Early Parliamentary General Election Bill (Business of the House)
Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Helen GoodmanTuesday 29th October 2019
(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees- Mogg)
I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Early Parliamentary General Election Bill:
Timetable
(1) (a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be taken at today’s sitting in accordance with this Order.
(b) Notices of amendments, new Clauses or new Schedules to be moved in Committee of the whole House may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.
(c) Proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
(d) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put
(2) As soon as the proceedings on the Motion for this Order have been concluded, the Order for the Second Reading of the Bill shall be read.
(3) When the Bill has been read a second time:
(a) it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;
(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
(4) (a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
(b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
(5) If, following proceedings in Committee of the whole House and any proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, a legislative grand committee withholds consent to the Bill or any Clause or Schedule of the Bill or any amendment made to the Bill, the House shall proceed to Reconsideration of the Bill without any Question being put.
(6) If, following Reconsideration of the Bill—
(a) a legislative grand committee withholds consent to any Clause or Schedule of the Bill or any amendment made to the Bill (but does not withhold consent to the whole Bill and, accordingly, the Bill is amended in accordance with Standing Order No. 83N(6)), and
(b) a Minister of the Crown indicates his or her intention to move a minor or technical amendment to the Bill, the House shall proceed to consequential Consideration of the Bill without any Question being put.
(7) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (1), the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply—
(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and shall not put any other questions, other than the question on any motion described in paragraph (18)(a) of this Order.
(8) On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(9) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (7)(c) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chairman or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.
(10) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (7)(d) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chairman shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions, except that the Question shall be put separately on any Clause or Schedule of the Bill which a Minister of the Crown has signified an intention to leave out.
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(11) (a) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(b) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.
(12) Paragraphs (2) to (11) of Standing Order No. 83F (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (11) of this Order.
Subsequent stages
(13) (a) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(b) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.
(14) Paragraphs (2) to (9) of Standing Order No. 83G (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (13) of this Order.
Reasons Committee
(15) Paragraphs (2) to (6) of Standing Order No. 83H (Programme orders: reasons committee) apply in relation to any committee to be appointed to draw up reasons after proceedings have been brought to a conclusion in accordance with this Order.
Miscellaneous
(16) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply so far as necessary for the purposes of this Order.
(17) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
(18) (a) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken, to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order.
(b) No notice shall be required of such a Motion.
(c) Such a motion may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly. (d) The Question on such a Motion shall be put forthwith; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (c) shall thereupon be resumed. (e) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on such a Motion.
(19) (a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.
(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(20) No debate shall be held in accordance with Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) at today’s sitting after this Order has been agreed.
(21) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(22) No private business may be considered at today’s sitting after this Order has been agreed.
I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate that I do not wish to detain the House unduly. I hope that the House will support this business of the House motion so that we can move on to consider the stages of this Bill. This is a straightforward business of the House motion that will facilitate consideration of a short Bill, so that the House can agree the date of a general election. The motion sets aside up to six hours for consideration of the Bill, including up to four hours for the Second Reading, with the remaining time for Committee of the whole House and remaining stages.
To have a pre-Christmas election on 12 December, this Bill will need Royal Assent by 5 November for the House to dissolve just after midnight on 6 November. That general election timetable allows for the Northern Ireland Budget Bill to pass before Dissolution to ensure the Northern Ireland civil service can access the funding it needs to deliver public services and proper governance. The situation facing a number of Northern Ireland Departments has become critical, and the Bill is needed to allow the Northern Ireland civil service to continue to access the cash needed to deliver public services.
To ensure that the Bill receives Royal Assent to allow for Dissolution on 6 November and allow the 25 working days for the administration of the poll, it needs to proceed quickly. We have therefore proposed in the business motion that all Commons stages of the Bill happen today.
The Bill before the House is only two clauses long so is a very short Bill. It is also a simple Bill in that it seeks only to set the polling day as 12 December. The House should not therefore be disadvantaged by considering all stages of the Bill in one day.
Turning to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), the Government’s business motion provides for an efficient timetable for the consideration of this Bill, which is a straightforward piece of legislation for an election on 12 December. Of course, the Government recognise that the selection of amendments is a matter for the Speaker or Chairman of Ways and Means; however, it is entirely standard practice in this House for amendments not to be taken from Back-Bench MPs on Bills as simple as this one where an expedited timetable is required. While it may not be a wrecking amendment in itself, there is no doubt that it is a gateway to amendments that could seek to obstruct the Bill. The Bill is simply designed to give effect to what all four of the biggest parties in this House have now said they support—a December general election—nothing more, nothing less.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Once upon a time, the Leader of the House was a champion of this House, but since he became Leader of the House he seems to be trying to curtail debate on every Government Bill. I know that he has had a long-running, if polite, dispute with the Speaker, but will he explain to us paragraph (3)(b) and why he felt it was necessary to say
“the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.”?
