Privilege: Conduct of Right Hon. Boris Johnson

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Julian Lewis

Monday 19th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg]

No, I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman, which seems to me to be sufficient.

Paragraph 9 of the report says:

“we leave our party interests at the door of the committee room”.

That is all very good, and it is to be encouraged, but it does not meet the Hoffmann test, which is important because the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, like the Privileges Committee, was a Committee of Parliament following a judicial or, in this case, quasi-judicial process. I quote from its judgment:

“The contention is that there was a real danger or reasonable apprehension or suspicion that Lord Hoffmann might have been biased, that is to say, it is alleged that there is an appearance of bias not actual bias.

The fundamental principle is that a man may not be a judge in his own cause. This principle, as developed by the courts, has two very similar but not identical implications. First it may be applied literally: if a judge is in fact a party to the litigation or has a financial or proprietary interest in its outcome then he is indeed sitting as a judge in his own cause. In that case, the mere fact that he is a party to the action or has a financial or proprietary interest in its outcome is sufficient to cause his automatic disqualification. The second application of the principle is where a judge is not a party to the suit and does not have a financial interest in its outcome, but in some other way his conduct or behaviour may give rise to a suspicion that he is not impartial”.

That is the fundamental point, and it led to the Judicial Committee—for, I believe, the only time in its history—overturning a decision it had made. It is reasonable suspicion.

The judgment of Lord Nolan runs to only four lines. I will read out only two of them:

“I would only add that in any case where the impartiality of a judge is in question the appearance of the matter is just as important as the reality.”

This seems to be fundamental: the Judicial Committee followed a proper process, which the Privileges Committee did not.

I have slightly exceeded the time limit, but I will finish relatively swiftly. Fortunately, the previous two speakers were brief, which is encouraging.

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

rose—

[Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I will not give way. Let us come to paragraph 14, on a special report, because this is important. Paragraph 194 cites the 1978 resolution of this House that its “penal jurisdiction” would be used

“sparingly…in order to provide reasonable protection for the House, its Members or its officers from improper obstruction or attempt at or threat of obstruction causing, or likely to cause, substantial interference with the performance of their respective functions.”

That does not mean criticism; it is absolutely legitimate to criticise the conduct of a Committee or its members—that is politics. Our politics is adversarial, which is one of the great strengths of our political system. It is open to us, within this Chamber, to accuse people, within the bounds of good order, of saying things that we disagree with. Outside this Chamber, freedom of speech is paramount; we are allowed to say what we like.

The House has historically tried to call people to the Bar—indeed, in past times it even imprisoned people—and it made the House look ridiculous. When John Junor was called to that Bar of the House because he had said in the Sunday Express that Members were fiddling their petrol coupons, it was not he who looked ridiculous but the House. We must defend the right of freedom of speech. Frankly, if politicians cannot cope with criticism, one wonders what on earth they are doing with a political career.

I have one final question, which arises from annex 1 and the answer to question 7, where it says that Sue Gray’s report was not important in this case. When the witnesses have come from Sue Gray’s report, it is odd then to say that her report was not important. It might also be interesting to know, in the interests of paragraph 12-style transparency, quite how many communications, private and public, the Chairman of the Committee had with Sue Gray.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Julian Lewis

Committee stage
Monday 30th January 2023 Commons Chamber

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

rose—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I must give up soon, but first I give way to my right hon. Friend.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I appreciate how my right hon. Friend is trying to give helpful pointers to Government Front Benchers about ways in which the Bill could be improved. Does he agree with a point made to me by a regional representative of the TUC: that there is so little detail in the Bill that it gives Ministers too much discretion to decide what constitutes an adequate service level? That needs to be looked at again, especially because, where such legislation applies in European countries, the unions are involved in deciding what the minimum service levels are.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think that the Bill should set out clearly what it is trying to achieve, so I will end with an appeal to the other place: I hope that their lordships will look at clause 3 with extreme care, that they will not be abashed by whatever majority comes from this House with respect to the Bill, and that they will amend the Bill to strengthen it, make it more effective and ensure that it achieves its objectives and sets out, in a good and proper constitutional way, what it is trying to achieve. That would be helpful to the Government, but it would also be good practice.

Legal Rights to Access Abortion

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Julian Lewis

Monday 28th November 2022 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles, and to speak in this debate, which was so elegantly introduced by the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi).

There are two things to look at. First, there is the question of the Bill of Rights, which the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) said I might mention, because this issue is about trying to impose an American construction on the British constitution and I do not think that in that sense it actually works. For example, it is much forgotten that the British Bill of Rights has a right to bear arms for the maintenance of a Protestant militia, which may be more welcome among some Opposition Members than it is for me personally. I see the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is nodding in favour of having a Protestant militia. The second amendment to the similar US Bill of Rights—the US constitution—maintains the right to bear arms, again for the purpose of a militia, and that has become an absolute in the US constitution, whereas our right to bear arms has been gradually changed by Parliament over the centuries, so that it is completely controlled.

