Unionist and join our Benches, because it is the United Kingdom that has provided the £7.2 billion and is helping Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland and all the regions of our great nation.

[Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the support given to fairground and showground operators? Their livelihoods have been devastated by the restrictions placed on them by the coronavirus pandemic, and also by the taxation on red diesel.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am in so much sympathy with my hon. Friend. In normal summers I spend a lot of time at fairgrounds. That is one of the things about having six children; what else is there to do on a Saturday afternoon but try to find a fairground? This year I missed the opportunity to do that or to open the Clutton flower show, which has lots of amusements attached.

My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue. The Chancellor announced in the 2020 Budget that the Government will remove the entitlement to use red diesel from April 2022, except in agriculture, fish farming, rail and non-commercial heating. The policy is designed to ensure that the tax system incentivises users of diesel to improve the energy efficiency of their vehicles and machinery, invest in cleaner alternatives or use less fuel. That is the argument for it, but let us hope that fairgrounds flourish.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) [V]]

I thank the Leader of the House for his statement and for guaranteeing time for Tuesday’s very timely and successful debate on Black History Month. Our Committee has been able to fill all the slots available to us in Westminster Hall for the majority of November, and we have two Backbench Business debates scheduled for Thursday 5 November: a debate on a substantive motion on the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme, and a general debate on the UK’s role in ensuring innovation and equitable access in the covid-19 response.

I am also the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for football supporters. Last week, England’s six richest Premier league clubs put forward a disgraceful proposal, Operation Big Picture, to restructure the league. It was laced with bribes to English Football League clubs, many of which are under extreme financial duress, to secure their agreement. Thankfully the proposal was rejected, but the hares are running. Can we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and a debate in Government time about the future of our national game, which is in the hearts of millions in our country?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Black History Month debate on Tuesday was indeed a very successful debate, brilliantly wound up by my hon. Friend the Minister for Equalities. I am delighted to hear that Westminster Hall is using its time efficiently, which is very important. It is a reason for getting Westminster Hall back up and running, and another reason why we are here physically: to ensure that the Government can be held to account, not just in the main Chamber.

As regards Operation Big Picture, I must confess that the detailed workings of the football leagues is beyond my remit and realm of knowledge; if the hon. Gentleman had asked about the County championship, I would have been better placed to answer. However, I think he should ask his own Committee for the debate, because it would be very well subscribed and of great interest to many Members.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con) [V]]

Is the Leader of the House aware that over the years we have had several debates about unfair practices by the operators of private car parks, culminating in the passing into law of my private Member’s Bill, the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, which he supported? Now that the consultation period for the new code of practice has closed, can the Government avoid the need for further debates by acting quickly to bring the code into force and bring transparency, fairness and justice for motorists when parking?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend knows the level of sympathy I have for that cause, which he has championed so effectively. He, like the Conservative party, is a fantastic supporter of motorists generally. He is a model for how we should back motorists and ensure efficient, fair and well-priced parking, which is one of the essential cogs in our local communities, and much of our local economy depends on it. Rogue private parking firms—they are not always private, it has to be said—have made drivers’ lives a misery, with improper fines, harassment, intimidation and over-zealous enforcement. I am very glad that the consultation has started, and I look forward, as my right hon. Friend does, to the implementation of the parking code of conduct, restoring fairness and accountability, and barring rogue parking firms from accessing Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency data. I hope the rogue parking firms are listening, because it is getting that DVLA data that has allowed them to make such a nuisance of themselves.

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

No sector has been harder hit by the pandemic than live music, and research this week says that the UK’s live music sector faces the loss of 170,000 jobs, which is nearly two thirds of the workforce. The culture recovery fund helped to some extent, but we did not help the thousands and thousands of freelancers who make up a big part of the industry. Could we have an urgent statement on what more we can do to help our fantastic, viable—when we are through the pandemic—and world-leading music scene?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman referenced the culture recovery fund, which is important, at a total of £1.57 billion. The Arts Council has spent £160 million of taxpayers’ money on an emergency package supporting more than 10,000 organisations and individuals. In addition, £3.36 million has already been allocated to 135 grassroots music venues. Action is being taken, but I completely understand the hon. Gentleman’s point that it is particularly difficult for freelancers in this area.

[Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

May we have a debate about how many Select Committees we have in Parliament and the use of cross-departmental Committees to scrutinise money spent over a variety of Departments?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Select Committees are ultimately a matter for the House and they have the opportunity to set up cross-cutting Sub-Committees among themselves. For the examination of cross-departmental spending, the Public Accounts Committee plays the crucial, most important role, but other Select Committees can, as I say, collaborate if they wish.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Yesterday, the Court of Appeal held that Home Office regulations used for the removal of people under immigration rules, which have been used in an estimated 40,000 cases, were unlawful. Why has the Home Secretary not come to the House to make a statement in relation to that judgment, or are the views of the judges at the Court of Appeal to be dismissed as those of a bunch of lefty lawyers?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Home Secretary has the greatest respect for our judicial processes, as do all members of Her Majesty’s Government. The Home Secretary will be here for oral questions on 9 November. The good news is that the Home Secretary has announced that legislation on this matter will be coming forward, which will no doubt increase the clarity over the immigration law.

[Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)]

Ahead of COP26 and during the lead-up to the UK hosting the presidency of the G7, does the Leader of the House agree that we have an opportunity and a responsibility to lead the world, and will he agree to a debate titled, “Keeping the lights on while reducing greenhouse gases”?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend—or, rather, Ynys Môn—leads the world in this respect. The nuclear power plant in her constituency can keep the lights on and the radiators warm in this country for decades for come, and that is a way of providing green energy. The UK is committed to delivering an ambitious and inclusive COP26 in 2021, to reaching net zero emissions domestically by 2050, and to doubling our international climate finance commitment to £11.6 billion from 2021 to 2025—but I think the answer is that where Ynys Môn leads, the United Kingdom and then the world follow.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

My constituent Ewan Cameron was involved in an accident and assaulted. He undertook successful private litigation because, basically, his insurance company did not want to know. It then rebuffed his complaints while withholding information from its own solicitors. The Financial Ombudsman Service found against Ewan, although the complaints handler did make some criticisms of the FOS. The regulator now refuses to engage with me, saying the matter is closed. So can I have a Government statement advising how the regulator is regulated and how I get clarity for Ewan over a saga that has spanned a few years now?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Once again, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the way he highlights issues for his constituents and regularly does so at Business questions. Regulators are, ultimately, accountable to this House, either via the Treasury Committee or via a Treasury Minister. I will happily take this matter up with the Minister responsible immediately after Business questions. I think the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has responsibility for this area, but I will certainly take it up with whichever of the Ministers it is.

[Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)]

My council, Kensington and Chelsea, is at the forefront of rolling out electric vehicle car charging. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to invest in our electric vehicle infrastructure, so we can phase out diesel and petrol cars more quickly than 2040?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I quite like petrol engines, I must confess, with some old cars. However, the Government have consulted on bringing forward an end to the sale of new petrol and—

[Valerie Vaz]

Mr Toad!

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think that is a jolly good heckle, don’t you, Mr Speaker, though for the record, I deny that I model myself on Mr Toad. The policy on petrol and diesel cars will be beneficial, and a consultation is taking place on bringing it forward earlier. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the key to making this happen will be changes in behaviour driven by the ease with which people are able to charge their cars, and that means having more charging points. There is £500 million over the next five years to support the roll-out of infrastructure for electric vehicles, so taxpayers’ money is being spent in this direction.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]]

I thank both the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House for their kind words over recent weeks about my tandem skydive for local charity. I would also like to express my gratitude to the brilliant tandem instructor at Black Knights, Lee Rhodes, for safely delivering me back to earth without the need for a Denton and Reddish by-election. I did the jump for Florence, a six-year-old girl with a very rare life-limiting genetic disorder called GM1. Can the Leader of the House help find time for either a statement or a debate on GM1 and other extremely rare genetic conditions to help raise awareness across the House?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is very reassuring to see the hon. Gentleman, albeit virtually, all in one piece. I join him in congratulating Black Knights for ensuring that everything happened safely. How inspirational it is of him, as a local constituency MP, to be raising money for such an important cause, GM1. I suggest, initially, that this is very suitable for an Adjournment debate, which would of course receive a ministerial response.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

Does the Leader of the House agree that at a time of national crisis it is essential that Parliament continues to conduct its business of holding Government to account and representing our constituents in this place whenever possible? Will he commit to doing all in his power to enable Members of Parliament to continue to come to this place in person to enable us to do our duty?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Free, unhindered attendance at Parliament is one of our most ancient rights, going back to 1340. There is no law and no local lockdown that may prohibit elected Members from attending Parliament. But let us understand what we do in this House. Let us not downgrade our role. We are an essential service. It is crucial that the Government are held to account when extraordinary powers are taken, powers that many of us never thought a Government would be taking in our lifetimes. These must be scrutinised and voted on. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to use the word “duty”, which you personify, Mr Speaker. You have done your duty every day and we should do our duty, too.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The Government’s view of devolution is that they dictate and local government must obey. The Transport Secretary has written to the Mayor for London, setting out his plans to expand the congestion charge to the north and south circulars. That excludes any opportunity for my constituents to have a say, because he wants it to be imposed in October 2021. Can we have a debate on devolution so we can speak up for our constituents against this dictatorship from the centre?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman overstates his case. He needs to remember that the finances of Transport for London were extremely difficult prior to the coronavirus. The Mayor was not running Transport for London well. He was failing voters in London and running a deficit. Do I want a widespread extension of congestion charging? Does the Prime Minister want that? No. The Prime Minister has said he does not wish to see that because we all know that congestion charging is a means of taxing the motorist. But Transport for London has to be paid for and the Mayor has singularly failed to do that.

[Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)]

Last week I received a letter signed by eight local primary school headteachers. They are concerned about the state of their local leisure centre in Appleton, which has not been able to reopen since covid. That means that children cannot do PE lessons, at a time when we need to ensure that they are outside and getting lots of exercise. Set against that, Warrington Council has borrowed £1.6 billion to invest in offices in Manchester, supermarkets in Salford and even an energy company—all that while facilities in my constituency are run down and cannot be used. Can we have a debate in Government time to consider how local councils have accessed the Public Works Loans Board to fund reckless commercial investments, rather than using loans to support public facilities such as Broomfields leisure centre in my constituency?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend raises an important point about the use of borrowing by councils, particularly if they are not providing the services they are meant to provide. I hope that the good people of Warrington have been able to enjoy other leisure facilities in the meantime, possibly even private sector ones. The Government are clear: councils should not borrow more than they need in advance of their own requirements, purely to profit from the investment of the extra sums borrowed. Councils are not speculators and they should not behave as if they are.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) [V]]

A memo that was recently leaked to the Bloomberg news agency revealed the view of senior Tories that the majority of people in Scotland support independence. Will the Leader of the House make a statement to set out why he believes that support for Scottish independence is at record levels? Does he agree with the view in the memo that continuing to dismiss calls for an independence referendum in Scotland is counterproductive?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Six years ago, in the year of our Lord 2014, a referendum was held in Scotland to decide on whether Scotland wished to remain part of the United Kingdom. The people of Scotland, in their wisdom, voted to remain in the United Kingdom and that is why they are benefiting from £7.2 billion of UK taxpayers’ money to help them through the coronavirus crisis. The benefits of the United Kingdom are enormous. But I would say this, as an Englishman. I think it is absolutely wonderful that we are a single country to which Scotland has contributed enormously over the centuries. We are all kith and kin. We should be so pleased that we are a single country and grateful for the contribution of Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.

[Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)]

Carshalton and Wallington residents living in New Mill Quarter in Hackbridge recently woke up to find that they had no heating or hot water for the eighth or ninth time in a few short months, thanks to the failings of the local Lib Dem district energy network. The scheme has tied residents into a long contract with no option to switch suppliers, and despite the patchy services and high utility prices, they cannot do anything about it. Can we have a debate about decentralised energy networks and how we can protect consumers such as those living in Hackbridge?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who, every single week, manages to come up with another example of absolute incompetence by Lib Dem councils. Perhaps he should ask the Backbench Business Committee for a more general debate on why the Lib Dems cannot run anything and why it would be better voting Conservative.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Across the country, the hospitality, sports and leisure industries and their millions of workers are facing closures and restrictions, despite very little evidence being provided that they will have any significant impact on the pandemic—especially the 10 pm shutdown. May we have a specific debate, in which the Government can finally provide the basis for such draconian actions and we, the industry and the public can debate them and be clear whether the benefits really justify the costs of these measures? Frankly, they seem to be driven more by the need to be seen to be doing something than by any evidence.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is always difficult, when a debate has already been provided, when one is then criticised for not providing quite specific enough a debate. In a broad debate, any range of subjects can be raised relating to the coronavirus crisis. There is a debate later today, and one on the Monday when we get back, when these points can be raised. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has made regular statements to the House, where he can be questioned on these issues. Therefore, I think parliamentary time has been provided, while recognising the real difficulty that people in the leisure and hospitality sectors find themselves in. It is very tough for them, but the Chancellor is making a statement later, and I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will want to listen to that with care.

[Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)]

Town centres such as Accrington and Haslingden are struggling. We have some of the most amazing businesses, such as the Unscripted boutique, D. T. Law and the Lancashire Tea Room. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on high street and town centre regeneration so that we can discuss how we can support amazing businesses such as mine in Hyndburn and Haslingden?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of support for town centres. There is the £3.6 billion town centres fund, which is making really important efforts to help rejuvenate town centres. Town centres are important as community centres as much as for the economic activity they provide, but their economic activity is crucial. I cannot provide a specific time for a debate, but I think it is a good issue for a Backbench Business debate.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

I am sure, Mr Speaker, that you do not need me to tell you that rugby league clubs are the lifeblood of cities such as Hull. Yesterday I spoke to the owner of Hull FC, who explained the serious short-term challenges the club faces. May we have a Government statement to scrutinise the evidence behind the decision to close all open-air stadiums and what support can be given to rugby league clubs if the ban remains until April 2021?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As I have said before in the House, the Government are keen to look at ways of allowing spectators to go back in safely and will consider proposals as they are made. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport will be here to answer oral questions shortly after we are back, on 5 November, and that will be a good opportunity to raise this with him.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

We all need a little light diversion in these grim times, so may we have a statement in support of the annual world puddle jumping championships, which take place at the much-loved Wicksteed Park in Kettering? This year, due to the pandemic, the championships are going virtual and children across the land are being encouraged to send in video footage of their jumps, which will be judged on the basis of height of jump, enthusiasm, distance of splash, and the amount of mud covering the participant. Is this not just the sort of tonic we need in these difficult days?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

This is a brilliant idea, and who cannot recall the episode of “Peppa Pig” where Peppa decides to go and jump in a muddy puddle, that being her favourite activity? She is joined by her brother, George, by her father and her mother, and I have a feeling even the grandparents join in, and they all get covered in mud. I cannot promise my hon. Friend that that will be what the Rees-Mogg household are doing on world puddle jumping day, but certainly a number of my children will enjoy doing it very much, and he is to be commended for ensuring that world puddle jumping day has a wider audience.

[Mr Speaker]

And we mustn’t forget the Vicar of Dibley.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I have “follow me, follow, down to the hollow” ringing through my head now.

May I ask, I am afraid, about the Select Committee on Standards? As the Leader of the House knows, the Standards Committee is meant to have a majority of lay members who are able to vote. We have a lot of very important businesses; we have already done 11 reports in this Parliament and we have a major review of the code of conduct going on. We need a full quota of lay members. I am really grateful to the Leader of the House for tabling the single motion, which is down on the remaining orders, that would allow for Melanie Carter and Michael Maguire to be added to the Committee. I know that Standing Orders say we have to have a one-hour debate. Can I do a deal with the Leader of the House? If I promise that I will not speak in that debate and he promises that he will just move the motion very quickly, we could have a very short debate, and maybe we could get that done very quickly so that the Standards Committee can get on with its job.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

When Standing Orders provide for a one-hour debate, it is only right that that time is properly provided, should Members wish to use it, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are concerns over the way the recruitment process was carried out. There is disquiet in certain quarters with regard to that, and that is why the motion has not at this stage been brought forward, though it is under discussion.

[Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) [V]]

My right hon. Friend will recall the treaty of Wedmore in Somerset, by which, as he knows, the Vikings were finally kicked out of Wessex, and perhaps there are lessons there for us. Today, we have a counterfeit county council pretending to represent the whole of Somerset, and it wants to become yet another faceless unitary authority. It reminds me of the Viking army of Ivar the Boneless—all brawn and no legs. Thankfully, the Government have promised to look at every option, including the excellent ideas—and they are excellent—from Somerset district councils, which capture the true spirit of King Alfred. The districts want to bring our county together, not divide it still more, and I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has invited all Somerset councils, including our two existing unitaries, to submit ideas. Can we please have a debate on these matters soon because this county council, this narrow-minded Ivar the Boneless, wants to destroy our history? King Alfred must prevail.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Ivar the Boneless was given his marching orders actually from Nottingham by Alfred the Great with his brother Aethelred I—not to be confused with the unready one who comes a little bit later. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Ivar the Boneless must be moved out of Wessex—he ended up disappearing from history, as it happens, and is thought to have died in either 872 or 873. I have so much sympathy with what my hon. Friend is saying. Somerset is a great, single, individual county. It always seemed to me to be rubbing the salt in the wound of the 1974 local government reforms when Somerset County Council put up signs saying “Welcome to Somerset” when people were just going into its administrative area and not entering the great county.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Can we have a debate on the proposition that every child matters? I notice that this morning the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell), who was a Parliamentary Private Secretary, has resigned from the Government over yesterday’s debate and vote, no doubt because the tone of some of the speeches seemed to undermine that proposition and just wanted to attack the footballer Marcus Rashford who, following what happened said:

“Put aside all the noise, the digs, the party politics and let’s focus on the reality. A significant number of children are going to bed tonight not only hungry but feeling like they do not matter because of comments that have been made today.”

Every child matters—can we not all agree on that proposition?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Of course we can agree that every child matters. It is a fundamental view of all civilised people. It is not a party political issue. It is not a Government/Opposition matter. The debate yesterday was very clear: it is about how we look after people, not whether we look after people. I would point out that there are 100,000 fewer children in absolute poverty than there were in 2010. There are 780,000 fewer children growing up in a workless household. An additional £1 billion childcare fund giving parents the support and freedom that they need is being established, so the Government are taking great steps to support every child and ensure that every child has the best start in life.

[Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)]

I represent many fantastic communities in Redcar and Cleveland, but in Redcar town itself we have a specific problem with car crime. Every day we see images on social media of young lads in the middle of the night shining torches in car windows to look for valuables, and all too often the windows get smashed. I have raised this issue with my local chief constable, Cleveland’s acting police and crime commissioner, the Secretary of State for the Home Office and, now, the Leader of the House. Can we have a debate in Government time on how we can best tackle this recent surge in car crime, and does my right hon. Friend agree that the police and the courts should consider using all the mechanisms at their disposal to root out the yobs who are terrorising my communities?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue and to encourage the police to use all the powers they have to root out car crime, which is a particularly unpleasant form of crime. It must be very difficult for my hon. Friend’s constituents who are suffering in this way. The Government are recruiting 20,000 extra police officers, and several thousand have already been recruited. That will ensure a bigger police presence for communities across the country, including in Cleveland. My hon. Friend will be able to raise these questions further with the Home Secretary, but in this House there are many ways of raising issues to up the political pressure—Adjournment debates, Backbench Business debates, urgent questions—and I am sure that with your advice and wise counsel, Mr Speaker, my hon. Friend will find all the ways he can use to keep this issue at the front of public attention.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

National Mentoring Day is on 27 October, and the all-party parliamentary group on mentoring, which I chair, is, in conjunction with the Diana Award, absolutely delighted to have over 100 MPs from across this Chamber signed up to mentor a young person next week. I had hoped the Prime Minister might sign up, but I hope he will tune in this morning, and perhaps have a look at this again and lend his support. May we have a statement or debate on the importance of mentoring in building resilience in young people, alongside the long-awaited mental health of children strategy?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on what she is doing on mentoring. It is a way of giving young people a real chance to get ahead in their lives and make their mark. I am delighted to hear that 100 MPs are supporting her initiative. I will ensure that a message goes after this to No. 10 Downing Street so that the Prime Minister is aware of her request, although I cannot promise what the answer will be. I would really thank her for what she is doing. It is so important and such an important initiative.

[Mr Speaker]

We now go to Harrow airways and, with permission to land, Bob Blackman.

[Mr Speaker]

I think that is a bit too long a question.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend raises a point that is deeply concerning and he raises a very serious charge. Politically motivated interference in matters such as planning is improper, and I will ensure that the Housing Secretary is made aware of this. It is, of course, a matter for Harrow Council, but once the internal process has been exhausted, it may be possible to involve the local government ombudsman. Local authorities have to abide by a code of conduct, and to make planning decisions for electoral gain is thoroughly improper.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

My constituent Mr Latimer has for nearly two decades campaigned to halt the flow of illegal sewage dumping on to Seaburn beach behind his home. A ruling eight years ago stated that the levels of sewage breached legal guidelines, and new evidence shows that to this day dumping levels continue to be breached. This Government and the Environment Agency are ignoring him, the Whitburn Neighbourhood Forum and my pleas to try to sort this out. Why is this, and when can we have an urgent debate on this matter?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

This is a matter of great concern. It was raised last week by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke), who represents Dover and Deal. There are legal requirements on water companies to ensure that sewage is not dumped illegally. This must be taken up with Ofwat, and enforcement action must be taken if this is happening. I will ensure that the concerns the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) has raised are passed on. I cannot think of anything more disagreeable for her residents than to have to be suffering from this.

[Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)]

I can take the rough and tumble of this place as much as anyone, but some of the language we heard yesterday was abhorrent, particularly the use of the word “scum”. Now, I am sorry, but I got a phone call at half-11 last night from my mum saying that she had had people using that type of wording down the phone at her because she is my mother, and today my staff members have been called with that type of abhorrent abuse. It is absolutely not on. Can my right hon. Friend give us a debate in Government time on the standard of conduct we have in this Chamber, because the language we use impacts on people beyond us, and perhaps he will bring the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) here to apologise not just to us, but to my mum, who has had to abhor that today?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is right to say this. His mother should be enormously proud of his being a Member of this House. There is no greater service one can give to one’s fellow Britons than by being a Member of Parliament. It is the highest honour that one can have and the greatest service that one can do. I am sure his mother was aware of that before I said it, but I hope he will ensure that she does know that is a high position that he holds and that it is one of honourability.

The Chairman of Ways and Means dealt with the issue yesterday in the way we would expect from the Chair and dealt with it extremely clearly, but I remind Members of “Erskine May” paragraph 21.21:

“Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language.”

Inevitably when discussing heated political matters, people state their case forcefully, but they must do so politely.

[Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab) [V]]

The Government have used negotiations with Transport for London to impose longer operational hours, the congestion charge and the removal of freedom passes and under-18 passes for transport. Only this week, leaked Government plans have shown their intention to expand the congestion charge to the north and south circulars and to impose above-inflation fare rises. Instead of levelling unfounded and unfair criticism at the Mayor of London—criticism that has not been levelled at private firms that the Government have bailed out during the pandemic—can we have a debate in Government time on these leaked eye-watering proposals that are likely to impact 4 million Londoners, including my constituents in Enfield North?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Mayor of London has always done everything he possibly can to make life miserable for the motorist, and no doubt he wishes to continue to do so. He is no advocate of the motorist. The Conservative Government on the other hand are, with the largest road-building programme in decades and a real commitment to making motoring easier and helping people drive in the way that they wish to do. The fact that Transport for London has run out of money is because it was running out of money before the coronavirus, because it was badly managed by an incompetent Mayor.

[Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) [V]]

While it is important that our workplace is covid-secure and that we lead by example in Parliament, can my right hon. Friend advise how we avoid overstepping into a territory of impractical, unhealthy working conditions that overstretch even Government guidance and instead have an effective, safe, yet sensible working environment for colleagues and staff across the House? What is the process for reversing the unpopular measures that have already been employed, as and when we eventually emerged from this pandemic?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because she gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to the House authorities, obviously to you, Mr Speaker, and to Marianne Cwynarski. Between you, you have done amazing work to ensure that the House’s proceedings are carried on in a covid-secure way and that the staff of the House and of Members are kept safe in the House of Commons while we have been following Public Health England’s guidelines. My hon. Friend is right to say that we provide an essential service and we must be here, and that the restrictions must be lifted as soon as they can be. They are all temporary. I look forward to this Chamber being full and bustling once again, but that will have to come when it is safe to do so. I look forward to not having to wear a face mask, but again that must be done when it is safe to do so. We must lead by example to the country at large, both in our dutifulness and in our adherence to the rules.

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

This Sunday, our clocks will go back one hour as part of daylight saving time. According to a recent Government report, 59% of the British population would rather remain on summer time, and I think we can all agree that the last thing our country needs is another hour of 2020. With that in mind, will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time to discuss the practice of moving clocks backwards, so that we can follow the EU in scrapping this outdated and unnecessary practice?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Until the hon. Lady said, “follow the EU”, I might have been tempted, but I am afraid that I always enjoy the extra hour in bed. It is such a luxury to find that one gets the clocks going back to Greenwich mean time and has that extra hour’s sleep. More importantly, people in Scotland in particular would have very late mornings if we did not change the clocks. This was debated in 2010 and 2011, and it has been considered recently. When it was last tried, it was then unwound in both the UK and Portugal, so I am not sure that the appetite for change—and certainly not the appetite to follow the EU—is all that great.

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

In constituencies such as mine, the closure of the events and conference industry has hit local B&Bs and guest houses hard. Harrogate and Knaresborough are popular places to visit, even when there is not a pandemic. The House will be aware of the parks and gardens and Mother Shipton’s cave, and I know that my right hon. Friend is familiar with Bettys. With international travel being more difficult, can we have a debate on how best to support our domestic tourism sector and all the excellent hospitality businesses that are part of it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am indeed familiar with Bettys, because when I went to speak for my hon. Friend, I was provided with a goody bag of delicious provisions at the end of the evening. I also note that Harrogate has been declared the best place in the country to work—I am sure that that is because it has such a fantastic Member of Parliament, and the broadband is merely incidental. The Government are trying to do what they can to help tourism. With our wider economic package, we have given one-off grants for eligible hospitality and leisure businesses, and VAT has been cut from 20% to 5% until the end of March. Tourism is obviously seasonal, and therefore the situation is being watched closely to ensure that the right policies continue to be implemented. He may want to raise further questions with the Chancellor—if you have been kind enough to put him on the call list, Mr Speaker—shortly after this.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

Last month, the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), called for free school meals to be provided to every primary school pupil in the country, stating:

“I just want to make sure no-one falls through the cracks”.

Well, last night he failed to vote for free school meals, and his five Scottish colleagues voted against them. Can we have a debate in Government time on how many children in England will fall through the cracks as a result of his Government’s refusal to extend free school meals?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As I said earlier, the Government have done a great deal to alleviate poverty for children and have provided £380 million in food vouchers for families in need over the summer. Free school meals have only ever been intended to support pupils during term time. There has been an increase in universal credit of £1,000 a year, an increase in local housing allowance, £180 million in discretionary housing payments to councils, a £63 million local welfare assistance fund so that councils can help those in financial difficulties, and £16 million for food charities.