The Speaker is never in the Chair when we are in Committee. Why does the Leader of the House feel it necessary to say that this afternoon?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady and I served on the Procedure Committee together, and she must be aware that this is completely standard whenever the Speaker leaves the Chair to go into Committee. It has been standard for decades, if not for centuries, and there is nothing unusual in it. If anyone thinks that this is in any way a dig at you, Mr Speaker, they simply do not understand the procedures of this House. I note that you are indicating that you are in assent with what I am saying. I am frankly surprised that the hon. Lady, who is a distinguished member of the Procedure Committee, is unaware of that basic procedure.
So it is just a December general election, nothing more and nothing less. There will be six weeks to discuss all the great political questions facing our country before the people are given the chance to give their verdict, but the debate today is not about those great issues; it is simply about setting 12 December as the date for a general election.
Business of the House
Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Helen Goodman(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Rees-Mogg
That is an important point. We are all very grateful to the staff we have supporting us, both those working for us as constituency MPs and those working for the House authorities. This House is extraordinarily well served by people who are dedicated above and beyond the requirements of duty. Those of us who, as constituency MPs, deal with a busy postbag often find that our staff have dealt with problems for our constituents before they have even brought them to our attention.
We are very lucky with the staff we have, and I am always keen that they should be treated as well as possible. I will certainly undertake to make representations on the hon. Gentleman’s behalf to IPSA. It is always difficult to find a fair balance where taxpayers’ money is being used, but my sympathies are very much with staff and in favour of looking after them well.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House clarify whether the election of a new Speaker will take place next week? Many Members will obviously have a view on where they wish to be if that election is taking place.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Unfortunately, I have nothing to add to the answer I gave some moments ago.
Business of the House
Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Helen Goodman(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend lives in such a beautiful part of the country that many more people want to live there. That is a difficulty for many people with attractive constituencies. It is a natural desire of people to live in the most outstanding areas of our countryside. There is inevitably a tension, because the Government have a mission to build more high-quality, well-designed and affordable houses, and there is a balance to be struck between building them and protecting greenfield areas. However, I understand the issue that my hon. Friend raises—people in a nearby area but not the same administrative area can feel that they are not sufficiently represented—so I shall pass on his request to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
As the Leader of the House says, when the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) brings things to the House, they are carefully considered. The Leader of the House has undertaken to put the documents in the Vote Office if they are agreed with the European Union. When will that be? Will the documents include the political declaration? Will the documents highlight the changes made from the previous agreement, so that each Member does not have to go through and make their own comparison?
Mr Rees-Mogg
As I said, the documents will be made available as soon as they can be. The European Council meets today and tomorrow and will have an opportunity to approve or not approve the agreement. It is a decision made by the 27 members, as the hon. Lady will know, and that decision will be made. The papers will be deposited once they are agreed. This is how things happen—it is a normal process—but I can be absolutely certain that the papers will be laid, in accordance with the Act, before the debate takes place.
Business of the House (Saturday 19 October)
Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Helen Goodman(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Rees-Mogg
I do not wish to be ungracious, because I am an admirer of the hon. and learned Lady, who is a very impressive inquisitor—[Interruption]. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar is also an impressive inquisitor. But I am not going to take further interventions, because the Queen’s Speech debate is pressing and I have a few more words to say about the details of Saturday. I apologise to right hon. and hon. Members, but I think I have taken enough interventions.
I recognise that changes to the sittings of the House agreed at short notice can create inconvenience to Members, staff of the House and civil servants, but I am sure hon. Members will agree that it is important to continue to take these matters at greater pace at this important time. Her Majesty’s Government did not choose the date of 19 October to hold this important debate, but it will provide the opportunity for this House to live up to the commitment made by all parties to deliver on the will of the people and to honour the result of the referendum.
If the House agrees to the motion, the arrangement for Saturday will be for the House to sit at 9.30 am. The day will begin with ministerial statements, and I can confirm that, as I have already mentioned, the Prime Minister will make a statement updating the House on the outcome of the negotiations at the European Union Council. The debate that follows will be either on a motion to approve a deal or on a motion to approve a no-deal exit. The debate on one or other of those motions would run for up to 90 minutes under the existing rules of this House. In the event of a motion to approve a deal, that motion, if passed, will meet the terms both of the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act and of section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I do apologise, but other people want to speak, there is an amendment to be moved and there is serious business to be discussed.
