Business of the House

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. With permission, I wonder if I may add to the comments that were just made, because what you said was of fundamental importance. A lot of Members of this House, but particularly women and ethnic minorities, get treated in a quite disgraceful way. I have never tried to make a great fuss about what has happened on my own account, because it is very mild compared with what others have had to put up with, and I am well aware of that. I am grateful for the support that I have had from Members on both sides of the House—I catch the eye of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who has always been very good about this, and of course you, Mr Speaker.

What has happened to me has been very, very minor. What has happened to other Members, particularly on social media, has been deeply unpleasant and troubling. We all have a responsibility to be mild in our language when we are speaking in this House or outside. I am afraid to say that it is something where all sides err from time to time, and it would be invidious to pick on individual examples, but we have a responsibility of leadership. At this particular time, emotions are unquestionably running very high, and therefore calmness is to be encouraged, though we are discussing matters of the greatest importance.

I thank you, Mr Speaker, for what you said, which I think has the support of the House. May I also congratulate you on sitting there for 10 hours, 37 minutes and six seconds without a break, which I think is more than any of the rest of us have managed? I also want to reiterate the thanks you gave to the staff at the beginning of today’s proceedings. As Members will know, the Door- keepers expect to be on holiday at this time in a recess that was long planned, and many of them have had to rearrange their affairs to be here to look after us and ensure that our proceedings run. They are not alone—this applies to Clerks as well and to the staff who work in the catering department—and we ought to thank them for breaking potentially long-standing commitments to be with us.

The business for tomorrow is as follows:

Thursday 26 September—The House will be asked to approve a conference adjournment motion for next week, followed by a general debate on the principles of democracy and the rights of the electorate.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the Leader of the House very warmly for the opening remarks that he made. By the way, my experience, likewise, has been extremely minor by comparison with the experience of colleagues. I merely mentioned it to demonstrate empathy, but he and I are in the same boat in that regard, and I very much appreciate his words.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before I ask the Leader of the House to respond, I should like to emphasise, because it has been a long day, although we are, arguably, just getting going, that this is a narrow business statement. I do not use the term “narrow” in any pejorative sense; it is narrow in the sense that it is tightly focused on the proposed business for tomorrow. I certainly would not have dreamed of interrupting the shadow Leader of the House, who has put a series of points on the record—I make absolutely no complaint about that—but there will be a further business statement tomorrow, and that will be the occasion for wider inquiries about subsequent days and the preferences of colleagues for debates on those days. This statement treats of tomorrow, and therefore it would be helpful if colleagues would observe that in terms of the questions that they ask. I am not trying to prevent anybody from speaking, but this is about tomorrow’s business. It is not a general debate and it is not about a subsequent week’s business. I hope that that is helpful.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) on becoming a Privy Counsellor? I am looking forward, wearing my other hat as Lord President of the Council, to being present when she is sworn in as a member. I think that the whole House is pleased that this has happened.

I am very grateful for, though, I am sorry to say, slightly suspicious of, the hon. Lady’s offer that we could all go off to Manchester and business could carry on here if the business were desperately uncontentious. There has been a recent habit for Standing Order motions to lead to legislation, and it would be a pity if the Conservative Benches were empty because we were all in the wonderful city of Manchester. Tomorrow’s motion to have a recess for three days seems only fair, as the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party have had their conferences and we should have ours. [Interruption.] I understand that this is difficult for the SNP, but had we carried on with the Prorogation it would have been able to have its conference—[Interruption.] Would it not? Well, that is a great loss for so many people.

I share the hon. Lady’s concentration on the Domestic Abuse Bill and the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill. They are both important measures and we will bear them in mind when we make the statement tomorrow, depending on how events go.

The hon. Lady asked about the “constitutional coup”. That phrase has been attributed to me, and I use the word “attributed” with great care.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

It is general knowledge.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady says from a sedentary position that it is general knowledge. Just because something has been in the newspapers, it does not make it general knowledge. It was attributed to me in a Cabinet meeting. Cabinet meetings are confidential. The files will be released under the 30-year rule in the normal way. I reiterate the Government’s position, as expressed by the Prime Minister:

“I have the highest respect, of course, for the judiciary and the independence of our courts, but I must say I strongly disagree with the judgment, and we in the UK will not be deterred from getting on and delivering on the will of the people to come out of the EU on 31 October, because that is what we were mandated to do.”

That is the Government’s position and that is my position.

The hon. Member for Walsall South said that we had been “spinning” our disagreement with the judgment. No, we had not. It was not spin; it was a straightforward statement by the Prime Minister, but with the highest respect for the judiciary. It is reasonable to disagree with somebody whom you respect. Dare I say it, Mr Speaker, sometimes I have disagreed with you, but that has never reduced my respect.

The hon. Lady raised the cost of Prorogation. If we remain in the European Union after 31 October, which the Opposition want, it would cost us £250 million a week. Any cost of Prorogation pales into insignificance compared with the extravagance wished upon the hard-pressed taxpayer by those on the Opposition Benches in their proposals.

Then we have the extraordinary view from the Opposition that our actions are not in support of parliamentary democracy. Government Members want a general election. What is more democratic than that? What sort of tyrants are we that we are willing to go to the British people and say, “Ladies and gentlemen, you choose: do you want my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) or the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn)?” We know why the Opposition are running away from a general election and are so scared of it. They do not back their leader, let alone think that the country will. We know that people think our leader is a great, inspirational, charismatic figure. We trust the people and the Opposition do not.

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

I have a question about tomorrow’s business, but if you will allow me a small indulgence, Mr Speaker, I would like to refer to a matter that the shadow Leader of the House mentioned. She said that she would be grateful if you allowed the full judgment of the Supreme Court to be read into the record. I second that because the summary judgment contains an inadvertent error. I was listening to the esteemed President of the Supreme Court yesterday while I was eating my toast and marmalade, and I almost dropped said toast and marmalade when I discovered that, according to Lady Hale:

“Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg, Leader of the House of Commons and Lord President of the Privy Council, Mr Mark Harper, chief whip… attended a meeting of the Privy Council held by the Queen at Balmoral Castle.”

I must say, I could not recollect having done so. I would be grateful if the Lord President of the Privy Council confirmed that it was indeed my right hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer), who is the most excellent current Government Chief Whip, who attended the meeting. It would save me a lot of grief from those constituents who have written to me, wondering why I was attending upon Her Majesty at Balmoral castle.

The serious point about the business of the House tomorrow is on the motion to approve the conference Adjournment. If the Opposition are churlish enough not to be generous and support that motion, and the House sits next week, perhaps my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House could find time for a debate on the Labour conference’s extraordinary decision today to have a policy of no immigration controls, which would allow literally anyone from anywhere in the world to come to Britain, use our national health service, have unlimited benefits and vote in our elections. That policy deserves wide promulgation. I feel sure it will see us well in any forthcoming general election.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and it seems that there was some confusion over forests. He is of course the Member for the Forest of Dean, and my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip is the Member for Sherwood forest, where, I seem to remember, Robin Hood spent his formative years. My right hon. Friend’s point about the Labour party policy is why we want a general election; it would be wonderful to put that fantasy world to the British people and I am confident about what they would choose.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I, too, congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on the stellar shift you have put in once again today. I think you must now have the most famous bladder in political history, given the time you have spent in that Chair. May I also share your congratulations and thanks to the staff who have been assembled at such short notice and have served us so diligently once again today?

I thank the Leader of the House for his very brief statement on the business for tomorrow. Of course, we all know that this is the last place he wanted to be and that this is the last thing he wanted to do. What does he bring to this House, after all this hard work to get the House to sit again? A motion to simply abandon the place all over again. After we got the courts to reopen this place, he wants us to agree voluntarily to close it all down again so that they can all swan off to their conference. As a member of a party that is never, ever covered by the so-called conference recess—I remind the Leader of the House that the Queen’s Speech that he had scheduled would have been on the first full day of our conference—can I tell him, with all due respect, that he can go and stuff that notion where his top hat don’t shine?

Perhaps while we are at this, and while we are still thinking about the business for tomorrow, we could ask about the Opposition days that the Scottish National party is due—the day and a half that we have still to get on the Floor of the House. Perhaps that could be done tomorrow, because what we have tomorrow as the main item of business is a Brexiteer whinge fest debate. Can we not instead have a debate about obeying the courts and respecting the rule of law?

I share what has been said by so many right hon. and hon. Members tonight about the tone of the debate. I have to say that today we heard the most undignified diatribe from the Prime Minister, which was simply unworthy of the House. I have been in this place for 18 years and I have never heard such a poor statement from any sitting Prime Minister—no apology, no contrition, just petulance and defiance.

The Prime Minister said that the Supreme Court was wrong. Notionally, the Leader of the House said that it was a “constitutional coup”. I did not quite hear him deny that he said it; perhaps he will get the chance again to tell the House—did he say that, or did he not? If it is a constitutional coup, what does it say about the sovereignty that he claims and his claim that this place is little more than some sort of tin-pot dictatorship?

It was, of course, the Leader of the House who led the “Prorogue Three”—the three Privy Councillors who travelled to Balmoral to ask the Queen to act unlawfully in an attempt to draw the monarch into their half-baked scheme. If he will not apologise for the Prorogation of Parliament, will he now apologise to Her Majesty the Queen for attempting to draw her into this sorry state of affairs? I am trying to use measured language, Mr Speaker, but he has simply probably been the least successful Leader of the House since the post was created. He has lost every vote in the House. He has lost the Government their majority. He cannot even get the election the Prime Minister craves. His Prorogation was unlawful. He is supposed to be the smartest cookie in the no-deal Brexit cult coup. If that is the best they have got, Mr Speaker, God help the rest of them.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Mr Speaker, I am afraid that your successor will have an uphill task. Moderate language lasted precisely 21 minutes before the hon. Gentleman got up and managed to reduce the tone. He said that being here would be the last thing that I would want to be, but actually, Mr Speaker, I share one thing with you: there is nothing I like more than being in the House of Commons, other than speaking in the House of Commons. I think I compete with you for how much I enjoy speaking, but I think that we get a similar pleasure. I am therefore delighted to be here. I would point out in response to the hon. Gentleman, in relation to the recess motion, that the court itself pointed out that there was a huge difference between a recess and a Prorogation, so it is therefore completely in accord with and in the spirit of the judgment the court came to.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for all the work he has done to try to bring people together and to seek compromise. It is worth saying that it will not be possible to arrange that particular debate for tomorrow. If any of the Opposition parties wish to have a vote of no confidence tomorrow, they have a few minutes, while I am still speaking, to put that motion down, and it will be accepted by the Government. In terms of a future debate on a deal—assuming the Prime Minister can agree a deal—obviously that will come with a meaningful vote, even if we are in the same Session of Parliament, as it would be a completely separate deal from the one before and therefore would be an entirely different motion from the ones before. In terms of debating it beforehand, I have a feeling that the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, is going to comment in a moment, and he will have heard the request.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

I ask this more in advance of the business statement we are anticipating tomorrow. As I understand Standing Orders, I ceased to be Chair of the Backbench Business Committee at the close of business in the early hours of 10 September, but yesterday I was reinstated retrospectively by the Supreme Court by a majority of 11-0. If the Leader of the House would like the Backbench Business Committee, now reinstated, to fill any parliamentary time in the coming weeks, could we have as much notice as possible of what time he wants us to fill so that we can fill that time as best as we can with the appropriate debates?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the distinguished Chair of the Backbench Business Committee for his very polite request. It is obviously sensible and we will work with him through the normal channels to ensure that he is notified of the time as soon as possible. I know he had a backlog of debates prior to Prorogation. Some of those have come to me in correspondence and I know are important. And I am glad he has been reinstated. Every cloud has a silver lining.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

I have not quite your stamina, Mr Speaker, but I have been on these Benches for many hours listening to the barrage of invective that my Front Bench have been on the receiving end of. I think I heard the Prime Minister offer something unprecedented—that any Opposition party could table a vote of no confidence tomorrow. Is the Leader of the House aware of anyone having tabled such a motion yet?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that very important point. It is an unprecedented offer. It is available for a limited time only. It is like one of those offers in supermarkets. I cannot promise it will be there forever, but it is currently available, but what has happened so far? What have we heard from these people who say they want an election? Absolutely nothing. By their fruits ye shall judge them.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It may have taken 21 minutes for moderate language to be lost, but it has taken even less time for the brief moment of—perhaps—pride that everyone in the Chamber will have felt about the sense of certainty about why we are all here, and the need to engage in decent debate and make progress, to be lost.

This piece of paper sends a strong message to every victim of domestic violence in the country: the message that yet again, when it was possible to use time in this place to do something decent and right on which there was cross-party consensus, the Government have said no. Indeed, last week, because the House was unlawfully prorogued when the Government missed an important reporting deadline for the United Nations on progress in addressing the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, it was not sitting to hold them to account.

May I ask the Leader of the House to do something decent tonight? May I ask him to tell domestic abuse victims that we will have this legislation—that we will not be messing around with jolly japes about taking time off and asking for votes of no confidence, but will put their rights on our agenda? I tell him now that if he does not do that, we will.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think that the hon. Lady has overstated her position. That Bill was going to be a major part of the Queen’s Speech. It is a Bill to which the Government are deeply committed, and to which the Prime Minister is personally committed. It is of great importance.

When we talk about good will across the House and about moderate language, it is worth assuming that, actually, we all have good intentions. We may not always do things in the same way, and we may not have the same philosophy, but this Government have every possible intention of doing everything that they can to stop domestic violence. That is a priority for the Government. The hon. Lady shakes her head; if there is no reassurance that I can give her, why does she ask the question?

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

May I ask the Leader of the House about tomorrow’s debate on the principles of democracy and the rights of the electorate? Would it be in order for the motion to be amended to read, “That, notwithstanding the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, there is a general election forthwith”? I know that this is a general debate, but general debates and amendments seem to have changed recently.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am always careful about stepping into your territory, Mr Speaker, when it comes to what is orderly and what is not orderly, but an amendment to a motion cannot change the law. Therefore, even if you, Mr Speaker, were to allow an amendment, it could not override the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, nor could it meet the requirements of the Act, because they are set out very clearly in terms of the wording that must be used.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Further to our earlier exchanges, Mr Speaker, may I also put on record that I know that the Leader of the House has himself been subjected to abuse online, which then led to physical abuse offline? That is why he supported my Online Forums Bill, and I am grateful for his support. However, I now want to ask him about the conference recess.

As the Member of Parliament for Manchester Central, I want the Conservative conference to go ahead—not because I want to welcome the Conservatives to our city, but because livelihoods depend on it, and I think that it is an important part of our democracy. However, given the current lack of trust across the House because of the unlawful Prorogation, it is difficult to see the motion, as laid, being passed tomorrow. May I ask the Leader of the House, at this eleventh hour, to continue the cross-party conversations that have been happening today? I think that, through the usual channels, generous offers have been made about next week. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to continue those discussions, so that we do not cancel or curtail next week’s conference and cost many people throughout Manchester their livelihoods?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful for the spirit in which the hon. Lady has put her question. It is important to the Manchester economy that the conference goes ahead, and it is a concern for the Conservative party, as well as for the Government, that it should not be cancelled for that reason. Usual channels conversations are always extremely welcome, but the hon. Lady has pointed out that there is not a great deal of trust at the moment. Let us hope for the best, but I would not hold my breath.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)]

May I, on behalf of my party, echo the sentiments that have been expressed this evening? We know more than most what it is like to live with the constant threat of attack, and still to live with a very high level of security for politicians in Northern Ireland. May I welcome the general debate that is to take place tomorrow, and say to the Leader of the House that we on these Benches hope that the Government will intervene in Northern Ireland very soon, because the principles of democracy have been turned on their head and the rights of the electorate are being denied? The Northern Ireland electorate voted for parties to form a Government in a devolved institution in Northern Ireland. One of those parties—only one—refuses to form a Government, and for almost three years now it has held the people of Northern Ireland, and all the other political parties, to ransom. In our view, that breaches the principles of democracy and denies the rights of the electorate, who in good faith voted in the Assembly elections to send their people to do a job.

We will also make the point tomorrow that amongst those who lose out when democracy is put on hold are the victims of historical institutional abuse in Northern Ireland, who, having had a recommendation made that they should be compensated for their suffering, are being denied that support because one party in Northern Ireland refuses to form a Government. That breaches the principles of democracy and the rights of the electorate.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. It is a matter of great concern to the Government, who want to see the Northern Ireland Executive re-formed as a matter of urgency. I note very much what he has said about the contribution that the Democratic Unionist party is making to ensure that that happens, and I am aware that there is one party that is obstructing that. That can of course be raised with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in due course, and we will have to have some debates on Northern Ireland subject to the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019, and that may be an opportunity to raise some of these subjects further in coming days and weeks.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I am sure the Leader of the House is forward-thinking. In anticipation that his motion for tomorrow may not be carried, he is probably thinking what business might be considered next week instead. Would that thinking include an announcement on a social care Green Paper, which the House has been waiting for for the last three years?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Unfortunately, I have to keep the hon. Gentleman in suspense, but I can reassure him that there will be an exciting announcement tomorrow, in a statement from me, and all will be revealed as to what may happen under certain circumstances, or under different circumstances. But Opposition Members, in the spirit of generosity that has been emerging at this late hour, may well vote for the conference recess so that the Manchester economy can be protected, and so that the sauce that the goose has already had shall become sauce for the gander, to use a term that the Prime Minister favours.

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

The Attorney General this morning, and then the Prime Minister and now the Leader of the House, have made it absolutely clear that they would like us to call for an immediate general election. So may I ask the Leader of the House the question that I asked the Prime Minister, whose answer, I am afraid, I failed to understand? If we have a general election, what is the point of a Queen’s speech?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not manage to understand the Prime Minister; that is unfortunate. The point of a Queen’s speech is for setting out the Government’s programme, which we have to do because we have not got a general election. If there were to have been the general election, on the motions that we tabled twice in September, we would have had a Queen’s speech opening a new Parliament, not just a new Session. I would have thought that was rather obvious and straightforward.

[Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

In every constituency, ballots are arriving today for Royal Mail workers who are set to take industrial action unless Royal Mail Group sticks to its promises made on jobs, terms and conditions and drops its plans to sell off Parcelforce. I stand with the Communication Workers Union and the postal workers and I am pleased that the Labour party stands in solidarity with them. Does the Leader of the House support the postal workers, and will the Government make a statement on that fact?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman may raise these matters in many ways. Details of how to apply for Adjournment debates have been posted on the Annunciator and he could apply for one of those. We have already discussed Backbench Business debate. I do hope that as we get closer to Christmas, postal workers will not think of going on strike and causing misery to families. I think that is always a great shame, and that it would be unfortunate if that were to happen, but there are parliamentary opportunities to discuss the matter.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I do not know whether the Leader of the House is planning to speak in the general debate on the principles of democracy. If he is, he might want to explain something to us. If not, could he say now what he meant by a “constitutional coup”? He has not denied saying it, and the Attorney General led us to believe that he did say it. Did he mean definition 1, a sudden and illegal seizure of power from the Government; or definition 2, an instance of successfully achieving something difficult?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady has left out a third definition of a coup: something hens live in.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The trouble with the Leader of the House’s argument about the recess motion tomorrow is that there is already a provision on the Order Paper for Westminster Hall debates next Tuesday, and lots of people have already submitted for them. I have submitted for a debate on skin cancer because the number of men in particular in recent years who are presenting the skin cancer, particularly at later stages which can be fatal, has grown quite dramatically. Postal workers are still not provided with free sunscreen, and nor in many cases are police officers, so it would be good to be able to have that debate on Tuesday. I guarantee absolutely that if the Leader of the House were to allow us to sit on Monday and Tuesday and he brought forward the Domestic Abuse Bill on Monday, there would be no other contentious business to deal with.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I know that the hon. Gentleman has suffered personally from skin cancer and I reinforce what he is trying to do to ensure that more people know about it, so there is greater awareness and so that treatment can be faster and quicker. I therefore think it is a very suitable subject for debate, because Westminster Hall debates do have the effect of raising awareness, and I wish him extraordinarily well both in his personal health and in this campaign. However, he knows procedures of the House better than I do, and he is aware that Westminster Hall debates and Adjournment debates are organised, assuming the House is sitting, before recess motions are taken, and that they then get changed. Government business in Government time is not announced unless a recess motion has been either not taken or sorted out. So it is routine for Westminster Hall to have an announcement for next Tuesday, regardless of tomorrow’s motion.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

May I reveal to the House that the Leader of the House unintentionally learned some guid Scots words more than 20 years ago when he was knocking doors in my constituency, and that what he referred to was not a constitutional coup but a constitutional cowp, which I think well describes the position the Government have got us into. May I ask him, even at this late stage, to think again about the necessity to close down Parliament in order for the Conservative party to have its annual conference? I do not think anybody is suggesting that it should be cancelled, because it has been pointed out that that would have serious economic implications for Manchester, among other things, but this will be the fifth year in succession that members of the Scottish National party in this House have had successfully to manage the fact that we are expected to be here as Members of Parliament at the same time as our party members want us to be at our party conference. This year, the conference is in Aberdeen, which is more or less twice as far from here as Manchester is. The Queen’s Speech is right in the middle of our conference, yet we will manage that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) has had to make some extraordinarily difficult and tortuous journeys to combine both duties. If 35 SNP Members can manage that every year, surely almost 300 Conservative MPs can manage it just this once. Let the conference go ahead, but let us have Members of Parliament in the House doing the job they have been elected to do.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman reminds everybody that I stood in his constituency many years ago, in1997. Standing in Glenrothes was a great honour and privilege, and the people of his constituency are fantastic people—[Interruption.] They did not vote for me, but that is a separate matter. That does not stop them being good people. I am not so exclusive in my view of good people. I was very touched on becoming Lord President of the Council to get a letter of congratulation from Elizabeth Scott, who in 1997 was chairman of the Conservative Association in Glenrothes—a small but perfectly formed Conservative Association.

I am very conscious of the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. It is a long-standing problem that the SNP conference takes place when the House is sitting. What I would say to him in relation to the Conservative party conference is that we have had no notice of this change, whereas the SNP was aware when booking its conference that the House would be sitting. I therefore do not think that the two are exactly comparable, but I am certainly sympathetic to the situation that he and his party find themselves in.

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

The Leader of the House clearly enjoys his role as Lord President of the Council. Can he tell us when was the last time the Lord President of the Council presented an Order to Her Majesty that was subsequently found to be unlawful? Has he apologised to Her Majesty, and will he rule out requesting any further Prorogations?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Mr Speaker, the hon. Gentleman has forgotten what you said at the beginning. This statement is narrowly about tomorrow’s business. He has not asked for a debate; he has not asked for a statement; he has not asked for any parliamentary activity. He really ought to get to know the procedures of this House, and then I look forward to answering his questions.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

It strikes me that the business tomorrow is incredibly light. I want to offer to help out the Leader of the House with some legislation he could bring forward tomorrow. He kindly wrote back to me on the issue of drug deaths in Scotland. I was glad that he did—he showed me more courtesy than the Minister for Crime, Policing and the Fire Service and the Home Secretary, who have failed to come to Scotland to discuss this issue.

Tomorrow, we could discuss the Second Reading of the Supervised Drug Consumption Facilities Bill, which would go some way to preventing a repeat of the 1,187 souls that we lost in Scotland last year to drug deaths. As the FAVOR campaign says, “They keep talking, we keep dying”. People in Scotland are dying and we are not even getting to talk about it in this House. I ask the Leader of the House to bring forward this ten-minute rule Bill, which would help to solve some of these issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The issue the hon. Lady raises is of the greatest importance and I will happily take it up again with the Home Office, further to the response that I have already sent her. She is entitled to receive proper answers. That is one of the purposes of this set of questions: to allow me to follow up where people have not got the answers they feel they want.

Tomorrow will not be the day for ten-minute rule Bills, but there will be further opportunities for ten-minute rule Bills. I absolutely accept that the issue the hon. Lady raises is of fundamental importance. Anything that relates to drug deaths is something that this House must take really seriously, both in terms of how we help people who are addicts and in terms of how we enforce the law. Both of those issues need attention.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

In relation to tomorrow’s general debate on the principles of democracy, one of the unfortunate consequences of the unlawful Prorogation is that it has dragged the Crown into a matter of enormous controversy on one of the biggest issues of our time and calls into question the role of constitutional monarchy. If in future the monarch was asked to sign off an unlawful Prorogation and simply rubber stamped it, it would call into question the very need for a constitutional monarch. Conversely, if Her Majesty was asked to agree again an unlawful Prorogation and, having had this experience, refused, Her Majesty the Queen would again be drawn into political controversy.

Given the enormous speculation about the role of Her Majesty the Queen in relation to the last Prorogation and in relation to future Prorogations, does the Leader of the House and Lord President of the Council not consider it a matter of enormous personal regret that the actions of the Government of which he is a part have dragged Her Majesty the Queen into such controversy and plunged the whole notion of constitutional monarchy into the political spotlight, in a way that I do not think anyone who believes in constitutional monarchy could possibly want?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Prime Minister said earlier that the hon. Gentleman normally makes sensible points. This is the second time today when he has not. That is the most fatuous point I have heard. We know full well that Her Majesty acts on the advice of her Prime Minister. That was set out in front of the Supreme Court and was not questioned by anybody. Her Majesty does not independently decide whether to prorogue or not to prorogue. The British public know that. The only doubt that is ever caused is by hon. Gentlemen opposite raising the point that it is the Queen and trying to politicise Her Majesty, of which I think the great work, “Erskine May”, disapproves. It is quite wrong to drag Her Majesty into it. The responsibility is unquestionably the Prime Minister’s and this is the routine a, b, c of constitutionalism. Anybody who understands the constitution knows that Her Majesty had no discretion. There was no question of dragging her into it and it is the hon. Gentleman—who is, to use your favourite word, Mr Speaker, chuntering away merrily—who ought to go back to school and learn about the constitution. A Ladybird book can be provided.

[Mr Speaker]

It is not for me to say, and it was not evident to me whether the activity was being undertaken merrily, but I can certainly confirm that there was chuntering from a sedentary position. I may say, of course, that the expression “chuntering from a sedentary position” is very commonplace in the work of the House, but I have noticed in my travels to Parliaments around the world that it is a source of regular comment and no little amusement.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

It is great to see the Leader of the House at the Dispatch Box, in his natural element. May I ask him a question that does not relate to Brexit? Before the House was prorogued, because of a Standing Order No. 24 debate it unfortunately lost the opportunity to debate and conclude the remaining stages of the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill. The measure is uncontroversial on both sides of the House, and its basic point is to extend the sentence for cruelty to an animal from six months to five years.

Will the Leader of the House be in a position to say something in his statement tomorrow about finding Government time for this important Bill which, amid all these other controversies, would allow us better to protect animals across the country? The Bill is vital to the millions of animal lovers in the United Kingdom, so could the Government find time to bring back the Bill and get it on the statute book as soon as possible?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

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

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

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

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

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

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

Adjournment

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

Business of the House

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2019 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week. I shall begin by apologising to the shadow Leader of the House and the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) that this statement is later than it would normally have been, which is to ensure that the information before the House is as full as possible. I understand that that has caused some travel arrangement difficulties, which is a matter of regret.

The business for next week is as follows:

Monday 9 September—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by debate to approve a motion relating to section 7 of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 (historical institutional abuse), followed by debate to approve a motion relating to section 6 of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 (victims’ payment), followed by debate to approve a motion relating to section 5 of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 (human trafficking), followed by debate to approve a motion relating to section 4 of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 (gambling), followed by general debate on a motion relating to section 3(2) of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by motion relating to an early parliamentary general election.

The House will not adjourn until Royal Assent has been received to all Acts. A message may be received from the Lords Commissioners.

I will return to the House on Monday with further information if necessary.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

I thank the Leader of the House. I was going to say that it is the usual custom and convention to thank him, but I appreciate that he has apologised—at least I abide by custom and convention. I also thank him for being vertical when he gave his statement.

The Opposition will co-operate with the Government on the Northern Ireland legislation to ensure that it goes through, and we are obviously keen for Lords amendments to the European Union (Withdrawal) (No.6) Bill, if there are any, to come back to the House to be debated. Will the Leader of the House say exactly what the motion relating to an early parliamentary election will be and whether it will be similar to that under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011? When is he likely to table it?

As I said I would do every week, I raise the case of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. Will the Leader of the House update the House on her case, given that things have taken a different turn, and on the cases of the other UK nationals who are in prison? Kamal Foroughi was detained in May 2011, Anousheh Ashouri was detained in August 2017, and British Council employee Aras Amiri was detained in March 2018 and has now been given a 10-year sentence for visiting her grandmother.

I asked the previous Leader of the House about the Queen’s Speech and I know that that has been thrown back at me a number of times. We have had the longest continuous parliamentary Session since the Acts of Union 1800. Hardly any business was legislated for while the Government were going through a leadership election. The Government chose to have a long Session and no legislation was progressed, despite my asking for that, as well as for Opposition day debates, which I have not been given. We should have realised that something was going to happen when someone asked when the Trade Bill would come back and the Leader of the House responded, “Why would we want to do that?” That should have given us a clue. A number of Bills—the Immigration Bill, the Agriculture Bill, the Fisheries Bill and the Financial Services (Implementation of Legislation) Bill—are stuck. We know that they fall when Parliament is prorogued, but not statutory instruments—they are still live. Will the Leader of the House say what the Government plan to do with those Bills?

I asked the previous leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), whether we could sit during the conference recess. We on this side of the House were ready to do that. There is nothing conventional about the Government’s plans for Prorogation. Most Prorogations last a few days and take place just before the Queen’s Speech, but this one is five weeks, which will be the longest in more than 40 years.

Will the Leader of the House clarify what he said during the debate yesterday? When asked, he did not say whether he knew on 16 August that the House was going to be prorogued. In fact, he said he was at Lord’s. I will ask him again: on 16 August, when he was at Lord’s, did he know whether the House was going to be prorogued? Had he seen that email? Two weeks later, he was on a plane to Aberdeen airport. When was he told that he was going to Balmoral and when did he know what was in the proclamation?

We do not trust this Government—they take their lead from the Prime Minister, who says one thing and does something else. When he wanted to be Prime Minister, he wrote in a letter to all his colleagues that he was

“not attracted to arcane procedures such as the prorogation of Parliament”.

He said he was a one nation Conservative, yet he has prorogued Parliament and withdrawn the Whip—possibly sacked, possibly expelled—from some of the most honourable right hon. and hon. Members, who have given great service to their party and country. Now we face the fact that the right hon. Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson) has resigned and no longer wants to stand—the Prime Minister’s own brother cannot take it anymore. That is why we do not trust the Government and the Prime Minister. He secretly agreed to suspend Parliament two weeks before denying it would happen. He is treating Parliament, democracy and the people with contempt.

Twenty-two law professors have written an open letter to say that the Prorogation is clearly designed to evade scrutiny, including of legislation, and to prevent MPs from asking key questions on EU negotiations and no-deal planning. So what were the reasons for the Prorogation at that time, without recourse to coming to the Chamber and explaining it?

An important Bill to stop a no-deal exit was passed yesterday and is making its way through the Lords. Here are the reasons why it is important. The director of the CBI has said:

“No deal is a tripwire into economic chaos that could harm our country…for years to come.”

Is that scaremongering? The General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress said that no deal would be a “disaster for working families”. Is that scaremongering? The President of the National Farmers’ Union said that

“you will have many farmers going out of business”

and the Food and Drink Federation has warned that it would

“inflict serious—and in some cases mortal—damage on UK food and drink.”

Is that scaremongering?

The British Medical Association said in its report that the dangers of no deal could lead to the disintegration of the NHS. The fashion industry, worth £32 billion, says no deal should be avoided. The Incorporated Society of Musicians said a no-deal Brexit will incur major disruption to the music industry worth £4.5 billion. Are they scaremongering?

Guy Verhofstadt, Brexit co-ordinator for the EU, said that the only people who will prosper are the wealthy bankers and hedge fund managers who have bet on chaos.

I think the Leader of the House also owes an apology to Dr David Nicoll, who was part of Operation Yellowhammer. When will the Leader of the House publish Operation Yellowhammer, or does he think the Government are scaremongering?

Mr Speaker, they are like the wolves of Whitehall. They are marauding over our customs and our conventions. It is absolutely outrageous, the way they are destroying them. The Prime Minister only governs by custom and convention.

I think the Leader of the House also owes an apology to Mr Speaker. I think he was heard on air to say that Mr Speaker was wrong, but I want to remind him of his bedtime reading, “Erskine May”, and of the dedication compiled by officials, both past and present. It says this:

“To the…Speaker of the House of Commons and to the Lord Speaker, Speakers…of the Commonwealth Parliaments on whom fall the great responsibilities of guardianship of the parliamentary system.”

We saw that this week and we thank you, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me deal with the last point first. I would not have dreamed of saying that you were wrong. I made the point, the classic point, that you have not eyes to see with nor lips to speak except as directed by this House. I believe, Mr Speaker, that that is what you do, properly. You have consistently taken the view that the House should be able to debate what it wishes to debate, although I will confess that sometimes if I were in your position I might come to a different decision. That is not in any sense disrespectful to Mr Speaker.

Let me come to this panoply of questions that we have had. First, I thank the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) for supporting us on Northern Ireland legislation and looking forward to the Lords amendments. The early parliamentary motion will be put down tonight, as it needs to be, before the close of business.

On the very important issue that hon. Lady raises on every occasion, relating to Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, the Foreign Office is doing what it can. It is a very difficult situation. It is so important that the Foreign Office, in all these consular cases—the hon. Lady mentioned a number of them—is as vigorous as it can be. In my view, the statement made by a former Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston in the Don Pacifico affair, is the right approach for Governments to take in defending the interests of British citizens abroad. We should be incredibly robust about it. I believe the Foreign Office is doing as much as it possibly can, but sadly we cannot tell other countries what to do.

We then come on to the Queen’s Speech and what will happen to the Bills that are stuck. The Bills that are stuck will become unstuck because they will fall on prorogation. That is the sort of de-supergluing process that we are able to use. I am glad to tell the House that all the Bills that are needed for leaving the European Union on 31 October are in place.

We then come to the diary questions. What was I doing? [Interruption.] On the ability to leave on 31 October, all the legislation that is needed is in place. We have 580 statutory instruments to make sure it will all happen smoothly. That is all done. It is ready. It is prepared. Her Majesty’s Government have been a model of efficiency and efficacy in preparing this. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is perhaps one of the most impressive administrative Ministers this country has ever seen.

I was asked questions about my knowledge of the next Queen’s Speech. The hon. Lady is aware that one of the main duties of the Leader of the House is to prepare for the next Queen’s Speech. That is what one does. That is what one is briefed on from the very beginning. Bids for items in the next Queen’s Speech come to the Leader of the House, so that has been part of my briefing from the point at which I was appointed and that is the reason why this Session is coming to an end. It has gone on for far too long, as the hon. Lady rightly pointed out—as indeed did the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who seems to be fidgeting at the moment in an uncharacteristically fidgety way.

[Mr Speaker]

How does one fidget in an un-fidgety way?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Mr Speaker, your knowledge of being able to fidget is so extensive that I am sure you will be able to tell the House or make it a chapter in your memoirs on un-fidgety fidgeting.

That is the straightforward reason for the Prorogation. The Prorogation is taking place to have a new Queen’s Speech to set out the really exciting one nation policies that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wishes to set out. [Interruption.] Mr Speaker, I know and we all know, because we have heard you say it many times, that however much chuntering there is from the other side you will make time for me to answer all their questions, which I am looking forward to with eager anticipation. I will be better able to answer them if they wait their turn, rather than making noises imitating a farmyard that I cannot translate because I am not Dr Doolittle. If only I were Dr Doolittle, life might be easier. So that is the routine part of my responsibility and that is why Parliament will be prorogued.

On the conference recess, on the last occasion I appeared at the Dispatch Box to answer these questions I raised the issue of the conference recess. Sitting opposite me was none other than that really distinguished figure, the Opposition Chief Whip. [Interruption.] It was not the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) who is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench now, but the Opposition Chief Whip. When I said that we would have the conference recess, the Opposition Chief Whip nodded. As we all know, a nod from the Opposition Chief Whip is like the nod of Zeus: what it nods at is done and is viewed as authoritative, so let us have no questions about that.

The hon. Lady came on to scaremongering. She seems to wish to compete to become the scaremonger-in-chief. The preparations have been made. They are in place and they have been done with remarkable efficiency. But yes, a lot of remainers wish to make our skins crawl. I am afraid it seems to me that Dr David Nicholl is as irresponsible as Dr Wakefield. [Interruption.] I will repeat: as irresponsible as Dr Wakefield, in threatening that people will die because we leave the European Union. What level of irresponsibility was that?

In conclusion, I say to the hon. Lady and the House that this Government have offered them the opportunity, if they do not like what we are doing, to seek an election and put themselves to the voters, but they dare not do that. They are frightened of the voters and all they wish to do is obstruct democracy.

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

Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the future staging of party conferences? It seems to me that these conferences have changed out of all recognition and in future could easily be held over a long weekend.