The Government take this issue really seriously and have made great steps to help people who are finding life difficult due to the consequences of the coronavirus. We must sometimes understand in this House that we seek the same end, but by different means. There is nobody in this House who does not want to alleviate food poverty, but there are different ways of doing it. We think it is best done through the normal functioning of the welfare system and by the additional measures that the Government have taken. That is an honest disagreement, but it is not a lack of concern.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Last Friday I visited the Grimsby seafood village—which, despite its name, is in my constituency—and met businesses that had established themselves or, indeed, expanded during the covid pandemic. We will need those sorts of businesses to develop and establish themselves in order to ensure that the economy recovers after we get through this crisis. Could we have a debate to discuss how we may support new businesses?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

First, I congratulate Grimsby seafood village on doing so successfully in the current circumstances and my hon. Friend on being a promoter of it. The Government are taking unprecedented action to support jobs and livelihoods across the UK, with more than £200 billion of taxpayers’ money being spent, including £11 billion in business grants and £10 billion in business rate relief. The summer economic update contained £33 billion of support through the jobs retention bonus and the eat out to help out scheme. The Chancellor will be here momentarily, and I am sure the Cleethorpes champion will be asking for Cleethorpes to get its fair share.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

On 13 August 2020, some 60 parliamentarians from 28 countries around the world sent a letter to the Vietnamese President, calling for the immediate and unconditional release of imprisoned Vietnamese human rights activist, Nguyen Bac Truyen, who was abducted by Vietnamese police on 3 July 2017 in Ho Chi Minh City. Truyen’s ongoing imprisonment highlights the issues that many face in Vietnam in the exercise of their right to freedom of religion or belief. Will the Leader of the House agree to a statement or a debate on this very pressing issue?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is perhaps the House’s most tireless campaigner for freedom of religion and for protection of religious minorities against persecution, and he has a great deal of support for what he does. The UK is committed to defending freedom of religion or belief for all and promoting respect between different religious and non-religious communities. Promoting the right to freedom of religion or belief is one of the UK’s human rights policy priorities, as it should be. The UK remains deeply concerned about the severity and scale of violations and abuses of freedom of religion in many parts of the world, and this issue will be raised with the Vietnam authorities at all suitable opportunities.

While answering the hon. Gentleman, may I congratulate him? I believe that, this week, he has become a grandfather for the fifth time, though he does not look old enough to have possibly managed this.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) [V]]

A number of Members across the House have been campaigning all their political lives to get this country free from the shackles of the European Union. Therefore, it is exceptionally good news that the European Union has recently changed its position on a comprehensive free trade agreement and that Mr Barnier is coming to London this afternoon to try to finalise that deal. Will the Leader of the House recommend to the Prime Minister that Parliament should be recalled next week for a statement and a debate if such a historic agreement is reached?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am sure that my hon. Friend took the pleasure that I took that Monsieur Barnier decided that he might come to talk to us on Trafalgar Day, which seemed to have a certain historic resonance. I do not think that it would be right to recall the House next week for a statement, but the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and, indeed, the Prime Minister have regularly kept this House up to date with developments in the negotiations.

[Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)]

Can we have a debate on how we can help our high streets and small businesses? I want to highlight Buxton’s future high streets fund bid, which has been shortlisted by the Government. I sincerely hope that it is successful. Buxton high street has had some difficult years, but there are lots of reasons for optimism, such as Buxton Crescent, which has just reopened after a £70 million heritage refurb into a five-star hotel and spa. That is just another of the brilliant reasons why everyone should come to visit Buxton, Britain’s best spa town, as soon as it is safe to do so.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Buxton is a wonderful spa town. I might slightly quibble about “best” seeing as my constituency is so close to Bath, and I might upset my neighbours if I were to—[Interruption.] Ah, it is a city. We can agree then, although Harrogate might be upset. I had better not say which is the best in the country, but Buxton is certainly a very beautiful spa town. I am delighted to hear about the reopening of the Buxton Crescent after the £70 million refurbishment. As I said earlier, high streets are essential to our towns and our sense of community, and it is really important to use the £3.6 billion towns fund well. My hon. Friend is such a fantastic champion for his own area, and this is important because we want people to visit our great and historic towns and cities and spend money there and keep the economies going and thriving.

[Chris Bryant]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am seriously worried about the Leader of the House’s answer about the Standards Committee, because we do need to be fully functioning. It is in the interests of the reputation of the House that we have all seven lay members appointed. It is nearly six months now since we went down to five lay members instead of seven. It is three months since the Commission, which you yourself chair, Mr Speaker, agreed the names that came forward through a process in which I was not involved at all. I note that the legislation says that the motion can be brought forward by any member of the Commission, but I wonder whether there is any means of you making sure that we are able to function fully as soon as possible.

Business of the House

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)]

The business for next week will include:

Monday 19 October—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Immigration and Social Security Co-Ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill.

Tuesday 20 October—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Non-Domestic Rating (Lists)(No.2) Bill followed by, general debate on Black History Month. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Wednesday 21 October—Opposition day (13th allotted day) There will be a debate on a motion relating to “fire and re-hire tactics” followed by, a debate relating to social care. Both debates will arise on a motion in the name of the official Opposition.

Thursday 22 October—General debate on covid-19.

Friday 23 October—Private Members’ Bills.



At the conclusion of business, the House will rise for recess and return on Monday 2 November.

The provisional business for the week commencing 2 November will include:

Monday 2 November—General debate on covid-19.

I am not going to pre-empt the statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, but if there were to be any subsequent implications for next week’s business I will of course update the House in due course.

[Valerie Vaz]

I thank the Leader of the House for the business. I note that it appears from the House of Commons Twitter account that we have not had any votes in the House. He mentioned last week the need for impartiality, but I point him to the “MPs’ Guide to Procedure”, that really handy book, which says that an explanatory statement must

“objectively describe the effect of the amendment”,

so all the Twitter account is doing—the House account; it says it in the name—is using the same words that for centuries have been drafted independently by House authorities and Clerks: the name of the ten-minute rule Bills and the vote. I consider that to be objective. Can the Leader of the House confirm that the Government are not censoring that Twitter account?

Mr Speaker, I am glad that you clarified with the Prime Minister yesterday that it is a matter for the Government whether we go back to a hybrid Parliament and remote voting. May I ask the Leader of the House to be careful how he updates the Prime Minister? He clearly is not doing a good job of it. We are entering a really difficult phase. As we speak, people are isolating, and hon. Members are doing the right thing by staying in their constituencies. The Leader of the House has scheduled two debates on covid-19. May I ask him again if we could return to remote voting and a hybrid Parliament? This is a fast-moving situation, and people have to be very careful.

On a House matter, the Chair of the Committee on Standards, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), wants to know when the motion on lay members of the Committee will be laid before the House. This is an independent procedure. There was only one Member involved—the rest were all outside, lay members—and they will think it slightly odd if we do not follow the correct procedure.

We must not use the pandemic to hide accountability for public money. According to The BMJ, £100 billion has been spent on Moonshot. No one has come to the House to explain Operation Moonshot, which has been paused. Who is responsible for it? The technology, as I understand it, does not exist, so where is the money going? The Good Law Project would like to know the answers for its pre-action protocol, so I hope it will get them. It is no wonder the Government are looking into a review of judicial review. Judicial review is a way of holding to account people who make decisions on the people’s behalf, using people’s money. May we have a statement from the Lord Chancellor when the review is completed? It is our job to uphold the rule of law, not to dismantle it.

I think it is frightening, and my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) thought it was grubby, this idea of one Minister saying, “I’ll give money to your town if you give money to my town.” I do not know if people are aware of the Carltona principle, but it means that a senior civil servant can stand in the shoes of a Minister and make a decision, which to me would seem an important way of dealing with this and avoiding the perception of Ministers giving money to each other. Given that the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have both said that there is an issue with the towns fund, will the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government come to the House, as asked by his shadow, and explain this?

The shadow Secretary of State for Health has highlighted that £56 million has been paid to consultants. I think now is a good time to publish the Cygnus report, so that we know whether public money has been spent in the right way.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) has said that public money has been used for legal fees to stop the debt being paid to Iran. At the heart of that are the two victims, Anoosheh and Nazanin, and also Luke Symons in Yemen. At Foreign Office questions, the Foreign Secretary said that all he has done is entertained his counterparts at Chevening; he has not made a statement. The Chair of the International Development Committee has tried to get him to appear before her Committee since June, but he has not done so.

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing that the Backbench Business Committee has a Black History Month debate next Tuesday. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) is co-ordinating an appeal for Memorial 2007, to remember the victims of the transatlantic slave trade and slavery. The Government have provided money for other memorials. Will the Leader of the House have a word with the relevant Minister so that in their response to the debate next Tuesday, they can announce that they are also going to put some money into the memorial to enslaved Africans?

Finally, Remembrance Sunday is in three weeks’ time. May we have an urgent statement on the organisational advice and guidance for local authorities for what will happen on that day?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The right hon. Lady is right to ask about Remembrance Sunday, but obviously regulations around the pandemic are changing and it would therefore be too early to commit to anything at this stage. She mentions Memorial 2007, and a very worthy memorial that is. It is worth remembering that in Victoria Gardens there is a memorial to the ending of the slave trade. It was put up in the 19th century, but most people walk past it without even knowing why it is there. We do commemorate, not very far from this House, the great effort that this country made in ending an evil trade.

I entirely agree with the right hon. Lady that all public money should be scrutinised carefully, however it is spent. We can be proud that this country has such a good record on its expenditure of public money. I think we are one of the least corrupt countries in the world, and that is because we have proper scrutiny of how public money is spent. I have every confidence that the way money has been spent by this Government, particularly on the towns fund, has been absolutely proper, because we know that there is scrutiny. That is the role of this House and has been since it came into existence. It is quite right that that should be the case.

As regards the review into judicial review, that manifesto commitment is being carried out. I am delighted that a Conservative Government are carrying out their manifesto commitments—that is why people voted for us, Mr Speaker. It shows that we are people of our word.

I am fascinated that the right hon. Lady should have raised the issue of the Good Law Project; I seem to remember that that is associated with a fox killer—a fellow who likes to go out into his garden and bash poor foxes over the head. I am surprised that people want to refer to that organisation, which is not necessarily led by the finest people in the land.

On Operation Moonshot, I do not recognise the figure of £100 billion having been spent; I am not sure where that comes from. Figures get bandied about, but £100 billion is a very, very large amount of money and I have to say that it might have been noticed had that much been spent.