I do not, then, really see what the petitioners are trying to achieve in what they ask for. They want the right to abortion to be particularly protected, but what they are talking about is not a protection: it is protection protectionless, because any subsequent Act of Parliament could automatically change it in whatever way Parliament decided. As my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) correctly pointed out, there is no greater protection than something being in an Act of Parliament, and that is already the situation that exists. There is not a majority in Parliament to change that. Whether there is a majority in the country at large—we have heard about some opinion polling—who would like to see it changed is another matter, and a matter for debate. However, the law is as solid as it can be from the point of view of those who are in favour of abortion legislation as it is.

The petition therefore misfires on those grounds alone. It would make no sense to introduce this matter into the Bill of Rights that the Government are bringing forward. The Bill actually deals with the relationship between the Executive, the legislature and the courts, rather than trying to move to a codified constitution which, as far as I am aware, is not the policy of His Majesty’s Government. If it were, I am not sure I would support it. The Bill of Rights, as proposed, is a sensible step towards establishing how the Executive and the judiciary relate now that we no longer have the European Court of Justice sitting above us. The Bill is not right for the particular proposition brought forward by the petitioner.

There is then the issue of abortion itself, which obviously underlies this whole debate. To me, it is the greatest sadness that the number of abortions that take place each year take place. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) pointed out that there were 214,869 last year. I think all sides would agree that this is a matter of the deepest sadness. There is nobody who welcomes abortion or wants there to be this very high level of abortion. Think of it over the period since the Abortion Act came in: more than 10 million babies have been aborted. We know that there are more than 100,000 people alive today in Northern Ireland who would not otherwise be alive had Northern Ireland had the Abortion Act like the rest of the United Kingdom. We know this to be true because pro-abortionists complained about this claim to the Advertising Standards Authority. As I understand it, the Advertising Standards Authority said that the number being claimed was actually lower than the reality, instead of being overstated.

My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) said that we cannot look at it in terms of numbers of cities and people like that, but we can. There are more than 100,000 people in Northern Ireland who are alive today who would not be alive had Northern Ireland had the abortion rules that we have in England, Wales and Scotland. That seems to be a modern tragedy: this number of people had no opportunity for a life because they were ripped untimely from their mother’s womb. Think of that number: 214,869. In a four-year period, the destruction of life is as a great as it was in the four-year period of the first world war. Those are the numbers we are dealing with. That is the tragedy of abortion.

[Dr Lewis]

May I slightly correct what my right hon. Friend has just said? It is not the destruction of life, in many cases, but the destruction of potential life—unless one agrees, as I think my right hon. Friend would, with our hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), that life begins at the moment of conception. However, most people do not agree with that: they believe that life develops during the course of gestation. That is why my right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour, the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), is right when he says that the embryo acquires rights along the way, not from the outset.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend raises the question of the viability of life. The viability of life—when does that start, Sir Charles? When do you think a life becomes a fully independent created life? Perhaps my right hon. Friend thinks we should be like the ancient Romans in their treatment of the newborn baby. St Macrina rescued newborn babies who had been exposed in ancient Rome because their life was not viable without intervention and support. They were allowed to die, until the early Christians, who were thought to be peculiar for doing so, went and saved them. It was particularly the case, as it happens, with disabled babies. We know that the abortion laws we have allow for the full-term abortion of babies with minor disabilities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) pointed out. This is the tragedy of abortion and its destruction of life. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East wants to quibble about when life begins. I accept that this is perhaps more a theological question about what is the start of life, but that new embryo has the potential for life. It has been formed as a separate being that is separate and different from the parents from which it came.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The job of doctors is to save life. It is quite clear that an ectopic pregnancy that may threaten the life of the woman carrying the baby is a case where an intervention may be made to save the life of the woman. That is a perfectly traditional and acceptable understanding of how to maximise the saving of life, while not pretending that there is not life, because there is. There are two lives.

[Dr Lewis]

I will not keep intervening, but I take slight objection to the use of the word “quibble”. I readily acknowledge that there is vast uncertainty and a grey area about the point, or at least the part of the spectrum, at which potential life becomes a viable human being. Just because we cannot identify an exact point in the process does not mean that, at the beginning of the process, the fertilised egg is only a potential human being without the same rights as the viable human being at the end of the process.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The viable point is one that my right hon. Friend admits he cannot define, but there is a clear point of conception where there is a new genetic entity. It is unbelievably clear and straightforward. To say that there is some later date—it may be 21, 22 or 24 weeks—is not the heart of the argument. The heart of the argument is actually that this new life started at the point of conception. The tragedy is the 214,869 lives lost last year.