[Mr Speaker]

What a very sound question. I am even more delighted than usual to have called the hon. Gentleman so early. These are meetings of voluntary organisations which could perfectly well take place over a weekend. The idea that we should be away from our main place of work for this sort of indulgence will strike very large numbers of people across the country as bizarre.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Mr Speaker, I wondered if you were going to suggest a job share. Perhaps I should sit in as Speaker on occasion and you should answer questions as Leader of the House. I am sorry to say that I have a slightly different answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess). Party conferences are an important part of the political process. I am really glad to say that this year’s Conservative party conference is going to be primarily an occasion for members. We are going to get back to putting members front and central, because they are the people who select us and for whom we work, and who campaign for us. Party conferences are important and it is a reasonable time to have. This House has not been that busy, it has to be said, earlier in the Session. Therefore, having a party conference is perfectly reasonable.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I thank the Leader of the House, esquire, for announcing whatever this is supposed to be for next week and say to him that if he is starting to feel a bit tired, he should just feel free to have a little lie down. But perhaps if he is going to do that, he should mention it to his hon. Friends the Members for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) and for Horsham (Jeremy Quin) next to him.

According to the statement, there will be another attempt at a general election on Monday—perhaps the Leader of the House can just confirm that. It looks almost certain that straight after that, the Government’s intention is to suspend democracy—contemptuously—for five weeks, much against the desires and wishes of this House and the people we are elected here to serve.

But I congratulate the Leader of the House on an incredible week—not on becoming an internet sensation with his “Victorian dad lying down” stuff, but on his shrewd, stellar and steady management of the House business. He has managed to lose every single vote for this Prime Minister. No Prime Minister has ever got off to such a terrible start. He has managed to lose his Government majority by deselecting decent and honourable members of his party who have served their country and party with such distinction. He has lost control of the business of the House, and last night his unelected lords in the other place put up the white flag to what they call the surrender Bill. In the last few hours, we have had the resignation of the right hon. Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson) in his desire to spend less time with his family.

There is only one piece of business that the Leader of the House craves: to secure his general election while still being able to get the no deal that the Government crave. To his great frustration and that of the Brexit cult that occupy the Government Benches, they have been unable to get away with it. His general election is coming, but everybody has to be certain that their no deal is dead and buried.

The funniest thing about the general election motion last night was the sight of Scottish Conservatives trooping through the Lobby in favour of an immediate general election on the day that an opinion poll showed that they would be decimated in Scotland. If we want to see a demonstration of slavish loyalty to the no-deal Brexit cult cause, we need look no further than these hon. Gentlemen. This is not just turkeys voting for Christmas; it is turkeys lathering themselves in cranberry sauce and shoving the stuffing up their own posteriors.

I have a feeling, though, that this will probably be the last opportunity to see the right hon. Gentleman in his place. He wanted a legacy—how about: the least successful Leader of the House that we have ever had?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful as always to the hon. Gentleman for his characteristic charm. What we have seen today is, I think in history, unprecedented, unknown and unseen. We have seen a frightened Scotsman. They are people who are known for their courage, their forthrightness and their sturdiness, and they are scared of going in front of their voters. They have run away from an election. They are—what is it?—“tim’rous beasties”, I think they must be called, who dare not face their voters. I just wonder whether that is because of the narrow majority that the hon. Gentleman has. He parades it as concern for Conservative Members, and he is worried that they may be in danger, but surely if that is what he really thinks, he should be embracing the opportunity for an election and pushing forward for it.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned, as did the hon. Member for Walsall South, my right hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson), who has decided to leave Her Majesty’s Government. This is something that we know about across the country: families disagree on Brexit. My enormously distinguished, wise and good sister, Annunziata, has gone and joined the Brexit party—and not only joined it, but got elected to the European Parliament. We all have, within our families, these disagreements over an issue that is of fundamental importance to us—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is of fundamental importance to us all, and that is why it is right to put this back to the British people in a general election, so that they can decide and the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) can restore the honour of the people of Scotland by showing he is not afraid.

[Mr Speaker]

These are richly enjoyable exchanges. That would ordinarily be the case in the presence of the Leader of the House in any circumstance, but I believe that it is more so because, unless I am much mistaken, the right hon. Gentleman is not the only Rees-Mogg present and observing our proceedings today. It is a great pleasure and privilege to welcome little Moggs in particular, of whom there are several, and other members of the Rees-Mogg dynasty.

Notwithstanding that joy, one of the responsibilities of the Speaker is to safeguard the rights of Members in respect of business to follow. I make that point simply to underline the imperative of brevity from Back and Front Benchers alike in observing that, exceptionally today, it may not be possible for everybody to be called on the business statement. We will do our best, and the quest for brevity can be led—I think with distinction—by Dr Julian Lewis.

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

May we have a statement or debate on the circumstances of the seizure of a British-flagged tanker by Iran in the Gulf? If there is not enough time for that, will the Leader of the House have a word with the Secretary of State for Defence, because the Defence Committee on Monday has a session planned, but the former Secretary of State—my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt)—has so far not yet received the information that she requires from the Ministry of Defence to enable her to give testimony to us?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That is a matter of the utmost importance and I shall certainly ask my office to contact the Ministry of Defence. It is only right that Select Committees should get the information that they require.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

I thank the Leader of the House for the statement and for his apology. When I was considering the delay in the normal timing of the business statement this morning, I was wondering whether he was carrying on his normal practice of having a lie-in.

The Leader of the House will be aware that if Prorogation happens, the Backbench Business Committee ceases to exist and has to be re-elected. I will therefore be writing to him with a list of as yet unheard debates, should any time become available after Prorogation or possibly after a general election. They include debates on women’s mental health, which is vital; the role and sufficiency of youth work, which we have heard so much about recently; diabetes services with targeted prevention strategies; the 50th anniversary of the Open University; and parental mental illness with its impact on children’s outcomes. It is a list of things that are important and still need to be aired. By the way, if Prorogation does happen, there is also an application in for a debate about Baby Loss Awareness Week, which happens from 9 to 15 October every year.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I take this opportunity to thank the hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the whole House, for the wonderful work he does on the Backbench Business Committee and in ensuring that the House gets to debate the issues at the forefront of its mind and that Parliament functions effectively. I take very seriously what he said about the debates that may come up after an election or a Queen’s Speech and that require attention before the Backbench Business Committee has been reformed.

As to my recumbent position, I assure the hon. Gentleman that my office is drawing up a position paper for me and is coming up with a recline to take.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

We have indeed had a panoply of questions, apart from the obvious one: when the motion on the early general election is considered at the end of Monday, will the Bill that the House of Commons passed yesterday on ruling out no deal have received Royal Assent? The reason I ask is that I distinctly heard the Leader of the Opposition say yesterday that once the Bill became law, he would vote for an early general election. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be quite extraordinary, after this long Session of Parliament, which is clearly deadlocked, if every Member of Parliament—or at least two thirds—did not vote for an immediate general election to put this to the people?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is indeed an addled Parliament that is not able to get things done, and the conclusion that my right hon. Friend draws is correct. Royal Assent will be given speedily once the Bill has completed its passage through the House of Lords and come back to us, if necessary, with any amendments. I obviously cannot predict what their lordships will do, but if it completes those stages, it will receive Royal Assent, and speedily.

[Mr Speaker]

Single-sentence inquiries. Jessica Morden.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

With the Government’s disgraceful proroguing of Parliament, not only will hon. Members be unable to scrutinise Ministers on Brexit, but I will be robbed of the opportunity to press Ministers following Tata’s announcement that it proposes to close all steelworks in Newport, so what will the Leader of the House do to facilitate a debate so that we can all fight to save our steel industry?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

There simply would not have been time for such a debate anyway, because we were about to go into the conference recess. We are losing four or five days of parliamentary time. There will then be a fresh new Session full of interest and excitement, with opportunities for debates on a range of issues.

[Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

MPs across Staffordshire are very concerned about news that school transport provision will not now be available to those who have to pay for their school transport, due to a ruling about disability regulations. I will not go into the technical details now, and I appreciate that time is short, but would the Leader of the House find time for a debate on this important matter?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That is an important issue, and I have a nasty feeling that it is the result of some tiresome EU regulation, so after 31 October we may be free to deal with it ourselves.

[Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

City airport consultation plans have proposed an additional 110 flights a day, many of which would fly over my constituency. Given that we already face noise and air pollution from the aircraft, and given that we are in a climate change emergency, may we have an urgent debate in Government time on airport expansions?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

City airport is a fantastic airport—convenient to use and very well run—but I understand the concerns about the increasing number of flights from airports. The hon. Lady knows that there will be many opportunities to secure debates—Adjournment debates and Backbench Business debates—when Parliament returns in October.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need an urgent debate on planning? We have recently seen delays in various planning authorities—particularly the Planning Inspectorate—reviewing planning applications, which has led to the five-year lag in planning. That means that groups of applications that are not part of the planning process from the borough council are being put in, which particularly affects areas such as the monastery and the nunnery in West Malling.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am always concerned about anything that might affect a monastery. If we have a Queen’s Speech, obviously we will have the normal days of debate that follow, during which I am sure it will be possible to raise the important issue of planning.

[Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)]

Jess, my constituent, was heavily pregnant when her husband was stealing from her bank account. She went to her bank but was told that, because she had given him her PIN, that was acceptable, and the police had no legislation to support her. Kirsty Ferguson was married and had homes, but when she and her husband divorced, he refused to sell them, against court orders. She was pushed into penury and emotional distress. What can we do after Prorogation, now that the Domestic Abuse Bill will fall, to support these women, not only in Batley and Spen but across the country?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The issues that the hon. Lady raises are of fundamental importance. We will all have had similar cases brought to us in our constituencies. The Prime Minister is fully behind the Domestic Abuse Bill. I cannot tell the hon. Lady what precisely will be in the Queen’s Speech, but I think that I can give a steer that it would be a great surprise to all of us if the Bill were not revived very quickly, because her concern is shared across the House.

[Mr Speaker]

A single sentence. Henry Smith.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

May we have a statement from the Health Secretary on when NHS England’s new genomic medicine service will be fully operational?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I will certainly pass on that question to the Secretary of State.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

All summer, the hunger in communities such as mine across the country was tangible. Voluntary sector organisations are stepping in to feed our children. Why are the Government not doing more? May we have a debate on feeding our children in the holidays?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. The Government carried out a pilot scheme that fed 50,000 children over the summer. The scheme is being evaluated to consider whether it should be rolled out more widely.

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury previously made a statement from the Treasury Bench that a debt is owed to Equitable Life victims. When can we debate the matter further and ensure that the debt is repaid?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Equitable Life issue really ought to have been finished by now, but of course it concerns many Members and many of our constituents. I was a member of the all-party parliamentary group for justice for Equitable Life policyholders, so I share my hon. Friend’s concerns.

[Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)]

What is happening in Kashmir is an outrage. The UK Government must do everything they can to bring about lasting peace and stability and to restore human rights to the region. May we have an urgent debate in Government time on the crisis in Kashmir?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I understand that the matter was covered very fully in Foreign Office questions, and the Foreign Office is taking it with the utmost seriousness. An opportunity to debate it will of course follow the Queen’s Speech.

[James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend ask a Transport Minister to make a statement on the future of the Southeastern train contract? Under the franchise arrangements, the competition has been cancelled. My constituents are keen to see the benefits of the new trains that the new contract would deliver.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I will pass on what my right hon. Friend has said to the relevant Secretary of State. Problems with trains always beset the House, and I fear that if we debated them all we would never have time for anything else.

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

I was alarmed to hear reports that the Leader of the House has previously suggested that all council workers should wear bowler hats, that Somerset should have its own time zone, that he has apparently met a group that favours the voluntary repatriation of black immigrants and that he has disputed climate change. Does he still believe these things, or has he finally decided to live on planet Earth?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The first half of that question referred to jokes, and the second half was wrong.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

Hospital Radio Medway has raised a real concern about hospital radio stations being able to get appropriate licensing from Ofcom, which is preventing patients from accessing radio in hospital. That cannot be right. May we have an urgent statement or debate on that?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Hospital radio is very important for cheering people up when they are in hospital, and actually it is a very good training ground for people starting a career in radio. I think that it is a more suitable topic for an Adjournment debate or a Westminster Hall debate, rather than taking time in the Chamber.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House has been extremely coy about when Prorogation will actually happen. He has not announced that it will be Tuesday or Thursday. If the general election motion falls again, will Prorogation we delayed so that he can have a third go?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Privy Council determined that a Commission should be established under the Lord High Chancellor, and that under the Great Seal, Parliament could be prorogued on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. Parliament will be prorogued according to a decision made by that Commission. That Commission has not yet made its decision.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

On Indian independence day, families were attacked outside the Indian high commission by thugs, and on Tuesday more thugs stoned and pelted the high commission. May we have a statement from the Home Secretary or another Minister on what actions can be taken to protect those diplomatic areas of our society for our allies and friends?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I was unaware of that, but it is deeply shocking that the representative office of so close an ally should be attacked in the United Kingdom. We should take every measure, as part of our diplomatic obligations, to protect the offices of all embassies in this country, but particularly those of friends. It is a matter that I am sure the Foreign Secretary will take most seriously.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Is next Monday’s fixed-term Parliaments motion under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 or another mechanism?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As I said earlier, the motion will be put down later today.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

Later this month, the world’s third largest sporting event will take place in Japan: the rugby world cup. It would not be taking place without the exploits of a certain William Webb Ellis in my constituency back in 1823. The town will be celebrating, so may we take the opportunity to have a debate on the economic benefits of sporting events?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My general view of the world is that everything good that has ever happened started in Somerset, although I must confess that rugby did start in my hon. Friend’s constituency, which I cannot claim to be part of Somerset—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) says from a sedentary position that she is sure that I will try, but I think that would be too great a stretch, geographically. It is a fantastic sporting event, and I know that many people will enjoy watching it, and we should absolutely encourage people to participate. I think, Mr Speaker, that your predilection is for tennis, and mine is for cricket, so there are many sports that people will be interested in.

[Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)]

The post office network is in crisis. A Government contract allowing asylum seekers to access cash at post offices is due to expire in November. May we have a debate in Government time on the number of Government contracts that could be used to increase revenue for postmasters?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

A postmaster came to see me in my constituency surgery recently to discuss that issue. I know that it concerns many Members because of the wonderful work that is done by post offices as part of their communities. However, the hon. Lady knows how to ask for debates and knows about the many mechanisms that are available.

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has a great deal of personal experience of paternity, as we see in the Gallery today. Does he agree that we must have an urgent debate on the return of maternity services to the Alex hospital in Redditch, as demanded by my constituents?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I do indeed attach great importance to paternity and, indeed, to maternity services. I think that this would be an entirely suitable subject for an Adjournment debate, Mr Speaker, although, of course, at your discretion.

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

In January 2019, the High Court ruled that it was illegal for the Department for Work and Pensions to deduct universal credit payments when people had received two payments within the assessment period. When will the Government make changes to comply with the law?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Her Majesty’s Government always comply with the rule of law. It is a fundamental principle of our constitution.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

The Charity Commission has asked abortion provider Marie Stopes, a charity funded largely by public money, why it paid its head £434,000 last year. May we have a debate on the high levels of executive pay in the charitable sector, which its regulator has described as an issue of public interest?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is indeed a matter of public interest. It is quite extraordinary that a charity should be paying someone so much more than the Prime Minister earns, or, even more shockingly, than Mr Speaker is paid. He stays in his seat for hour after hour in a very diligent way, and I think that if he were paid an hourly rate, he would find that he received less than if he worked at McDonald’s. It is very impressive. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) will have to catch your eye in due course, Mr Speaker, before we run out of time.

I share my hon. Friend’s concern. It is a matter for the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, but charities must report on the number of staff who are paid more than £60,000 a year in income bands in their annual report and accounts, and the Charity Commission has asked Marie Stopes International to provide an explanation of its chief executive officer’s quite extraordinary salary.

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)]

I am afraid that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) is no longer in the Chamber, but when he was in the Government, he promised that the next comprehensive spending review would provide £90 million for refuge funding. I note that not a single penny piece has been provided in this week’s review, and I now find it difficult to know what to believe when things are said from the Dispatch Box, but will the Leader of the House give me a commitment that that money, which was promised and planned for—and the Domestic Abuse Bill—will appear in the Queen’s Speech?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The general principle is that if commitments have been made from the Dispatch Box to spend money, those commitments are incumbent on the Government. They were made, and they continue. I cannot guarantee spending commitments—I am not the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in case the hon. Lady had not noticed—but I share her concern about this important issue, and, if it will satisfy her, I will write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to clarify the position.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

My constituents in North Hykeham suffer from dreadful levels of travel congestion. Indeed, several hundred of them responded to a recent survey on the subject that was carried out in my area. The North Hykeham relief road is a key part of solving the problem. May we have a debate on it, please?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I know that my hon. Friend has been an amazingly effective campaigner for better transport in her constituency and is tireless in it. She probably does not want a debate so much as the money, although a debate may be easier to find than the money.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I would happily join the Leader of the House on that delegation.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

This is a matter for the Foreign Secretary. I cannot constitutionally interfere in the Foreign Secretary’s business. However, I completely share the concern. If you were to lead a delegation Mr Speaker, I think that that would be very powerful, but I do hope you will make sure that you get back.

[Mr Speaker]

On the principle that Members always speak the truth in the Chamber, I have to assume that the right hon. Gentleman was sincere in what he just said.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

On the Chancellor’s desk since last July has been a shortlist of candidates to succeed Mark Carney as Governor of the Bank of England. Is the Leader of the House aware of the Chancellor’s plans to make a statement on who he has recommended be appointed, so that the Treasury Committee may scrutinise that appointment?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am not aware of the Chancellor’s decision, or the timing of the Chancellor’s decision. However, as a former member of the Treasury Committee, I think it is of the utmost importance that the Committee carries out proper due diligence and scrutiny of appointments, which is hugely beneficial to the good running of the country.

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

The Leader of the House clearly thinks that we were all born yesterday, but we are not going to fall for trickery over a dissolution motion that has already been sought and that, would allow him to crash us out with a no-deal Brexit before 31 October. Why does he not publish the motion now, so that we can see it? Will he state whether it is amendable and when he plans to table it?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very grateful for that question. The hon. Gentleman has just said that he expects his party to lose the election. Not only has the Labour party passed a surrender Bill, but it has now decided to surrender as a political force. What we have just heard is that Labour Members do not think that they can have an election on 15 October. Why? Because they would lose. If they are so confident that they would win, they can win and cancel Brexit, which is their real purpose, but they do not trust the people.

[Mr Speaker]

Sir John Hayes: a sentence.