The right hon. Lady asked about the lay members of the Committee on Standards. As often happens, motions are brought forward at the right time, and no doubt a motion will be brought forward, or more motions may be brought forward, at a suitable time.

I come to the heart of the right hon. Lady’s questions today: they are about how this Parliament does its business. We have a duty to be here doing our business. It is unquestionably the case that democratic scrutiny is essential, even during a pandemic. We have to be here, holding the Government to account, asking questions, getting answers, legislating and ensuring that statutory instruments of national significance are debated on the Floor of the House, so that our constituents are represented thoroughly, questions are asked and we seek redress of grievance for the people whom we seek to represent.

As we come here, we have a responsibility to ensure that we act in a responsible way. The House authorities, led by you, Mr Speaker, have made every effort to ensure that we are covid-safe. Look around this Chamber and look at what we have done. We are sitting 6½ feet apart from each other; we are socially distanced. Look at the markings on the floor—I am pointing at things in the Chamber; I hope that that is not too difficult for Hansard to take down. Those markings are set out. People are wandering around wearing masks. I cannot pretend that I like wearing a mask. I cannot pretend that I do not find it slightly tiresome that my spectacles steam up, and therefore one is wandering around somewhat unable to see where one is going. But we are wearing masks because we are showing the nation what we ought to be doing, and we are legislating at the same time. We have a personal responsibility and a duty to legislate. We have a duty to be here. We have to show the way. To suggest that democratic accountability is not an essential service seems to me to be an offence to democracy.

[Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)]

The aviation industry is clearly going through a very difficult time at present, but that does not change the longer-term case for regional airports, such as mine in Blackpool, to increase connectivity, expand tourism and boost jobs and growth. Does my right hon. Friend think it would be in order to have a debate in this place about the role that regional airports can play in boosting growth and levelling up?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Government certainly recognise that the aviation sector, which provides passenger and freight air services, is vital for domestic and global connectivity. The Government also recognise the importance of regional hubs. Bristol airport is very near to my constituency, so I completely understand the point my hon. Friend is making. We need a thriving, competitive aviation sector in the UK. The sector has benefited from the £190 billion package of job and income support, but it has been particularly badly affected. I think he ought to ask for an Adjournment debate specifically on Blackpool airport to raise any issues that arise with it.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]]

I will not be the only person who was disappointed at the response that the Leader of the House gave to the shadow Leader of the House a moment ago. Three of the four countries in the United Kingdom have introduced tougher restrictions on the public since we last had similar exchanges, and England will likely follow suit. Across all of them, there is a core message of avoiding unnecessary travel and working from home where possible. Surely, it is time for this Chamber to lead by example.

Many people will feel that the attempt by the Leader of the House to equate the role of MPs with that of frontline healthcare staff is somewhat shameless. Doctors cannot treat sick people without being physically present, but that is not the case for MPs. Everything we do could be done remotely; it is just that we choose not to, with the Government instead putting on a show in the Chamber in a vain attempt at normality. With lockdowns intensifying, this cannot continue. When will the Leader of the House switch the remote voting system back on, as recommended by the Procedure Committee, and when will the Government abandon the arbitrary distinction that allows Members to ask questions online but forbids them from moving motions or taking part in debates?

Secondly, I want to return to the question of Scottish independence. The Leader of the House may have seen the latest opinion poll that was published yesterday by Ipsos MORI, which shows 58% for independence. When I asked him last week if he would regard victory by Unionist parties at next May’s general election as a mandate for the Union, he did not answer, so I ask him again. If he truly believes that the election has no relevance to the Union because of a prior democratic event seven years before, will he confirm that the Conservatives will not be campaigning on that question at the forthcoming election?

More importantly, if the UK Government are determined to ignore the settled will of the Scottish people, can we have a debate on the consequences for the Union? It seems that we are moving away from government by consent, and that the UK Government desire to keep Scotland in the Union against the will of the people who live there. If so, Parliament ought to be told.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is disappointed with me, and that is a yoke I shall have to bear. It is, I fear, his default position to be disappointed with me, and I am afraid that in my answers today, his disappointment will only grow. I am sorry about that; none the less, I must proceed.

The House made a decision to be back in physical form and voted to return to physical voting—a system that is working effectively and ensures that our business can be done. It is essential for debates that we are here. The whole point of a debate is to challenge, to question, to intervene. That is not possible remotely. For Ministers, when we had that brief period of legislation going through remotely, it could not have been easier: all the Minister had to do was read out the prepared blurb. Nothing could be intervened upon; nothing could be questioned. [Interruption.] When we are here, as I am heckled by the Labour Chief Whip, interventions can come from a sedentary position, which may get the pith and moment of the debate, as the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) is so good at doing. That leads to proper, informed debate. [Interruption.] Even Mr Speaker is intervening now.

[Mr Speaker]

I was just saying that we would not have interventions in business questions.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very reassured that you are sticking to the rules, Mr Speaker. It is essential that we have debates in person, otherwise the Government are not held to account.

Then we come on to the question of the United Kingdom. The vote was held in 2014, and it was won by the Unionists. The Scottish National party said at the time that it was for a generation. I know that the SNP is now a bit embarrassed about Alex Salmond, its former leader and almost the creator of its success. Its Members are cautious about the text messages they have sent and forgetful about some of the meetings that the current leader held with him. It is amusing that, as I understand it, the current leader of the Scottish National party, Mrs Sturgeon, was so busy preparing to answer questions in the Scottish Parliament that she forgot what she had been discussing at other times of the day. I do not find that these memory lapses occur when I prepare for business questions, but never mind that particular point.

It was said that the vote would last for a generation, and a generation is not seven years. What will we campaign on? The success of the Union. Some £7.2 billion has gone to Scotland, and 779,500 jobs in Scotland have been protected in the furlough scheme. The United Kingdom taxpayer is able to afford that because it is the taxpayers of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland coming together for the greater good of our wonderful nation.

[Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con) [V]]

Back in March, as the elected chair of the Council of Europe’s Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, I called on the 47 member states not to let democracy be a casualty of the covid crisis. My default position is usually to support the Leader of the House. It is ironic that in our own Parliament, despite having the technology, elected MPs who cannot attend Parliament for valid medical or other reasons are denied the right to participate remotely in proceedings other than questions, statements and Select Committees. However, it is good enough for the unelected Members of the Lords, who are able to use remote facilities to participate in debate. A vital part of democracy is currently being denied to elected MPs. In the face of the rising tide of covid infections, can we have a debate on the death of democracy in the mother of Parliaments, or will the Leader of the House get off his high horse and remove this restriction, which has resulted in the discriminatory silencing of the voices of so many of his colleagues, leaving them unable to perform their scrutiny function?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am obviously sympathetic to the position that my right hon. Friend finds herself in—she is a much respected Member of this House—but the truth is that democracy has not died; it is thriving, because we are holding our debates properly. My right hon. Friend does take part—she is taking part now in interrogative proceedings, which is an exception to our normal course of business. Debates do not work without interventions. I know that she wishes to introduce a private Member’s Bill on Friday, but when a Member introduces a Bill, they need to be questioned and cross-examined on what is happening. That does not work in remote proceedings. When we had remote proceedings, there was no facility for interventions. The remote voting system in the House of Lords went down, and they had to do it all over again. We cannot have systems that fail. When we are here in person, the debates work, the legislation is challenged and democracy is upheld.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) [V]]

I thank the Leader of the House for the business statement and for the protected time—as I understand it—for the Backbench Business Committee debate on Black History Month on Tuesday coming.

I cannot help but notice that the Government continue to schedule general debates of their own, albeit on important issues, with general debates scheduled for both 22 October and 2 November. The Backbench Business Committee currently has 32 unallocated debates on a wide range of subjects, subscribed to by hundreds of Members from all parties. I am saying this not on behalf of myself or the Committee, but on behalf of Members across the House who wait for time for their debates in various states of patience or impatience. Only this morning I have been asked by the Chair of the Education Committee, the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), to remind the House that he has an application awaiting time for a debate on food hunger among children. Will the Leader of the House please consider that when he allocates time for general debates in the House?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I can confirm that there will be three hours of protected time for the debate on Black Lives Matter. I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but the Government have to strike a balance and there seems to me to be considerable demand for covid debates. I will of course bear in mind his request for more time for the Backbench Business Committee and our obligations under Standing Orders.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con) [V]]

Last month, Her Majesty’s Treasury announced proposals to end tax and duty-free shopping from next year. The sector represents outputs of around £2 billion for our economy and employs around 20,000 people. May we have a debate on the reconsideration of the policy at the earliest opportunity?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

One of the great things about leaving the European Union is that we are getting duty-free back, so for the first time in 20 years people will be able to get some cheap alcohol when they travel to the European Union. As I understand it, the VAT reclaim scheme will still apply if goods are posted to the person, even if it will no longer be available if a person takes them out of the country themselves. We had to decide, under World Trade Organisation rules, whether to extend the scheme to all EU nationals or withdraw it from non-EU member state nationals. The decision was taken to unify it in the way that we already have it with the European Union, rather than to extend the concession. The consequences for revenue would have been quite significant otherwise.

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

Of the 61 areas chosen by Government Ministers for the new towns fund, 60 were in Conservative-held constituencies. May we have a debate in Government time on this scandal?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That is because we won so many seats at the general election.

