Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Pete Wishart

Thursday 3rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is a great champion for his distinguished constituency and has been for many years. Levelling up needs to be looked at in the round and regionally. Wolverhampton, which is near Shropshire, is receiving considerable support, which will benefit the whole of the regional economy. What is happening is the transformation of the country’s infrastructure, which will be fundamental to levelling up, with £600 billion. It is also about attracting further investment—private sector investment—into areas, and that will depend on how regions do better together and succeed, looking at it as a rounded picture.

On having a debate, a statement was made earlier this week by the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and Minister for Intergovernmental Relations, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), but levelling up will be a major topic of discussion for this House in the weeks and months to come.

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

We have missed the Leader of the House’s weekly “Newsnight” performance; after he shattered the relationship with the Scottish Tories and declared the Mogg republic, the Tory press office must have decided he had run out of his usefulness, but we look forward to seeing him back again at some point. Although we are grateful for the statement this week on the Sue Gray report, what the House really requires is a full day’s debate about all the issues contained in it, which should be led by the Prime Minister. We cannot simply leave aside a report that points to

“failures of leadership and judgment”,

excessive drinking and a cultural failure at the heart of government, set against the backdrop of a deadly pandemic. Sixteen events fell within Sue Gray’s remit, 12 of which are being investigated by the Met police. We cannot just leave that behind, perhaps for weeks. Members of the House must have the opportunity to properly consider all these issues, and our constituents would not expect anything else.

We also need an urgent debate about parliamentary discourse and how we hold Members accountable for the veracity and truthfulness of things said in this House. The thing that probably irks and frustrates our constituents most is when a Member says or claims something that is manifestly untrue and there is no way to have it challenged and addressed in this House. If a Member does raise an untruth in this House, he is likely to face your wrath, Mr Speaker. You are right that, according to precedent and to “Erskine May”, you must take action and ask that Member to leave the House, but “Erskine May” was written before the days of the internet, fact checkers and the current Prime Minister. You said that the matter may be reviewed and you suggested the Procedure Committee be involved. Does the Leader of the House not agree that a general debate, like the one we are having on standards this afternoon, could also be useful in addressing this? When untruths go unchallenged and MPs can say anything, regardless of its relationship with the truth, it can only have a corrosive effect on our democracy and on trust in this House. Surely the Leader of the House agrees that that cannot go on.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think the hon. Gentleman takes the view that anything that is said that he disagrees with is not true. That is not right, which is why we have the forms of debate that we have. When people hold views strongly and somebody else stands up and thinks the other thing, they say, “That is not true”, but it is not a matter of truth; it is a matter of opinion, which is what we discuss in this House. It is not a matter of fact-checking; it is a matter of, “I think X, the hon. Gentleman thinks Y,” and both of them are views that people are entitled to hold. What we get from the Scottish National party constantly is the doubting of the good faith of the people they oppose, and that is quite wrong. That is the corrosive element of public life: the doubting of the faith and honesty of one’s opponents. I disagree with a great deal of what is said by those on the side opposite, but I do not question the honesty and integrity of what they say. I question the effectiveness of what they do, and that is the important difference between the Government and the Opposition sides.

As regards the Sue Gray report, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was here on his feet for two hours, I think, answering questions earlier this week and has said that the full report will be published when it is allowed to be published, after the Metropolitan Police have completed their work. That commitment has already been made—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman heckles—I hope Hansard heard it—that that is weeks away. If the police were not doing it properly, he would be the first to say, “The police aren’t doing it properly!”. He cannot have it both ways. It is being done properly and rigorously and, when it is done, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will ensure the full report is published. He comes to the House regularly.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Pete Wishart

Thursday 27th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Scottish National party spokesman, Pete Wishart.

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

Let me first echo and support the comments of the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) about Holocaust Memorial Day. I think we are all looking forward to this afternoon’s debate.

May we have a debate about the constitution, just to ascertain whether we are on our way to becoming a republic? This view has a rather odd new supporter and champion in the guise of the Leader of the House himself. In another disastrous performance on Newsnight, he claimed that a change of leader requires a general election because the UK is now effectively a “presidential system”. Well, somebody should notify Her Majesty the Queen—but perhaps not the right hon. Gentleman himself, after that disastrous Prorogation business.