If I may, I will turn briefly to amendment (a) in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin). It would provide for a debate on a statutory motion until 2.30 pm, rather than for 90 minutes. There is a risk that that might shorten the time for debate, because the Prime Minister will make a statement, and some of the statements in this House have been very long and I would guess that many people may want to question him. The 90 minutes is protected time, regardless of when the debate starts. As I have made clear, when the Prime Minister speaks there will be the opportunity to raise any number of questions on this issue.
Dare I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset that there is an eccentricity to his proposal? We have an Act of Parliament that requires us to vote on certain motions. That Act was supported by my right hon. Friend, yet he now does not want us to stick to the motion that he supported in the Bill that he voted for, before it became the law of the land. He wants us to vote on something else, which will simply cause confusion and delay. We want a yes or no answer from the House. Does it like the deal, or not? [Interruption.] There are catcalls from across the Chamber, but that is the point of the debate. People will be able to say, “no”, or “yes”, but it will be clear and simple. The amendment will confuse the issue and make it harder for the House to make its opinion known.
Her Majesty’s Government would not have chosen to meet on a Saturday. That date is directly because of the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. [Interruption.] I hear Members saying that is not true, but such catcalls are themselves false.
Business of the House
Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Helen Goodman(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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 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.
Business of the House
Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Helen Goodman(5 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Privilege (Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Advice)
Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Helen Goodman(5 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
I think we need to start with why parliamentary privilege is so important, particularly those of us on the Government side, because there will come a time when we are not on the Government side, at which point the protections provided for us by parliamentary privilege are all the more important. Governments who run roughshod over parliamentary privilege when they are in government find that, when they are in opposition, their position is much harder to defend and uphold. When the Conservatives were in opposition, we disliked the streamlining of parliamentary procedures that made it easier for the then Government to get legislation through, because we found it harder to have the full debates and discussion that we wanted—the ability to discuss and sometimes even to delay things to which we were deeply opposed. That was a loss to us in opposition, even though it was a benefit once we were back in government.
My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council mocked the Humble Address procedure on the basis that it was ancient, but every morning when we come into this House and pass through security, we are exercising a right that dates back to 1340. Whether we have our pass on or not, we are entitled to come into this House and nobody is entitled to obstruct us. This is an important right because in times less benign than ours, people have wanted to obstruct Members coming into Parliament. We sit in a House where there is a very slim margin and it may be that, rushing back for a Division—perhaps a Division of confidence in the Government—somebody obstructs Members coming in. That would be a breach of our privilege and, though it is one of our most ancient privileges, it is actually a great safeguard of the proper democratic operation of this House.
We heard from the Treasury Bench and from other right hon. Members a very good argument for why the Humble Address should not have been passed in the first place, but today is the wrong day for that debate. That debate should have been held on 13 November and voted on, or not, according to whether or not it were the will of this House that the Humble Address go through. The tradition of Humble Addresses is very clear—that the Humble Address is followed. Now, that does not mean that this House is irresponsible in passing Humble Addresses. We have heard suggestions that we might seek information from the security services. This House has never passed a Humble Address of such an unwise kind.
Although I am not, dare I say, the greatest admirer of the socialists on the Opposition Benches, I accept that they are responsible enough not to wish to endanger the security of our nation, but that Parliament has the power does not mean that Parliament will exercise the power. Indeed, and importantly, this House constrains its right of free speech in relation to the sub judice issue. We have passed Standing Orders, and we give power to Mr Speaker, to stop hon. and right hon. Members breaching the sub judice rule in order to ensure that the system of justice in this country proceeds properly. Likewise, we are entitled to limit the means of Humble Addresses and the information that can be received from a Humble Address, but we did not do so before 13 November. Therefore, what happened on 13 November ought to be complied with, because if we simply say that motions of this House according to great antiquity and precedent can be ignored because the Government feel like it, what is this House here for? How are we protecting the rights of the people we represent? How are we able to seek redress of grievances?
The Humble Address may have been unwise. Indeed, had there been a Division on 13 November, I would have voted against revealing the Attorney General’s information and advice to the Government. I did not think that the Humble Address was well advised, but the Government decided to accept the motion. Having done so, it was not then up to the Government to say that it was not in the national interest to do so. I am afraid that is a classic confusion; the Government interest and the national interest are different things. The Government interest is a political interest, and the national interest is a higher interest. In my view, the national interest is better served by respecting the privileges of Parliament than the convenience of the Law Officers. Therefore, in the national interest—not the government interest—this legal advice ought to be produced because Parliament has said so.
