Committee on Standards: Members’ Code of Conduct Review

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Bernard Jenkin

Thursday 3rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The speed of registration is a very fair point, but it is a governmental rather than a parliamentary matter. In terms of the actual declaration, it could give a misleading impression that a Minister, particularly one in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, was attending a constant round of entertainments that were, in fact, entirely in the course of their public duties. That would be very different from a Member of Parliament who had no obligation and was purely attending, if at the same events, for his or her own pleasure.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

The Leader of the House has not been in opposition, but if he was the Opposition spokesman, he would have the same obligation to attend the same event, but would be subject to the House of Commons rules rather than the ministerial ones. What is the difference?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Being in opposition is different from being in government. We have a separation between Ministers and Parliament. The separation of powers is an important constitutional principle.

I will move on to the question of the work undertaken by MPs outside Parliament and how that could, or should, be limited. The Government value the work of the Standards Committee and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards in applying the conduct rules that the House has endorsed. That is why we support the work being undertaken to

“introduce robust new measures to empower the standards system in Parliament”.

It is evident that, further to the 17 November resolution of the House, there is cross-party support for reforms of the rules on outside interests.

The Government remain firmly of the view that, as the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended in 2018, Members should be banned from accepting any paid work to provide services as a parliamentary strategist, adviser or consultant. There seems to be widespread consensus on that point. The Committee has collected a wide range of evidence from expert witnesses, including the Committee on Standards in Public Life, to consider how reasonable limits on outside work could be defined. As we have discovered during this debate, that is a knotty question without a simple or straightforward answer.

It is apparent that successive generations of parliament-arians have obtained relevant experience through outside work. It is also clear that several parliamentarians continue to use that expertise to make valuable contributions to other areas of public life. First and foremost, however, we are here to represent our constituents and any work outside this place must not come at the expense of their interests. It is sensible that our rules reflect that Members must always prioritise their parliamentary work and serve the electorate who returned them to this place and who will, of course, judge them.

The existing rules require Members to declare their outside interests and positions, but do not explicitly prevent the holding of certain positions, notwithstanding the proposed limits on accepting any paid work to provide services as a parliamentary strategist, adviser or consultant. To go beyond MPs’ central practice of declaration and instead place limits on Members undertaking a much broader range of activity through the application of hard thresholds of time or money would represent a substantive change to the definition of an MP’s role.

As such, there is a question as to whether it would be constitutional to make such adjustments through the Members’ code, or whether legislation would be required. It would arguably be a change to the conditions of membership of this House of similar significance to the provisions set out in the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, which provides that those who hold certain offices cannot be Members of this House.

More widely, in order for the standards system to operate effectively, it is essential that it is both robust and fair and also compatible with the constitutional principles that have ensured that this place works at its best. Parliament sits at the heart of our constitutional arrangements and it is of utmost importance that Members are able to participate without artificial impediments in debates on contentious issues that are of great import to the electorate. The compatibility of the standards system with the core principles and concepts of fairness and natural justice needs to be considered with care, so I welcome the appointment of the right hon. Sir Ernest Ryder to conduct a review of fairness and natural justice in the standards system.

Throughout the debate, right hon. and hon. Members made a number of interesting and important speeches, which I am confident the Standards Committee will consider carefully. It is through a shared understanding of the constitutional framework in which we operate, as well as formal rules, that we will ensure that our standards system commands the confidence both of the public and of Members on a cross-party basis. I therefore hope that when the Committee publishes its final proposals, they will form the basis for further discussion and final conclusions.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Bernard Jenkin

Thursday 16th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I had a feeling, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you were getting a bit nervous about the over rate. I am worried that we will be fined our total match fee if the over rate becomes too slow, so I shall try to be quick, but I thought Members might like to know that the bank rate has risen from 0.1% to 0.25%, although they have all probably heard it already on their Sky News alerts.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) for his thanks for the business that has been provided. I very much noted his request for a Back Bench debate on 27 January, Holocaust Memorial Day; I heard that loud and clear. I know that the debate will be well subscribed, so I will do my best to prevent statements, as I did last year, but I cannot guarantee that, because sometimes there is a strong demand for a particular statement.

On the hotel quarantine policy—which, as the hon. Gentleman fairly pointed out, was necessary on public health grounds—I would say to him that if he has particular issues involving individual constituents, I will happily help, and will take them up for him through my office.

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

May I, in passing, thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating the debate on Russia’s grand strategy? A proper debate on the subject is long overdue, along with a fuller understanding as we respond to the Ukraine crisis and the other crises that the Russians are provoking.

May I issue a plea not for more or fewer restrictions in the House, but for the Leader of the House and the House of Commons Commission to use as their lodestar the question of consistency? Public confidence in whatever measures the Government are recommending rests on consistency between what people see their leaders doing and what they are being asked to do. If we have to introduce further measures—whether or not Parliament is recalled—we should ensure that our practices here are consistent with what we are asking other people to do.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The fundamental point that we must always bear in mind is the absolute, unequivocal constitutional right of Members to attend Parliament. Whatever rules there may be—we saw this at the height of the pandemic, when people were saying that they were not allowed to travel under restrictions in certain parts of the United Kingdom—there is no law, unless we were to legislate for it specifically, that could ever change the fundamental right of a Member of Parliament to come to Parliament. It is essential to our constitution. Whatever laws there are, that right must be retained.

Committee on Standards

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Bernard Jenkin

Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because that helps me to get back to the point about process. The 2015 Committee on Standards report on “The Standards System in the House of Commons” noted that the provisions relating to the panel had “never been invoked”, questioned why the investigatory panel was “necessary” and recommended that the provisions be “reviewed”. However, the House never chose to remove these provisions, so this was an active mechanism open to the Commissioner and the Committee, which they decided not to use. It is the Government’s belief that it is right to allow the House to revisit whether, to ensure natural justice, our procedures should be changed to give Members of Parliament the same or similar rights—including the right of examination of witnesses—as apply to those subject to investigations of alleged misconduct in other workplaces and professions.

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

Before my right hon. Friend carries on, may I add that anybody who is complaining about the amendment to the motion is complaining about the procedures of this House as they exist in respect of standards cases? All standards cases come to this House for this House to dispose of as it thinks fit. That is what this House is debating now and that is perfectively legitimate. The reason why the mechanism to which my right hon. Friend referred has never been used is that, unlike what was recommended by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the commissioner would chair the panel. For it to be an independent appeals process, it should be chaired independently. It has never been used because it would be so likely to arrive at the same conclusion.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. It is really important to remember that this House can never be and should never be a mere rubber stamp, which is not our purpose; we are a sovereign Parliament.