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

Barely a life in this place, or beyond in our constituencies—perhaps through family or friends—has not been touched by cancer and its treatment. You, Mr Speaker, and the Leader of the House will know of the critical relationship between detection, diagnosis and definitive treatment. Will the Leader of the House therefore arrange either a statement or a debate on early diagnosis? It would assuage fear, prevent pain and, hopefully, stop people dying.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

This is a matter of great importance, and one on which debates can be very useful, because they help to raise awareness. I am sure that the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee has heard that request.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

indicated assent.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I also point out that £34 billion more is to be provided for the national health service? I am sure that some of that will be used to improve cancer treatment services.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Government now think that they may need to invoke the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 after 31 October if we leave without a deal. That Act presumes that Parliament is sitting. Is it not therefore vital that we sit through 31 October, and will the Leader of the House ensure that the motion is published as soon as possible—before 2 o’clock—so that we can all decide what we are going to do on Monday?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

There is no question of the House not sitting around 31 October. No one has proposed that.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Will the Government back and give time to cross-party calls for the financial services industry to provide, or maintain, at least one free-to-use, 24/7 cashpoint machine for every high street that supports 5,000 residents?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend has presented a ten-minute rule Bill on that subject, and he may want to introduce a similar Bill in the new Session. Alternatively, he could enter the lottery for a private Member’s Bill, which could give him a great deal of time in which to discuss the issue. However, I share his concern about the need to ensure that people have access to cash.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

The closure of the bank branch in Brora means that there will shortly be only one branch for the whole vast county of Sutherland. May I humbly request a debate, in Government time, about the continuing closure of rural bank branches? I have asked for one before, but, in the lingua franca, omnia tempus habent, sed dum spiro, spero.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is breathing and hoping. That is always extremely beneficial for all hon. Gentlemen and, indeed, all hon. Members—and right hon. ones, too. [Interruption.] I said “hon. Members”. I thought that the word “Members” included everyone, but I apologise if that is not the case.

The hon. Gentleman’s point is important, but I do not think that Government time is likely to be the right arena. Furthermore, I may be, to some extent, partial, as I represent a rural constituency, and I do not think that I should advocate debates in my own cause.

[Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

During the summer recess, I met the wonderful international volunteers at Simeon Care in my constituency. May we have a debate that would celebrate and recognise the important role of international volunteers in our communities, so that charities such as Simeon can flourish?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I first congratulate my hon. Friend on the amazing charitable work he does, because I know he has great personal concern and is very supportive of his local charities? Again, I think that is suitable for a Backbench Business debate and my hon. Friend knows the form for making applications for them.

[Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)]

Does the Leader of the House agree that it is about time we had a further debate or a statement from the Government regarding the women who have been affected by the state pension age increase? It is okay for the Leader of the House to lie down on the job, but many 1950s-born women are being forced back into work by his Government or face poverty.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I begin by thanking the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for their kind words last week when a protest was proposed outside my house? I was very grateful for that and for their bipartisan approach; I think we all have a concern that Members’ houses should not be affected, and I am genuinely grateful.

The issue the hon. Lady raises is very serious, and I have great sympathy for the WASPI women—it is difficult for them—but the situation we inherited in 2010 in terms of the public finances necessitated it, and although I am not unsympathetic to a debate, I very much doubt the decision is going to be changed.

[Mr Speaker]

I very much endorse what the Leader of the House said about the hon. Members for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) and for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). I have made that point myself before, but I take the opportunity to do so again: people who have political disagreements with public figures should not demonstrate in a way that causes real anxiety and fear either to that Member—that public servant—or to members of his or her family; that is intolerable.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

May we have an urgent statement on UK Government support for the people and Government of the Bahamas given their very difficult situation?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Department for International Development has sent a team of experts to help to deal with the devastation and destruction caused by Hurricane Dorian in the Bahamas. The team is working with the Bahamian Government to assess the situation and provide support. The Department for International Trade, the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence are monitoring the situation and getting support to those who need it. The Government are doing whatever they can, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Constituents have contacted me regarding proposals for a breeding kennel in Blaenau Gwent. Many residents have emphasised the importance of good animal welfare, so may we have a statement from the Government explaining what action is being taken right now so that dogs get the best possible protection in the future?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I know that this issue concerns many people, and the Government have a particular concern for animal welfare. In the new Session of Parliament there may well be time to have a debate on it.

[Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

Royal Mail Group is trying to sell off Parcelforce as a separate business. Communication workers will be ready to strike and take action. With an election possibly coming up, will there be a statement from the Government?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am sure that no responsible person would go on strike to interrupt the democratic process of a general election.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

The Plaid Cymru group will probably vote against the Government on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, but would it not be reasonable for the official Opposition to have the courage of their convictions and do likewise?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

What has happened to the men of Harlech? I thought they were meant to stand steady. Instead, they are running away from an election, which is very disappointing.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

A small family-run restaurant in my constituency was hit with an eye-watering Home Office fine for a minor administrative error in its staffing. I do not want a debate or a statement, but will the Leader of the House please get me a meeting with the Home Secretary so I may ask her directly to resolve this issue and why she has not responded to my letters?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am sorry to say that arranging meetings is not the job of the Leader the House. I am here to organise debates and to point people in the right direction for getting parliamentary responses—not, I am sorry to say, to be a diary secretary.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Leader of the House assure me that during Prorogation the Home Secretary will not lay a statutory instrument to make it illegal to enter Kurdish Syria and that we will continue to be able to support our allies in Kurdistan?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The rules relating to the laying of statutory instruments when the House is sitting are complicated and detailed, and without knowing the precise form of the statutory instrument I will not be able to give any guarantee.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

We have recently learned that free movement as we know it is to end on 31 October. During the referendum campaign the current Prime Minister made a great deal of decisions not being made without the democratic agreement of this Parliament. May we be assured that, in the current circumstances, the biggest change to immigration in this country in a decade will not be made without the approval of Parliament?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Well, Mr Speaker, let us have an election; let’s let the British people decide. Stop running away from it—not you, Mr Speaker, but others in this House. It is so ridiculous to say that the Government are outrageous, undemocratic, shocking and terrible because they are offering an election. An election gives the choice to the British people and validates whatever we do.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House is very knowledgeable about procedural issues. If the House agrees to an election date of 15 October on Monday, is there any device the Prime Minister could use to move that date to beyond 31 October while the House is dissolved, to take the country out with no deal?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The date of the election flows from the date of Dissolution. [Interruption.] No, it is not: the election follows 25 working days from the date of Dissolution, so if we are dissolved on Monday—[Interruption.] But the process for that—[Interruption.] No, that is a mistake: it is not a minimum once the Dissolution day is set; it is 25 working days from Dissolution.

[Chris Bryant]

It is the other way around.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

No, what the hon. Gentleman is confusing is when the day of Dissolution is set, and that is done by Royal Proclamation.

I can assure the House that the date will be set and the date will be stuck to. I think everybody in this House wants to see this issue settled; it is the one thing we have agreement about. The best way to settle it is through a general election—and a general election before 31 October.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

Does the Leader of the House not understand that such is the lack of trust in this Government because of their behaviour that we simply will not vote for a general election unless and until an extension of article 50 has been secured, guaranteeing that this country cannot be dragged out with no deal? That is the condition.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The condition seems to change, because the condition was that the legislation was passed.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

And enacted.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

And enacted; given Royal Assent. [Interruption.] Royal Assent is the point at which it is enacted—it is when it becomes an Act. If that is the law of the land, that will be the law of the land, and if Members think it through they will realise that the Government would not want an election after that law had taken effect and we had had to ask for an extension. The last thing this Government want to do is ask for an extension.

[Wes Streeting]

But we do.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Then win an election. That is the easy part of it; if Labour Members really have confidence in what they say, go for an election. That is the obvious point. The weasel wording to try to pretend they want an election, but they do not want an election, and they are not going to vote for one because we might leave is all about stopping Brexit by people who do not trust their own voters.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In July of this year, there were a number of attacks on Christian villages in Plateau state, Nigeria, with some 75 houses burned and three Christians killed—a father and his seven-year-old son and the elder of a church were brutally beheaded. We had a debate in the Chamber some six weeks ago in which we discussed the persecution of Christians and the Truro report. May we have an update on where we are, because the murder of Christians is continuing across the world?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

This is a very serious issue, and I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern regarding the persecution of Christians across the world. We should do whatever we can—indeed, the Government are doing what they can—to help them. I believe the hon. Gentleman met my predecessor quite recently to discuss freedom of religion and belief, and I know he is in regular communication with the Prime Minister’s special envoy on freedom of religion or belief at the Foreign Office. These incidents are dreadful and we must do everything we can to stop them. I am happy to take this matter up further if the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

There were 1,187 drug-related deaths in Scotland last year, but the Home Office has yet to dispatch a Minister to the drugs summit that the Scottish Government wish to hold. Why?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

There is an issue about exactly where power and authority lie and what parts are devolved and what parts are not devolved. I will happily take the matter up with the Home Office for the hon. Lady, and I will send a reply when I get a response.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

Putting aside the vested interests of so many of the Government’s Members, relatives and chums in the other place, and in the light of the work of the noble Lords last night, may we have a debate in Government time on the role of the upper Chamber?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady may recall that not so many years ago we had a Second Reading debate for a couple of days on the role of the upper Chamber in an attempt to reform it, but it did not get very far. The problem with those debates is that so many people have so many different ideas that nobody can come to a conclusion about what ought to be done, so I would suggest that if people want such a debate, they have a word with the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns).

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

Last week, 50 new towns were added to the future high streets fund. Ellesmere Port was not one of them, which was hugely disappointing, but then I saw that the majority of successful bids were from Conservative constituencies. May we have a statement, please, from the relevant Minister to assure us that this is not a political fix ahead of a snap general election?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Oh, of course it is not a political fix! No Government would ever behave like that.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

On Tuesday this week, the Office for National Statistics produced the suicide data for 2018, which showed an increase of 686 suicides over the previous year’s figure. Suicide is preventable, not inevitable, so may we have a debate in Government time as soon as possible on the figures and what we can do to reduce deaths by suicide?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

This is obviously an important and worrying issue, and one where any policy initiatives that can be made to help to reduce the suicide rate ought to be made, but I think it is a suitable matter for the Backbench Business Committee.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

My constituent Erin Campbell, who is our member of the Scottish Youth Parliament, runs the Keep in Mind mental health campaign to reduce the stigma of young people’s mental health and ask them to talk about it. If there is space next week, may we have a debate on the role of young people helping their own mental health through discussion and conversation?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think that fitting it in next week might prove a little difficult.

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House please apologise to the doctor whom he compared an hour ago to another now disgraced former doctor whose actions and misinformation led to the loss of this country’s herd immunity to measles earlier this year?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

No, I will reiterate it because I think this doctor’s behaviour was disgraceful. To scaremonger and say that people are going to die because of Brexit is thoroughly irresponsible and unbefitting to his role.

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

The Leader of the House is a stickler for good manners, except when it comes to members of the medical profession. I wonder whether he can help me. I wrote to the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) 76 days ago about the contaminated blood scandal. The fact is that 19 people have died in those 76 days without receiving any compensation. Can the Leader of the House assist me in getting a response from the right hon. Gentleman, which I can then pass on to everyone who has been affected by the scandal?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

If the hon. Lady sends me a copy of her letter, I will of course chase it up, but 76 days ago my right hon. Friend was not yet Prime Minister. However, if she sends it to me, I absolutely promise I will take it up and try to get an answer as soon as possible.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

Will the Leader of the House confirm whether it is a Government tactic to cause reputational damage to experts such as Dr David Nicholl, who dared to challenge the Government and raise legitimate concerns about the impact of no deal?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Frankly, I think when people start saying that people are going to die because of Brexit, their reputations are destroyed by themselves.

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the Leader of the House and to colleagues for their brevity.

European Union (Withdrawal)

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2019 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, brought to us by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and to follow the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition.

The Prime Minister has said, including in his statement earlier, that this Government are absolutely committed to delivering Brexit on 31 October. We must deliver the largest democratic mandate in this nation’s history. Delivering the referendum result requires this House to respect the voice of the people as expressed in that historic vote—so far, the House has failed to do so. And now, instead of backing the Prime Minister and giving him the best possible chance of securing a deal before the UK leaves the European Union on 31 October, we find ourselves debating a proposition that seeks to confound the referendum result again. Mr Speaker, I wish to be clear: what is proposed today is constitutionally irregular.

[Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)]

Would the right hon. Gentleman remind the House: how many times did he vote against the deal?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The deal is dreadful, which is why the Prime Minister is getting a better one—if only the House would let him. However, this is irregular, both in terms of the approach to allowing SO 24s on substantive motions and in terms of the subversion of Parliament’s proper role in scrutinising and the Executive’s in initiating.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

The right hon. Gentleman will know the importance of the Good Friday agreement to the people of Northern Ireland. He will also know, as a Unionist, that without a deal there will be an inevitable hardening of the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, which will incentivise Sinn Féin to agitate for a border poll to take Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom and into the Republic of Ireland—into a united Ireland. How on earth could he defend the indefensible?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Because I simply disagree with the hon. Lady—there would have to be a political desire to impose a hard border, and neither the United Kingdom nor the Government of the Republic of Ireland have such a desire.

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

I have a certain fondness for the right hon. Gentleman, stemming from our time on the restoration and renewal Committee some years ago. I will tell him what is constitutionally irregular: shutting down Parliament, shutting down debate and shutting down the ability of MPs to hold this Government to account. Can he therefore tell me when he became aware of the Prime Minister’s plan to shut down Parliament in order to force through a no-deal Brexit? Papers in the Court of Session today suggest that this was the Prime Minister’s plan on 16 August.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As Parliament is not being shut down—cannot be shut down—I could not be aware of plans to do something that is not happening, so the hon. Gentleman is simply wrong.

[Mr Baron]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the majority of Members—colleagues—who will vote against the Government tonight voted to trigger article 50, which said that we would leave the EU with or without a deal. It was very simple and very clear. Which bit does he think they now do not understand?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

They do not like losing referendums and never accepted the result.

I must come back to the constitutional issue, because this motion risks subverting Parliament’s proper role in scrutinising and the Executive’s in initiating. You in particular, Mr Speaker, have a grave responsibility, of which I know you are well aware, to uphold the norms and conventions that underpin our constitution, but we all have a role to play, and it does considerable damage when some of us choose to subvert rather than reinforce—to hinder rather than to polish—our constitution.

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

The Leader of the House is talking about the alleged subversion of democracy. He seemed not to answer the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray), so I ask clearly: first, on what date did the Leader of the House first become aware of the plan to prorogue Parliament? Secondly, have any officials from his office, 10 Downing Street or elsewhere, whether political advisers or civil servants, been conducting communications away from the normal channels, in such a way that would not comply with the terms of candour and disclosure necessary for the court proceedings that are currently taking place?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

If people were carrying out discussions without candour, I would not know about them so would not be able to tell the hon. Gentleman whether they had happened. I carry out all my discussions with candour and—if anybody is interested—the Privy Council’s function is reported in the Court Circular.

[Mr Vara]

Were we to leave the EU on a no-deal basis, in effect that would mean that we would operate on World Trade Organisation rules. Given that the EU currently operates on WTO rules with a number of countries—including the US, China, Russia, Argentina, Australia, New Zealand and many others—does my right hon. Friend agree that we should not be fearful of trading on WTO rules outside the EU? We already trade on WTO rules in the EU.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend makes a brilliant and incisive point and is absolutely right.

We need to examine what is being put forward to the House and to consider the concerning and odd fact that it is actually being permitted in the first place. Let us look at Standing Order No. 24 and the approach we are taking. As you know, Mr Speaker, I take an interest in the rules of the House.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

I was astonished to hear my right hon. Friend agree that we would be perfectly all right to proceed on WTO rules. Does he accept that WTO rules will require the European Union to apply tariffs against our agriculture, fisheries and much of our manufacturing, in line with the tariffs it imposes against other third-party countries, and that WTO rules will require us to have a closed border in Ireland to enforce those restrictions? We cannot have it one way and another: we either obey the WTO rules or we ignore those as well and pretend we are going into some never-never land, but my right hon. Friend cannot simply accept calmly the argument that WTO rules would do no damage to our economy.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I must confess that I am surprised by my right hon. and learned Friend’s astonishment because I have been making the case for WTO rules for some time. It has been a sensible way to proceed and will allow us to carry on trading as we do with many other countries.

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend says that the House’s role is one of scrutiny, and I agree, yet does he not see that there is an incompatibility between that scrutiny and in fact taking steps through Prorogation to deprive us of the effective opportunity to carry it out? When considering that, he may also agree with me that so much in this House depends on trust. How can we have trust when there have already been a number of examples of the Government’s making inaccurate statements, such as, first, that the papers prepared for its Yellowhammer briefing were the product of a previous Administration when they were not; and secondly, and perhaps most pertinently, when it appears that the facts as stated by the Government as to the reasons for Prorogation have turned out to be entirely inaccurate and are now causing the Government considerable difficulties over their duty of candour in litigation? When he aggregates all that together, perhaps my right hon. Friend might begin to understand why many of us have finally decided that this House must take action.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. and learned Friend is very learned but his learning does not always lead him in the right direction. The Prorogation is completely routine. When I was first—and, indeed, last—at this Dispatch Box, Opposition Front Benchers were asking for the Session to be brought to an end. We were merely being our obliging selves in leading forth to a new Queen’s Speech in the general course of events.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House give way?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

In due course, because we always like to hear from the hon. Gentleman, who informs and educates us when he speaks—

[Chris Bryant]

Can I do it now?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

No. We are going to have to wait for this informing and educating. We are all bating our breath for it, but I like to keep people on tenterhooks for the time being, because I wish to talk about our old friend “Erskine May”, which sets out your role, Mr Speaker. The chief characteristics attached the office of Speaker in the House of Commons are authority and impartiality. It would be disorderly, wrong and not my intention to question your impartiality, Mr Speaker, but, as with the umpires at Edgbaston who saw eight of their decisions sent for review and overturned, accepting somebody’s impartiality is not the same as accepting their infallibility.

It is worth noting what a wise and scholarly Speaker once said—indeed, this wise and scholarly Speaker said as recently as last year that a debate held under Standing Order No. 24 could be held on a substantive and amendable motion only if the Standing Order is itself amended. In April 2018, in the light of two emergency debates on the UK’s decision to take military action in Syria, you yourself, Mr Speaker, said that

“it is perfectly open to the House to amend Standing Order No. 24, of which there is some uncertainty and often incomprehension. It could be amended to allow for the tabling of substantive motions in circumstances of emergency, which could also be amendable and on which the House could vote. If there are Members who are interested in that line of inquiry, they could usefully raise it with the Chair of the Procedure Committee”.—[Official Report, 19 April 2018; Vol. 639, c. 475.]

As far as I am aware, no change has been made to Standing Order No. 24, yet the decision has changed—varius et mutabilis semper dictor.