Most of us suspect that this was just some sort of clumsy attempt to get recalcitrant Tory Back Benchers on board—the threat of a general election in which large swathes of them would lose their seats—rather than a real attempt to redefine the constitution of the UK, but could we please have a statement from the Leader of the House, just for the comedy value? Last week, he was flattering the precious Union; this week he is reinventing the republic of the UK. He must be President Johnson’s most inept spokesperson when it comes to these matters.

I am beginning to think it would be a matter of duty and mercy for the House services to provide some sort of counselling services for Tory Back Benchers. What they have been through is almost unendurable. There has been Owen Paterson, cash for access, cash for honours, partygate, cakegate, Operation Big Dog and Operation Put Big Dog Down. Now they are biting their nails to the stumps waiting for the report so that they can at least make up their minds about the Prime Minister. It is like some sort of dysfunctional “Waiting for Godot”. But we are here to help: if confessional is required, Tory Members should come and speak to some of us in the Opposition. We are here to help out; we could help them fix some of their woes. Who would be a Tory Back Bencher just now? But help is out there.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am so grateful that the hon. Gentleman is his normal cheerful self. He raised the interesting constitutional point of the dissolution of Parliament under a new leader. I actually raised that point on Second Reading of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 on 13 September 2010 because, prior to the Act coming in, it was becoming apparent that an election did need to follow from a new leader and that what had happened to Gordon Brown when he was Prime Minister was illustrative of that. Our constitution evolves and moves, not necessarily by legislation but by the way conventions develop, and it was clearly developing before the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. I thought at the time that the Act would prevent such an election, but in fact it had the reverse effect—it accelerated it. When we changed Prime Minister in 2016, an election followed within a few months; when we changed Prime Minister in 2019, once again an election followed within a few months. That is important to an understanding of the constitution: norms arise that become accepted and understood, without any need for a formal legislative process. That has been the way that our written but uncodified constitution has developed and evolved.

Then the question is raised as to whether we have become a more presidential system. Being a more presidential system does not override the need—the essential need—for a constitutional monarchy. It means that the power of the monarchy has evolved and been devolved to the Prime Minister, and we have seen this happen over centuries. The exercise of the prerogative, now done on the formal advice of the Prime Minister, shows that most of the powers that would be vested in a President are vested de facto if not de jure in the Prime Minister. So if we are looking at how the constitution has evolved, it is clear that a Prime Minister has a personal mandate much more than a party mandate and that that mandate comes from voters, who would expect to renew it in the event of a change of Prime Minister. That is why I think we have evolved to the situation where a new Prime Minister would want a new election.

I am delighted that the SNP wishes to discuss my favourite pet subject, which is the evolution of the constitution, and it is something we should debate more and more, but I look to the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee for his kindness.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Pete Wishart

Thursday 20th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this to the attention of the House. Companies such as Eqtec are exactly what we need to keep us on course for net zero by 2050 while maintaining a healthy, varied and affordable energy supply. Embracing a wide variety of energy sources is vital for keeping the lights on and our houses warm. As the recent difficulties have shown, we need to embrace a widespread energy supply, from nuclear power to power provided by companies such as the one that my hon. Friend mentions, and, of course, natural gas as a transition fuel on the journey to net zero in 2050.

Her Majesty’s Government are committed to decarbonising our electricity system by 2035, backed by investment in renewables, such as tidal stream energy and nuclear. I am sure that, above all, our voters care for cheap, plentiful energy in their homes, and we want to ensure that that is compatible with net zero. As for the debate, it is either one for Westminster Hall, or, perhaps, under your generous auspices, Mr Speaker, for an Adjournment debate.

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

Can we have a debate about big dogs and the operations to save them? Apparently, one big dog is feeling a bit more secure this morning, with a trip to the vet to put him out of his misery possibly having been averted for a few days or more—for the time being, anyway. Who knew that defection, intimidation and blackmail would have such a recuperating effect on his colleagues?

We in the SNP are absolutely gutted about the prospect of taking on the current Prime Minister in Scotland. We completely refute the assertion that he is the best recruiting sergeant we have ever had for independence. It is not just us, however. Members of one party in Scotland are so looking forward to the current Prime Minister fighting in Scotland—they are the lightweights and nobodies among the Scottish Conservatives. One can only imagine their enthusiasm to get out to the stump to encourage the Conservatives in Scotland to vote for a Prime Minister who do they not want and who they want gone. It will be absolutely hilarious.