Let me turn to the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire. The proposed Select Committee could consider, for example, whether the Standing Orders should be changed so that a panel was always established in contentious cases, or it could consider a new mechanism to ensure that witnesses were always called and examined.

Let me turn to whistleblowing and its relationship to the rules on lobbying, as raised by the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). The rules related to paid advocacy have been considered many times over the years and rightly place restrictions on Members. In 2012, the House recognised the need for a whistleblowing provision to make it clear that in exceptional cases, if there were some serious wrong, a Member could approach the responsible Minister or public official, even if to do so might incidentally benefit a paying client. Concerns have been expressed about the commissioner and the Committee’s interpretation of the application of this exemption in the case of a serious public policy issue, and about whether the balance was correctly struck. We must therefore think carefully about how we protect the ability of our MPs to raise issues where they see them while ensuring that our system is robust against abuse. The balance is worth examining, and a Select Committee appointed for the purpose of reviewing our standards system would be able to give it due consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think the hon. Gentleman is going to speak at the end, so it may be best if he does that.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

rose—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend has already intervened. Let me continue, because I am conscious of time.

The Committee noted that the commissioner has, since March 2020, routinely conducted an initiation interview with a Member concerned in investigations that involve serious allegations to assure herself that the Member is fully appraised in detail of the allegations and the process at the earliest possible stage. That postdates this case, but it is worth noting that my right hon. Friend suggested a meeting in his letter to the commissioner on 16 January 2020. These are welcome steps, and a Select Committee appointed by the House could look further at how the system might be approved.

I will now move on to the aggravating factors that the Standards Committee refers to in a number of its reports. A consistent theme has been that Members’ refusal to admit wrongdoing in contentious cases has been considered an aggravating factor leading to greater punishment, but we do not want to encourage a system in which a person has to admit fault in order to receive a reasonable response from the Standards Committee. Members who believe that they are innocent must be able to continue to assert that from the beginning to the end without that being considered an aggravating factor.

Plea bargaining is not part of our system. Expectation of self-denunciation is not where we want to get to. We do not want struggle sessions, though the Opposition may like struggle sessions, in order to receive more lenient sanctions. We saw examples of that recently where a Member was considered to have a higher degree of culpability because he did not accept the judgment of the Committee and commissioner on his correspondence with the judiciary. There was also the case of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), whose punishment, for the arguably innocuous and legitimate act of writing to Michel Barnier after his request for the views of MPs, was shortened and not brought to the Floor of the House on the condition that he admitted wrongdoing. This is a concerning theme in these investigations that clearly warrants greater review.

Perhaps the most critical point to emerge on concerns expressed by Members is the question of a right to appeal. I consider that right to be fundamental to the provision of justice, which is regrettably not genuinely provided by the matter coming to the Floor of this House—a regrettableness that has been reinforced by the conduct of this debate so far.

I observe that, in the House of Lords, there is an appeal process that provides that the noble lord concerned has a right of appeal to the Conduct Committee against the commissioner’s findings and any recommended sanction. Having considered any appeal, the Conduct Committee, having agreed an appropriate sanction, reports its conclusions to the House, which has the final decision on the sanction. That is why I support the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire. It proposes setting up a Select Committee to review the standards process and consider whether Members should be afforded the same or similar rights as apply to those subject to investigations of alleged misconduct in other workplaces and professions, including the right of appeal, and to make recommendations for reform. The Committee will, therefore, be able to recommend setting up an appeals mechanism and recommend other changes to increase confidence. It will also be able to consider whether the case against my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire should be reviewed with the benefit of any new appeals mechanism, or whether the Standards Committee report should be considered by the House. It will be a method by which we can reset a process that has lost the confidence of many Members of this House.

Let me be clear: the new Committee will not be the judge, jury and executioner in this case. It will be time-limited and established for the particular purpose of recommending improvements to the standards system for the House to consider. For example, following the Committee’s work in relation to this report, it is entirely possible that a reformed process, including any new appeal mechanism, may conclude that this initial report and sanction was entirely correct. This complex case still demands proper consideration, and the Select Committee would in no way pre-determine that.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Bernard Jenkin

Thursday 17th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I may be willing to go further than the House would expect, because the corridor of the Chairman of Ways and Means has a sweepstake and in this sweepstake I have been fortunate enough to draw Scotland, so I shall have very divided loyalties tomorrow. But I am glad to say that it is very encouraging for the Union. I was pleased to see Wales do well yesterday—the Rees side of me was coming to the fore. I am looking forward to supporting whichever side does best, because I have an interest in all three of them doing well.

I am delighted to hear that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) will be returning to his place, but it has been very enjoyable crossing swords with the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson), who brings a great tone to these exchanges.

Loneliness Awareness Week is important. It is something that is very hard for Government to take control of, although we have a very distinguished Minister for loneliness. We have to try to work with civic society, with people such as the Red Cross and the Samaritans, to help people as we begin to get back to normal. As we do get life back to normal, that will help to reduce loneliness.

As we are on what is happening during the week, it is worth bearing in mind that 18 June is Waterloo Day, a day always of celebration in this country. We can celebrate it all together, which will make us less lonely. It is also a wonderfully Unionist day. I do not know if you know this, Mr Speaker, but there were Scottish, Welsh and Irish regiments there: the Black Watch, the Gordon Highlanders, the Royal Scots, the Royal Welch Fusiliers, the Welsh Regiment, the Inniskilling Fusiliers and the Inniskilling Dragoons. I think Sharpe was there with the Prince of Wales’ Own, but I am not sure that that was a real regiment or whether it was invented for the purpose of fiction. No doubt other wise people will be able to tell us. So that date is happening, too.

Finally, on digital imprints and so on, the Second Reading of the electoral integrity Bill will be an opportunity to debate what may go into it. I can confirm that when it comes forward there will be an opportunity to do that, but I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support. I would say that it is always open to the Government to learn from what the devolved authorities do. We want to work collaboratively with the devolved authorities, even if we have an ultimately different vision for our nation.

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

May I also join the tributes to Sir Roy Stone?