[Chris Bryant]

The Leader of the House said earlier that Parliament is not being suspended, but in this case it is. He knows perfectly well that Select Committees will not be able to sit, and as according to the Bill of Rights, there will be absolutely no proceedings of Parliament while Parliament is prorogued. I want Parliament to prorogue, but I want it to prorogue only for four or five days so that we can do our job of scrutinising the Government through proceedings in Parliament. That is the point: we want a Queen’s Speech but we also want to be able to come back and do our job.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman knows the procedures of this House only too well. He knows that we are about to go, in some cases, to the seaside for party conferences—in the case of my party, to a major city centre. That is why we are taking four or five days of parliamentary time and simply going over the normal recess. That is not in any sense an abuse.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House go back to his point about Standing Order No. 24? It seems to me that he is absolutely correct—as Mr Speaker was correct in his previous statement—that this could not be on a substantive motion. If the motion, which appears to be substantive, is carried tonight, it seems to me that the Government would have every right to declare it ultra vires and ignore it.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman will not presume to argue with the judgment of the Chair, entitled as he is to the possession and expression of his opinion. What I say to him in order to help him and to assist the Leader of the House is this: if, in the judgment of the Chair, a motion under Standing Order No. 24 is expressed in neutral terms, it will not be open to amendment—if it is judged to be expressed in neutral terms. The reality of the matter is that there have been previous occasions upon which there have been Standing Order No. 24 motion debates which have contained what I would prefer to call evaluative motions, notably on 18 March 2013 and on 11 December 2018 with which I feel sure the Leader of the House is familiar. It is in conformity with that practice that I have operated. I have taken advice of a professional kind, and I am entirely satisfied that the judgment that I have made is consistent with that advice. My attitude is simply to seek to facilitate the House. The Leader of the House rightly referred to my responsibility as grave and solemn, and I completely accept that as well as I accept his right to his own view about my judgment in this matter. I have sought to exercise my judgment in discharging my responsibility to facilitate the House of Commons—to facilitate the legislature. I have done it; I am doing it; and I will do it to the best of my ability without fear or favour—or, to coin a phrase, come what may, do or die.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful, as always, Mr Speaker, for your contribution to the debate. It is always very useful that your words are referred to and that the House should be reminded of them. It was suggested by you that this matter should be referred to the Procedure Committee and that the motion should be amended, which it has not been.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

There is so much to say and so little time, and others want to speak.

This motion is extraordinary in a number of ways.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I will, of course, give way to the hon. and learned Lady.

[Joanna Cherry]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I wonder whether I might go back to the matter raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). It was revealed in court this morning in a case raised in my name and that of 70 other Members of this House that on 16 August the Prime Minister agreed to a suggestion that Parliament should be prorogued on 9 September, but on 25 August a No. 10 spokesperson said

“the claim that the Government is considering proroguing Parliament in September in order to stop MPs debating Brexit is entirely false.”

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the spokesperson misled MPs and the public on 25 August?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am sorry to say that the most obvious understanding of the ordinary use of the English language, which normally the hon. and learned Lady is pretty good at, makes it quite clear that the two statements are entirely compatible. The Prorogation is the normal Prorogation to have a new Session; it is not to stop debate on matters related to the European Union.

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

rose—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is, of course, a pleasure to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He spoke earlier about candour. The need for candour means that he has to accept that, when it comes to WTO, all countries bar about three in the world are in regional trade associations—the three that are not are South Sudan, Somalia and East Timor, and they will probably soon be joined by the UK if we have a hard Brexit. The fact that all these countries, bar three, are in regional trade associations means that they do not exclusively trade on WTO terms. Therefore, when he talks about taking the UK to a place where we exclusively trade on WTO terms, he is talking about moving us away from free trade with 500 million people, making trade more expensive. That is his policy. The other question is this: did he know about the Prorogation on 16 August?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

On 16 August, I was at Lords watching a game of cricket, unless it was one of the days when it rained. On the WTO issue, our trade with the United States on WTO terms—I know that the hon. Gentleman is expert in these matters—has grown faster since the creation of the single market than our trade with European Union.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

rose—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I understand that my right hon. Friend wishes to intervene.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I understand his views and his concerns about the supposed constitutional irregularity of these proceedings, and no doubt in the future all these things can be debated. Will he accept that, as a nation, we stand at present at a moment that will have a profound effect on the welfare of our people, that the sovereign Parliament of this country clearly deserves an opportunity to be able to decide whether it will accept a policy of no-deal exit or not and that that overwhelmingly matters more than whether the Standing Order No. 24B, which has “where” in it—misdrafted in all probability by the then Leader of the House—has a particular meaning or does not have a particular meaning?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

There is, I am sorry to say, a stunning arrogance to that view. It fails to understand where sovereignty comes from. [Interruption.] I do indeed dare to say this, and I say it to my right hon. Friend.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I recognise that there are strongly held views on both sides of the House on all aspects of this matter, but the Leader of the House must be heard.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Sovereignty in this House comes from the British people. The idea that we can overrule 17.4 million people is preposterous, and the idea that our rules do not exist to protect the people from arrogant power grabs is mistaken. Those rules are there for the protection of the people.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I have given way so many times and to many distinguished Members, and it is now time to come on to this extraordinary and unprecedented motion.

Parliament is attempting to set aside Standing Order No. 14 to give precedence to the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill. This motion goes further and seeks to claim an unknown and unquantified number of subsequent days for consideration of Lords amendments and messages. It is a fundamental principle that the Government are able to transact their business in this House—a principle that this House has long accepted in Standing Order No. 14. This motion also sets aside, in a new parliamentary Session, the Standing Orders that apply in relation to the presentation of private Members’ Bills. The motion would allow a designated Member—or a few of the Illuminati who are taking the powers to themselves—to give notice of the presentation of this Bill on the first day of a new Session and then provide time for debate on this Bill on the second day of the new Session, interrupting the Queen’s Speech debate.

There is an established process for the House debating the Queen’s Speech—a process that this Bill would undermine. Although the Outlawries Bill has its First Reading just before the start of the Queen’s Speech debate, this Bill is only read the First time as a formality and not debated. To interrupt the Queen’s Speech debate to debate a Back-Bench Bill, such as the one proposed in this motion, would be unprecedented. The Government have an obligation to bring forward their business, and the Queen’s Speech and the debate that follows form one of the great set pieces of the parliamentary calendar, where the Government are rightly scrutinised and held to account, and that is being interrupted.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

rose—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I give way to the very patient hon. Gentleman.

[David Linden]

I want to come back to a point made by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). He has said quite a lot, as a Brexiteer, that we would be taking back control of our laws. Can the Leader of the House be crystal clear at the Dispatch Box tonight that if the Bill passes in this House and in the other place, the Government will not stop it getting Royal Assent—if we are taking back control of our laws?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The law will be followed. We are a country that follows the rule of law and this Government assiduously follow constitutional conventions, unlike some other Members of this House.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I understand that my hon. Friend wishes to intervene.

[Sir William Cash]

The intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) can only be described as breathtaking. In support of the assertion by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that it was weighted with great arrogance, may I ask him to be good enough to confirm that in fact the European Union Referendum Bill, as enacted, was a sovereign Act of Parliament, which deliberately gave the right to the British people, and not to the British Parliament, to make the decision on the question of remain or leave?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is of course right. We report to the British people; they are our bosses.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), who has been so patient.

[Vicky Ford]

I am grateful to the Leader of the House. Getting back to the bigger picture, the Prime Minister made it very clear in his speech last night and in his statement today that his preferred outcome is to leave with a deal. Can the Leader of the House confirm that that is also his preferred outcome and that, if a deal is agreed at the next European Council, sufficient time will be made in this Chamber to ensure that we legislate for that deal?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I can say, both personally and as bound by collective responsibility, that I am in favour of a deal.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

We must allow other Members to speak. I see that time’s wingèd  chariot is speeding away, and therefore I must get on to the separation of powers. [Interruption.] Well, if the hon. Gentleman wants me to carry on all night, I will do my best.

Today’s debate goes to the heart of our constitution and the roles of the Executive and of Parliament. These are matters of careful balance. It is for the Government, by virtue of their ability to command the confidence of this House, to exercise Executive power. That includes the order of business and the bringing forward of legislation. It is for Parliament to scrutinise, to amend, to reject or to approve. Indeed, the scrutiny of the Executive is one of the core functions of Parliament. These complementary and distinctive roles are essential to the functioning of the constitution.

Ministers are of course accountable to Parliament for their decisions and actions, and Parliament can make clear its views. It is not, however, for Parliament to undertake the role and functions of the Executive. The constitutional convention is that Executive power is exercised by Her Majesty’s Government, who have a democratic mandate to govern. That mandate is derived from the British people and represented through this House.

Mr Speaker, when we look at this constitution, we see that we are protected by our rules, our orders and our conventions. We will remember from “A Man for All Seasons” that it is those rules, laws and conventions that protect us from the winds of tyranny, and if we take away those protections, as the right hon. Member for West Dorset proposes to do, we lose our protections. It is therefore on the basis of this convention that the Government, not Parliament, are responsible for negotiations with the European Union. Parliament as a whole cannot negotiate for the UK; that is the role of the Government, in exercising Executive power to give effect to the will of the nation.

These roles are fundamental and underpin the country’s uncodified constitution. The Government draw power from Parliament, but the Government may at any time be removed by the tried and tested motion of a confidence debate. The fact is that Parliament has not been willing to go down that route, and the reason is that the Opposition are afraid of that route and run away from it, because they do not dare have the Leader of the Opposition as the Head of Government. They are frightened. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) says that there is time. Let me say, as Leader of the House, that if the Opposition want a motion of confidence, this Government will always obey the constitutional convention and make time for it. But they are afraid—they are white with fear—because they do not want the right hon. Gentleman in No. 10 Downing Street.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the House succeeds in stripping our Prime Minister of the key negotiating card of no deal, the likelihood of that outcome will be that much accentuated?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; it would make the negotiations that much harder.

Let us now turn to the substance of what we are debating. Ostensibly, the purpose of the Bill is to stop no deal. But the Government want a deal. We are willing to sit down with the Commission and EU member states to talk about what needs to be done and to achieve a deal. That must involve the excision of the anti-democratic backstop. The Government have also been clear that we must respect the referendum result and that the UK will be leaving the EU on 31 October, whatever the circumstances. Unless and until the EU agrees to negotiate, we will be leaving with no deal on 31 October.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made a statement earlier today, in which he informed the House of all that is being done to ensure that we are ready for all eventualities. The good boy scouts that we are, we are prepared.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I will definitely give way to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle).

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he not realise that, in proroguing Parliament for five weeks—the longest Prorogation, right in the middle of a political crisis, since 1945—he and his Government have deliberately prevented scrutiny that would be legitimate in this House, hence the situation we find ourselves in now? Will he now confirm at the Dispatch Box that if the Bill passes through this House and the other place, he will speed Royal Assent and that his Government will not act against the law?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I do not wish to be pedantic, but one of the constitutional niceties is that we are Her Majesty’s Government, not mine, and we are led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson). The important issue here is that Prorogation is a routine start for a new Session, and we are losing a similar number of days to the number we would lose in a normal Prorogation.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), but she is trumped, momentarily, by the Chair of the Brexit Committee.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I am extremely grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way. Now that Mr Speaker has made it clear that there is nothing at all irregular about his acceptance of this motion, and given that the Leader of the House accepts, as I presume he does, that the House is in charge of its own procedures, how can there be anything constitutionally irregular in the House choosing—if it passes the motion and then the Bill tomorrow—to instruct the Government that there is an outcome to the Brexit negotiations that it is not prepared to accept, which is leaving without a deal on 31 October?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The right hon. Gentleman conflates irregular and improper. The motion is unquestionably irregular, even though it is not improper—the two are different concepts, as I am sure he fully understands. It is of course for the House to regulate its own proceedings, but a fundamental principle of our constitution is that the Government command the confidence of the House. [Interruption.] Ah! From a sedentary position an hon. Gentleman says that the Government do not. Now, that is the lock that would undo this constitutional conundrum, because the House dare not say that it has no confidence in the Government—it is frightened of that—and therefore it tries to take away confidence on specifics while maintaining confidence in the generality. That is not a proper constitutional position to be in.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is very difficult to choose to whom to give way, but I did promise the hon. Lady.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He has referred many times in his speech to accountability. Within that vein of accountability, may I ask him a simple question: on what date did he become aware of the Prime Minister’s intention to prorogue Parliament?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I have been asked that question, and I understand that there are papers in court. I do not know when I was told that it was happening, although I did have to take a flight out to Aberdeen for a meeting of the Privy Council. I would need to consult my diary and my telephone records, and I would not wish to say something that was inaccurate.

Let us get back to what is happening here. I was saying that we, being good boy scouts, are well prepared for leaving with or without a deal, and it is absurd for MPs to attempt to bind the Prime Minister’s hands as he seeks to agree a deal that they can support ahead of the European Council.

The European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill would make it harder to deliver the two things that the public want from Brexit: certainty and for it to be delivered. The Bill does not do this. It is nothing but legislative legerdemain and a vehicle for extension after extension.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

My constituents in Sleaford and North Hykeham voted overwhelmingly to leave and are very concerned about this proposed Bill, which, as they see it, would block Brexit. Will my right hon. Friend confirm my understanding that if the Bill were to pass, the options available would be to the EU and that those options would be to agree a largely pointless three-month extension, which would almost certainly be repeated; to offer a deal of the EU’s choice, not negotiated by our Government; or no deal? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is not taking back control for this Parliament or this Government, but ceding it entirely to Brussels?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What is happening is a deliberate attempt to sow the seed for an extension long enough for a second referendum or simply to stop us leaving at all. It is about denying Brexit, and the fact that the Bill mandates updates on negotiations and motions on those updates on a rolling 28-day basis clearly envisages either a lengthy extension or possibly indefinite vassalage. These seeds could grow into legislation to be introduced on 15 January, 12 February and every 28 days thereafter to command the Government to take specific actions. The aim is to create a marionette Government in which there is only nominal confidence, and it defies the convention in what we are doing today—a convention of great importance, that emergency legislation is passed only when there is a consensus.

Governments less benign than this one may in future learn from this process and ram through any legislation they feel like. Without consensus, those on the Opposition Benches should be very careful about emergency legislation, for they may find they are at the wrong end of it in the future. We should be trying to help the Prime Minister in his chance to negotiate, not trying to bind him hand and foot: not only do we want to be the vassal state of the European Union; we wish to send the Prime Minister, bound hand and foot, to go and negotiate with the European Union.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Mr Speaker, you will be glad to know that I am drawing gently to a close, and therefore I fear that time for interventions, except from my very old friend, the right hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), the Chair of the very distinguished Committee that she is the Chair of. [Laughter.]

[Mr Speaker]

Send him a note!

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

For once, the right hon. Gentleman has made an error and over-promoted me, but I thank him for his distinctive comments.

There is a serious point here: we are a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. I take that judgment seriously, as I know do colleagues across the House. The Government do not have not have a majority and we are in uncharted constitutional territory, so it is absolutely right and proper that we exercise our judgment in the interests of the country to avoid, at the very least, a no-deal Brexit. For all the right hon. Gentleman’s talk, we must exercise that judgment, and that is what we are doing. It is entirely responsible.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am afraid that I disagree with the hon. Lady, and I must confess that I am astonished that she is not a right hon. Member. Something must have gone wrong with the Privy Council, of which I am now Lord President, for that not to be the case. [Interruption.] Oh, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) feels that he has also not been justly promoted; I am sorry.

[Chris Bryant]

No, you’ve been unjustly promoted!

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not think that the Leader of the House was planning to invite the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) to join him in Balmoral, so I am not sure that it makes a great deal of difference in the immediate circumstances.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am afraid that the hon. Lady is wrong because there is a routine constitutional procedure to deal with the situation she describes, and that is the vote of confidence. Yes, we are a representative body, but where does our sovereignty come from? Here I am in agreement with the Scots: sovereignty comes from the people to Parliament. We hold it in trust for them and they gave us an instruction. If we follow this route, we are left with but three options: we have to accept the deal with its anti-democratic backstop; we have to keep on extending, because Parliament would never accept that we are ready to leave; or we could simply revoke and tell 17.4 million people that they were wrong.

The approach taken today is the most unconstitutional use of this House since the days of Charles Stewart Parnell, when he tried to bung up Parliament. Usurping the Executive’s right is unconstitutional; the abuse of emergency debates to do so is unconstitutional; and the Bill itself is yet more unconstitutional. A. V. Dicey said that all conventions have

“one ultimate object, to secure that Parliament or the Cabinet…shall in the long run give effect to the will…of the nation”.

These conventions are being disregarded today, and so, by extension, is the will of the nation. Parliament sets itself against the people. Sovereignty comes from the people to Parliament. It does not come to Parliament out of a void. If Parliament tries to challenge the people, this stretches the elastic of our constitution near to breaking point. We should recognise that the people are our masters and show ourselves to be their lieges and servants, not place ourselves in the position of their overlords. As we come to vote today, I hope that all Members will contemplate the current constitutional confusion and consider the chaos that this concatenation of circumstances could create.

Business of the House

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

May I ask the new Leader of the House for the forthcoming business?

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker—[Hon. Members: “Resign!”] It’s a bit early!

Monday 2 September—The House will not be sitting.



Tuesday 3 September—Proceedings in Committee and remaining stages of the Census (Return Particulars and Removal of Penalties) Bill [Lords].

Wednesday 4 September—Remaining stages of the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill.



Thursday 5 September—Debate on a motion on the future UK shared prosperity fund, followed by debate on a motion on the British housebuilding industry leasehold. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.



Friday 6 September—The House will not be sitting.

[Valerie Vaz]

I thank the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business. This is not exactly an energised list. I thought we were all supposed to be energising for the future, but maybe we can look forward to a further energised list. I want to start by thanking the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) for engaging in such a supportive way in the House. He really wanted to know how the House worked. I congratulate the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) on her new role. I also want to thank a former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), who has stood down from his Front-Bench post after 20 years. He started as a special adviser to Douglas Hurd. I hope we see the like of those people again in the Conservative party.

I, too, want to pay tribute to Paul Evans, who has been absolutely fantastic. He has had a distinguished career in the House. He has been very supportive when I have asked him questions, and he has been really assiduous in the kind of work that he has done and in the Committees. If anyone cares to look at his “Who’s Who” entry, they will see that his recreations include the British constitution, walking, silence and empty places. Paul, how have you survived 38 years in the House of Commons? It is interesting that he likes the British constitution. I do not know why he is retiring—we need him more than ever now.

I welcome the Leader of the House; it is great to see him in that place. Perhaps I can suggest a few things to him. He does have staff, so the nanny can stand down. I know his previous job was to send googlies and a full toss to the Government, but he now has to try to get the business through. Along with the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), I want to ask him whether he will get a complimentary copy of “Erskine May” for us. We should not really have to buy it. I know it is online, but it would be really helpful if the main opposition parties had a copy.

Let me talk about the way that this happens. The deal is that I ask about business and the Leader of the House is supposed to respond. We usually get two weeks’ business; I wonder whether we could go back to the discipline of two weeks. I have a few questions for him. What is going on with the conference recess? Is proroguing still on the menu? Can he rule that out? We know that the Prime Minister gave a mini manifesto on the steps of Downing Street. When will we have a new Session of Parliament? This has been the longest. The previous Leader of the House said that we had used up our allotted Opposition days; can we have some unallotted days?