This is clearly a right that this House has. Every Select Committee has the delegated right to send for persons and papers, and this is simply an exercise by the whole House of requiring that papers be produced. But the Government, with their majority—perhaps a majority they cannot always achieve, but at least with a technical majority thanks to our friends in the Democratic Unionist party—ought to be able to stop any papers being produced that they believe are too confidential. Indeed, it is still open to the Government to bring forward a motion suggesting that the previous motion be overturned; there is precedent for overturning a Humble Address and seeking to do the opposite. There is a proper process for the Government to follow if they do not want to release these papers, rather than sticking their feet in the mud and saying no.
Then we come to the motions before us today, and here I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). I do not think that the motion before us actually works because it is too indistinct about who it is criticising—that is, it is criticising Ministers broadly, rather than the ones specifically concerned. The motion needed to be more specific about who it was objecting to and who it was holding in contempt, and indeed it ought to have used the rights of Parliament to inflict some punishment on the person who is deemed to be in contempt.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
If the hon. Gentleman feels as he has described, why did he not table an amendment to the motion in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), setting out what he thinks ought to have been done?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Because the Government have tabled an amendment that I feel I can support—[Interruption.] We are not in pantomime season quite yet. [Hon. Members: “Oh yes we are!”] All right, I give in on that one. I am defeated on that particular point, but not on the substantive one.
I am happy to support the Government’s amendment, because I think it is right that a Committee of this House look at the issue in broad terms. It may be right that the House wishes to take a self-denying ordinance on the extent of Humble Addresses. It may be that we would like to say specifically that they would be deemed disorderly, and therefore not tabled, if they related to matters concerning the security services or other types of information where there would be a broad consensus that those matters should not be brought forward. The ability to demand papers could require—dare I say it?—that the tax returns of Opposition Members be brought to the House—[Interruption.] Mine would be of so little interest that I cannot imagine it happening. That would be a clear abuse of the precedents that we have. So it may well be right that the Privileges Committee should consider broadly how Humble Addresses should be used to ensure that they are effective, because currently they ought to be effective and the Government ought to abide by them.
Budget Resolutions
Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Helen Goodman
Mr Rees-Mogg
The forecasts are taken from the OBR and if the hon. Gentleman looks at its rather thicker report, he will see its comments in relation to Brexit and trade deals. The OBR is still rather negative on trade deals and I think that it is wrong. I have the greatest respect for the OBR, because it is the one body that during the Brexit campaign behaved properly and within its remit and did not dabble its fingers into the politics of the Brexit debate. Its view is cautious on trade. It thinks that over the next 10 years, post-Brexit, our trade position will be less good. I happen to think that that is wrong.
Helen Goodman
The hon. Gentleman should give way not to me, but to the OBR, which he has been complimenting so much. Paragraph 4.6 on page 86 of its report states:
“Given the uncertainty regarding how the Government will respond to the choices and trade-offs with which it will be confronted in the negotiations, there is no meaningful basis for predicting the precise end-point on which to base for our forecast.”
Mr Rees-Mogg
That was broadly the point I was making—the OBR is quite cautious. I was not disputing that it is cautious, but I am not cautious. I am sorry to say that, much though I respect the OBR and much though I think it does its work diligently, it got it hopelessly wrong a year ago and had to raise its forecasts for GDP growth consistently, because it did not manage to get them right. It revised down the November autumn statement and has had to revise back up again now. I think it is a terrible mistake, though earlier I quoted holy scripture, to take forecasts from these people as holy writ. They are not.
This comes down to a question of judgment, both political and economic. The political judgment is on whether this Government are going to be competent to negotiate well and effectively. I have complete confidence that they will do that—that they will be able to negotiate in the councils of Europe more effectively than anybody else could on our behalf. The economic judgment is on the balance between what we get from the European Union and what we can do with the rest of the world. I expect that, if we trade more freely with the rest of the world, that will more than compensate for the risks that we may take in having harder terms of trade with the European Union.
Having taken up the challenge from the hon. Members for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) and for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), who both wanted a Government view on Brexit—I cannot claim to speak for the Government, but I can at least say something about Brexit—I want to go through some of the details. This Budget has some very good news about the deficit. Although £51.8 billion, the deficit for this year, is still a very large amount of money, as a percentage of GDP we are now back within the norms of the types of deficits that Governments can run with. That is not to say that I think having a deficit is a good thing in principle, but GDP growth is near 2.6% and this is about remaining steady with total debt and GDP. If we go no further than that, it is an amount that can be lived with. That is important, because although there is more to be done, the vast bulk of what was necessary to live within our means has now been done.