May we have a debate in Government time on the imminent changes the Government are to make to the NHS integrated care system boundaries to make them co-terminus with upper-tier local authority boundaries? This is in fact a wholesale reorganisation of NHS commissioning in areas such as Essex, Waveney and the Frimley ICS, which covers parts of Berkshire, Surrey and Hampshire. Why is this being done before we have even seen the legislation that is necessary to make it effective? Who is advising Ministers to implement this major change, when they should be leaving things be while we catch up with the massive NHS waiting lists? Why has there been so little consultation with MPs about this until very late in the day? Why is NHS England withholding a consultants’ report which Ministers promised to us last week? It has still not been given to us and is apparently the basis on which the decisions are being made, but we are not allowed to see it. There is a real failure of scrutiny here.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this point. There are issues of scrutiny around arms-length bodies, which are of fundamental importance to this House and are rightly brought to the Floor of the House. It is worth bearing in mind, however, that NHS England is a quango and is not invariably under direction from Ministers. However, the point he makes is a very serious one and I will ensure it is taken up with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

House Standards System: Confidentiality and Sanctions

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Bernard Jenkin

Wednesday 21st April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I thank everyone who has participated in this debate for widespread consensus, especially the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), who has been supportive throughout and was again today? It is important that that continues on a cross-party basis, which is why I was keen to seek her wisdom as these discussions took place. I particularly want to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), who ensured that the change in culture got going properly. During her term has Leader of the House she pushed this ahead to make sure that it happened. I view my role as Leader of the House merely to carry the flabella in her honour for what she did. I would reinforce the point that she made, and which has come up again and again, that delays in the system have been one of the greatest problems. That has been tackled in a number of ways, both in ICGS and non-ICGS cases.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who has done a great deal of work on this, and has reported fully to the House. I was a bit worried when he said to Mr Deputy Speaker that none is without fault. That has a rather dangerous parliamentary history, as the hon. Gentleman will know. Peter Wentworth made that point in the late 16th century about Elizabeth I and the desire of the House of Commons, and was put in the Tower for his pains. It is dangerous territory to say that none is without fault, but the hon. Gentleman was brave enough to say it, and that lies at the heart of our efforts to improve standards, to remember that we can all do better. His speech was extremely helpful in setting out clearly what his Committee was trying to do and the help that is available to hon. and right hon. Members to ensure that they are not tripped up. The system is not there to try and trip up people who are doing their best.

I am grateful, as always, to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson), who was right that progress has been made, and that there is more to be done. That view is shared across the House. As the hon. Member for Rhondda said, everyone who comes here wants to do the right thing when they become a Member of Parliament. I, too, have not met anyone who does not want to do that. Year after year, however, mistakes are still made. There is more to be done, but we have made progress.

The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) raised valuing everyone training, and I can reassure her that I recently wrote to a group of Members who had not done it, to encourage them to do so, with some positive responses. By and large, people have done it—about 90% of Members have completed the training—which, again, is part of the progress that we are making. She also made the point that we need to do better, and raised the advantages of independence. We certainly see that with the Independent Expert Panel, which gives confidence to Members and complainants alike.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I apologise to the Leader of the House and to the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) for missing their opening remarks. I just want to draw attention to a concern that has been raised with me about the motion to refer to the right of the commissioner to

“instigate informal discussions with a Member to indicate concern about the Member’s reported attitude”.

This might seem very intrusive, but it is intended to be benign. Nobody will be judged or adjudicated on their attitude, but if we encourage the right attitudes, it is less likely that people will make mistakes and fall foul of the rules, which is why the Committee is promoting this particular method of engagement with the commissioner.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is important, I think, that the commissioner will have the ability to speak to people informally and, potentially, to stop problems arising if they can be stopped with a word in season.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Bernard Jenkin

Thursday 25th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

There is a hint of hope.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Freeport East bid for the freeport at Felixstowe-Harwich is the biggest freeport bid? It will make the biggest contribution to levelling up, the biggest contribution to the UK economy and the biggest contribution to imports and exports in this country. How will the bids be scrutinised by Parliament after they have been decided on Budget day? Will there be specific Government time to ensure that the best bids are approved?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is very encouraging that there is so much interest from so many Members in creating freeports; it shows what an exciting and innovative policy that is. There will obviously be a chance to debate that, and how it will be implemented, after the Budget speech—four days will be set aside for that debate—but all Government decisions are open to scrutiny by the House in its various ways, through oral questions or Select Committees. My hon. Friend is well aware of how effective Select Committees can be in holding the Government to account.

Independent Expert Panel

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Bernard Jenkin

Wednesday 25th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I can confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that 134 completed applications were received —no doubt, from a variety of people. Of those applications, the ones that were seen to be the most suitable are those before the House, having been approved by the Commission. I think it is a distinguished panel—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman mutters that it is chumocracy; I do not want to give too much away, but the only member of the panel who claimed a friendship of any kind with any Member of Parliament said that he was on nodding terms with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition, so if they are chums, they are not my chums, particularly, but they are very important and good people.

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

I entirely support the idea that we should bring on to the panel people who have juridical experience in the courts, and I commend my right hon. Friend and the Commission for appointing to the chair of this body an ex-High Court judge. That is exactly the kind of authority, independence and legitimacy that is required to give both those being scrutinised or disciplined in this process and those who are complaining through this process the confidence that it is being done properly.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. Before the appointments were made, we had a number of representations from Members of this House saying that they would feel confident in the system if the chairman of the panel had the experience of a High Court judge, and Sir Stephen is a distinguished—

Participation in Debates

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Bernard Jenkin

Monday 16th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

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

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

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

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

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

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

Committee on Standards

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Bernard Jenkin

Tuesday 10th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

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

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

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

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Bernard Jenkin

Monday 2nd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

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

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

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

Restoration and Renewal

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Bernard Jenkin

Thursday 16th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

They do—well, those who are paying attention do—and I am glad the right hon. Gentleman is paying such strict attention. It is important that we do accept that we may have to compromise in what we expect in this Palace.

Then there is the question of a temporary decant location, and I look forward to hearing Members’ views about what scale and requirements are thought necessary. The Prime Minister has written to the chief executive of the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority making it clear that costs should be kept to a minimum. He is quite right that putting a severe downward pressure on cost is vital in the face of phrases such as “scope creep” and “gold-plating”, which are words that should make any right thinking politician break out in a cold sweat. Our goal should be a narrow, simple one—to save the Palace of Westminster without spending more than is necessary. That is the only way we will be able to look our constituents in the eye and explain the steps being taken.