Amendments to the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Julian Lewis

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to all those who have participated in the debate and, as always, to the shadow Leader of the House who, along with me, serves on the Commission. Of course, although these recommendations are brought forward by me as Leader of the House, they are brought forward on behalf of the Commission, so a number of questions that she raised are questions for the Commission rather than for me as Leader of the House. The Commission has its own spokesman, and as we both serve on it, that is probably the best way of getting the information that the right hon. Lady requires, because I do not wish to blur the lines between what is my responsibility as Leader of the House and what is the Commission’s responsibility.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) went back to his fundamental point, and I want to give him clarification on who may appeal to the IEP. There is one category of Member or former Member that is excluded, and that is a former Member who had the good fortune—if it is a good fortune—to go to another place. They would not be able to use the IEP. Anybody who brings a complaint against a Member is able to appeal to the IEP, and any Member or former Member except a peer is also able to take their case to the IEP.[Official Report, 12 May 2021, Vol. 695, c. 2MC.]

My hon. Friend reiterated his concern about the issue of retrospection. The best I can do is to go back to what I said in my speech, because this is fundamental. The people considering any of these cases must do so looking at the language of the policy at the time. I said that twice when I was speaking, I think I then reiterated it in an intervention, and I have now reiterated it a fourth time in winding up. I think that is very clear. Where I cannot be clear, because we have not had a decision, is on how the panel would interpret the rules at the time, because that is rightly a matter for the panel because it is independent. I hope that I am giving my hon. Friend most of the comfort that he wants, without trying to be a soothsayer and make a prediction of what may be determined in the future.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

I know that my right hon. Friend will only be able to give me his opinion on this, in the light of what he has just said, but does he know of any specific historical case that is currently under way that would be ruled out of scope unless the rewording of paragraph 4.3 was applied retrospectively?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend raises a question of considerable importance and one that I have been very careful to avoid in all these discussions. It seems to me that it would be quite wrong to be making this decision, in relation either to what I have said about the rules at the time or to the new rules, with reference to any specific cases. That is fundamental to having a just and fair system. On the question he asks me, I know of gossip, but I have no confirmed knowledge of reports of who may or may not be facing an investigation. In all the deliberations I have done, whether on the Commission, in preparing my speech or in discussions I have had privately with the shadow Leader of the House, I have done it on the basis of general principles rather than trying to consider specific names. I think that is very important.

I thank the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) for his support and for the contribution of his hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who is a member of the Commission, is always fully engaged with our discussions and makes a serious contribution to our deliberations.

I am concerned about the issue raised by the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) about a complaint that has taken three years. That is one of the reasons that we had the Alison Stanley review. It is one of the issues that has come up up most commonly from people who have been involved with or have an interest in the ICGS—a feeling that things are taking too long. It is absolutely the aim of the Commission and the ICGS itself to ensure that things happen in a timely manner.

I thoroughly agree that every Member of this House and everybody who works for or in the House should be treated with respect and decency, regardless of their ethnic background or any other background issues. That is fundamental to the House, to our democracy and, dare I say, to the constitution of this nation. I think we can go back—although I will not in this speech—to Magna Carta and the idea that we have equality under the law and that we all should have; that is a fundamental position of the British constitution.

I am, of course—I reiterate this—acting for the Commission, but in acting for the Commission. I commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House endorses the report of the House of Commons Commission entitled Amendments to the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme, HC 1384, laid on Thursday 22 April; and approves the revised bullying and harassment policy and outline procedure, and sexual misconduct policy and outline procedure, set out in Annexes 1 to 4 of that report.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Julian Lewis

Thursday 25th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is pleased by the hospital rebuilds programme, and he raises a serious and important point. My right hon. Friend the Health and Social Care Secretary will be at the Dispatch Box shortly, and that question could be raised with him in an intervention. I will pass on the point to my right hon. Friend after this statement, and try to get the hon. Gentleman an answer regarding what is the policy, and what has been learned from the pandemic.