We are all expecting the Prime Minister to honour his pledge to come to the House with a statement following the release of Sue Gray’s report. Does the Leader of the House not think, however, that the House deserves a full debate on a one-line motion, “That this House has full confidence in the Prime Minister”—an amendable motion? I am sure that that suggestion will have the support of the Government and the Whips in particular, because that would be an obvious opportunity for them to see all the recalcitrant Members and decide which will be denied funding and which will have all the leaks to the press about them.

Lastly, we need a debate about parties so that we can congratulate No. 10 staff on their sheer energy and hedonism. Those parties are the things of legend. I spent 20 years in rock and roll and even at the height of my excess, I could not even start to compete with those at No. 10. To those at No. 10 who are about to party, I say, “We salute you.”

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

One looks forward to the hon. Gentleman’s parties, which I am sure would be enormous fun. When he is there with his rock and roll band, I think the furious persona that is presented to us at business questions every week slides away, and suddenly the true Mr Wishart appears as the kindly, benevolent and jovial fellow that he is. I must say that the mask he wears so well in this House—in both senses—sometimes covers that up, but I am sure that, privately, his parties would be a joy to behold.

The hon. Gentleman asks me for a debate. Well, ask and it shall be given. As I have said, the Scottish National party has an Opposition day debate on Monday and he will be free to put down any orderly motion for that day. If the motion is the one that he wants, that will be the motion that we will debate. If he wishes to succeed in uniting the Conservative party even more on Monday, I look forward to the motion that he will put down.

As regards big dogs, they are absolutely splendid. I got a dog for my daughter a couple of years ago. I was quite keen on having an Irish wolfhound, because they are fine and impressive animals, but we ended up with a cocker spaniel, which is an absolute delight. I am sure that we could debate in this House on many occasions the varied virtues of all sorts of hounds—the bloodhounds that people admire and like so much. [Interruption.] Or Dalmatians, Yorkshire terriers or any of the range of dogs that could be considered and that bring joy to so many of sour constituents. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is most concerned that pet theft be made illegal, with which I am confident the Government will deal in due course.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Pete Wishart

Thursday 13th January 2022 Commons Chamber

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

I suppose the only statement we want in the next few days is one confirming that the Prime Minister has written to Her Majesty the Queen to offer his resignation. The absurd and laughable defence that he did not know he was at a party has insulted and offended a nation, who now just want him gone. For the Leader of the House to stand there and say that somehow the rules were wrong just compounds this.

There are three options available to the Prime Minister: first, he somehow manages to find some self-respect and dignity, and goes of his own volition; secondly, Conservative Members somehow find a collective backbone and compel him to go; or, thirdly, we all wait until an election, and a good proportion of them will go down with him. That is what they are left with.

Now, of course, the Scottish Tories know exactly how the rest of Scotland feels after the Leader of the House poured his scorn and contempt upon them last night. According to him, the democratically elected Scottish Tory leader is an insignificant figure—a “lightweight”, a nobody—presumably just like every single Tory MSP who agrees with their Scottish leader. The Scottish Tories are supposed to be the praetorian guard of their precious Union, and the Leader of the House has just undermined them and thrown them under the proverbial bus. If this is how the Government treat even the Scottish Tories, why should the Scottish people even entertain being any part of their useless Union?

Does the Leader of the House want to take this opportunity now to apologise to the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) for his remarks last night, or is he prepared to make them once again in this House just to confirm what we in Scotland all know, which is that this is a Government who could not care less about Scotland and Scottish democracy?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The problem with the hon. Gentleman’s approach to business questions is that he is so angry every week that one never knows whether it is real or synthetic. He could have called for the Prime Minister to resign at every business questions at which we have exchanged pleasantries since I became Leader of the House, other than during his brief sabbatical away from the role, so I think his call for the Prime Minister to resign is not one of which any notice will be taken.