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

I have been listening carefully to what my right hon. Friend has been saying, and he has laid great emphasis on saving the building of the Palace of Westminster, but can he just clarify that it is the Government’s policy that it should be saved so that it should be the home of our national Parliament permanently?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think that my hon. Friend may be alluding to the mention of York in the Prime Minister’s letter. I would remind my hon. Friend that between 1301 and 1325 Parliament met in York 11 times, but when Edward IV tried to get it to move to York, he was unsuccessful. It will end up being a matter for parliamentarians where this House sits, though strictly speaking the meeting of Parliament is called by the sovereign to her palace at Westminster. That, I think, is something that would be highly unlikely to change without the acceptance of parliamentarians. I hope that answers my hon. Friend’s question.

I want to conclude by quoting Caroline Shenton’s book about the construction of the Palace a century and a half ago. She raised the question of the difficulty faced by Barry and Pugin when she wrote:

“But who should be given the upper hand? The government… funded by the Treasury? Parliament as an institution made up of two legislatures occupying a single building… Or—most difficult of all—over a thousand MPs and Peers”—

this must be referring to peers rather than MPs, but never mind—

“fractious, opinionated…partisan, and…with as many individual views on how the work should progress as there were members? Deciding who was the real client at any particular moment would prove to be a mind-bending task for Barry over the next four and twenty years.”

I am a great admirer of much that was achieved by our Victorian forebears, but in this instance, this one instance, I believe the 21st century may—and I sense the shock around the Chamber—have the edge over the 19th century.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Bernard Jenkin

Thursday 19th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Of course, I am willing to thank everybody in the transport sector who is working so hard. It is interesting to note, in terms of how society has developed, that delivery drivers for supermarkets are unquestionably key workers. They are playing an incredibly important role, particularly for those who need to stay at home and, from next week, for those with particular medical conditions who will be encouraged to be shielded. The work they are doing is making it possible for people to carry on with their lives as far as possible, so it is very important work. With regard to the flow of trade in the bellies of aeroplanes, that is an important point. I think there is such demand for ministerial statements that many of them will need to be written rather than oral statements.

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

I thank my right hon. Friend for his response to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) on how this House should operate. I want to connect two issues: the scrutiny of emergency powers and the need for public confidence in their exercise, and the role of Select Committees. When does he think he will be in a position to announce to the House what the arrangements for Select Committees will be? If these emergency powers are to be exercised, Select Committees can sit when the House is not sitting and provide some democratic oversight of how these powers are being exercised.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Perhaps it is helpful to explain how we came to agreement on Westminster Hall being suspended, to give an example of how we are intending to work. There was a letter from the Clerk of the House to Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker consulted me. I consulted the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) and representatives of the Scottish National party. We consulted the Chairmen of the most relevant Select Committees, and then we came forward with a motion. It is very important that what we do for Select Committees similarly has cross-party support and consensus across this House. I think that if the Leader of the House, representing the Government, were to come forward with proposals for how Select Committees should operate, people might think that that was designed not to enhance but to reduce scrutiny. It is of the utmost importance that this is done with consensus, and therefore it will take a little time—a few days—to discuss these matters, but proposals will be brought forward.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Bernard Jenkin

Thursday 12th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

No, I did not, but the article, on the success of mitigation policies on the Somerset levels, is well worth reading. The levels are not precisely where I live, but they are not a million miles away.

As always, I am very grateful to the right hon. Lady for keeping up the pressure in relation to Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and the other dual nationals who are held improperly by the Iranian regime. We continue to raise their cases at the most senior levels. The Prime Minister raised those concerns with President Rouhani on 9 January, and our ambassador is in regular touch. The exercising of diplomatic protection in Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s case has formally raised it to a state-to-state issue, and there are concerns about the coronavirus in Evin prison, which we referred to last week. A number of prisoners have been released and we have asked, of course, for Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe to be released, but ultimately it is the failings and the bad behaviour of the Iranian regime that we are dealing with. That is not something that the British Government can control, but we are certainly pushing as hard as possible to get them to behave in a proper way.

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

Does my right hon. Friend share my admiration for the sheer calm stoicism of so many people who work in this place? We are greeted by the police officers when we come into the building, as though nothing has changed, and the Clerks of the House carry on servicing the business of this House as though nothing has changed, despite the anxiety that the whole country is feeling about the coronavirus. Will he join me in recording our thanks to everyone who works in this place who will keep the show on the road? Does that not set the best possible example to the rest of the country that we should keep things going and remain calm to make sure that we carry on making rational decisions in this crisis?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. Yes, indeed, I would like to record our thanks to the people working in the House who are ensuring that it is kept open, which is of the greatest importance. As my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary said yesterday,

“we have resolved that we will keep Parliament open…the ability to hold the Government to account and to legislate are as vital in a time of emergency as in normal times. Our democracy is the foundation of our way of life.”—[Official Report, 11 March 2020; Vol. 673, c. 377.]

This is of fundamental importance. I can tell the House that our security and frontline staff, including catering staff, are going to be briefed in the same way as people in the Border Force, and that will take place later today. We are trying to make sure—again, Public Health England is being extremely helpful in ensuring this—that people in this House who are working to ensure that democracy is effective and that accountability is working will be treated properly.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Bernard Jenkin

Thursday 30th January 2020 Commons Chamber

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

The health service is confronted with another baby deaths controversy in Kent, and a whistleblowing scandal in West Suffolk at the Health Secretary’s own local hospital. When are the Government going to reintroduce the health service safety investigations Bill, which had its Second Reading in the other place before the election, had its pre-legislative scrutiny under my chairmanship in the last Parliament and is ready to go? One might say that it is oven-ready, so when does my right hon. Friend think it will be reintroduced?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is a Bill to which the Government attach considerable importance, as it would be a transformation in the way in which patient safety incidents in the NHS are investigated, and would be a world first. The date for its return has not been set, but it will be brought forward in this Session.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Bernard Jenkin

Monday 28th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is not repealing a key constitutional piece of legislation; it is amending that piece of legislation to allow, under these exceptional circumstances, for an early general election to take place. That is a perfectly normal legislative process. We legislate to amend Bills and Acts of Parliament the whole time. This is not petulant; it is a decision that has been come to reluctantly because the House will not come to a conclusion, and this House has to come to a conclusion. We have been arguing for three and a half years about this subject in trying to deliver on Brexit—on what the British people voted for. This Government are determined to ensure that that happens, but in a general election others will put forward their case. The hon. Gentleman can try his luck at putting forward his case and will be able to see how well he does.