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

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Government are rightly working on a scheme to protect blameless leaseholders from financial ruin owing to the cladding scandal, yet as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) and others movingly explained on Monday, lessees are even now being handed bills well in excess of £70,000 for hugely expensive waking watch arrangements and other costs, which they cannot possibly afford. May we urgently have a Government statement on how to prevent such innocent people from being forced to forfeit their leases, sacrifice their homes and declare themselves bankrupt before the new scheme has been fully activated?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Government have always been clear that leaseholders should not have undue worry about the costs of remediating historical defects that they did not cause. Waking watch arrangements have been in place for far too long, and leaseholders are being left to pick up sometimes very high bills. That is why the Government are providing £30 million for a waking watch relief fund to install fire alarms and other interim measures, providing alternatives to the expensive waking watch systems. I will take this up on my right hon Friend’s behalf with the Secretary of State, but Housing, Communities and Local Government Questions are on 19 April. I point to the measures that the Government have introduced, which my right hon. Friend referred to, which will be of considerable assistance to leaseholders and get the right balance between leaseholders, the taxpayer and freeholders.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Julian Lewis

Thursday 11th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady raises a really important point. The Government have a wide range of measures with which they support businesses that wish to export, including the export credit guarantee scheme, the use of embassies to help people to export and guidance that is available. To give that a higher profile so that more people know what support is available is extremely worth while. While I cannot promise a specific debate, her point is one that I am sure the Department will want to follow up on.

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

May we have a statement from the Foreign Secretary on the issue raised so eloquently in last night’s Adjournment debate by our hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski): the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and the strategic threat it constitutes to our central and eastern European friends and allies? The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), agreed with the analysis by our hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham but stopped short of agreeing with his recommendations for action we can take. This is a very serious matter, and it deserves deeper and wider consideration.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend is right to raise the important Adjournment debate that was held yesterday by our hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski). It is a useful example of how important Adjournment debates can be in raising issues of national significance. There are currently no autonomous UK sanctions being imposed with respect to Nord Stream 2, and it would not be right to speculate on future sanction designations from the Dispatch Box this morning. None the less, the UK remains concerned about Nord Stream 2 and its implications for European energy security and the interests of Ukraine. Our focus continues to be on regulation, diversification and decarbonisation of sources of supply, and we will continue to work closely with our European allies on these issues, although the implications of the pipeline may be something that my right hon. Friend’s Intelligence and Security Committee is interested in looking into.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Julian Lewis

Thursday 4th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady will know that the immigration system is being updated to ensure that we have a fair points-based system to help people. If there are individual constituency questions, they are best taken up directly with the Home Office, although if the hon. Lady is not getting answers as swiftly as she would like, I will certainly use my office to help her.

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

Now that Putin the poisoner has jailed Alexei Navalny for the “crime” of missing probation appointments while in a coma, may we have a statement about British policy towards Russia, so that the House can express its view on such issues as that outrage and the increasing reliance of our European friends and allies on Russian gas supplies through such follies as the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend is so right to raise this important and disgraceful issue. The Government have called for the immediate and unconditional release of Mr Navalny. It is a completely perverse ruling. To say that somebody who has been the victim of an attempted murder, with a poison that is usually only available to state actors, has missed an appointment and therefore must go to prison is peculiar and unjust. It shows Russia is failing to meet the most basic commitments expected of any responsible member of the international community. Russia should fulfil its obligations under international law to investigate this despicable crime and explain how a chemical weapon came to be used on Russian soil.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Julian Lewis

Thursday 28th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I begin by saying that I hope the hon. Lady did not mind my mentioning her earlier, without having given her notice, with regard to the Samaritans, but as I saw that she was in the Chamber, I hoped that she would take it as a compliment?

The issue that the hon. Lady raises is a really serious one. The protection of the vital work done by people in supermarkets is one that we should not forget. We often talk about the vital work done by people in the emergency services, but, actually, during this pandemic, ensuring that people have access to the necessities of life has been courageously done by shop workers across the country. They are protected by the normal law, and if somebody has spat at a worker in a supermarket, that is illegal and the police should be notified and the law should be enforced. Certainly, the Government will do everything they can to encourage the correct enforcement of the law.

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

If vaccination is, as he believes, the cavalry riding to our rescue, may we confidently expect a statement from the Prime Minister as soon as the vulnerable have had their jabs and absorbed them on how he will lift restrictions in an orderly way and set the people free?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am always a bit nervous about these military analogies, though the distinguished Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee will know a great deal more about this than I do, because some cavalry charges are more successful than others. It depends whether we are talking about Omdurman or—[Interruption.] Balaclava, indeed. Thank you for that helpful prompt, Mr Speaker. None the less, my right hon. Friend makes a very important point. The delivery of a safe and effective vaccine is the best way to protect the most vulnerable and save thousands of lives, and great strides are being made in protecting the population. There remains a long and difficult road ahead and there will be a considerable time lag until we can expect these vaccinations to help ease pressure on the NHS, bearing in mind that it takes a fortnight from vaccination for the vaccine to begin to take its effect. If we succeed, we will be protecting huge numbers of people from the virus. Eventually, that will allow us to remove many of the restrictions that we have endured for so long. It is wonderful that the Prime Minister is in Scotland today visiting Valneva, so we are rolling out more vaccines potentially and this has had great support from Her Majesty’s Government.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Julian Lewis