The Prime Minister won an election, and that is the basis on which our democracy in this country works. He won a majority of 80, and he has done so much to the benefit of this country in the last two years. If we look at the whole panoply of decisions made with regard to covid, the Prime Minister has consistently got them right. He got the vaccine right, he got ending the lockdown in the summer right, he got the refusal to impose new restrictions before Christmas right, and he got furlough and the £400 billion to support the economy right.

Again and again, the Prime Minister got the decisions right that mean this country is coming out of the pandemic in a better position than other countries across the world. It is something we should recognise, and that required good, solid, decisive leadership. That is not beginning to say that every decision made was perfect—that would not be within human nature—but the result of what has happened following the decisions that the Prime Minister has made has been to allow this country to do better than others as we come out of this pandemic.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Pete Wishart

Thursday 6th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend—actually, my hon. kinsman—for her question. I understand the devastation that flooding can cause for individuals, families and businesses. The Environment Agency operates the helpline and I will certainly bring her question to its attention. The helpline is a 24-hour service and covers the whole of England. The Environment Agency does have local knowledge of flood and environmental risks through its staff based in 14 geographic areas, but I will make sure that both the agency and the Secretary of State know of the concerns that my hon. Friend has raised for her constituents.

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

I wish you, Mr Speaker, and all the staff around the estate a good and happy new year.

Yesterday, the Scottish Parliament sat in an emergency session to discuss the omicron crisis in Scotland. It was all virtual, all elected MSPs could participate and the sitting provided absolutely no risk whatsoever to the staff on the Holyrood estate.

Yesterday, this House also met for the first time after the Christmas recess. It met entirely in person in a 19th-century building with practically no social distancing measures in place. All 650 Members could attend if they wanted to and a good proportion decided to come to a packed Chamber to listen to PMQs and a prime ministerial statement. Next week, we will find out the true consequences of that and how many people were infected on their journey down to the House of Commons.

It is estimated that one in 15 people in England, and one in 20 in the whole United Kingdom, now have covid. From my very bad arithmetic and calculations, I have come to the conclusion that some 50 MPs must now be off with covid away from the House, which means that 50 MPs cannot represent their constituents, participate in legislation going through the House, participate in the proceedings of the Glue Traps (Offences) Bill next week, question the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster or help the Leader of the House to destabilise his Prime Minister if they cannot come here.

With one simple measure, the Leader of the House could resolve all that: turn it back on. He should bring back the hybrid Parliament and proxy voting. For the sake of democracy, turn it back on. For the sake of keeping everybody on the estate safe and secure, turn it back on. For the sake of all of us being able to represent our constituents, turn it back on, turn it back on, turn it back on.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I thought genuinely that the needle had got stuck on the last bit of the question. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not like doing his job, that he wishes to enjoy himself sitting at home and that he does not want to do what Members of Parliament are expected to do, and turn up in the House of Commons to be here—[Interruption.]

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Pete Wishart

Thursday 9th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I apologise to my right hon. Friend for the fact that I have not been able to announce the legacy Bill during my period as Leader of the House, and particularly post the general election, but I remind him that the Government speak with one voice on these matters and we share the responsibility for the Bill not having been brought forward; it is not specific or personal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, because Bills have to be agreed collectively before they can be presented.

This Bill is in equal measure important and complicated. It is right that we should treat former soldiers, who have served this country bravely, fairly and that we should protect them. It is also right that we should not give carte blanche to terrorists. Getting this balance right in the legislation that we bring forward is not simple, so although I regret the fact that this Bill has not come forward to the timetable that was hoped for and anticipated, there is good reason for that, and it is unfair and unreasonable of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) to lay it all at the door of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

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

Can we have a debate about the Prime Minister just simply going? We have reached a sensitive point in this pandemic where the next few weeks will be absolutely critical in the battle with the virus, yet we are led by someone who the public simply do not trust and who they believe is less than truthful. This is someone who no longer has the authority to see down the maskless, right-wing libertarians in his own party and their dangerous, do-nothing, let-covid-flourish nonsense: a Prime Minister who has just been fined £17,800 regarding the refurbishment of his flat; a Prime Minister with the attitude, “Do as I say, not as I do.” It cannot go on—and the thing is that Conservative Members know it.