What a mandate, what a ringing endorsement—less than 0.4% of an electorate. Some 46.8 million citizens can vote in a general election, but the Prime Minister was selected by 92,000 people—92,000 people, taking back control. He has not won the support of our country. The Prime Minister talked about the awesome foursome, but what about the gruesome twosome? I know that the Leader of the House respects Parliament, but given that the special adviser to the Prime Minister refused to obey an order of this House and is actually in contempt of Parliament, will the Leader of the House please say whether the special adviser can come to the Floor of the House while he is in contempt of Parliament? Will he get a pass? Perhaps we need counsel’s advice on this.

I know that the Leader of the House respects Parliament. There was a message sent from the Lords about a Joint Select Committee; will he look into that? I know that his predecessor, as we finished business questions, was on the way to the Lords. It is not difficult to set up a Joint Select Committee. There is not much work in the first week back. We know that the Exiting the European Union Committee has already produced a report on the effects on business under no deal. It cannot be difficult to set up a Select Committee, take the evidence that already exists and produce a report.

While the Tory party has been appointing its new Prime Minister, unprecedentedly, there have been 70 written statements—that is absolutely outrageous—over three days. There have been important ones, including one on the school teachers review body. What does it say in that statement? Yes, teachers can get a pay rise, but the Government are going to give only 0.4% to support them. The rest has to come from their own budget—2% from their own budget. This really is a tale of two Britains.

On the Philip Augar review, the previous Prime Minister said that she wanted to see it implemented, whereby tuition fees should be reduced from £9,250 to £7,000. However, the written statement says that the maximum tuition fee will remain at £9,250 for the 2020-21 academic year. Some parents can afford to pay the tuition fees up front. This really is a tale of two Britains, and, on the same day, the Secretary of State for Transport revealed that the cost of Crossrail has escalated.

As a keen parliamentarian, will the Leader of the House ensure, through the usual channels, that some of those written statements are debated on the Floor of the House? We can make an agreement and perhaps we can have a debate, given that the business is so light for the first week back.

The Leader of the House will know, I hope, that I have made a pledge that I will raise the case of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe every week until she is free. Richard Ratcliffe said that Nazanin returned to prison and that it was like proper torture. Will the Leader of the House raise this with the Prime Minister, and will the Prime Minister make amends by meeting Richard Ratcliffe as soon as possible and make that important phone call to the Iranian Government? A five-year-old girl is growing up not knowing what it feels like to hug and kiss her parents. The Leader of the House will know, as a father of six, how important that is.

I want to say thank you, Mr Speaker, to you and your staff and the Deputy Speakers for their unfailing courtesy and help to me; to the Leader of the House and all his staff; to the Clerks; to Phil and his team of doorkeepers; to the House of Commons Library; to the official reporters; to the catering and cleaning staff; to the postal workers; to security; and to our officers and Chief Whip, and his staff. I also welcome the new Government Chief Whip, who has actually shown me personally some kindness. I thank him for that.

All sorts is going on in our Whips Office: my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) has got married, Devena has got married, Millie has moved to the Department for Education, and we welcomed Keir William Stocks Sullivan on Monday 22nd—I send good wishes to Simon and his wife. Finally, I thank Sam Clark, who has been in the usual channels departments of the Opposition and the Government for six years. He is going to restoration and renewal—another big thing for the Leader of the House. I hope Sam will enjoy lots of Mars bars—that is a private joke. I obviously thank everyone in my office.

I say to each and every hon. Member: I know how hard this time has been, and I hope you all have a restful and peaceful summer recess.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I thank the shadow Leader of the House for her incisive list of questions and, indeed, for the suggestion that I replace nanny with the staff in the Leader of the House’s office. I think they might be a bit bemused if six children trotted in with me and expected to be looked after by House of Commons staff, so I will not go down that route.

“Erskine May” is available online for free. I understand that Opposition Members view themselves as modern, cutting-edge and thrusting. Therefore, going online might not be too problematic for them. Even I can do it occasionally myself. If they do not want to do that, the proper edition of “Erskine May” is available for £400 and may prove a good investment.

The business has been announced for a week, as has been standard practice for some time. I know that historically it was not, but you said yourself, Mr Speaker, that convention has to evolve, and this is one of those conventions that has evolved. Now, we merely have it for one week.

The hon. Lady asked about the conference recess. She knows that recesses are a matter for this House to determine. No doubt a proposal will be made through the usual channels, but I imagine that it would be convenient for Members to be able to attend their own party conferences. That is what has happened previously, and it tends to be to everybody’s benefit. [Interruption.] I am glad to see the Labour Chief Whip nodding, or at least appearing to nod, at that. I therefore think that something may be forthcoming in due course.

The issue of Prorogation is absolutely marvellous, because the hon. Lady asked for a new Session and asked when this Session would end, and then asked me to promise that we would not prorogue. We cannot have both, because we cannot get to a new Session without proroguing. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said that he views Prorogation as an archaic mechanism and that he does not wish to see archaic mechanisms used—[Laughter.] As I am now bound by collective responsibility, that is now also my view.

The Lords message about a Joint Committee will obviously be looked into. We always wish to treat the other place with respect; that is an important way in which we operate. That will be taken care of in due course.

On the written ministerial statements, I was going to use a word beginning with “d” and ending in “n”, with an “-ed” on the end—you are if you do and the same if you don’t—but Mr Speaker might rule me out of order if I did say that, which I do not want to happen on my first appearance at this Dispatch Box. Parliament wants to know what is going on and there is limited time for debates. Earlier this week, Mr Speaker granted me an urgent question on Batten disease. We know that the system for getting statements and urgent questions answered works. Therefore, if there are issues that people wish to raise from the 70 written ministerial statements, there are mechanisms that the hon. Lady is extremely well aware of.

As to the hon. Lady’s very important point about Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe, absolutely I will take that up. I promise that I will take it up every week for her. We as a nation should always put the interests of our citizens first; that is fundamental to how this country should operate in its conduct with foreign nations. The treatment that Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe has had to undergo is shameful and must be so distressing. When the hon. Lady talks about her child—a five-year-old—being deprived of a mother, that is the most awful thing that one can imagine. I have the greatest sympathy and yes, of course I will take this matter up.

May I conclude by reiterating the thanks that the hon. Lady gave to everybody in the House? How lucky I am now to be Leader of the House—what a privilege it is and what a fine House we have. I have always found that, whenever one wants to know what is going on in the House, the Doorkeepers know first and provide us with a fabulous service.

In paying tribute to Paul Evans as he retires, I should say that the British constitution is a hobby of all sensible people. It is the most interesting matter to discuss and be informed about. It is why £400 for “Erskine May” is such a good investment: it educates one about the British constitution. I wish him well in his retirement.

Finally, I pay tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), who was such a distinguished Leader of the House and Lord President of the Council.

[Mr Speaker]

There are, of course, Greek antecedents of the word “archaic”—a concept and fact with which the Leader of the House himself will be closely familiar. However, I think I can say, without fear of contradiction and for the avoidance of doubt, that the word “archaic” as it is now spelt originated in the 19th century, and in France. By the standards of the Leader of the House, it is distressingly modern and also—I say this simply as a matter of fact—of foreign origin. He will have his own views about that matter and others.

[Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I start by welcoming my hon. Friend—I do not think he is yet “right hon.”—to his post. I think he will bring modulated and very moderate tones to these debates. One thing is for certain: having a seat in business questions will now be an absolute must. I welcome my hon. Friend in that regard.

Nothing can be done in this Session, but I want to raise a particular issue. With Lord McColl, I am a co-sponsor of a Bill to change the process relating to modern-day slavery. I ask and urge my hon. Friend to press his colleagues at the Home Office, who have to date been utterly mealy-mouthed about the changes necessary to give victims of modern-day slavery the opportunity to come forward without fearing arrest and incarceration. Will he press his colleagues at the Home Office to urgently bring forward the Bill’s provisions as soon as possible, to improve the quality of the lives of those who suffer most? [Interruption.]

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As I rise, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, has arrived to sit next to me. She is a very distinguished predecessor of mine, whom I congratulate on her promotion and return from the Back Benches.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) is absolutely right about modern-day slavery. It would be opportune to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), the former Prime Minister, for all the work that she did on modern-day slavery—the terrible and hidden curse that it is. I share his view that everything should be done to stop it. The Home Office should move in that direction and people should not fear criminal prosecution if they have been held as modern-day slaves. That would clearly be desperately unfair.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I join you in your warm tributes to Paul Evans, Mr Speaker. I wish him all the best in his retirement.

I thank our curious new Leader of the House for announcing the, well, meaningless stuff that we are coming back to in September. I warmly welcome him to his place. He is the fifth Leader of the House that I have had in this post, but it has to be said that he is by far the most exotic.

[Pete Wishart]

I did not mean to upset the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy with that remark.

It might be as well to point out that the hon. Gentleman is Leader of the House of Commons, not the House of Plantagenet or the House of Tudor. He will have, of course, a number of key responsibilities, prime among them being restoration and renewal—perhaps not a concept for which he is particularly renowned, unless it involves one of his own houses.

I join everybody in paying tribute to the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride). We will now never get that holiday bus from hell, and I will forever miss his terrible jokes about music at my expense. Although he knew that his post would probably only be temporary, he did take his job in his “Stride”.

I do not know about you, Mr Speaker, but I went to bed last night and had this horrible nightmare that the UK Government had been taken over by rabid, right-wing Brexiteers. I am not particularly sure whether I am awake yet. May we have a debate about dystopian visions of hell, and have a look at where this Cabinet of dysfunctional Bash Street Kids fits in?

I presume that at some point when we get back after recess the Leader of the House will want to have some sort of debate about Brexit, given that it has been his life’s mission. He and his European Research Group colleagues are now the political mainstream in this House, so when will we get the chance to debate their big plans to crash out of the EU without a deal, and all the disastrous consequences that await us?

The Leader of the House is familiar with Scotland—he famously fought the Glenrothes by-election with his nanny and his Roller—so he knows there is no way on earth that Scotland is going down with his colleagues in their buffoon’s Brexit.

Lastly, Mr Speaker, I wish you and all the staff of the House a very happy recess. I wish the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), and the new Leader of the House a very warm time and hope that they enjoy themselves and have some time for relaxation. It is hot outside, but as the Government continue to open the doors of hell in their buffoon’s Brexit, it is going to get a lot hotter yet.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I may be the fifth Leader of the House since the hon. Gentleman took up his post, but from what I hear it seems that his question is the same regardless, so it does not make any difference who the Leader of the House should be. I therefore fear that the answer is going to be much the same. I would point out that the House of Commons predates the House of Tudor: it started in 1265, and the House of Tudor obviously began with Henry VII—

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

That’s wrong as well. It was 1341.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

No, no. The hon. Gentleman is a very good parliamentary historian, but 1265 is when the burgesses came from the towns, as he knows perfectly well.

Anyway, on restoration and renewal, I had the privilege of serving on the restoration and renewal Joint Committee. It is extraordinarily important that the House of Commons is not only a beacon for democracy, as it was built to be in the 19th century, but a functioning, modern Parliament.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman will be reassured to know that he does not have to wait long: on Thursday 5 September we will be back here and we will have questions to the Department for Exiting the European Union. His wish is my command; it will be granted.

[Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)]

I welcome my hon. Friend to his role, to which he is very well suited. He is obviously a student of the British constitution, so may we have a debate on the importance of parliamentary democracy and Governments respecting the will of parliamentary votes on all matters, including the wish of this House not to leave the European Union with no deal?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend is well aware of how to obtain debates in this place, through the Backbench Business Committee and Adjournment debates. Mr Speaker was kind enough to give me an Adjournment debate only last week and is wonderfully accommodating—if I may pay a tribute to you, Mr Speaker—in ensuring that the House gets to discuss what it wants to discuss, which is important.

In relation to leaving the European Union, this Parliament voted for the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 that said we would leave. Its predecessor Parliament, which had an enormous commonality with this House, voted by an overwhelming majority for the article 50 Act, which also said we would leave. These two Acts combined provided that we would leave, under UK law, on 31 October 2019. Parliament debated, Parliament decided and parliamentary democracy requires that we deliver.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

I welcome the Leader of the House to his new role. I thought I was getting somewhere with his immediate predecessor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), on the issue of parliamentary time becoming available should Government business run short and whether the Backbench Business could be considered on those occasions and could backfill the business so that the House does not rise early and Members can vent the issues that they want to vent on the Floor of the House. I really do hope we can work together on that.

I echo the tributes to Paul Evans. We share the bus into work in the morning quite often so I know him quite well, and he has helped us on the Backbench Business Committee.

I wish you, Mr Speaker, everyone from all parties and all the staff of the House, particularly the staff and members of the Backbench Business Committee, a very happy and healthy recess. The members of the Backbench Business Committee have done a great service to the House in recent months, keeping the business of the House ticking over on many days.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his fine work as Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee? I may have received a generous promotion from the Prime Minister, but I have not gone native. I do believe that the Government should be held to account, particularly by Back Benchers, and that the issues that they want to debate ought to be debated—and the Backbench Business Committee ensures that that happens. As to the question of short business, I completely understand the point the hon. Gentleman makes. The only point I would make is that there is a concern that if business is not known in advance, people cannot prepare their speeches and remarks, but I am very happy to work with him to see whether there is a solution to this.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment, thank his predecessor for today’s summer Adjournment debate, and pay tribute to the retiring Serjeant at Arms, the Speaker’s Chaplain and the retiring Clerk.

Will my hon. Friend find time for a debate today on benefits paid to people without sight? Mrs Jill Allen-King has pointed to an anomaly whereby people born before 8 April 1948, who were on the standard rate of the disability living allowance, are now not entitled to the lower rate of the attendance allowance when they retire.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He reminds me to pay tribute, too, to the retiring Serjeant at Arms, who is a very distinguished figure. He is also absolutely right to raise the matter that he does. Blind and severely visually impaired people clearly face significant challenges in living independent lives. Up until April 2011, the disability living allowance failed to reflect those challenges. The Government have put in place changes to rectify this, and I encourage him to seek an Adjournment debate, so that he can raise this particular concern directly with the appropriate Minister, but I will also pass on his concern after today’s proceedings.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I really welcome the Leader of the House to his position, because the Liberal Democrats could not want for a better recruiting sergeant than him as we set up a contest between Victorian values and Liberal Democrat values. More seriously, will the Leader of the House make time available for the House to discuss his views on Northern Ireland and the checks on the Irish border—as we had during the troubles—how the Government can keep an eye on the border and be able to have people inspected and the impact that that would have on the Good Friday agreement?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I may be a better recruiting sergeant for the Liberal Democrats than the right hon. Gentleman, but I fear that that may not be a very difficult task. With regard to Northern Ireland and the border with the Republic of Ireland, the Prime Minister has made it clear that there will not be a border imposed by the British Government. The right hon. Gentleman is another fortunate man as there will be Northern Ireland questions on 11 September, and he can raise these matters directly with the relevant Minister.

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

I, too, warmly welcome the new Leader of the House. I was delighted that, on the steps of Downing Street, our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made social care a priority. Does my hon. Friend back that, and will he use his efforts to bring forward this important legislation which affects so many carers and dementia sufferers up and down the country?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very grateful for that question, because before I was bound by collective responsibility, I wrote the foreword to a paper encouraging the Government to do exactly what the Prime Minister suggested yesterday. Therefore, before I was bound to say things that I am now not allowed to say, I was saying broadly what my hon. Friend would like me to say, if that is not unduly complex. There will be an Adjournment debate on social care on 4 September.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

May I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place following last night’s brutal events in Downing Street? He will know, more than most on the Government Benches, that the job of the Leader of the House is to be the voice of Parliament in the Cabinet, rather than just the voice of the Cabinet in this place. We are in a very volatile situation, with the threatened Prorogation of this place as a tactic to drive us out of the EU without a deal, when he and I both know that there is no majority for that in this House. Will he give me a pledge that he will take his duties to this House seriously and warn the new Prime Minister that that way will cause chaos?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question. She was herself a very distinguished shadow Leader of the House and she is somebody I have great admiration for in her appreciation for the Commons as an institution. I absolutely assure her that I take that part of my role extraordinarily seriously. I have perhaps a somewhat romantic view of the House of Commons—one I think I share with you, Mr Speaker—in that I believe it is our job to hold the Government to account, not simply to facilitate whatever the Government want to do. However, this House passed into law the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the article 50 Act, and we only speak our view by legislation. We do not speak our view by mere motion, and mere motion cannot and must not overturn statute law. If that were to happen, we would not have a proper functioning representative democracy; we would have an erratic, changeable and irregular system of government.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

What a pleasure it is to welcome my hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box: a fellow Ultramontane Catholic. I am not sure that many people here know what that means, but my hon. Friend knows—perhaps luckily.

My hon. Friend has a firm grasp of history; perhaps some would say he is living history. Does he agree that so much of the work we do here depends on our being here in the Palace of Westminster? I do not want to pin him down because I do not want him to rule anything in or out at this very early stage, but is he aware that many of us believe that if we do have to leave this Palace, it should be for as short a time as possible; that when we return, it should be exactly as it is now; that our priority should be the safety of the building; and that we should care about heritage, particularly the heritage of Richmond House?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I share my right hon. Friend’s admiration for the late Pope Pius IX. In terms of this House, what it represents and the symbolism of this building, what our Victorian predecessors did was to show, through their architecture, their belief in their democratic system and their confidence in our great nation. We should never do anything that undermines that. The idea that we should be in some modern office block in the middle of nowhere, or that we should fail to have the understanding and the glory of our democracy that this House, through its building, shows is one I utterly reject.

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

May I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new job? We will watch his performance with great interest.

Can we rely on the hon. Gentleman to be a champion for justice for everyone, regardless of their background, wealth or connections? On 10 January 2018, Katelyn Dawson was killed and two other women were very badly injured when a white BMW crashed into a queue of people as Katelyn was going to school. She was 15 and an only child. Could we have an early debate on what is going on in the Crown Prosecution Service? It has been many months and now the Crown Prosecution Service has decided not to bring any charge against the driver, Mr Richard Brooke. He got off because the CPS thought he was going to argue insane automatism, which is increasingly being used by wealthy and well-connected people to get off charges when they kill people.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

This is an issue of the greatest importance. These terrible events move anybody who hears about them. The death of a 15-year-old through a criminal act is invariably tragic. I absolutely believe that one of the founding principles of our nation is that justice is blind and there is equal justice for everybody, and that is something that all Members of Parliament should commit to. As regards a debate, the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s appeal, which I am sure that many other Members of the House may want to support.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

It is an absolute joy to see my imminently right hon. Friend in his proper place at the Dispatch Box, and of course I congratulate him. I know he will want to join me in congratulating our right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) on her return to Government. Can he give the House any indication of when we can look forward to the eagerly awaited and anticipated, I am sure, election of the new Chair of the Treasury Committee?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That is a very important question. I threw my hat into the ring last time and it was thrown back at me very firmly. It is really important that our Select Committees have Chairmen in place. The matter will be dealt with in the normal way, but I would hope that it is dealt with urgently.

[Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

This week, lots of children break for the summer holidays. For many, that is a joy and a pleasure. However, many parents will now have to pay for an extra 10 meals per week, per child that were provided through free school meals, and 20% of parents will go without a meal this week in order to do so. The Government have invested in a pilot scheme. May we have a statement in the first week back on how the pilots ran?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady is indeed right. This year, about 50,000 disadvantaged children in 11 local authority areas will be offered free meals and activities over the summer holidays, funded by £9 million from the Department for Education, following a successful £2 million scheme last year. She knows that there are means of obtaining statements or urgent questions to see that an answer is given, and no doubt you will reflect upon it, Mr Speaker, if such a request is made.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

May I welcome the new Leader of the House? He will know that his role, as has been said already, is to represent Parliament to Government and to say things that Parliament wants said and not necessarily what the Government want to hear. We have had an extraordinarily long Session. We need to end the Session, to have a new Queen’s Speech, to have new Opposition days, and, importantly, to have private Members’ Bills days. Will the Leader of the House consider arranging a Queen’s Speech in, say, November?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend may want to raise that question with the Prime Minister, who is making a statement later and who is the person who will advise Her Majesty on when the next Session of Parliament should begin. But obviously there will have to be a new Queen’s Speech at some point. I believe that this is the longest Session since the Long Parliament of the 1640s.

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

My constituent Jackie Wileman was killed by a stolen lorry. The four men responsible had 100 convictions between them, yet will only serve between five and seven years. It is now nearly two years since the Government committed to raising the maximum sentence for death by dangerous driving, so will the new Administration make this a priority, and when exactly will the new Leader of the House make parliamentary time available for this?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

These cases are absolutely terrible. I think I mentioned earlier an application to the Backbench Business Committee on this matter. The hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) are coming together in feeling that such a debate is necessary and important, and I feel that that is absolutely the right way to go. I have every sympathy for families in this terrible, terrible situation who feel that the law is not helping them.

[Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)]

In welcoming my hon. Friend to his place, may I say how welcome it is for this House to have a Ministry committed to leaving the European Union in all circumstances? On that point, can we have a debate on preparedness for all outcomes, including a no-deal Brexit?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I share his view that it is jolly good news that we have an Administration who are committed to leaving the European Union, which is exactly what the British people voted for in 2016 and, indeed, what Parliament legislated for. Preparedness is of great importance. He may find that there are some encouraging words from the Prime Minister a little later, which may pre-empt an immediate debate.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Ind)]

Fourteen weeks today, we are due to leave the European Union, but with five weeks of recess and three weeks of anticipated conference recess, more of that time will be spent away from this place than here. The new Leader of the House told us that he believes in our parliamentary democracy. What plans does he have to recall Parliament, so that we can deal with the greatest issue to face our nation since the second world war?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Any visitor to the Chamber over the last few years would have heard hours of debate in this place on leaving the European Union. If they troubled to wander to the other place, they would have heard even longer hours of debate on leaving the European Union. This is the most discussed subject that Parliament has managed in decades, and Parliament came to a decision when it legislated. I am sorry to repeat the answer, but I will have to carry on doing so. Parliament voted for the article 50 Act and the withdrawal Act. That set by law the timetable for leaving. That is the democratic decision of Parliament.

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

As the self-appointed shop steward of the regular attenders of business questions club, I welcome our many guests and, in particular, the Leader of the House, of whom I have always been inordinately fond, not least because I know that not everyone enjoys the benefit I do of a working-class upbringing.

The Leader of the House will know that taxi and private hire vehicle licensing has been a matter of profound concern, so much so that an enlightened former Transport Minister commissioned a report on that subject, which was published in September last year, with the Government response published in February this year. We have heard nothing since. It is vital that we reform taxi and private hire vehicle licensing, so that the concerns of those who drive taxis can be taken into account and the welfare and wellbeing of those who travel in them can be protected.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Was it not Disraeli who said that London taxis were the “gondolas of London”? I share that view. We are very lucky to have the taxi drivers that we have. I think that the shop steward of these sessions will find that—[Interruption.] Well, are most shop stewards not self-elected? I thought that that was how those things worked. My right hon. Friend will be able to raise that with the new Secretary of State for Transport.

[Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)]

With more people self-employed than on the minimum wage, and more people self-employed than in the public sector by 2020, any Government worth their salt, and a Government who say they are the party for the people and working people, should know that putting the self-employed at the top of their agenda is vital. Can we have a debate in Government time on self-employed workers’ rights, and particularly maternity and paternity rights?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The great thing to remember is that the self-employed are the entrepreneurs of the future. They are the ones who create the new businesses and new jobs. It is a fantastically dynamic part of our economy. The hon. Lady’s question is well timed, because I am sitting next to the new Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, who will have heard her plea and will no doubt take it into consideration.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his wonderful new role. I know that, as well as liking the British constitution, he likes cutting taxes, so can we have a debate on axing the reading tax? It is incredibly unfair that people who buy books or magazines online have to pay 20% more than those who do not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend is a genius at getting debates in this place, so he hardly needs advice from me. He already has an Adjournment debate coming on 4 September, which I expect will be even better attended than this morning’s session. I feel that I am inadequate to advise him on how to achieve more debates, but his subject is indeed a worthy one, and I hope that his plea has been widely heard.

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

The Leader of the House is known for his courtesy, so I am sure he will agree that language describing Travellers as an invasion or a disease, contrasting them with decent people or talking of them as a problem—all of which have been heard in this House in recent months—is deplorable. Will he arrange a debate, perhaps in Hate Crime Awareness Week after the recess, on how we can use language respectfully towards everybody in this country?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I thank the hon. Lady for her generous compliment. It really is important that we use language properly, that language is effective and that language is powerful. You, Mr Speaker, control how it is used in this House to ensure that it is orderly, but the general tone should be one of generosity and kindliness, and I would always encourage that. I do not think a debate on language in Government time is likely, but as I have said, there are Adjournment debates, Backbench Business debates and Westminster Hall debates. It is a really important issue, and I would encourage and share the hon. Lady’s view that good manners go a long way.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

May I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on his new appointment? He is already looking like an old pro in the position. May we have an urgent debate on serious deficiencies in the enforcement of minimum wage legislation? A carer in my constituency is owed £63,000 in unpaid minimum wage, despite the Care Act 2014 requiring Luton Borough Council to have an effective monitoring process of the personal budget payments involved. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, as the enforcement agency, can take no action against the person cared for because she has no assets. How can my constituent get her unpaid minimum wage?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That is a very serious issue. Regrettably, I cannot comment on individual cases, but I am clear that careworkers provide essential support to some of the most vulnerable members of society, and it is essential that they are paid in accordance with the law, including the national minimum wage, for the work they do. This is a responsibility of local authorities, which should ensure that personal budgets are sufficient to deliver a person’s care needs, including making sure that they cover the cost of wages, and local authorities have a duty to monitor how personal budgets are spent. However, the Department of Health and Social Care will take this up with the local authority and ask it to investigate what sounds like a very serious and concerning case.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)]

I express my congratulations to the Leader of the House on the new job. He has said already today that he will be the voice of this Chamber and that he will hold the Government to account. Will he therefore tell us what he feels about the appointment by the new Prime Minister, as his closest adviser, of somebody who has been found in contempt of this House? What will he do to hold him to account for that decision, and what does he feel about it?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Parliament did what it did. It passed its sentence; it did not use its ancient powers to imprison or fine the gentleman concerned, and it did not send him to the Clock Tower. Therefore, in effect, his conviction is spent, and I believe in the rehabilitation of offenders.

[Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I welcome my hon. Friend to his new role. Ministers made a holding statement on the telecoms supply chain review this week, but Huawei and Chinese high tech were not part of that, or no announcement was made. Due to the seriousness of this issue, will the Leader of the House consider a debate in Government time so that the Government can outline options on the role of Chinese high tech in our critical national infrastructure? Apart from Brexit, this is one of the most serious issues we will face in the 21st century. Does he agree that we need more debate on it?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

This is obviously an important issue, but the means of obtaining a debate are well known. I did express views on this before I was bound by collective responsibility, but I am currently waiting for the Government’s review.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Going back to the question from the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) about the taxi regulations, the Leader of the House never answered the question. When is the Minister responsible going to bring those proposals to the House, because the Minister told us it was only a matter of parliamentary time? Will the Leader of the House find the time?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman knows that there are usual channels for finding time. Ministers ask for time for things to come forward, and these things have to slot into the overall parliamentary timetable. However, the commitment has been made, and the commitment will be honoured.

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

I, too, welcome my hon. Friend to his new role. I know that his predecessor was looking at the online harassment that politicians sometimes face, especially women and those from certain ethnic groups, and was planning to engage with counterparts from other Parliaments across the world to see how they have addressed this issue to stop people being put off standing for Parliament. May I urge him to continue this important work?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important issue, and it should distress us all that online harassment seems to affect one category of society more than others. It seems to affect women and ethnic minorities more than men, and it would be appalling if that deterred good people from coming into political life. I am extremely keen for my hon. Friend’s suggestion to be looked at, and to try to work out how to lessen that problem, which is something we should all be worried about.

[Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (IGC)]

Will the new Leader of the House say a little more about how he intends to champion the supremacy of the House of Commons? We have slipped into some bad habits recently—Opposition day motions have not been fulfilled by the Government, and other resolutions have been ignored by the Executive. If the House of Commons resolves something, will the Leader of the House ensure that that resolution is faithfully executed?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman’s view of history is longer than mine. He said “recently”, but I do not think 1972 is that recent. It was then that the House abrogated parliamentary sovereignty and decided to hand it over to what then became the European Union. I am glad to say that we have taken back control and that Parliament will be sovereign once again. Parliament is sovereign by law, not by mere motion. The last time it was sovereign by mere motion was when it issued ordinances under Oliver Cromwell. Do I wish to go back to that, Mr Speaker? No sir!

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment, and I welcomed the new Prime Minister speaking about investment in primary care yesterday on the steps of Downing Street. In Crawley, too many GP surgeries are at or over capacity. May we have an early statement on that issue?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. He is right to raise this issue. GP practices provide a vital service to our local communities. We will continue to build on the recent changes to GP services in primary care, as set out earlier this year in the NHS long-term plan. That includes an extra £4.5 billion for primary care and community services, and up to 20,000 additional staff working in general practice over the next 20 years. I am sure that the Health Secretary will report back on that, which I hope will meet my hon. Friend’s demand for a debate.

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

The Leader of the House is supposed to be a great defender of Parliament and parliamentary democracy, but in January he said:

“If the House of Commons undermines our basic constitutional conventions, then the executive is entitled to use other vestigial constitutional means to stop it, by which I basically mean prorogation.”

Will the Leader of the House be Parliament’s man in Cabinet, or Cabinet’s man in Parliament?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

You and I know perfectly well, Mr Speaker, that this constitution of ours, this precious vessel of our constitution, is bound by conventions, and it is overwhelmingly important that all those conventions are followed and obeyed. Such conventions are about how this House operates, how the other place operates, and how the Executive operates, and they have grown up over time from our history and understanding of how we should be governed. It is risky to break one convention, because that leads to other conventions being taken less seriously.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

I welcome my hon. Friend to his new position. Private building inspectors are a vital part of the construction industry, but through no fault of their own many now have a massive issue with renewing their professional indemnity insurance. Will the Government make a statement to confirm what they can do to support the reform of that important insurance?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am well aware of that important issue and I will pass it on to the relevant Minister.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

The power to stop and search young people is viewed as useful in reducing serious youth violence. Will the new Leader of the House agree to a debate on that issue in Government time?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

If Members would only bate their breath momentarily, the new Prime Minister will soon make a statement. He has already advocated ensuring that the police have our support for stop and search, and there may therefore be the opportunity to ask him about that in a moment.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

As we break for some restoration and renewal during the recess, my constituents’ lives are being blighted by two things: inconsiderate garden grabbing with no social purpose whatever, and the stealing of car parts to order. May we have a debate in Government time on those twin menaces, and on how we can reform the law to help my constituents?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is very important that we always stand up for and help our constituents. The Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee is still sitting here paying close attention to what is being said. I am sure his Committee will consider my hon. Friend’s request.

[Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab)]

I recently met matrons at my local hospital in Coventry. We talked about a range of issues, including the Government’s disastrous decision to abolish NHS bursaries, which they said had resulted in a 32% drop in applications to study nursing, thereby exacerbating the workforce crisis in our NHS, where we already have 41,000 nursing vacancies. Will the Leader of the House look for time to debate the problem of recruitment and retention in our nursing profession, and the need to introduce the NHS bursary?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The relevant Secretary of State has whispered in my ear, and I feel it should have a wider audience, that we have record numbers of nurses and record numbers in training. That is a significant success of this Government. If we wish to have a debate on the successes and triumphs of this Government, I would be all in favour.

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend provide Government time for a debate on the future of the northern powerhouse, because we need to: d, deliver on the vision; u, unite the talents across the north; and d, defeat the poverty of Labour’s low aspiration? Will he reinsert the all-important energy to the northern powerhouse?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

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

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

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

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

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

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the importance of a commitment, from both the UK and the EU, to continue to allow musicians and artists to work without hindrance in each other’s territories?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

This is obviously of importance. We want to be able to ensure that cultural exchanges continue. I am sure that this is something that will be achieved by the Government.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Leader of the House, with whom I spent many happy hours in the Procedure Committee, where he championed the rights of this House. He perambulated around the question of Prorogation. To be absolutely specific, will he confirm that the House will be sitting each week, every week between 8 October and 31 October?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Mr Speaker, we have got perambulators and nannies into this session, which I think must be a first for questions to the Leader of the House. The issue of Prorogation is one that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said is an archaic usage, but there will have to be a Prorogation before there is a new Session. This is the routine constitutional position, and I believe in maintaining the constitutional conventions.

[Mr Speaker]

One sentence. I call Bob Blackman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Transport for London is currently consulting on building high-density multi-storey housing on car parks at stations across London. May we have a debate in Government time on the impact on commuters right across the whole of south-east England?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I understand that my hon. Friend is likely to be called later in the general debate on matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment. It will be a golden opportunity to raise this subject.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

I do hope that recent kipper waving is not a red herring. [Interruption.] May I ask the Leader of the House when we can expect to see the Fisheries Bill back? [Interruption.]

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am frightfully sorry, Mr Speaker. I didn’t hear a word.

[Mr Speaker]

Let’s hear it again.

[Cat Smith]

I do hope that recent kipper waving has not been a red herring. When can we expect to see the Fisheries Bill back in this place?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Those kippers, I can assure the hon. Lady, were absolutely delicious. They were eaten by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister with gusto, showing his characteristic support for the British fishing industry. The hon. Lady knows that Bills come back through the normal channels, and all things will be well and all will be well, and all manner of things will be well.

[Mr Speaker]

Gusto eating is a challenge to even the most vivid imagination, but we will reflect upon that, I feel sure.

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

Earlier this week a group of local authorities representing rural areas formed a coalition under the title Britain’s Leading Edge. Many of these areas have benefited from European funding. Once we leave the EU, will the Government continue their commitment to investing in these areas through the shared prosperity fund?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is of course our money in the first place, which is recycled. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has whispered in my ear, “SPF”, so yes, the money is there.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

When will the House have a chance to vote on their Lordships’ amendment to the Trade Bill for participation in the customs union?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Why on earth would anybody want to do that?

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

I welcome my hon. Friend to his place. Will he join me in congratulating the team at Sainsbury’s in Kinross for getting the Perth and Kinross gold star for equality at work, and will he provide some Government time to discuss the Disability Confident and Access to Work programmes?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I extend my warmest good wishes to Sainsbury’s in Kinross for its brilliant achievement. I think it might be a slightly niche subject for a debate on the Floor of the House of Commons, however.

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

Antisocial behaviour and crime have risen steeply since 2010, and in the first half of July, 23 emergency service workers were assaulted in Hull, so I was very pleased to hear that the Prime Minister last night announced that there will be 20,000 new police officers. Can we have a debate on when those police officers are actually going to be on the streets, where they are going to be in the country and whether they will be equally shared around?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I wish the hon. Lady very many happy returns of the day? I understand that it is an auspicious day today. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be making a statement. He has clearly made the extra 20,000 police an absolute priority. We need to ensure that everything is done to combat crime and ensure that people in Hull and everywhere else in the country are safe, but it may be sensible to ask my right hon. Friend later.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Business of the House

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

May I start by thanking the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) for moving the Business of the House motion to enable the Bill to be considered? I thank him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) for enabling the Bill to be debated.

It is this Government who have created the Brexit deadlock, and the Bill seeks to get things moving. The people and their democratically elected representatives in Parliament want to make progress. When someone such as the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), who was an outstanding Minister and played a leading role in ensuring the introduction of equal marriage, decides to sit as an independent, we are in interesting and difficult times.

It is this Government who have put us in this position. Their red lines were drawn right at the beginning and formed the boundaries for the negotiations. In her Lancaster House speech on 17 January 2017, the Prime Minister set out the Government’s plan for Britain and the 12 priorities that they would use to negotiate Brexit, but there was a lack of information and Parliament was bypassed and ignored until we in the Opposition ensured that there was a meaningful vote.

As hon. Members have said, 17 million people voted to leave the EU. The Government have failed to represent them and they have failed to represent the nearly 16 million people who voted to remain. More importantly, there are many young people—we do this not for us but for the next generation—who did not have a chance to have their voices heard in 2016 but who are now able to vote.

It is right that Parliament has tried a new process of indicative votes as a means of testing the will of the House of Commons on different options relating to one issue. The Bill seeks to run in parallel with that process and create a legal mechanism whereby the House can instruct the Prime Minister to ask the European Council for an extension to article 50. We know that these are unusual times and that we are in a hung Parliament, and that the Government are governing on the basis of confidence and supply and nothing else. Back Benchers from across the House want the Bill to be debated.

In her statement from No. 10 yesterday, the Prime Minister announced that she intends to seek a further extension to article 50, but there are no details about how the decision will be made, including on the length of the extension or what will happen if the European Council puts forward an alternative. The Prime Minister did not explicitly rule out leaving the EU with no deal yesterday, so it is right that the House can have a say on an extension to article 50, which would avoid the UK crashing out without a deal.

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

I just wonder whether the hon. Lady is concerned about the process being used today, because the convention is that emergency legislation passed in one day has the consent of the whole House before it is brought forward. Is there not a risk that if this is good enough for today, a future Government with a large majority, of whichever party, might conclude that this is the way to legislate? The conventions and customs of the House are a protection of our constitution and ensure that the rights of minorities are respected and reserved, so is there not a risk that this tramples on that in a way that others will learn from in future?