I want to make some little points about certain areas of concern. I would encourage the Government not to proceed with the personal injury discount rate reduction to minus 0.75%. The idea that awards against the Government should be calculated with a negative time cost of money is wrong. It would be better and cheaper for the Government to underwrite annual payments, rather than making lump-sum payments with a discount rate of a negative kind—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris) mutters that I do not understand this. I do understand it, and I know that the Government are obliged by law to do this, but they have the ability to introduce new laws in this House and can often do that as part of the Finance Bill.
European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords]
Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Helen Goodman(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Since the hon. Gentleman seems so concerned about big money in politics, why is he supporting the Government on the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I almost always end up on the same side as the hon. Lady. She makes the point that I was just moving on to, so I am deeply grateful to her. It seems to me eccentric of Her Majesty’s Government to go to so much trouble to pass the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill, which I support thoroughly, to control the spending of third parties in our elections, when—suddenly, lo and behold—the European Union, whose law is superior to British law, can come along with a whole pile of money for groups outside the control of the British Parliament or the British people and can unlevel, unbalance and skew the playing field in favour of one side, particularly in a referendum vote. Indeed, that has already happened.
We know that 60% of the programme goes to the advancement of the European ideal, but that ideal is perverted to include even the most modest things, such as twinning. For a charity to be able to spend any of that money, it has to sign up to the political objective, so however harmless it is in any other respect—however modest its aims, and however apolitical it is—it has, in one respect, to be a pro-European charity to apply for the money. The programme goes a stage further, however, in that it hands out money directly to participants in a political process, and that undermines what we as democrats are trying to do in this House.
I tabled amendment 3 to try to prevent that from happening, if it is really the Government’s wish to push ahead with the programme. If the Government have any sense, they would abandon the whole scheme. They should remember that they have a veto, and they should try to find some backbone.
Helen Goodman
If the hon. Gentleman will allow, I will come on to that point and ask the Minister some questions about the process and scope for amending the regulation.
Hon. Members should find article 2 of the regulation encouraging. Its aim is to
“encourage democratic and civic participation of citizens at Union level, by developing citizens’ understanding of the Union policy making-process and promoting opportunities for societal”
and intercultural
“engagement and volunteering at Union level.”
That is not the vision some Government Members are presenting.
I turn now to amendment 3, which was tabled by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). I think he did some philosophy at university. He is trying to prove a negative here. There is no way the Government can say whether a piece of expenditure would influence elections to the European Parliament. It is logically impossible to do what he asks. It is important to remember that the money is not for political parties.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Will the hon. Lady therefore explain the European Movement putting out a leaflet specifically attacking UKIP in an election period? That is party political funding from the EU.
Helen Goodman
With the information available to him, the hon. Gentleman cannot show that money from the European Parliament funded that leaflet. As he knows, the European Movement has a whole array of sources of funding.
European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords]
Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Helen Goodman(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Helen Goodman
The hon. Gentleman’s remarks are rather ungenerous. It is obviously important for people to understand what it is they are voting for. They are being asked to elect candidates and they need to know what powers the institutions have. I would have thought that could be shared across the House. I was struck by the energetic twinning arrangements in Oxfordshire.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Following on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), the programme says that strand 2 will spend 60% of the money and that
“It will give preference to initiatives and projects with a link to the Union political agenda”,
so there is an underlying political agenda. I agree with my hon. Friend that to spend the money before the elections could have an improper influence on them. It would be unlikely to give money to the UK Independence party, for example.
Helen Goodman
The money will not be given to political parties in any case, so the hon. Gentleman’s concern about unfairness is somewhat misplaced. The fact is that the money will not be spent before the European elections.
How will the money be publicised, so that we in Durham might benefit from it as much as people in Oxfordshire evidently have? How will people apply? It is crucial to the success of the project as a lever in raising people’s participation that it involves not just the same group of organisations that have a long-standing interest and involvement in European projects, but goes wider than that.
I hope the evaluation is not too onerous, because as much could be spent on the evaluation as the sums of money that are being given out, which would not be efficient. What steps has the Minister taken to ensure that the arrangements are open and straightforward?
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Helen Goodman(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jacob Rees-Mogg
It is a great pleasure to speak while you are in the Chair, Sir Edward, on the feast of St Pulcheria, who died on this day in 453 AD. It is the 1,560th anniversary of her death.
Helen Goodman
Having read the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, I wonder whether he is trying to take us back to the politics of those years.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Even this Parliament did not exist under the benign reign of the Empress Pulcheria, so I am afraid that I am unable to propose doing that.
