Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Lord Dodds of Duncairn

Wednesday 30th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

On airgun safety, I will write to the Minister who is responsible to get an answer. There will obviously be no time for a debate on it before this Parliament comes to a conclusion, but it is important that when Members raise questions, they get answers. I cannot always promise people the answer they want, but by and large, it is important that answers are given.

I note the hon. Lady’s point about the Historical Institutional Abuse (Northern Ireland) Bill. It seems that there may be an evolving consensus around that issue in this House.

[Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

Just to emphasise the consensus on that point, I want to back up what has been said by the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and other right hon. and hon. Members. This matter has been raised at every opportunity today in this House, including questions to the Prime Minister and to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. We do need to get the Historical Institutional Abuse (Northern Ireland) Bill through the House before the election. I really hope that the Leader of the House has heard the consensus he has talked about and will work on the basis of that consensus. I add to the point that we can do this very quickly and that it does need to be done. I look forward to his taking it forward.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, our confidence and supply partner, for his important point. The message is loud and clear. There is—dare I say it?—some element of tension when the Government propose to bring Bills through quickly. There is sometimes criticism that it is being done too quickly. However, it is more normal in a wash-up period that things are done at a certain rate of knots than in other periods. I have heard what has been said, and I will ensure that it is passed on to all the relevant people.

Amendments to Bills (Explanatory Statements)

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Lord Dodds of Duncairn

Wednesday 6th November 2013 Commons Chamber

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

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), and it is one of my parliamentary ambitions that, one day, when speaking after her in a debate, I shall actually agree with her. Sadly, that day has not yet dawned.

There are extremely good arguments for requiring the Government compulsorily to make explanatory statements. The Government have legions of civil servants who are able to draw up their explanations; they have all the resources of a Rolls-Royce Whitehall system that is able to provide the explanations to everything that goes into legislation. Crucially, the amendments proposed by the Government usually do end up in legislation, so not only are the resources there, but an invaluable purpose is served in making clear what the Government are trying to do.

If the hon. Lady’s amendment (a) had said that the Government always and invariably had to put down explanatory statements, I would have agreed with it, because that would have enhanced our ability to legislate. When, however, it comes to requiring every Member to do so and to giving exceptional discretion to the Speaker or the Speaker’s deputies to decide whether these explanatory memorandums are sufficiently in order, I cannot agree. Let me explain why briefly, because I know many want to go off and have their dinners or conduct Adjournment debates and things like that—the Adjournment debates are probably more attractive than dinners for most of us.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a compelling case for attaching explanatory memorandums to Government amendments. Does he think that the same should apply to official Opposition amendments, and that a distinction should be made between amendments in those categories and amendments tabled by individual Back Benchers?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

No, I would not go as far as that. One of the great divides in parliamentary life is represented by the fact that the Government always have officials beside them. We see in the Box this evening three extremely distinguished gentlemen who are there to advise the Government and help them to plan their legislation. The Opposition have some Short money, which helps them with their parliamentary activities, but, unlike the Government, they do not have the depth of resources that would enable them to provide the explanations that might be needed.

It is assumed that we live in a perfect world in which legislation is presented after pre-legislative scrutiny and there is much time for consideration and deliberation, but that is unfortunately not true. A great deal of legislation is quite rushed, and comes to the House at quite a late stage. The Opposition sometimes have to trawl through many hundreds of clauses in a Bill, and, while they may have just about enough time to write out their amendments, even if each amendment takes only five minutes to explain, 100 Opposition amendments will mean 500 minutes that Opposition Members may not have when a Bill is due to begin its Committee stage within a week or two—or sometimes a day or two—of being presented to the House. I therefore think that the burden placed on the Opposition would be unfair and disproportionate.

Given that I am speaking partly from personal experience as a Back-Bench Member of Parliament, I want to pay particular tribute to the Clerks of Legislation, who are incredibly helpful and patient in explaining to Back Benchers how to formulate an amendment so that it is in order. However, to ask them then to write an explanatory memorandum when so many hundreds of us could be calling on their time would be to place an unreasonable burden on them. Their patience, courtesy, capability and knowledge of the history of Parliament are an absolute joy to behold, and every dealing that I have had with them has been a real pleasure, but I do not think that it would be reasonable to impose that extra burden on them.

This takes us to the heart of the way in which the Government are held to account through the legislative process. Those of us who table amendments know that our amendments will almost certainly not pass into law. Indeed, on most occasions when I have tabled amendments I have not pressed them to a Division, because I have known that the massed serried ranks on the Government Benches will not be sufficient to get one Back Bencher’s amendment through, however well thought out it may—or may not—have been.

Members table amendments to ensure that the issue is debated, that the Minister is able to think about it, and that it is considered in proper detail by the Minister and the Minister’s officials. The Opposition do exactly the same, in the knowledge that the points that they raise will be considered during the overall process. That process would be weakened and made more difficult if the explanatory memorandums were compulsory. If they were compulsory, the Opposition would perforce table fewer amendments, and Back Benchers would be deterred from tabling amendments because of the extra burden that it would place on them, and because of a certain diffidence about putting more pressure on the Clerks of Legislation.

In an ideal world, everything would be spelt out and there would be a few more pages of printing. I am delighted that the Greens seem to be in favour of that: it appears now to be their official policy. Normally a desire for more printing reflects my view of the world rather than theirs. The reality of legislating, however, is that it is often done in a hurry because the necessary time is not available. It is a matter of holding the Government to account, and anything that obstructs that process makes it harder for Members to do their jobs.