Thursday 14th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

There is a full economic support package available: £280 billion of taxpayers’ money has been provided and the furlough scheme extended to the end of April. The lockdown is quite extraordinary. The infringements on people’s liberties are unprecedented in this country. People cannot have visitors in their own home. A lady yesterday, it was reported, knocked on the window of her mother in an old people’s home, her mother having Alzheimer’s, and she was fined by the police, although the fine was subsequently remitted. The restrictions on people are extraordinary. That is because of the threat that the pandemic has created. People know the rules. They are absolutely clear and people, by and large, are following them. The overwhelming majority of people in this country are following the rules in both the spirit and the letter. We should recognise that this country operates by consent with our laws, and that is something we can be proud of—that people have gone along with what the Government have suggested because they knew it was the right thing to do. We have not required the type of aggressive enforcement seen in other countries because the British people have joined in with this effort as a whole. The restrictions are already very tight, they are very clear, and the economic support package is enormous.

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

May I welcome the Leader of the House’s robust answer to the previous question? Mine is on a different subject. Monday’s non-partisan debate in Westminster Hall referred to the need for a dedicated Minister with status in both main Departments that deal with the hospitality sector—the third largest in our economy. In his well-received response, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), was naturally rather reticent about restructuring the Government to reflect such an enhanced role for himself. May we therefore have a statement from the Cabinet Office Minister on the need for a dedicated and upgraded Minister for the hospitality sector and the promotion of its survival and recovery?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend noted that the Minister responding was diffident about the reorganisation of Government. He may not be surprised if I am diffident too in this regard, because that is a right that belongs to the Prime Minister. I would like to commend the debate on Monday, because the Government fully recognise the importance of the UK hospitality sector, which makes a vital contribution to the UK economy. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising this, because in my own constituency I have had certain correspondence and great concern from a wedding services company that has found maintaining its livelihood during this pandemic so exceptionally difficult.

Ministers in both the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport have worked closely with business leaders across the hospitality sector throughout the pandemic to ensure that their interests are represented. That engagement has helped to form the Government’s comprehensive package of support, including measures such as the reduction in VAT, the job retention scheme, the hospitality grant, and indeed the eat out to help out scheme. I will obviously pass this matter on to the relevant Secretaries of State, but my right hon. Friend might want to write to the Prime Minister directly with his suggestions for the reorganisation of Government.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Julian Lewis

Thursday 17th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The HS2 Bill is in their lordships’ House, so, understandably, that is why the Lords are paying particular attention to it. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to ask for a debate on such an important infrastructure project. It is an enormous amount of taxpayers’ money that is being spent. I cannot promise him a debate in Government time, but I imagine that there is widespread interest across the House on this subject and I would have thought that an application to the Backbench Business Committee would be in order.

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

One level playing field on which we might all agree is the similar treatment of similar businesses in terms of Government support during the covid emergency, so may we have a statement in the new year, if not sooner, about the plight of food and drink wholesalers who do not get business rates relief, whereas supermarkets do? That seems to me and many others to be inequitable.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend has raised this point with me before, and it is one that I completely understand and have a degree of sympathy with, though there is a difference with wholesalers between the retailers, and some of them have managed to change their supply customers quite effectively. They also benefit from the other schemes—the furlough scheme, bounce back loans and many other schemes—that the Government have introduced. Although he is right to raise the point, there are things that the Government have done to help that sector.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Julian Lewis

Thursday 5th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

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

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

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

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

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

[Dr Lewis]

As indeed was I.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

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

Proceedings During the Pandemic (No. 4)

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Julian Lewis

Wednesday 2nd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I gave the good news to the House at the last session before the recess that Westminster Hall will be coming back in October, and I believe that private Members’ Bills will be coming forward next week, so we are getting back to the normal pattern. I do not wish to pre-empt my statement tomorrow by indicating thoughts about Backbench Business days, but Members should listen carefully, as there may be good news on that.

We are back at work in this place. Many of us, I among them, have brought our staff back into the office from 1 September. Mr Speaker has rightly asked that we limit that to two members of staff, and I encourage Members to follow that, but we are back at work in SW1 and the opportunities for holding to account are there. Let me point out that when we brought forward the earlier proposals that we are now renewing, or in the emergency debate afterwards, I took more than two dozen interventions, if my memory serves me right, from Members concerned about what was happening. If that is not scrutinising Ministers at the Dispatch Box, I do not know what is.