The purpose of my amendment, which I think fits very well with the clause, which I support, is to limit the ability of people in receipt of public funds to intervene in elections, particularly general elections. In this country we do not have state-funded political parties. We have Short money and Cranborne money to help the parliamentary activities of Opposition parties, but we have consistently decided that the state would not fund political parties and that they would instead be funded by private donations, trade union donations and business donations. It therefore seems to me to be completely wrong for third parties that might depend on subventions from the state for a large part of their income to be able to campaign as third parties in general elections.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Again, I am in disagreement with the hon. Gentleman, who, surprisingly, I often agree with about many things. The amendment does not change in any way the definition of election expenditure. It leaves it as it is set out in the rest of the Bill. As I have said, that definition leaves unchanged the situation for people hosting hustings meetings. What I am doing makes not one iota of difference—not one jot of change—to the Church of the England. It will still be able to host meetings in churches and it would still be in difficulties if it decided not to invite particular candidates. That is quite right, because at the heart of democracy is the notion that candidates should be treated equally.
Helen Goodman
The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that British Telecom, Arriva, Stagecoach, Heathrow, Virgin Care, Tata Steel and farmers in his constituency are all in receipt of large amounts of public money. Is he really saying that none of them may make statements that could be taken as interventions in a general election?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady is ignoring the detail of the Bill and carrying on with the absurd scaremongering to which we have been listening for more than a week. A farmer in my constituency who is in receipt of subsidies would have to register as a third party and, according to the terms of clause 27, spend more than £5,000 to be in any way affected by my amendment. If only the farmers in my constituency were so rich that they were scattering £5,000 hither and yon, my own campaign might be the beneficiary of such largesse.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
As an established candidate before I was elected in the last election, I did not receive any help from British Telecom. I had no idea that British Telecom was funding the campaigns of candidates up and down the country. If that were a purely commercial activity, it would be mistaken in doing so because it would alienate half its customers who would dislike the party that it decided to support.
We have heard throughout these debates Opposition scaremongering about all these third parties lined up waiting to support individual candidates, with the question of whether that is against charities law or constitutionally improper being cast to one side. That is being brought back in the context of this clause. It is absolutely clear from the Bill, from what the Minister has said and from the law as it currently stands that these bodies—charitable bodies, in particular, but also firms such as British Telecom—are not going to be third parties because they do not and, indeed, should not intervene directly in the election of individual candidates or in supporting individual parties.
Helen Goodman
I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman is talking out of his hat. The fact is that a lot of large private-sector businesses are donors to political parties, and that is an intervention. Is he saying that if they had been in receipt of public money, they should not be making these interventions? When they give money they are also making statements, not only about individual candidates but about parties.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady is wrong to say that I am talking out of my hat because if I did, Sir Edward, I would be out of order and you would therefore not allow it to take place. Third parties that merely donate to other political organisations are not third parties under the terms of the Bill. To be a third party under the terms of the Bill one needs to be campaigning in such a way that one is advancing the campaign of an individual in a particular constituency or a political party across a number of constituencies. Under the terms of the Bill, giving £10,000 to the Conservative party does not require registration with the Electoral Commission as a third party. All it requires is for someone to register their donation and be a legitimate British company, as covered by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The Bill is limited in scope. It cuts the amount that third parties may spend, and my amendment would ensure that people receiving Government funding do not become third parties. That seems not only reasonable but something that the Opposition in particular should support.
Helen Goodman
The hon. Gentleman is wrong. There is public support for candidates in this country. We have a mixed economy because we all get free delivery of our manifestos to households in our constituencies.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady is right that there is a free post, but parties are not publicly funded. They receive no cash for the free post; it is done without any cash transfer to parties, and they have no control of the money that comes to them. My point that parties are not funded by the state is right. There is Short money and Cranborne money, which I mentioned, but that is specifically for parliamentary activities, not campaigning.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
The British Legion will not become a third party in a general election because it is against charity regulations for it to do so. It would be an outrage if one of the most admired and apolitical bodies in this country suddenly started saying that people should vote Conservative—let alone say that people should vote Labour, heaven forfend! Charities are not there to intervene in general elections. They have specific tax benefits and their ability to fundraise is dependent on them being charitable, not political, and there is a clear difference. There is no question of the Royal British Legion becoming a third party in a general election. That is the classic scare story that we hear again and again from the Opposition, who wish to obfuscate and confuse matters because they are worried that their trade union masters will, under this clause, have the amount they can spend reduced. They hide it; they camouflage it under this complaint on behalf of the Church of England, the Royal British Legion, and so on.