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con) [V]]

My right hon. and very sound Friend will recall that I recently asked him about the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and the fact that it has treated Members departing from this place at different general elections differently and inequitably. I hope he agrees with me, despite IPSA’s letter, that it is wrong and should be righted. Does my right hon. Friend also agree that IPSA should not break employment laws, whether imposed by the EU or by our own lawmakers? Will he condemn the two-tier system that IPSA has decreed in respect of who can or cannot work for Members of Parliament? All Members in this place should be equal, but at present they are obviously not viewed as such by the establishment.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

IPSA is independent of Parliament and Government and has sole responsibility for setting and regulating MPs’ salaries, pensions, business costs and expenses. That decision was come to in the wake of the expenses scandal in 2009: it was thought that Members should not themselves be responsible for such issues. I will, of course, take up for any right hon. or hon. Member any concerns they have with IPSA, but the principle of independence is an important one, and therefore as Leader of the House I should not weigh in with heavy criticisms of an independent body.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

This morning I attended a virtual conference held by ThinkForward, which provides skills mentoring in my community. It was an exciting collaboration between young people, schools and local businesses, and we discussed how to create better opportunities for people in my community during these challenging times. May we have a debate in Government time on how we maximise opportunities in this difficult period?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman should come over to the Government Benches, where he would be extremely welcome, because he is really advocating Government policy for levelling up. I hope we will have many opportunities to debate the success and ambition of our levelling-up programme.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) [V]]

Our Union must be protected at all costs, so can my right hon. Friend confirm that it would be illegal for the Welsh Labour Government to introduce an intensive border within the UK to restrict movement between England and Wales, and that to do so would damage our precious Union and the links between our four great nations?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Mr Speaker, what would you expect of a hard left Labour Government? The approach to putting a border between England and Wales is unconstitutional and will place the police in an invidious position considering that they serve the whole of the United Kingdom. We are one single United Kingdom and we should not have borders between different parts of the United Kingdom. I am afraid that that is what you get when you vote for socialists.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House has already expressed confidence in how money is allocated by the towns fund this morning. If that is the case, why will the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government not come here to answer questions on the subject? I for one would love to ask him why every town that was classed as low priority by officials and that was actually given funding just happened to be a Conservative-held seat or a target seat at the general election last year. That seems to me a remarkable coincidence that demands an explanation by the Secretary of State. Does the Leader of the House agree?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I point out that we won lots of seats at the last election and we won lots of seats in areas that had previously been held by the Labour party, and that seats can change from one party to another, but that is not one of the criteria. Of course, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State makes regular statements to this House. He will be back here for questions on 16 November, but there are other ways of questioning him, including written questions, and the hon. Gentleman knows how to use the procedures of this House.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Can we have a debate on censorship? Then we would be able to discuss the sinister disappearance of the link from Google to the Great Barrington declaration, couldn’t we?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

When I first heard of the Barrington declaration, I thought it was something to do with cricket, but it turns out that it is not. Sir Ken Barrington was a very distinguished cricketer. I will not go into the Barrington rules for children to play under, which are very successful.

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the question of censorship. The Government are sceptical about the Barrington declaration, but that does not mean that people should not be free to discuss it, and it is a worrying trend for large internet operators to think that they should be the arbiters of free speech. It is not for them to arbitrate over free speech. It is perhaps even more troubling that they are sometimes slow to take down material that could damage children, but they are not so slow to take down things that they do not agree with politically, and that raises important questions.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Disabled people already faced significant barriers to accessing work before the pandemic. Recent research from Citizens Advice shows that one in four disabled people have reported that they are now at risk of losing their job, or are in the process of doing so. What are the Government doing to ensure that this pandemic does not lead to a rollback in the progress that the UK has made on disability inclusive employment?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Government will be publishing a national strategy for disabled people, taking into account the effects of the pandemic and therefore including effects on employment, and that is policy work that is under way. There has also been the announcement of a fund of £1 million for charities supporting people with learning disabilities to help them in this difficult time.

[Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the treatment of people suffering with endometriosis? On the 19th of this month, the all-party group will present its findings following the survey of more than 10,000 people. I do hope that our recommendations will be acted on.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue during business questions again. He has been an admirable campaigner for the treatment of people suffering from endometriosis, which is a disease of considerable significance and concern to a significant number of people, and he is right to raise awareness of it. His report will, I am sure, be welcomed and will be passed to the Secretary of State. If he has any difficulty getting a reply, he may raise it again at business questions and I will certainly help him ensure that he gets a reply.

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

On 22 September, I raised concerns with the Prime Minister about holiday companies refusing to recognise the Welsh local lockdown regulations and refusing people refunds when they are unable to go on their holidays. The Prime Minister asked for details because he was unaware of the situation, which I provided to him on that day, but three weeks later I still have not heard anything back. Could we have a debate or a statement from the Government outlining what they intend to do to support people across Wales who are affected by this situation?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Obviously I will try to seek an update for the hon. Gentleman in response to his letter. As I said earlier in relation to Scotland, the United Kingdom taxpayer has given an enormous amount of support to Wales, with £4.4 billion and over 400,000 jobs being supported through the furlough scheme. There are significant amounts of money. This is part of the success of the United Kingdom in being one country and being able to support all parts of it.

[Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate to ensure that this Chamber remains open in order that each one of us, on both sides of the House, can represent their constituencies—in my case, the beautiful island of Ynys Môn? The House of Commons sat during the war. We must sit now, especially at this most important time for our country.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend asks a really important question. At the beginning of the year, it was necessary for Parliament to sit virtually in order to continue to function and to scrutinise Government during the lockdown. But during remote proceedings it became clear that when working from home MPs were not able to perform their constitutional role as effectively, either in scrutinising the Government or in getting vital legislation on to the statute book. The House authorities have made really first-class efforts to ensure that physical proceedings are in operation in line with Public Health England guidance and are safe both for Members and for staff of the House. Your leadership, Mr Speaker, has been inspirational in these terms. It is the Government’s view that returning to a physical Parliament has allowed proper scrutiny to be restored with better debate and greater progress for legislation. It is only thanks to returning to physical proceedings in that carefully managed fashion that we have been able to scrutinise and pass new legislation effectively, including the new and urgent coronavirus regulations, and complete the essential transition period legislation.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Yes, but a growing proportion of Members simply cannot take part and would be able to if we switched on virtual participation in debates, while those who wanted to come would be able to. For example, we could have a debate on my early-day motion 1001 on the emergency gift aid campaign.

[That this House marks the annual Gift Aid Awareness Day which fell on 8 October 2020; appreciates that Gift Aid Relief is the practical application of the long-established principle that donations to charities should not be taxed; recognises that the charitable sector is in the middle of the biggest financial crisis it has ever faced, with huge falls in income at the same time as increased demand for services; considers that a Gift Aid Emergency Relief Package would go a long way to keeping vital charitable services running; calls on the UK Government to increase Gift Aid from 20% to 25% for two years from the start of the 2020-21 tax year; further calls on the UK Government to introduce changes to the Gift Aid Small Donations Scheme to remove barriers for entry to ensure wider access across the voluntary sector and increase the amount that can be claimed from £8,000 to £10,000; and believes that the cost of such measures need not be prohibitive given that the National Audit Office estimates that £560m of eligible Gift Aid is unclaimed each year and that charities are likely to see an overall fall in donations in the current challenging economic circumstances.]

As the shadow Leader of the House pointed out, this time last week it was Gift Aid Awareness Day. So many charities, big and small, are providing vital services in response to the pandemic but are equally being hit by fundraising difficulties. A short-term uplift in the gift aid scheme, for a couple of years, would allow them to access extra funds in order to deliver those vital services. Could the Leader of the House find time for a debate on that?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of gift aid and the difficulties that charities are facing. The Government have provided some extra support for charities to help them through this period. I cannot, I fear, promise him a debate, but, Mr Speaker, you have no doubt heard his application for an Adjournment debate.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)]

6 January 2009 was a sad day in our nation’s history when we said goodbye to a British institution. I worked for Woolworths and loved every minute of it. It sat at the heart of our communities, providing great jobs and some of the best pick’n’mix known to man. Our high streets are fighting for their lives in a battle made ever worse by the pandemic. Will my right hon. Friend consider a debate on the future of our high streets?

[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.

[Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)]

People throughout the country are benefiting from this Government’s stamp duty holiday. However, given the high property prices in central London, many of my constituents are not benefiting. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need a fundamental review of stamp duty, because ultimately it is a tax on social mobility?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think that I might cause trouble inside the Government if I started speculating about what might happen with stamp duty. That is a matter for the Chancellor, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue, because I completely understand that it affects her constituency differently from many other constituencies in the country. I will pass on her comments to the Chancellor.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Yesterday, I heard that in my constituency of Blaydon, one child in four now lives in poverty, an increase of 7% over the past four years. New research from the End Child Poverty coalition shows that the north-east has the second highest rate of poverty in the UK. Poverty blights the lives of children for the rest of their lives. We urgently need a national strategy to eradicate child poverty, so will the Leader of the House commit the Government to examining this issue? Can we have a debate in Government time on this hugely important issue?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight this important and troubling issue, which shows that there is still more to be done, but the Government have already achieved a great deal. It is worth noting that 200,000 fewer people live in absolute poverty now than in 2010, and absolute poverty rates across the country have fallen in every region since 2010. There are 786,000 fewer children living in a workless household now, which is a record low. Although I absolutely understand what the hon. Lady is saying, and I sympathise with her point and I accept that there is more to be done, a great deal has already been achieved.

[Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)]

Carshalton and Wallington residents have been sending me photos and videos of the chaos that road closure schemes are causing, thanks to their introduction by the Lib Dem-run council. That has included videos of emergency service vehicles having to turn around while on call and find alternative routes to incidents. That is not acceptable, so can we have a debate about the introduction of these road closure schemes and the need for local authorities to consult properly with residents and with the emergency services?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Unfortunately, Lib Dems hate the motorist and therefore they have used this scheme, wherever they have had the opportunity, to make life more difficult for the motorist. Conservatives are supporters of the motorist and the great freedom that motoring brings, but local authorities are autonomous and therefore we must campaign for more Conservative councillors to try to be on the side of the motorist.

[Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP) [V]]

Polls released this week suggest that almost 80% of young people in Scotland would vote for Scotland to be an independent country. The Government have used public money to conduct their own polls on support for independence, and in response to earlier questions, the Leader of the House made the case for parliamentary scrutiny, so why will the Government not publish those polls and give answers to legitimate parliamentary questions asked by my colleagues? What have Her Majesty’s Government got to hide?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Her Majesty’s Government have nothing to hide. It is worth reminding the hon. Gentleman that there was a proper poll—a poll where people went with a pencil and cast an X in 2014. X marked the spot, and the spot was remaining in the United Kingdom.

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)]

In my constituency, inspire+ is a fantastic local charity that works with schools to provide engaging physical education lessons. It has shown me that active children are healthier, happier and better students. Can we have a debate on the importance of sports and PE in our national curriculum?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, and I congratulate inspire+ on the work it is doing. PE and sport is a vital part of a broad and balanced school curriculum—in brackets, when I was at school, I absolutely hated it, close brackets—[Laughter.] No, never mind. It has benefits not just for physical health, but for wider wellbeing, attainment and engagement with other children. The primary PE and sport premium provides funding directly to primary schools to make sustainable improvements. The Government have confirmed funding of £320 million for the current academic year, and the first payments will be made to schools, as usual, at the end of this month. I will make sure that my hon. Friend’s views are shared with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education. I confess that, when I was at school, I made Walter the Softy look strong, which was perhaps why I was not so keen on PE personally.

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

Monzo, Starling, Lloyds and Barclays banks have all made gambling blocks available on their accounts. Introducing this friction is a vital part of the support that banks can provide to help people with a gambling addiction. Will the Leader of the House join me in commending the actions of these banks, encourage others to follow their lead and urge all in the financial sector to do even more to help prevent gambling-related harm?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Indeed, I join my hon. Friend on the very encouraging point she raises. Tackling gambling addiction is a cause that has cross-party support. The Government are committed to protecting people from the risks of gambling-related harm, and we have been clear that we will review the Gambling Act 2005 to ensure that it is fit for the digital age. I do hope that more banks will follow the commendable example raised by my hon. Friend. It is encouraging when businesses act of their own accord to improve the lives of their customers in this way and do not need intervention from the state. My hon. friend is one of the most successful campaigners in this House, and I know she will continue with this campaign, which has a great deal of support. She has an opportunity to raise it further at Digital, Culture, Media and Sport questions on 5 November.

[Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

In last week’s business questions, my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) raised questions about the flooding of raw sewage. This is an issue in many constituencies, including in my own in the historic town of Deal, which has seen inadequate management by Southern Water and ineffective oversight and regulation by Ofwat. Will my right hon. Friend provide time for a much-needed debate on this issue so that we can put an end to the scourge of smelly sewage and filthy flooding?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The distress that sewer flooding can cause is very considerable, and water companies have a duty to drain their areas effectively. I can assure my hon. Friend that the regulator takes this issue seriously. Water companies are expected to reduce the amount of sewage flooding that their customers experience, and they face penalties if they fail to achieve this. We do expect companies to improve their planning in co-operation with others responsible for drainage, so they can take a more strategic approach to reducing sewer flooding as part of the new drainage and wastewater management plans. In the first instance, I cannot promise a debate in Government time, but it may be another Adjournment debate under your auspices, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

You’re all heart.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

The national data strategy was unveiled recently, and I am sure the Leader of the House knows how important it is that we secure a data adequacy agreement with the European Union soon. He may also have noticed that commentators were surprised at what they termed the “buccaneering” language used in some of it, which I would perhaps attribute to Mr Dominic Cummings. Given the importance of securing data flows with the European Union, can the Leader of the House make time for a statement from a Minister on this very important issue soon?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As I have just mentioned, Digital, Culture, Media and Sport questions will be on 5 November, so “Remember, remember the 5th of November” for other purposes. The national data strategy is a very good strategy. We need to be buccaneering about it because it may determine our economic future, and if that is coming from Dominic Cummings, all power to his elbow.

[Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)]

In 1821, this House passed the Act that brought about the Stockton and Darlington railway, enabling Darlington to become the birthplace of the railways. Our world heritage bridge featured on the £5 note, with Locomotion No. 1 travelling across it, and my constituents are petitioning for that engine to stay in Darlington. We have grand plans to develop a rail heritage quarter, in part funded by a successful towns fund bid. Our nation will have the opportunity to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the railways in 2025. As they are central to our country’s identity and economy, I wonder whether the Leader of the House could find time to debate how our nation might mark and celebrate this significant milestone, highlighting the significant contributions of our railways, past, present and future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is right to raise this important anniversary, though neither of us were there for the Bill’s introduction in 1821, it being a little before our time. Locomotion No. 1 in Darlington shows Darlington’s central importance to the story of our railways and the community around that. The Government towns fund will spend £3.6 billion of taxpayers’ money in town centres and high streets to level up our regions and create places across the country where people want to live and thrive. So Darlington has its own bid in, and I wish it good luck. The 200th anniversary is an opportunity for international attention to turn to Darlington, and it is worth noting that Her Majesty’s Government have the biggest railway building programme since that happy era when Queen Victoria was on the throne.

[Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)]

Yesterday, the Government took out a full-page advert in my local paper to inform people of the new covid alert level across Bradford, but the advert got the tier wrong. It said that we are in the medium tier, whereas Bradford and the whole of West Yorkshire is in the high level. From statements via Twitter to late-night announcements, this is more staggering incompetence from a Government who are losing their grip on this pandemic. The very least we can all expect is accurate information on new rules, so may we have a debate in Government time on Government communications during this pandemic?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Government have done a great deal to support local newspapers through this pandemic by placing adverts in them, and that has been an important way to help a community facility that is very much appreciated. I urge people to look up the regulations on the Government website to find out which tier they are in and what the regulations mean for them, but I am glad to tell the hon. Lady that there will be two debates on covid when it will be possible to raise these issues.

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

Please may we have a debate on the role of skills in the levelling up agenda, which is so central to this Government’s priorities? It would be very valuable to explore the role of skills, particularly digital skills. Businesses raise the issue of digital skills with me more than any other issue in the sphere of employment.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I thank my hon. Friend and agree with him that finding innovative ways to advance our digital skills is vital to our levelling up agenda and building back stronger from the pandemic. The Government have established local digital skills partnerships in seven regions across England to bring together cross-sector regional and national partners to work to improve the skills of the current workforce, advance digital inclusion and build thriving regional economies. In addition, there is a £3 million digital skills programme in Greater Manchester and Lancashire—Lancashire, Mr Speaker—to boost digital training skills. My hon. Friend is raising an important point.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Bearing in mind the tremendous decision in the criminal courts in the Republic of Ireland to sentence the murderer of a Garda Siochana officer for the first time since the mid-1990s with a 40-year sentence, will the Leader of the House agree to a debate to highlight the need for similar changes to be made in the courts of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to ensure that those who murder service personnel will know that they face enhanced sentences, especially in the light of the leniency in Northern Ireland that has left Royal Ulster Constabulary and Police Service of Northern Ireland widows and families feeling that the justice they have achieved for their loved ones is not on a par with the loss they still face today?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Government unquestionably owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to the brave men and women of the RUC and the PSNI for their incredible work in keeping the people of Northern Ireland safe. The hon. Gentleman should be commended for his efforts to ensure that the victims of terrorist violence should receive the justice and support to which they are entitled. The sacrifice of those who have paid the ultimate price in the performance of their duties must not be forgotten. Criminal justice is, of course, devolved in Northern Ireland, but we are aware that under the Northern Ireland Executive’s tackling paramilitarism programme, the Department of Justice has committed to a review of sentencing policy. I urge him to get involved with that review and make his views known.

[Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)]

I represent a football-mad constituency with the majority being Leeds United and Huddersfield Town supporters. In Germany, France, Italy and Spain, fans have been allowed back into their stadiums, albeit in a much smaller numbers to allow for social distancing in an outdoor environment. I am a proud Leeds United supporter. Will my right hon. Friend consider allowing a debate on getting fans back into football stadiums safely, which would help football clubs at all levels that are struggling financially from the pandemic?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

This is clearly an important issue for many Members of Parliament, and the Government are committed to getting spectators back into stadiums as soon as it is safe to do so. We will continue to work with a range of sports to understand how spectators may be allowed back safely. That does include the creation of a new sports technology and innovation group with sporting bodies and health experts to analyse new technologies that might support that. The Government appreciate that more must be done to allow fans back to stadiums safely, and there is good news that the Premier League is spending £50 million to support grassroots football throughout the crisis. I remind my hon. Friend about 5 November when the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport will be at the Dispatch Box.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP) [V]]

This week the Council of Europe and its 47 member states adopted the report “Drug policy and human rights in Europe: a baseline study”. It advocates for a health and human rights-based approach to drug use and addiction and recognises that the criminal justice approach that the likes of the UK Government take is failing people across the world. I was the proud author of that report, and I hope that the UK Government will now adopt all aspects of it to save lives and protect communities. Can we have a debate on drugs policy and human rights and ensure that the relevant powers to deal with drug use and addiction are devolved to Scotland, so we can ensure that we meet our international obligations and implement best practice for Scotland and her people?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am sure the Government will look at the report that the hon. Lady refers to, but it will not surprise her to learn that there are no current plans to change drugs policy.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) [V]]

Lord Frost and the British EU negotiating team have returned from Brussels this morning and are about to brief the Prime Minister on whether to continue negotiations or to call it a day and prepare for a no-deal trade Brexit. Will the Leader of the House say whether there are any plans for the Prime Minister to come to the House tonight to make a statement or whether he plans to make the statement to the House on Monday, which would be a good day as it is my birthday and I would like to know, as a very good birthday present, the decision?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The House will be en fête on Monday in celebration of my hon. Friend’s birthday, the bunting will be up and the state trumpeters will be borrowed, if possible, from Buckingham palace, so that we may have a proper fanfare, but unfortunately I cannot at this point promise a particular statement.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

As it is my birthday tomorrow, can that be done for me first, particularly as the Prime Minister cancelled my birthday party last year because of the special sitting we had to have on a Saturday—because of Brexit? May we have a debate about the growing concern about public appointments and the awarding of contracts by this Government? Government really should not be about a bunch of people lecturing everyone about the spending of taxpayers’ money while organising the state to ensure that they and their friends get a fat piece for themselves.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That is an outrageous question and beneath the hon. Gentleman.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

In the light of the Darren Grimes case, where it seems it is now permissible for a man to be subject to police investigation for simply asking a question—Orwell come to life—will my right hon. Friend agree that we are endangering a free press by allowing and endorsing censorship disguised in the sugar-coating of social justice?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The police are obviously operationally independent, so I would not want to speak about a particular case. I will say this, however. Freedom of speech is one of the pillars of our constitution. Without freedom of speech we find that democracy fails, because there is no ability to question what people are doing and saying. We know that over the centuries regimes that attack freedom of speech often do so through legal means. We used to have criminal libel in this country, which was used in the 18th century to silence people who said disobliging things about the Government. We do not want to be in the situation where laws are used to stop freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is valuable whether it is responsible speech or irresponsible speech, as long as it does not incite hatred or violence. That is the key, and freedom of speech must be protected by this House.

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

With bonfire night on the horizon, people across the country will be preparing to celebrate in ways that are likely to differ from celebrations in years gone by. With planned public displays across the country and in my own constituency cancelled left, right and centre, more and more people are likely to want to celebrate at home. Yet we must remember how dangerous using fireworks can be, from both a health and safety and an environmental point of view, with animals suffering from distress, along with those suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and mental health conditions. With that in mind, will the Leader of the House please commit to a debate in Government time to discuss the greater regulation of firework sales?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

No, I am sorry, but I won’t. I think the regulations are about right and fireworks are fun.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

As a Liberal Democrat, who is, coincidentally, also a motorist, can I say that none of us can possibly miss the fact that today is 15 October, the deadline imposed by the Prime Minister for negotiations with the European Union? As recently as last week, one of the UK’s Brexit negotiators, Lord David Frost, stood by the Prime Minister’s statement that the UK could walk away from negotiations if an agreement was not reached by today. All we have in this place are rumours about micro-deals and speculation. Will the Leader of the House please explain why we have not had a ministerial statement, and will he tell us when we can expect one?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

When the hon. Lady said we must remember it is 15 October, I had a nasty moment because it is, of course, my wife’s birthday. Fortunately, I had not forgotten. It would have left me in a good deal of trouble if I had. The hon. Lady’s question is a very important one. It is important that the House is updated in reasonable time about what the situation is. Currently, there is nothing to update, otherwise the House would be updated.

[Mr Speaker]

In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.

Business of the House

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We now have a business statement on which I will call only the shadow Leader of the House and the SNP spokesman to ask questions.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)]

With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement.

Further to the earlier statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, tomorrow’s business will now be:

Consideration of a business of the House motion after which the House will be asked to approve the following regulations: The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Local Covid-19 Alert Level) (Medium) (England) Regulations 2020; The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Local Covid-19 Alert Level) (High) (England) Regulations 2020; The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Local Covid-19 Alert Level) (Very High) (England) Regulations 2020; The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Collection of Contact Details etc and Related Requirements) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1005); The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Obligations of Hospitality Undertakings) (England) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1008); The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Obligations of Undertakings) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1046); and The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1029).

At the conclusion of proceedings on these regulations, the House will proceed to remaining stages of the Fisheries Bill [Lords]. The business for Wednesday and Thursday remains unchanged from that previously announced. I shall make a further statement announcing future business on Thursday.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

I thank the Leader of the House for coming to the House to make a statement.

When will these regulations be published? The Leader of the House listed all of them. Will they be taken together, or separately by region? How long will the debate on the regulations be? Will it be a full day’s debate? There are constituents who are losing their jobs as we speak, and they will expect their MPs to scrutinise and debate the regulations fully. Will the subject matter include the package of economic support available for the communities affected and the evidence that has been used to place our constituencies in the different tiers?

The Leader of the House will know that Members have been unable to take part in some of the debates on primary legislation for public health reasons. Could he confirm that we can return to virtual debates allowing all hon. Members to take part equally as these regulations are so important and they need to do their democratic duty on behalf of their constituents?

The Secretary of State for Health said on Wednesday that there will be a new convention that wherever possible we will be holding votes before such regulations come into force. Could the Leader of the House confirm that if there are any future changes to the tiered system where constituencies are moved from one tier to another, we can have a debate and a vote on that?

We will work with the Government if there is any legislation that needs to be expedited. However, the House first heard of the financial package on Friday when the Chancellor made a statement to the media at the same time as the Prime Minister was talking to the leaders in the north-east and the north-west, and some of our colleagues—hon. and right hon. Members—were not even invited to that call. Will the Chancellor come to the House regarding any future package, because economic support goes hand in hand with lockdown measures? We should not have to hear about this in a “Dear colleague” letter when he is just across the road.

All our citizens behaved absolutely brilliantly during the first lockdown, and that resulted in a lifting of restrictions over the summer. Will the Government repay that trust by ensuring that they treat our constituents’ elected representatives in a democratic way by informing hon. and right hon. Members of any measures that are made in this House, and doing so expeditiously?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I hope that the orders will be laid even while I am speaking, but certainly the intention is for them to be laid very shortly. A programme motion will be attached to that. It will not be a full day’s debate because we will be moving on to the Fisheries Bill, but there will be some hours of debate available.

The right hon. Lady is right to point out that it was unfortunate that the Chancellor’s package was leaked and therefore an announcement needed to be made when the House was not sitting. This is most regrettable, as announcements should be made to the House first, and that was the intention of the Chancellor and of Her Majesty’s Government.

With regard to remote activities, interrogative proceedings remain possible remotely, but it is worth remembering that attendance at this House is essential work and that all the restrictions still allow people to travel for their work, even out of a restricted area, so Members remain entitled, free and, indeed, under some element of duty to attend this House if they are capable of doing so. The commitment is to have votes on matters that are of national significance. Inevitably, that is not a precise definition, but I hope that the Government and Members of this House will work together to ensure that any issues that are of national significance, and are widely deemed to be of national significance, will come to the House first. I think that is the right thing to do, and the commitment that my right hon Friend Secretary the Health Secretary made in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) in a recent statement made this absolutely clear.

May I thank the right hon. Lady for the support that she has volunteered today and for her right praise of the behaviour of the people of the United Kingdom? We are governed by consent and therefore regulations that are passed by this place need the consent of the British people given through their representatives. That has been given in a remarkable way, and I am sure that that will continue. It will certainly be shown in the respect by Members of Her Majesty’s Government to this House. The Prime Minister was on his feet for the best part of two hours answering as many questions as he possibly could, and this level of engagement is only right and proper.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

We welcome the opportunities that will exist for scrutiny, and I refer the Leader of the House to the amendment that we tabled to the coronavirus extension motion, which detailed some of the kinds of scrutiny that already take place in Holyrood. Perhaps there are lessons that can be learned about the more open and transparent way that the Scottish Government have been conducting themselves since the start of this process.

Under the proceedings under the pandemic orders, the EVEL—English votes for English laws—Standing Orders have been suspended. Who knows how long that suspension might last for? I would still expect that we will exercise our self-denying ordinance where these regulations relate directly to England and Wales and fall within devolved competence, although, of course, we would be interested in any Barnett consequentials that come from expenditure.

I want to back up the shadow Leader of the House on the point about virtual participation and remote voting. These regulations are going to make it more difficult for Members to travel, irrespective of historical rights. Members might be in households where they have to self-isolate, or they might not want to set that example to their constituents, so I plead with the Leader of the House to consider, at the very least, virtual voting and if at all possible, virtual participation in substantive proceedings.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The devolved authorities and Her Majesty’s Government are working closely together, and I think that is important. It is right that EVEL has been suspended during the time of this pandemic, in the way that we are currently sitting, to ensure that things are passed through this House without requiring the extra complication of the EVEL Standing Orders. I would say with regard to remote voting that the hon. Gentleman has 36 votes his back pocket, and I think he might have had 37 had it not been for a rather unfortunate resignation—least said, soonest mended.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Thank you for the business statement. As Members know, normally, the call list or the ability to get on the call list for tomorrow would have already closed. That would be pretty useless for Members, seeing as they did not know what the business for tomorrow was going to be, so the Speaker’s Office has announced that the call list will remain open today until 9 pm in order for Members to be able to get on the call list for tomorrow.

Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 4 June)