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

Can I just enjoy a little gloat? I am one of the few Members of this House who actually voted against the Fixed-term Parliaments Act and warned my then colleagues that many would rue the day they put this piece of legislation on the statute book. Does not the fact that my right hon. Friend is now telling us that the Government are going to introduce a Bill to allow a simple majority to cause a general election rather point the direction in which the Fixed-term Parliaments Act should perhaps be going in future?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I join my hon. Friend in his gloat, because I too opposed the Fixed-term Parliaments Act as it went through the House of Commons. Indeed, I had only just got into the House at that point and was considered to be a rebel for the way I approached it. The lines from Gilbert and Sullivan,

“I always voted at my party’s call,

And I never thought of thinking for myself at all”,

did not, on that occasion, apply to either of us.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Bernard Jenkin

Thursday 24th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Fortunately, the hon. Lady has made that point at exactly the right time, because the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy was in the Chamber to hear it, so it has already been raised at the right level. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that local authorities have an obligation to carry out due diligence and it would be absolutely remiss of them not to do so.

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

May I invite my right hon. Friend to urge the Prime Minister to bring forward a motion under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 for a general election? Not only is it usual, if the Government cannot obtain their business, for Parliament to be dissolved and to let the people decide on the matter, but this would allow those who profess their faith and belief in representative democracy to demonstrate it, or to demonstrate that they do not actually believe in representative democracy at all.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend’s constitutional expertise is second to none in this House, and he sets out the constitutional norms completely correctly.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Bernard Jenkin

Thursday 24th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Is it not saddening that “Scotland the brave” used to be the call but now it is “Scotland the runaway,” “Scotland the let’s not have an election”? The SNP, who wish to challenge the Government, actually want us to stay in office; I never thought that the broad coalition of the United Kingdom would have the Scottish National party supporting a Tory Government remaining in office. I look forward to that appearing on our election leaflets. It occurs to me that tomorrow is St Crispin’s day, the anniversary of Agincourt; what a good day it might be for us to meet and show our independence of spirit.

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

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and may I just remind him that people in this House are blocking Brexit in the name of the sovereignty of Parliament, but whose is this sovereignty? What sovereignty do we hold that does not come from the British people? And should the British people not now be allowed to decide who represents them in this House?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As so often, I bow to my hon. Friend’s constitutional expertise. It is quite clear that the sovereignty of this House did not fall upon us like a comet from heaven; it comes to us from the British people. It is the people’s sovereignty delegated to Parliament. We need, as we are incapable of using it, to return it to them and ask them to have another election and decide how their sovereignty should be used.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Bernard Jenkin

Tuesday 22nd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Prime Minister has passed on Parliament’s request for an extension; the Prime Minister has not signed that request and I do not believe it is the Prime Minister’s request. It is Parliament’s request for an extension, and one that I think is a great error.

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

What would persuade the Government to consider bringing forward a new business motion?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It seems there is no point in bringing forward a new business motion, because today’s has been defeated and the time that there would have been to debate the issue has been truncated, because instead of going into Committee now, we are in fact having this business statement.

Exiting the EU: Sectoral Impact Assessments

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Bernard Jenkin

Wednesday 1st November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

“Erskine May” does indeed not say “binding”, but it does say:

“Each House has the power to call for the production of papers by means of a motion for a return.”

Power is something pretty forceful, and is much more than just an expression of will.

[Mr Jenkin]

My hon. Friend takes me to the very next point, which is that it would be unconscionable for any Government to ignore a motion. But I heard the Minister very clearly saying that he does not intend to ignore the motion. In fact, he made it clear that the Government will respond to the motion. This echoes what the Leader of the House said recently in business questions about Opposition day motions. She said that there should be a standard, and that the Government will respond to a motion in the House within, at most, 12 weeks of the will of the House being expressed in such a way.

The very fact that we are having a debate about exactly what would be released means that it is a matter for the Government and Ministers to interpret. If the House is then still not satisfied with what has been released, the House can come back to it. Let us not get in a paddy that there is some great constitutional principle. Parliament is sovereign not because it passes motions, but because, in the Diceyan sense, Parliament can make or unmake any law; and I reiterate that in this matter, we are not making law—at least, not law that is statute law and enforceable through the courts.

It is worth repeating to the House what the Minister reminded us during his opening remarks, which is that the House has previously voted, by a large majority, to protect sensitive information that is relevant to the negotiations. That is why I invite the official Opposition to think very carefully before repeating this exercise. These documents may not be very serious and there may not be very much in them, but this is a power to call for papers that should be used sparingly, precisely because these are the negotiations of a generation.

Unless the Government have the freedom to conduct the negotiations with the necessary confidentiality, the Opposition will undermine the ability of the Government to produce the better terms of settlement that the Opposition say they want. This is potentially extremely disruptive and irresponsible, and the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) knows it. This is more about party politics and exploiting the situation for party advantage than it is about supporting the national interest. There may be a great sea of Opposition colleagues jeering at that point, but they are jeering at the national interest when they jeer in that fashion.

Defence Implementation Road Map

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Bernard Jenkin

Tuesday 10th November 2015 General Committees

[Mr Jenkin]

When considering this instrument, it is worth noting first that the document is dated 26 June 2014. That we are dealing with it at such a late stage is an indication of how poor our scrutiny arrangements are and how incapable we are as a Parliament at keeping up with developments in the European Union.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Jenkin]

I am making absolutely no personal criticism of my hon. Friend, and I give way to him on that basis.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. The document was recommended for debate by the European Scrutiny Committee about a year ago. The coalition Government refused to send documents for debate, and a huge backlog built up. Much of that is now being cleared by this Government, and I hope that more work will be done. It was not a failure of our processes; I am afraid it was a failure of Her Majesty’s Government.

[Mr Jenkin]

I am very grateful for that information and I am sure the Committee is, too. I was about to say that this is the first occasion, apart from a Government statement after the 2013 Council of Ministers meeting, that we have debated the 2013 conclusions in any depth. That underlines a serious state of affairs.

The UK’s Justice and Home Affairs Opt-outs

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Bernard Jenkin

Thursday 10th July 2014 Commons Chamber

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

It is a particular pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), although I am delighted that the Lord Chancellor will reply to the debate, because I believe he is the one person remaining in the Government who still believes what he believed in opposition. It is reassuring that at least some people do not find the trappings of office take them away from their previous beliefs.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) mentioned, we have already looked at the falsehood that is in the title of this debate. We are meant to be debating the opt-outs, but they were decided a year ago. We are debating the opt-ins. That is all of a piece with the spin and the flimflam around this issue. We are not trying to stick to the facts. We have had bold promises—promises raised by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz)—about consultation with Parliament and how we would be kept fully informed: a fine promise and constitutionally proper, but regrettably ignored.