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

I am a little surprised that the Leader of the House tried to draw a comparison between the presence of Members in the Chamber when we are having a debate in the later part of the day and the spontaneity of oral Question Time, which has been lost completely. I accept that he has done his best, as have the Speaker and the Deputy Speakers, to get as many people as possible into oral questions, remotely, as well as in person, but spontaneity has gone nevertheless and if a Member is unlucky in a ballot, their voice is silenced.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very keen that more Members should be present, and I would say that these motions are permissive—they are not compulsory; people do not have to appear remotely. However, it seems sensible to keep the opportunity for remote participation, because some Members may prefer to appear remotely if the area they represent is in a local lockdown. They would not be obliged to, because there is an absolute right to attend Parliament, but they may prefer that in those circumstances, and that ought to be facilitated. It ought to continue until we are confident that there will not be further local lockdowns. That is a reasonable position to have. It may be that the House will think that it should be more tightly drawn, but I do not think that is the consensus of the House at the moment. Members do not have to appear remotely, and I certainly encourage them to be here in person.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Julian Lewis

Thursday 11th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I was talking about the circumference, which is 2πr, and the area, which is πr², as we all know.

Let me turn to the important issue of Mr Symons. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman, who knows the House’s procedures extraordinarily well, that an Adjournment debate would be the suitable way to start, as it is a specific constituent matter. The whole House sympathises with what he is trying to do. It is important always to encourage the Foreign Office to do its best.

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

May we have a statement from the Home Secretary on the excellent idea from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), so far supported by 125 colleagues, of a desecration of war memorials Bill? Such a Bill would enable special circumstances and special penalties to be considered when memorials to those people of all races who saved the world from Hitlerism and Nazism are attacked. I hope it is common ground on both sides of the House that we want to honour those who died, including such people as the black airmen of the Tuskegee squadron, led by one of my personal second world war heroes, the great Benjamin Davis.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

In our island story, we have stood up against tyranny in the 16th century, twice in the 18th century and twice in the 20th century, and that has led to a lot of lives being lost by brave warriors, and they are commemorated across the country. They are commemorated at the Cenotaph in a coming together of our national sentiment about people who gave their lives, they are celebrated in every village churchyard across this country, and they are commemorated abroad in the churchyards that are run by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. The desecration of these sites is contemptible, and there is no Government, no Minister, no Member of this House who would think anything else. Therefore, the Government will undoubtedly consider earnestly any proposals that are made.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Julian Lewis

Thursday 4th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

What does it say to our constituents that we are too grand to queue?

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

May we have a statement in Government time about the situation of zoos and wildlife parks, which are desperate to reopen and should not be kept waiting until 4 July?

Is there a possibility that the Leader of the House, the shadow Leader of the House and the Speaker might come together to decide whether there is any way in which we, as a House, can show solidarity and support for Britain’s black community in the shocking aftermath of the slow-motion murder of George Floyd on the streets of our democratic ally, the United States?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I will, if I may, answer the second question first. It was such a shocking scene, and I can only repeat what the Holy Father said, which is that racism is a sin, and murder is a mortal sin, and anyone seeing those pictures must watch them in horror. It is difficult to change from that subject to talking about zoos, although they are important to the people who run them. I understand the point my right hon. Friend has made and I will ensure that it is taken up with my colleagues in government.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Julian Lewis

Wednesday 20th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I absolutely accept that it is a very important issue and that support for people with disabilities is crucial. The Government have a good record of supporting people with disabilities over the past few years, and that is something we will continue. The instance of covid-19 is a further reason to remember and to help people with disabilities.

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

May I appeal to the Government for a statement on the plight of people, many approaching retirement, with endowment mortgages that are due to mature in the middle of this covid crisis? Such a statement would give the Government the opportunity to urge companies such as the Prudential to extend the maturation date until normality returns and the yield enables people’s mortgages to be cleared in the usual way.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to refer to people with endowments and the difficulty that they face. Having spent a lifetime—before politics intervened—in financial services, I can say that there is never an obviously right time to redeem investments, so the difficulty would be the Government intervening and setting a new time and that time not necessarily being any better than the existing time. I think that my giving financial advice from the Dispatch Box would be singularly unwise, but I will take up his point with the Treasury.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Julian Lewis

Thursday 19th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am obviously aware of these points. Both Committees were prevented from being set up by actions within this House, so the Government are inevitably deliberating on the consequences. The priority is ensuring that the Select Committees that are already set up can operate, rather than necessarily the ones that are not yet set up.

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

In difficult times we should remember those who sacrifice most, so may we have a statement or debate on the substance of early-day motion 280 about the scandal of war widows who lost their pensions on remarriage?