[Valerie Vaz]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The Clerks of the House would not let through any process or procedure that was not acceptable, and I believe that this is acceptable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

If I may gently correct the right hon. Gentleman, it is actually a business motion, not a programme motion, and I am speaking to the business motion. I do not know who informs the Tories, but I think they need the Whip’s note to be passed around to ensure they are actually asking the right questions, because a few of them have come up very short today. However, I always enjoy the entertainment with the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.

We will support this business motion today. We know the Government are going to oppose it. What is intriguing is what they are going to do beyond that, because they may very well be supporting the Boles motion—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think the hon. Gentleman is in danger of confusing the House. He ticked off my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) for calling this a programme motion, saying it is a business motion, but now he seems to be going back in the other direction, so I am not clear.

[Pete Wishart]

Talking about going in another direction, the hon. Gentleman is heading us back to the 18th century. What we have missed in the proceedings today is a history lesson, with the Tudors, the Barebones Parliament and so on. We will miss having a history lesson today, but perhaps we will have it later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I recognise that, and I think that procedure should never be used, except in absolute extremis. I agree with the hon. Lady. As someone who once served in Northern Ireland, I have to say that if we legislate in haste, we will repent at leisure, and we do nothing in this place but repent at leisure again and again. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and all these other things that we said were emergencies were never properly scrutinised, and it is the scrutiny of this place that should matter above all else.

We talk about sweeping away precedents because they are archaic and were around for 200 years or whatever, and that everything modern must be brilliant. I do not agree with that. I think that sometimes history teaches endless lessons. This place is at its best when it is arguing and debating, and taking its time to do so. Other legislatures around the world, such as the Senate, which has no time limits, spend a lot of time looking at Bills and legislation. We do away with that at our peril.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

rose—

[Mr Duncan Smith]

If it is urgent, I will give way; then I will conclude.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, because he has made all the points that I want to make, so I do not now need to speak, expect to make one point about the Northern Ireland legislation. That process was done with the consent of both sides of the House before the legislation was brought through. Therefore, there was a consensus in this Chamber that it needed to be done in that way, which does not exist on this occasion. That is a convention of the greatest importance, because now a Government with a majority will feel entitled to use this dangerous process.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I agree and I recognise that, but I think that Governments too often use that process, and it occasionally suits Oppositions to agree with them. It is better that we delay and debate. I will conclude with the wise words of my predecessor, now Lord Tebbit. When I first came here, I asked him, “How will I know whether I am right or wrong?” He said, “You’ll be wrong if you’re not speaking and arguing. You’re right if you’re arguing and you’re speaking. That’s what you were sent here for.”

Business of the House

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Monday 1st April 2019 Commons Chamber

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

I am sorry not to be quite as brief as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), but I want to speak to the specifics of the motion. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) that this constitutional innovation is deeply unsatisfactory. The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) rightly said that it is an indication that the House no longer has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government. The whole point of the Government having control of the timetable is that that is an expression of confidence. I am even quite sympathetic to the point made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). It is the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 that has created an element of constitutional muddle, where we have a Government who obviously do not command official confidence but none the less carry on as if they did.

We need to get to a situation where the business of the House and the Government go together once more. This approach is deeply unsatisfactory because there is no means of holding anybody to account for it. The motions can be passed one way or another, and they then go off to Europe to be discussed—if they are to be discussed—by people who do not believe in or support them. Those people may come back having failed, and they may have done things in a way that the House might not have liked, but the people who proposed the motions do not go out to discuss them with Brussels because they are not the Government. Therefore, this approach leads ultimately to chaotic relationships between the legislature and the Executive.

This business of the House motion is itself unsatisfactory. Paragraph (1)(c) states that

“notwithstanding the practice of the House, any motion on matters that have been the subject of a prior decision of the House in the current Session may be the subject of a decision”.

Mr Speaker, as you pointed out to us, that goes against the most ancient practice of the House dating back to 1604, but it is also a considerable discourtesy to you personally. On Thursday, you ruled that the Government could not bring forward a paving motion to allow them to bring forward their motion again—a decision that everybody in the House accepted and thought was reasonable. Therefore, to have slipped through under your nose in this motion something that allows a paving motion for motions that have already been determined is a discourtesy. If I had been as discourteous as that to you, I would not have the gall to move the motion standing in my name. Indeed, I would feel it necessary to make a public apology for such a shaming state of affairs.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman’s real objection is not that Parliament is trying to balance control away from the Government, but that his power has been seriously weakened by Parliament asserting its own authority in trying to find a way forward.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The shame is not that Parliament is trying to wrestle power from the Government, but that Parliament is wrestling power from the 17.4 million people who voted to leave. The shame is that people who stood on manifestos saying that they would respect the result of the referendum did so with forked tongues.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

On the subject of shame and public apologies, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman might seize this opportunity to apologise for quoting, apparently approvingly, the leader of Germany’s far-right AfD party this weekend.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

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

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

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Ind)]

Last week.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

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

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

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

If the hon. Gentleman were to conclude his speech, and if others were to resist having a debate at this point, we could get to the meat of the issue.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman. Had he not decided to intervene, I might have finished my comments, but now he has given me inspiration to carry on against this appalling motion, which is fundamentally against the spirit of our constitution.

I appeal to those who support this type of motion to have the courage of their convictions. If they really have no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government, let them vote that way. Let them go to their constituents and see how far they get standing as independents. Let them see, as socialists, how many votes they get. Let them see, as independents, how many votes they get. They lack the courage of their convictions, and therefore they try to undermine the constitution by subterfuge.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

On the matter of the courage of our convictions, just a few months ago, the hon. Gentleman voted that he had no confidence in the Prime Minister as leader of his party. He subsequently voted that he has confidence in the Prime Minister, in whom he has no confidence to lead his party, to lead the country. What kind of courage of his convictions is that?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

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

[Anna Soubry]

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

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

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

[Anna Soubry]

rose—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Anna Soubry]

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

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

What was it the late Earl of Beaconsfield said of Mr Gladstone, “A prolix rhetorician inebriated by the exuberance of his own verbosity”? I would not dream of saying such a thing about the right hon. Lady.

Let me return to the motion in hand, which is discourteous to you, Mr Speaker, does not allow sufficient time for debate—

[John Redwood]

rose—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I will not give way again, because others wish to speak—apologies. The motion is discourteous to you, Mr Speaker, limits time for debate and is fundamentally against the constitution.

[Tom Brake]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) would like to correct the record, because it is clear from the tweet from the AfD that he retweeted that he was endorsing the statement that had been made by that member of a far-right party in the German Parliament.

Business of the House

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Wednesday 27th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

The answer is no, obviously, as my right hon. and learned Friend intends. He and I were on opposite sides—bizarrely—on that issue. I actually believe that the whole of this imbroglio is largely due to the fact that the wretched Maastricht treaty was approved by the House in the first place. Had there not been qualified majority voting, the British people would probably never have come to disapprove of the EU in the way that they did and we would have been spared all this, but that is ancient history. He and I have a long record of agreements and disagreements at different times. This afternoon, we are agreed.

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

In response to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), my right hon. Friend said that for the Government to ignore a motion of this House would be constitutionally very unusual, but it has to be said that the process this afternoon is constitutionally deeply irregular.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I am particularly glad that my very distinguished hon. Friend has participated in this part of our proceedings. He has not, though he is an assiduous attender of debates, ever had the horror of having to listen to me on this subject because he has not been present when I have been speaking about it, but I have tried to say to those who have been present on each occasion that the proposition he has just advanced is manifestly false, and the reason is this: the Order Paper of the House of Commons—this is the most ancient principle of our constitution as a matter of fact—is governed by the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, and those are the property of the House of Commons and nobody else. They are the property not of the Executive but of the House of Commons. The courts recognise that in the principle of comity and never interfere in the proceedings of our House. That principle goes back not to 1906 when the Government—in my view, improperly—instituted Standing Order No. 14 in its current form, but way back into the origins of Parliament. From the very beginning, Parliament sought to establish its right, through the Speaker and otherwise, to control its own proceedings, which is a very proper thing for Parliament to do. We have been driven to this only in an extreme emergency—that is how some of us see it, though I know that he takes a rather different view—and we are doing it in a perfectly proper way through the amendment of Standing Orders, which it lies open to this House to do.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I cannot entirely agree with the constitutional proposition that my right hon. Friend is advancing. He will recall that, in the Tudor House of Commons, it was Privy Counsellors who guided the business. It is a principle of the greatest antiquity that the business of the House is guided by those representing the sovereign in Parliament. That principle is being eroded by today’s proceedings.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I little imagined that we would find ourselves debating the sequence of our constitutional history, but because my hon. Friend is genuinely learned in the matter and this may be my only opportunity ever to have this debate with him in the House of Commons before—thank goodness—I leave it, I want to explain to him that the succeeding history of our country was virtually focused on a debate about that very matter. It was because the House of Commons refused to be dominated by Privy Counsellors that all the things that happened in the later 16th and 17th centuries happened. I am on the side of those in the House whom I actually thought that, on the whole, my hon. Friend was on the side of, who wish to assert, over and against the Executive, that, ultimately, sovereignty lies here and not in Whitehall.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I oppose this motion because I think that it is constitutionally ill thought through. Our country does not have a codified constitution, but it works on conventions, and those conventions are precious to those in government and to those not in government, for the tables may be turned at some point and the Labour party may find it has a minority Government and cannot keep the business of the House as it would expect.

Why do the Government need this primacy on the business of the House? As my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) says, it is absolutely right that the Standing Orders are the property of this House and are not challengeable outside this House, and our governmental system works through the Queen in Parliament. The Queen, in this sense, is represented by the Executive, and there is a separation between the Executive and the legislature that we all know about. That separation requires that the proposition of events comes from the Government and that the amendment, review and redress in relation to those events comes from this House.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

One of the conventions that has lasted for a very long time is that a parliamentary Session lasts for a year unless a general election intervenes and makes it more sensible for a Session to be 15 months, or something like that. In a parliamentary Session, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Standing Orders provide that there should be so many days set aside as Opposition days. That has been completely broken in this Session, which has gone on for nearly two years. We have not had an Opposition day since November, the longest period in living memory.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I agree that it is important to observe the conventions, because the conventions protect the interests of everybody. If the hon. Gentleman is calling for a Prorogation so we may reset and have Opposition days, I would not be opposed to that. It may well be time for a Prorogation.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Another convention that has been broken is that the Government should vote on Opposition days and take notice of motions passed on Opposition days. That convention has been widely disregarded by the Government, who are now refusing to take part in Opposition day votes and are completely ignoring anything but motions that demand to be put into effect. Does the hon. Gentleman agree this is yet another example of an established convention, which I always thought would be properly observed by the Government, being discarded?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The issue is that Opposition days have become much more precise and have used the Humble Address procedure to ensure they are taken notice of by using a correct constitutional approach that is actually better than mere motions on generally otiose opinions.

[Mr Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con)]

I call on my hon. Friend’s constitutional expertise. Is it an established convention or a novel convention for a Minister to propose a motion at the Dispatch Box and then to vote against it? Is it not the case that, in a hung Parliament, we tend to invent new conventions to cope with our novel situation?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

No. I am sorry to say that my right hon. Friend is wrong. There is a very strong history of Ministers proposing motions to aid the House, which was certainly done by Jack Straw during the last Labour Government and by the Government headed by David Cameron. When we reach the end of proceedings and the ability to propose a motion rests only with a Minister, the Minister often proposes it to facilitate the House coming to a judgment. That is quite a commonplace thing, as Mr Speaker will know.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I will not give way to everyone because there are only 22 and a half minutes to go, and the spokesman for the SNP, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), will want to speak. I must be conscious of the rights of minority parties—another important convention in this House.

Coming to the nub of the issue, taking control of the business away from the Government is a bad precedent because the House is not willing to come to the logical conclusion that today’s proceedings are heading towards. The Government control business as long as, and only if, this House of Commons has confidence in them. My hon. Friends—not the Opposition, who are perfectly reasonable in this regard—should think very carefully about what they are doing, because what they are in fact saying is that they do not have confidence in Her Majesty’s Government. If that is what they think, they should vote accordingly. Our great constitutional convention is that these decisions, if they cannot be decided by this House and by the Government who are legitimately installed, go back to the electorate. The reason my right hon. and hon. Friends are not willing to reach that conclusion is that they are going against the electorate’s will, as expressed in our greatest ever referendum.

[Nick Boles]

I always learn from my hon. Friend, but I must disagree with him on this. I am quite capable of distinguishing between my general confidence in the Government, their measures, their Cabinet and their Prime Minister, and their specific conduct on this issue. Furthermore, I point out to him that on that great referendum, which voted to leave the European Union, I have been consistently voting with the Government, in whom I have confidence, and with the Prime Minister, in whom I have confidence, to give effect to that decision, whereas he has been voting against.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend makes a characteristically Wykehamist point: highly intelligent but fundamentally wrong. I must confess that I have sometimes thought my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) was more a Wykehamist than of my own school, but we will leave that to one side. The expression of confidence in the Government is through their control of business, not on any individual item of business. That is why confidence and control of business come together. This has been taken away in the past, and my right hon. Friend referred to the assertion of parliamentary authority in the civil war—well, we know how that ended. It ended with Pride’s purge and with people being prevented from voting. The Government, the Executive and the legislature are clean different things. That separation of powers is essential, the conventions of our constitution are essential and it is important that we observe them properly, because the sovereignty of Parliament is not the sovereignty of us, however brilliant we may be, or of the Mace; it is the sovereignty of the British people. They have told us what to do, and we must do it.

Speaker’s Statement

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Gentleman has made his point with force and alacrity. It is not for me to say whom the Prime Minister should or should not meet, but that point is registered and on the record. If I know the right hon. Gentleman as well as I think I do, it will be repeated by him with some passion and vociferousness in the days ahead and, not least because of the force with which it is articulated again and again and again, I feel certain that it will be heard. Whether it is heeded remains to be seen, but it will be heard.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. First, may I say how delighted I am that you have decided to follow precedent, which is something I am greatly in favour of? Dare I say that there is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repented than over the 99 who are not in need of repentance? I wonder whether you might help the House with two points of clarity. First, would your indication today prevent the Second Reading, or even the First Reading, of the so-called withdrawal agreement Bill, which may have the same effect of confirming the meaningful vote? Secondly, would I be right in thinking that a new Session after a prorogation would allow the motion to be returned to the House?

[Mr Speaker]

The House would decide on the principle of the withdrawal agreement Bill at Second Reading, if we got to that point. The point that the hon. Gentleman makes and the—if he will forgive my saying so—partly rhetorical question accompanying it about post Prorogation and a new Session seem to me to be self-evidently valid. I am not advocating that, but that point is self-evidently valid and I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said.

Retirement of the Clerk of the House

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

It was a good compromise indeed, but in that case I revoke the gratitude I expressed on behalf of goats everywhere.

Sir David has greatly supported the recent introduction of our new ground-breaking proxy voting scheme and has driven forward the removal of wigs and court dress for Clerks at the Table in the Chamber.

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

I am one of Sir David’s greatest admirers, but the Leader of the House is beginning to say things that are moving in the other direction. Can we go back to his love of tradition?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I was actually about to say that some of Sir David’s colleagues rather wish his clothing adjustments had extended to the scruffy white bowtie. David’s own bowtie tends towards the off-white shades more commonly favoured by trendy interior designers. I am sure my hon. Friend has a strong opinion on that.

It was a different modernising move that was the high point of David’s career. I am reliably informed that his personal high point was working with the Wright Committee on Reform of the House of Commons 10 years ago. This involved twice weekly extended private discussions—bordering on arguments—with a great number of Members about parliamentary politics and procedure. What more could a senior Clerk ask for?

As well as his official duties in the House, David has represented the Lords and Commons cricket team in their regular matches against the Dutch Parliament and played for parliamentary football and tennis teams. In his spare time, he is an ardent Shakespeare enthusiast, a founder member of the Richard Burbage Society and author of a scholarly essay entitled “The Two Gentlemen of Venice”—we can only speculate who they are. David’s intellectual gifts are part of parliamentary folklore—many a Member, myself included, has asked him a question and then struggled to keep up with the sheer subtlety of his arguments—but he is also blessed with a kindly heart and a vivid sense of humour.

I want to say a personal thank you to David both for his service to the House and for the collegiate way he has worked with me and my office in my time as Leader of the House. After 43 years, he should be proud that he leaves the House in a strong position to face the coming challenges of the next few months and years. In particular, I would like to wish him a very restful retirement. Few deserve it more and I imagine he is very much looking forward to it. I commend this motion to the House.

Points of Order

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Wednesday 9th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that I am in the hands of colleagues, and I think he knows me well enough to know that I have never ducked a challenge. That is not in my nature; it has been no part of my DNA, either since I have been in this House or in all my life before I came into Parliament. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) says from a sedentary position words to the effect of “Let’s get on.” I would like to move on, but I do wish to treat colleagues with courtesy. [Interruption.] Somebody said “You can,” but I will take a few remaining points of order if people wish to raise them. I say very gently to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who just raised his point of order and talked about the dignity of the Chair and the importance of our procedures, that if people are going to invoke that importance, it would be helpful if they did not undermine that self-same point by continuous and repetitive dispute.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have two points on which I would be grateful for clarity. First, section 9 of the order of the House that sets out the terms of the debate says that no motion may be made other than by a Minister of the Crown, and you have interpreted that to mean that an amendment can be made to the motion. The question on that motion, as amended, then has to be put, and that is the motion that, under the order, needs to be moved by a Minister of the Crown. Is it therefore the case that the question may not be put on the motion, if amended, unless the motion is adopted by a Minister of the Crown?

I then have a second point. [Interruption.] If I may come to the second point, which is the precedential—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have heard the hon. Gentleman’s first point and I would like to hear his second.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The second point relates to the interpretation of the word “forthwith” and, for the benefit of the Commons Journal tomorrow, how it is to be understood in future when such matters arise. Page 458 of “Erskine May”, which I am sure you have, Mr Speaker, says that such questions

“must be put forthwith without any possibility of amendment”.

That reads as a single set, rather than as though “forthwith” was simply being qualified. The question that then arises is on the other important Standing Orders that are affected by the “forthwith” question. I think particularly of Standing Order No. 44, relating to disorderly conduct, which states that the question must be put forthwith but makes no mention of amendment one way or another. It seems to me that it would be deeply troublesome if “forthwith” came to allow amendments under such circumstances, so I think that the precedential effect of your ruling needs to be clarified.

[Mr Speaker]

I am happy to reflect on the second point, which is not altogether dissimilar to that raised earlier by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith). It is a very serious question and it warrants a serious reply. I am not sure whether it is reasonable to expect a full reply today—I am not sure whether that is what the hon. Gentleman is seeking—but if the hon. Gentleman is saying to me in his typically courteous way that this is an important matter and that we need a judgment on it, either from the Chair alone or from the Chair acting on the advice of, for example, the Procedure Committee, I agree with him.

On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, the answer is that if the motion has been moved, the question on it must then be put. For the avoidance of doubt, I say that on the basis of specialist advice.