We found out some information about the Prüm declarations not from a statement to this House or from evidence given to a Select Committee, but via a website called Statewatch, which reproduces leaked documents. It reproduced a “Limité” document from the European Union. “Limité” documents from the European Union can be shared with the European Scrutiny Committee and we then hold them confidentially. This one was not, perhaps because what it said was rather embarrassing. It stated:

“The UK government has also indicated that in a number of other cases it will set in motion a process towards the subsequent opting in to certain other instruments of particular importance.”

So it is not 35 opt-ins; it is more than 35, which they are not willing to tell us about through proper processes. We find out through leaked documents. Actually, it is not 35 anyway, because 14 were already subject to the block opt-out. So we are starting at 49, not 35, and the spin around it tries to lessen the impact of what is happening.

The failure to inform Parliament is, I think, even worse. There was a Council meeting on 24 June, after which the European Union put out a press release stating that

“the Council noted the conclusion reached between the Commission and the UK on the list of non-Schengen ex-third pillar measures which the UK will seek to rejoin”—

I emphasise “conclusion”. The written statement from the Minister provided to the House about a week later—we should note the delay before we were informed—said that

“the UK Government and the Commission had reached an understanding”.—[Official Report, 30 June 2014; Vol. 583, c. 48WS.]

There is a significant difference between an understanding and a conclusion: one has a finality about it, which does not leave much room for parliamentary consultation, while the other implies a continuing process. We have thus had a series of failures properly to inform Parliament—a failure to be entirely straight with the British people.

The effects are severe. The change from the third pillar to Lisbon is a major transfer of sovereignty, as established by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North, who quoted the Government’s own words in saying that. It is not, however, only the Government and the European Scrutiny Committee that make this clear, as it can be seen in the Home Affairs Select Committee, too. This is important because that Select Committee is not made up of shaven-headed Eurosceptics; it is chaired by a former Minister for Europe who views himself very much as a pro-European. His Committee’s report said:

“If the Government proceeds with the opt-in as proposed, we note that it will not result in any repatriation. Indeed, the increased jurisdiction of the ECJ may result in a net flow of powers in the opposite direction.”

Yet we have heard statements from Ministers saying precisely the reverse. There must be a thin line between on the one hand the point at which Ministers say things that are different from what they say to House of Lords Select Committees and from what reports of respected Committees of this House have said and on the other hand the sin of misleading Parliament. I know we will watch like hawks to ensure that that thin line is never breached.

Of the much-trumpeted opt-outs of nearly 100 items, 43 never applied to the United Kingdom in the first place. I have a list of the remainder. I asked 190 parliamentary questions to establish this list and to find out how many of the items were of any importance. Thirty three have been implemented and will bring no change at all; 12 have been implemented de facto and, again, there will be no change; two have been implemented but never used; and two have not been implemented. That leaves one, the Council Act of 17 June 1998, which has been implemented and will suffer from some change. Excluding Prüm, there is no repatriation of sovereignty at all from any of our opt-outs.

That leads us to the alternatives—those measures that the Government wish to remain within, as is clear from the treaties and from questions of international law. The treaties make it clear that provision is made for transitional arrangements. Hence, there need be no worry about a great chasm opening up on 1 December, when this mass horde of 125 criminals will suddenly appear on our shores, about which we should be terrified. It will not be like that at all because of the transitional arrangements.

Then there is the possibility of bilateral arrangements. The Home Secretary’s response on bilateral arrangements was so feeble: we know she has lost her much-respected special adviser, but I had not realised that the person on work experience was now writing her speeches. Just because the European Union does not like it—the Commission indicated that it would not accept it—are we saying that we should not use our power and influence as one of the great nations of the world and even try to negotiate what we want with an international body? Should we immediately kowtow and give in? What sort of a Home Secretary takes that approach?

[Mr Jenkin]

It seems from the stance adopted by the Government that we are being invited to believe that the European Union is a deeply unreasonable institution that holds very hard and fast positions on which it is not prepared to compromise even in its own interests, let alone the interests of its member states. Does my hon. Friend not think that we should have tried a bit harder?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

That is exactly the point I was making. It bodes ill for any proposal for renegotiation if that is the starting point. The moment the European Union says “We don’t like that very much, chaps” and we say “Oh, we’re frightfully sorry, m’lord”, we are not even going to try. We shall perform the kowtow, that wonderful act performed in front of Chinese emperors, whereby people would abase themselves three times before approaching the throne. That may be appropriate to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, enthroned in splendour as you are, but it is not, I think, the way in which Her Majesty’s Government should behave when dealing with international bodies.

Then there is the European arrest warrant, and the so-called guarantees that we have. As has already been established during the debate, European law trumps Acts of Parliament. So we can say that the European arrest warrant must not apply unless there is dual criminality, but unless the European Union accepts it, that is not the case, and dual criminality does not have to be shown in relation to 32 specified crimes where the arrest warrant applies. What the Prime Minister said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North during Prime Minister’s Question Time yesterday was, I am sorry to say, not factually accurate.

As for the numbers, I have banged on about them because of the hysteria that we hear from the proponents of the arrest warrant, who claim that our whole nation’s security is dependent on it. On average, 125 people are brought back to this country each year to face trial. In that context, the arrest warrant is to our benefit and in our interest. The people whom we expel we ought to be able to expel under our own law, and would be able to if only we had the gumption to pass our own laws. As was said earlier, we are now willing to sacrifice the fundamental principle of Magna Carta: that no one will be imprisoned, fined or held against their will without the judgment of a court. We are now willing to allow that principle to be abrogated by a Polish magistrate. Surely, wise and good though Polish magistrates may be, it is not worth the theft of a wheelbarrow to undermine something that has been our protector for 799 years.