[That this House honours and recognises the sacrifices that our veterans and their families make; notes the particular sacrifices that the partners of veterans make and the consequences for them of tragically losing a spouse or partner serving in the armed forces; notes the changes announced in 2014 which allowed war widows or widowers that lost their spouse or cohabiting partner in service in the armed forces before 6 April 2005, and had not remarried by 1 April 2015, to retain their war widow pension for life regardless of ongoing relationship status; notes however that this regrettably excluded war widows bereaved before 6 April 2005 that had already had to surrender their war widows pension upon remarrying or cohabiting; believes that this is unacceptable; notes that the only way this group of war widows could regain their pensions is by divorcing their current partners and remarrying them; agrees with the then Defence Secretary who said on 18 February 2019 that this was a burning injustice, Official Report, column 1187; and therefore supports the campaign of the War Widows Association to rectify this anomaly; and urges the Government to correct this injustice by providing equalisation and compensation for the small number of war widows unjustly affected.]

May we also have a debate on early-day motion 307—which, more positively, is about the enhanced co-operation between Blind Veterans UK and the Blinded Veterans Association of America, which are setting up a new combined eye trauma taskforce—and look for the Government’s support in that matter?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Government recognise the unique commitment that service families make to our country, and remain sympathetic to the circumstances of those widows who remarried or cohabited before 1 April 2015. However, the Government currently have no plans to reinstall state war widows’ pensions for war widows who remarried or cohabited before the 2015 change took effect. The Defence Secretary stated in the House on 3 February 2020 that the Department is

“examining alternative methods to see whether we can mitigate the impact”—[Official Report, 3 February 2020; Vol. 671, c. 3.]

of these changes. There is always a difficulty with cut-off dates.

As regards the co-operation between the US and the UK in relation to blindness and eye problems, what my right hon. Friend suggests sounds extremely worth looking into, and I will ensure that it is taken up with the Ministry of Defence.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Julian Lewis

Thursday 30th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I can think of another country where clerics have considerable sway, and that is of course the Vatican, which is ruled by the Holy Father, with considerable authority. The House of Lords is a revising Chamber, and as a revising Chamber it plays an important role in our constitution, but it is absolutely right that, under the two Parliament Acts, this House has seniority and has the ability to insist on its will, if necessary.

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

Two years ago, the conventional armed forces narrowly escaped devastating and irreversible cuts because they had been trapped in a combined intelligence, security and defence review within a limited financial envelope. To avoid this happening again, will the Leader of the House obtain a statement from the Government that the next defence and security combined review will take place before, and not after, the comprehensive spending review?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend is one of the most well-informed and distinguished figures in this House on matters of defence, and he served with considerable distinction as Chairman of the Defence Committee. I think his direct application to Ministers will probably have the effect he desires.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Julian Lewis

Thursday 16th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady is very generous, because it is thanks to her that the fund is now available across the whole country. Without her having campaigned and got a lot of support from across the House that would not have happened, and the House ought to acknowledge her role, as well as that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who agreed to it. It shows how effective the House can be in campaigning. [Interruption.] Without my right hon. Friend it would not have happened—the power of Prime Ministers when being lobbied is important. Ministers know that the hon. Lady is a formidable campaigner; when she raises an issue of this kind, there will be a natural sympathy across the House. I expect she will be successful.

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

Near the start of the general election campaign, the Government made a statement that appeared to accept the recommendation in the Defence Committee’s report of 22 July about a qualified statute of limitation for Northern Ireland veteran service personnel. When will there be a Government response to that report, as the conventional two months for such a response have long since elapsed?

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Julian Lewis

Thursday 24th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It would be more suitable to make provision for a celebrational party.

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

May we have, in the run-up to Armistice Day, a statement from the Government on the unconditional restoration of war widows pensions so that 265 of them who lost their pensions on remarriage will not have to divorce and remarry their spouses in order to get them reinstated?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend raises a troubling point. There will be time for a debate. This is not a formal announcement, but the Treasury has announced, though not to the House, that the Budget will be on 6 November, in which case there would be time to debate it.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Julian Lewis

Thursday 5th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

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

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

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

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

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

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

Parliamentary Sovereignty and EU Renegotiations

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Julian Lewis

Thursday 4th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The European Union Act 2011 was a protection, but it was also part of a coalition deal, so it ensured that things that the Lib Dems were quite keen on would not automatically trigger a referendum. I agree with my hon. Friend that we ought to have had a referendum on giving back the things that we had claimed when we opted out of justice and home affairs matters a little over a year ago. Now that arrest and investigation are determined at a European level, the argument for some European centralised oversight will only become stronger. If a Bulgarian issues an arrest warrant that is effective in the United Kingdom, surely there needs to be some European common standard to ensure that that is done properly.