We should be concerned about third parties spending money in a way that is less regulated than political parties themselves, or having the ability to spend more and with lower effective limits on what they are able to do. The clause succeeds in doing that and would make no difference at all to charities or the Church of England. My amendment would further tighten the clause. As I have said, the Opposition should be enthusiastic about it, because it is wrong for Government money to be used by third parties when they have received it not for political activity but for their general activities of whatever kind.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
The Government and the taxpayer hand out very large amounts of money to third parties. Therefore, those parties should say either, “We will not take those funds,” or, “We want to be free to campaign.” They have the choice.
Helen Goodman
The hon. Gentleman reveals to the Committee that he does not understand how voluntary sector finances work. Voluntary sector organisations have restricted and unrestricted money. When organisations such as Shelter get money for public sector contracts, it is restricted and must be used on the service. The money used for campaigning comes from voluntary donations.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady is not entirely accurate. If she were to trouble herself to look at the NCVO accounts, she would see that the largest contribution of non-allocated money—£500,000—is from the Government. When the NCVO spends unrestricted money on campaigning, there is a very good chance that it is Government money, which seems improper. I am well aware of the distinction between restricted and non-restricted money. Unfortunately, many Government grants are not sufficiently restricted and therefore can be used to lobby the Government. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) challenged me on that—I am concerned about that too, but it is not the specific point I am making.
Housing Benefit (Under-occupancy Penalty)
Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Helen Goodman(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) and to have listened to this debate. When the nationalists have an Opposition day, it is always a reassurance to those of us who are Unionists, because by their presence in the Chamber they show how much better off we are together than separate. I should like to thank them for their contribution to our parliamentary democracy and hope that they will stay with us for ever.
I am pleased to be able to speak in support of the Government’s position, which is fair, measured and just. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) put it rightly when he said that we have to think about our constituents who want social housing because they have a family and need an extra bedroom, but whom we cannot help because there is a house being lived in by one person, who has too many rooms, and there is no pressure on that person to move. We hear a lot from Opposition Members about fairness for one side of the equation, but nothing about fairness for the other side, which is avoided and cast aside. When housing is controlled by the state, we must be fair to everybody, whichever side of the equation they are on. There are those who have large families, live in small accommodation, or are living in the private rented sector, and cannot get into social housing or council housing because of the problem of under-occupancy, which, we have discovered from the Government, amounts to 1 million bedrooms. Just think how many of our constituents could have better housing if only those bedrooms were freed up.
The Government’s position is also measured, because they have put in discretionary powers to look after people who will be in particularly difficult circumstances. Discretion is very important; the Government have got that spot on. If we were to say that every house that had been adapted in any way for a disabled person were to be exempt, we would find that a property with a little ramp, or one handrail, was suddenly exempt, and the whole policy would be removed. By applying discretion, however, we get the overwhelming majority of the benefit of the policy, without putting a heavy burden on that small number of people who genuinely ought to be exempt and protected. The same applies to the £5 million that has been made available to families who foster. If fostering had a general exemption, everybody in receipt of social housing benefit would suddenly go off to the council and say that they wanted to be on the fostering lists, so that they would not have to give up their extra bedroom, but would then refuse any child who was sent to them. If broad exemptions are used, people will try to fit the categories of exemption provided, whereas using discretion ensures that people must bring forward a reasonable case to encourage those who have the discretion to accept that they ought to be allowed to receive the extra funding to maintain their current position.
The Government’s position is also just, because we must ask ourselves what benefits are for. Are they there to allow people perpetually to remain in dependence on the state—
Helen Goodman
The hon. Gentleman displays a total ignorance of this policy area, and I am sorry about that. First, the bedroom tax applies to people who are in work as well as to those who are out of work. Secondly, it applies to people on benefits who cannot work.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but even if people cannot work, they can take in a lodger, and can get £20 coming in without any effect on their benefit, so they can be better off, because the average that would be lost for one room is £14. The Government have a policy that makes people who are not in work potentially better off, and those who are in work can also be better off, because they will similarly be able to take in lodgers, but they might be able to move to cheaper housing, which they can afford to pay for themselves, rather than being dependent on the state.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I would be very happy to take in a lodger myself. Indeed, in my earlier life I had lodgers in my house, which helped to pay the bills.