I want to deal with the politics of this as well, for where does it leave not only the Government but the Conservative party, which had, until a few weeks ago, a really sensible, logical, well-thought-through position on the European Union. It had a strong and sound and firm position, which was to go for renegotiation and repatriate powers. Repatriate powers? When we have just surrendered them? Wave the white flag, and then, two hours later, put up the Union Jack at half mast? Will anyone believe that we have a hope of repatriating powers if we surrender them now? Will anyone think that opting into 35 measures, 49 measures, and a few more secretly, is the beginning of a renegotiation? Will anyone believe the promises made by politicians or the policies on which we stood at the last election—as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North revealed to us—or the soaring oratory of our Prime Minister, who in 2002, in opposing the European arrest warrant, said:

“If someone came before him who had committed an offence that was not a crime in this country, according to the district judge, the Home Secretary would have to say, ‘I am sorry. You may spend time rotting in a Greek or Spanish jail…But there is nothing I can do about it.’”—[Official Report, 9 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 109.]

So, in 2002, the Prime Minister was worried that this would lead to people rotting in Spanish or Greek jails. Now he thinks that rotting in Spanish or Greek jails seems to be a good thing. I do not see the logic in that, but I equally do not see how anyone can rely on what politicians say if in opposition they have backbone and in government they are jellyfish. It is an entirely hopeless way of attempting to run the country.

Let me end with a reminder of Sir Robert Peel, a great Prime Minister and a distinguished man, one of the most intellectual figures ever to hold that office —and he was Home Secretary as well. When he did his final papers—they were vivas, not papers—so clever was he, so intelligent was he, that the public went to listen to him answering the questions, and he got a first-class degree in classics and mathematics. In 1846, he split the Conservative party. He got through a measure that the Conservatives loathed on the back of Opposition votes—something that may happen with the European arrest warrant—but he stood boldly at the Dispatch Box and said, yes, he had changed his mind, yes, what he now thought was different from what he thought before, but it was essential for the good of the nation.

Do we have that from this Front Bench? Do we have an avowal of the importance of this surrender to Europe, or do we have mealy-mouthed words about the difficulties of negotiation and the problems with coalition? There is not a bold, forthright, intellectual case for change, but merely the convenience of office, and it not only risks damaging the Government and splitting the Tory party, but it surrenders our sovereignty to a body from which we want to get it back. So I say to Her Majesty’s Government,

“Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood . . . then imitate the action of the tiger.”

Multiannual Financial Framework

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Bernard Jenkin

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jenkin]

I believe that the Labour party is picking up the anger of the British people about the idea of spending more money on European policies when we are having to cut back on policies of our own.

There is something rather chilling about the exchanges between those on the Front Benches, which tacitly suggest that a veto is a defeat and that it could lead to a worse budgetary outcome for the United Kingdom than could a negotiated settlement. That seemed to be the burden of the argument put by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie). I should just like to point out to him what that says about the relationship that we now have with the European institutions. Those institutions are so overpowering and so powerful that even the veto of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom cannot stop the European train on its way to its destination. The British people feel that something has gone wrong with that relationship. This was not the basis on which we were sold membership of the institution, and it was not the basis on which all the assurances were given by successive Governments that each treaty represented no substantial change and was just a “tidying-up exercise”.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the veto does not really work. Ought we not therefore to be looking to amend the European Communities Act 1972, while recognising that this motion is dealing with the system as it is?

[Mr Jenkin]

I would just point out that we should not try to make ourselves too important in this debate. This is a take-note motion. I have spoken in many debates on such motions. The amendment expresses an opinion on whether the Prime Minister should adopt this little bit of body language or that little bit of body language. It will not make a blind bit of difference to what he does when he goes to the Council of Ministers. The amendment is simply a cry of despair from the British people who want their elected representatives to say something to the Front Benchers of both parties, who have betrayed the British people on the question of our relationship with our European partners throughout the 20 years I have been in Parliament.

The problem in this country is that the governing class is now so out of line with our people’s aspirations for the relationship with our European partners that they are putting the United Kingdom in the worst of all possible worlds. It cannot deliver the engagement of the British state with our European partners on the terms set down in the treaties, and it is not trying to deliver the different terms of agreement with our European partners that the British people would prefer, that our country needs, and that are in the national interest. So wide is this gulf that even the Labour party is picking up the vibrations and is beginning to respond.

Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Bernard Jenkin

Wednesday 11th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Indeed; thank you so much for that sedentary intervention.

It is very interesting that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) was saying, between 1688 and 1972, taxation could not be levied without the permission of the House. Since 1972, tax rates have been changed at the whim of the European Union. What is more, it happens to use duties levied on imports in exactly the way that James II would have been familiar with—it takes the same anti-parliamentary approach. James II called them tonnage and poundage; the European Union calls them anti-dumping measures but it changes them with arrogance as it sees fit.

I want to talk about the legal aspects of this issue, because they are the absolute crux of it. I raise this point with my hon. Friend the Minister because there is no point in negotiating for months if there is no legal basis in the first place. The Government should be very clear and rigorous about this and should take it, if necessary, all the way through to the European Court of Justice. That might be a Court in which many of us do not have a great deal of confidence and it might be a Court that is in principle a federalist Court, but none the less it is there and its procedures should be used.

Let me read out paragraph 2.12 of the European Scrutiny Committee’s conclusion on this issue:

“The draft Directive is concerned with direct taxation. The legal base cited for it is Article 115 TFEU. This article allows EU legislation to approximate national legislation which directly affects the operation of the single market, but”—

this is the key point—

“this provision is expressly ‘without prejudice to Article 114’. Article 114(2) TFEU provides that Article 114(1) TFEU ‘shall not apply to fiscal provisions’. Article 113 TFEU, the only provision referring to the harmonisation of taxation, is limited in its scope to ‘turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation’. There is therefore no express provision in the Treaty for the harmonisation of direct taxation.”

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

In that quote, my hon. Friend used the word “approximate”. What is the legal import of the meaning of “approximate”?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend leads me away from the essential point, which is that the EU does not have any authority over direct taxation, whether it is approximating it or not, so the approximation is irrelevant in relation to direct taxation because the treaties do not provide for that. If the treaties do not provide for it, then the EU cannot provide for enhanced co-operation without a specific treaty amendment, which would of course be a separate veto-able activity under the treaties as they exist.

We often complain about European law, and I do not like the fact that laws made by this Parliament can be overturned by the European Court, but as that is the world in which we live, when European law is on our side we ought to use it. So I reiterate my plea to the Minister in the European Councils to say that we are uncertain of the legal base and that we would like a clear legal judgment from the European Court of Justice before we proceed with further negotiations.