The direction of travel is towards more Europe. Even in the context of monetary union, we should bear it in mind that we only have an opt-out from stage 3. We are committed to stages 1 and 2. The European Union has not enforced those in recent years, for obvious reasons, but that will not always be the case. We are committed—article 142 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union is relevant to this—to our currency being of interest to the European Union.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the problem is that there is a huge degree of unification among the elites at the heart of the European Union, but there is no such sense of common identity among the peoples of the countries that make it up?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. He is absolutely right: there is no common people, but there is an elite who have this vision that more Europe is the answer to a maiden’s prayer. Let us look at the treatment of Greece, and how it suffered through its membership of the euro, which was forced upon it. Greece was encouraged and egged on by the European Union and the Commission to adopt the euro, partly because it was the birthplace of democracy, and how outrageous it would be if it did not join in this grand political scheme. When it got into difficulties, which economists knew it would get into, what was the answer from the European Union? More Europe, more control over its affairs, more direction over what it does and less domestic democracy. In what happened in Greece, we see the clash that is in the motion before us. We have a choice between moving to a single European state or maintaining the sovereignty that is still ours. To do that, we have to vote to leave. Texas maintained that it had the right to leave the United States; it did not.

European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Julian Lewis

Monday 13th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was taking the Secretary of State for Education too literally with regard to the thought that a chronological history should be taught in all aspects of life.

We should be proud of our influence on European history. The document goes on to say that it wants to remember the existence of European identity. I am not too sure what European identity it is talking about. I think we have an identity as people belonging to the individual nations that make up the European Union, not as people belonging to a supranational state.

We must not forget that this is a European document and no European document would be complete without at least one sentence—probably many more—of complete gobbledegook, so I shall quote one. It may be that a cleverer hon. Member present will be able to translate it. It states:

“A horizontal dimension of the Programme should ensure the valorisation and transferability of results for enhanced impact and long-term sustainability.”

Ain’t that just fine and dandy?

I want to—[Interruption.] I am scattering my papers—this is how European documents should be treated: tossed in pieces around and about—but I want to address a point that has already been raised. The nub of this is that 60% of the money spent will be spent on giving preference to initiatives and projects with a link to the political agenda of the European Union. This is all about promoting what it thinks of as being the advantage of the EU. It is about advancing the superstate and using British taxpayers’ money to do so.

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

To give my hon. Friend a moment to relocate his script, may I ask him whether we are perhaps in danger of being unfair to the Government? Could not the reason our Government are so keen to suggest that we sign up to this nonsense, garbage and propaganda be that they want to impress on the House and the British people how important it is to have an in/out referendum on our membership of the European Union?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend makes a wonderfully ingenious point. I am not sure that a coalition Government could be quite that clever, though that may be uncharitable.

I want to move on to the real problem about the programme. In not only mine but a succession of speeches this afternoon and early evening, we have established that it is about propaganda for the European Union, but why have Her Majesty’s Government brought it before the House in a Bill when they have a veto? That question takes us to the heart of the matter—it is about trust. We are told by the Government very regularly, or at least by the Conservative part of the Government, that they are Eurosceptics and do not want to see further integration, but believe we should restore powers to the United Kingdom. Then, when they have the chance to veto something, what do they do? They bring it forward with further expenditure and adopt, or wish to adopt, a European regulation, irrespective of their previous propaganda. It seems to me that people will notice the disjunction between what is said and what is done.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry, I want to quote the Prime Minister, who said about a year ago:

“Let me make a further heretical proposition. The European Treaty commits the Member States to ‘lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe’. This has been consistently interpreted as applying not to the peoples but rather to the states and institutions compounded by a European Court of Justice that has consistently supported greater centralisation. We understand and respect the right of others to maintain their commitment to this goal. But for Britain—and perhaps for others—it is not the objective.”

However, paragraph 4 of the document we are asked to approve this afternoon mentions bringing

“Europe closer to its citizens and to enable them to participate fully in the construction of an ever closer Union”.

We are therefore being asked to vote on the Second Reading of a Bill that directly contradicts a promise given to the British people by the Prime Minister a year ago.

What will people in the country say when they read in the newspapers that politicians do not stick to their promises, and when they are told by UKIP that the Tories may say they are Eurosceptic, but they are in fact little more than sheep in sheep’s clothing? They will look at us and think that we are playing ducks and drakes with them. We ought to be honest with the British people. We should make sure that our promises, words and actions go together.

When we have the power of veto, the right to stop this further piece of European integration, we should without question exercise it. The Government deserve praise for the fact that under the 2011 Act we at least have a vote, but they should never have allowed the Minister to come to the Dispatch Box with this odious piece of further pro-European integration. It is against what the Conservative party stands for, and as that party forms the majority of the coalition, it ought to be against Government policy.