Helen Goodman
Would the hon. Gentleman care to share with the House, and with the nation, how large his house is and how many spare bedrooms he has? We are talking about asking women in their 50s, who are suffering from chronic conditions and living in two-bedroom flats, to take in strange men. Is that realistic?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady. It had not been my intention to tell anecdotes about my personal circumstances, but my house in London has four bedrooms with seven people living in it, three adults and four children, so I think that I meet the requirements for maximum occupancy and would not be expected to give up a single room. I am grateful to her for allowing me to illustrate my relatively straitened circumstances, which I had not expected to be able to do.
It is perfectly reasonable for people to live in a house or flat that is suitable for the number of occupants and to ask for that when paying out benefits. Indeed, it is morally right to do so, because every benefit that is paid is money that has come from a taxpayer this year or, through borrowing, will come from a taxpayer in future years.
People pay taxes on very, very low earnings. Even benefit recipients have to pay value added tax, but people click into national insurance at £107 a week of earnings. Are we really saying to those on low earnings, “You must subsidise for ever people who live in houses that are too big for them as their children grow and go and they find eventually that they are the only person there”? Will that same house be funded for ever on the backs of hard-pressed taxpayers, when in fact there is a perfectly reasonable and sensitive way of dealing with the situation that does not throw them out but gives them choice in the form of the ability to decide for themselves what steps they will take to see whether it is possible for them to live there or whether they are willing to move? Thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of people in this country move house every year, and they do so because their life circumstances have changed. They do not expect the state to say, “We won’t let you move” or “We will prevent you from moving.”
That flexibility is useful. It allows people to move to where there is employment. It allows our hon. Friends the nationalists to move to London so that they can represent their constituents in this great, illustrious Parliament. It is the essential part of ensuring that our economy has a free flow of labour around the country so that people can, in the words of Norman Tebbit, move to where the jobs are. If we have an entirely static housing market we will find that we reduce employment opportunities, undermine growth in the economy, and, worst of all, create deep unfairness for people in large families who can find no social housing and put a burden on the backs of the poorest taxpayers. We should be proud of this Government—proud of a Lib Dem Minister, of all things—for doing what is right, what is noble and what is just.
Finance Bill
Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Helen Goodman(14 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
May I begin by congratulating hon. Members on a series of excellent maiden speeches? My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) spoke. I did not know that area of the country at all before he did so, and I feel much better informed as to its great beauties. The hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) told the House, to its considerable relief, that he is not going to be a pugilist, as one of his predecessors once was, so I am glad to note that, if he disagrees with my speech, I may not end up with a broken nose—[Interruption.] I could not quite catch that, and I expect the Hansard reporters could not, either. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer), as Edmund Burke said of Pitt the Younger, is not so much a chip off the old block, as the old block itself. And finally, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) told us that he was—on the internet, under the same name—a cabaret artist. I may be rare in the country at large, but in this House probably not, in that I much prefer a political speech to a cabaret artist, so I am very glad that we had the wrong website for him.
Let me come to the matter at hand, the Second Reading of this incredibly important Finance Bill. It is, like the one in 1981, of considerable controversy but great importance. We have heard at length, but interestingly, from Opposition Members that, actually, this is not a serious circumstance, and that, if we pay off the debt, though a bit too high, in dribs and drabs, all will be well. Sadly, that just is not correct. The deficit that we have faced has reached levels that in peacetime we have never had, and a key factor about the funding of the deficit last year has been missed. It was that almost all the gilts that were issued were bought by the Bank of England under its programme of quantitative easing. That programme has now stopped.
Even with this Finance Bill, we face an increase in the amount that the Government need to raise from £40 billion to £160 billion, and if we had stuck to the Opposition’s proposals it would have been higher still. Where does that money come from? Who is willing to give this country £160 billion? As it is collected, who finds it harder to borrow? The answer is the very businesses that Opposition Members say find it difficult to make investment decisions. If we borrow and borrow, and the Government use up all the money, we force up interest rates for mortgage holders and squeeze out the investment that private companies need to make.
Helen Goodman
I am trying, but I am having great difficulty following the hon. Gentleman’s train of thought. On the one hand, he says, rightly, that the deficit and the debt stock are too large, but he then connects that with extremely high interest rates. We do not have extremely high interest rates; we have record low interest rates at the moment.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I am sorry to say that the hon. Lady left my train of thought at the wrong station. The point I was making was that, if we carry on issuing gilts at an even faster rate, long-term interest rates will rise, and it is on long-term interest rates that mortgages end up being priced. If we look at the gilts market, we see that the very thought—the prospect, the hope—of a Conservative Government saw it rally, therefore reducing the cost of borrowing to people in this country, whether Her Majesty’s Government or private individuals. So yes, we have very low overnight rates, but the long-term rate set by the gilts market is more important for mortgages.