Now there is also a fall-back position, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) said. If the European Court of Justice were, as a federalising court, to invent a legal base, we could then come back to the point of subsidiarity, where this debate is so relevant and important. We are putting the argument to Europe and saying, “You have put these fine protections into the treaties. You have used these grand-sounding words—not as clear as the 10th amendment to the United States constitution, but none the less words that are supposed to protect the rights of sovereign member states. Let’s now see if you mean it. Let’s now see if you, the Commission, will accept the argument for subsidiarity, and if you won’t, whether the court will back it up and whether the proposals will fall on that basis.”

If all this fails, then I accept the Minister’s position. I must confess that it is a reassurance to those of us on the Eurosceptic wing of the party that it is the Minister who will be conducting the negotiations, because at least we know that it is not, as some on the Opposition Benches would have said, a woolly Liberal negotiating. It is somebody who wields a handbag in as fine a way as the great lady—[Interruption]—the blessed lady, so we have confidence that the Government’s negotiations will be tough.

It is fair enough to go through a process, if that is where we end up, but ultimately the response must be no, not least because tax competition is a thoroughly healthy thing.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Bernard Jenkin

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I think that I am defending just as much the interests of the socialists of Great Grimsby and other places, because it is not in the interest of the voters of Great Grimsby to have Governments who come in and play fast and loose with the constitution; that is a really bad idea. The hon. Gentleman has been a most distinguished advocate of less European intrusion in our affairs. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] As is obvious, he has the respect of the whole House for that, but Governments have been able to play fast and loose with our constitution in a European context because there has been no check from the upper House, and because anything, ultimately, can be jammed through under the Parliament Act 1911.

With this Bill, I want to begin to say—I have proposed the same change to the European Union Bill before the House—that such important constitutional changes need much deeper and broader support than that of some, to use the late Sir Robin Day’s term, “here today, gone tomorrow” politicians. We need constitutional change that is in the historic continuum of our great nation.

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

It seems to me that my hon. Friend is very ably saying that the Government cannot have it both ways. Either they believe in a Fixed-term Parliaments Bill that requires future Governments to fix their parliamentary terms, and should therefore accept the new clause and remove the room for manoeuvre, or this is just a Bill of political convenience, they do not want fixed-term Parliaments and intend to retain the flexibility.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am enormously grateful to my hon. Friend for putting pithily in one intervention what it has taken me, I fear, 20 minutes to say. He is absolutely right that Her Majesty’s Government cannot have it both ways. Either the Bill is serious and important, in which case it should be exempt from the Parliament Act 1911, or it is simply the contract for a marriage of convenience and so should fall at the next general election.

European Union Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Bernard Jenkin

Tuesday 7th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jenkin]

The Minister nodded at that point in my speech, and I accepted that as an indication of assent.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

rose—

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Bernard Jenkin

Wednesday 1st December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jenkin]

Sorry, 1689. My hon. and learned Friend will keep me up to the mark, because he is much more of a lawyer than I am.

In recent years, however, the tension between the courts and the independence of this House has been thrown into relief. I remind the Committee of cases such as the one brought by Lord Rees-Mogg for judicial review of the ratification of the Maastricht treaty after this House had passed an Act of Parliament.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I would like to clarify that the judicial review case brought by my noble kinsman was not in any way to challenge what had happened in this House. It was to challenge the use by Ministers of the royal prerogative, which is why the judicial review was allowed by the courts.

[Mr Jenkin]

I stand corrected—again. I fear that that may occur rather often during my presentation. The case relating to the Hunting Act 2004 was certainly an attempt to impede the free functioning of Parliament in its judicial function. In addition, an attempt was made to judicially review the lack of a referendum on what was then the Lisbon treaty. There are other examples of that tension, not least over the arrest of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), and I believe that only today, in connection with another matter, are the limits of the courts being resolved.

The present situation begs for something that many have recommended for some time: that this Parliament should have a privilege Act to delineate clearly the immunities of Parliament in relation to the functioning of the courts, but we are in an even more tense situation because we are arranging our constitution in other areas that question the very sovereignty of the House. We now have a Supreme Court and it is widely known that many jurists who serve at various levels of the judiciary take differing views of the notions of parliamentary sovereignty and parliamentary privilege. There was recently a case concerning the possible effective expulsion of an hon. Member as a result of a judicial decision. I do not comment on its merits as it is still sub judice. I merely advert to the fact that it represents another testing of the boundaries between the courts and Parliament.

We are told not to worry—the Bill’s provisions are immune from the courts, and nobody is going to interfere in what we decide is a Speaker’s certificate, certificating a vote of no confidence that satisfies the majority. When we are blandly and bluntly told that by the Government and at the same time told by the Clerk of the House who has bravely and independently—in his constitutional capacity as an independent guardian of our constitutional arrangements—issued a memorandum, to which I shall refer later, that flatly contradicts the Government’s view, we are obliged to take the matter very seriously.

I cannot think of a precedent, other than the Parliamentary Standards Bill, where a Government flatly refused to accept the advice of the Clerk of the House on a question of the potential justiciability of legislation before the House. The Bill before us is a major change to the constitutional settlement of this country, and it is backed by people in the Government who we know favour a written constitution—an entirely different constitutional settlement. That raises the question whether the Government have got it right when they say that the Clerk’s fears are to be disregarded.

With the indulgence of the Committee, I shall quote rather extensively from the memorandum submitted by the Clerk as written evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. He states that the Bill is

“to make statutory provision for matters which fall within Parliament’s exclusive cognizance and which may affect the established privileges of the House of Commons as well as upsetting the essential comity which has been established over a long period between Parliament and the Courts.”

Erskine May makes it clear that “cognizance” refers to the right of both Houses

“to be the sole judge of their own proceedings, and to settle—or depart from—their own codes of procedure.”

The Clerk is clear in a bald statement in paragraph 12 of his memorandum:

“The Bill brings the internal proceedings of the House into the ambit of the Courts, albeit indirectly by the route of Speaker’s certificates.”

He goes on to explain how that occurs under clause 2(2), which we have already debated. In paragraph 16 he states:

“The provisions of this subsection make the Speaker’s consideration of confidence motions and the House’s practices justiciable questions for determination by the ordinary courts.”

That should be obvious. We know that Crown prerogative, as exercised by the Prime Minister, is subject to judicial review. We know that statute is subject to judicial review. We know that proceedings in the House and Standing Orders have not hitherto been subject to judicial review or judicial question. The Bill provides a connection between what happens in the House and in the rest of the world. We are providing a bridge of law that brings the courts into the House.