There are rumours, Mr Speaker—you have probably heard them—that the Leader of the House is going to have the House rise on Tuesday so that the embarrassing indignity of PMQs is not repeated once again and the Prime Minister can sidestep all of them at the 1922 committee. Will he take this opportunity today to say that this House will run until Thursday next week?

The shadow Leader of the House is absolutely right: it was not just Allegra Stratton who made light of the party that never was. The Leader of the House could not help himself at the Institute of Economic Affairs about the police investigations and with his oh-so-funny, rib-tickling rubbish about imperial measures—his favourite subject. So here is another chance for him—it is not just the women who have to apologise or resign—to apologise to this House for the insensitive remarks that he made the other day.

Yesterday the Prime Minister said that

“you should work from home if you can.”

Well, this House has shown that it can, with virtual participation and proxy voting. After the loss of public trust, we now have an opportunity to lead by example and do exactly what the Prime Minister says, so will the Leader of the House take the Prime Minister’s call seriously? For the sake of the people who work here and the people we serve, will he now turn the virtual Parliament back on?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Once again the hon. Gentleman is furious. It is very hard to tell, because his fury is so perpetual, whether there are any degrees of fury that come forth from him. He said there should be a debate on the Prime Minister. SNP Members had one only just over a week ago; they lost. They do not like losing. They keep on losing. They lost the referendum; they do not like that either. They lose again and again and they come back to the same old subjects.

The hon. Gentleman criticises me for making a joke about imperial measures. I know he has no sense of humour, at least professionally—he may do in private—as it is part of his image, but while making a joke about imperial measures may not be very funny or win any awards for humour, it seems to me to be an eccentric thing to be concerned about.

The hon. Gentleman complained about the Electoral Commission’s report. I seem to remember that there is some very large amount of money missing from the SNP, so perhaps we could have a debate—perhaps I should arrange one in Government time—about the missing money of the SNP, or perhaps he would like to own up about it now. Perhaps we should give him another go later on so that he can say, “Is it half a million pounds that has gone missing from the SNP—I wonder where it’s gone.” Is it missing down the sofa, or has Mona Lott stashed it away somewhere? Who knows, but wouldn’t it be fun to find out?

Then the hon. Gentleman wants to go away again. He never likes being here. He always wants recesses except when we announce them. He now seems to be asking me to give an early recess for some strange reason, when I have just announced the business for Monday to Thursday of next week—but business is announced as it is announced. Of course we should be here working. What the Government have said in their guidelines is that people should not go into work if they do not need to. Parliament does not work properly with people absent. It is very disappointing that the Opposition are so lily-livered about holding the Government to account that they want to go back home early. That is not how democracy should work.

Being here holding the Government to account and asking the difficult questions is just as important as people being in their offices who are delivering Government services. We know from our constituents that services have not been as well delivered when people have been working from home. I know, absolutely, that the House authorities will ensure that people who do not need to be here to deliver services will be able to work from home, and that is quite right, but democratic accountability requires MPs in this Chamber, and that is the policy of Her Majesty’s Government.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Pete Wishart

Thursday 2nd December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend shows that there is much to debate on the report. As I have said, I think it is important that the House debates those matters. I point out that in terms of the Floor of the House, there is no difference between the standing of a debate in Government time and of one in Backbench Business time. The Chair of the Backbench Business Committee is here and will have heard the requests for a debate on the subject loud and clear before his Committee meets, but I am open to a discussion with him to ensure that time is available.

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

Hip, hip, hooray! Raise the flags—Union Jacks, of course—and let us have a party in Downing Street. The Leader of the House at last had a face mask on his fizzog at Prime Minister’s questions. All he needs to do now is to convince those menaces on the libertarian wing of his Conservative party to do the same. He and I were at the same meeting when Public Health England told us that if everybody on the estate wore a face mask, infections would be cut by 12%, so no more excuses: masks on mushes.

Tuesday was a big day in the House which we will have to debate properly. For probably the first time, the L-word—the one that rhymes with “mire” and “fire”—rang out loud and clear in the Chamber. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, ruled that it could be used in the context of the debate on the conduct of the Prime Minister, possibly because no other word could be found as an appropriate replacement or substitute. The public’s outrage at the conduct of the Prime Minister just goes on, and we have to be able to debate this in the proper context and use the words that are right and appropriate for the behaviour displayed.

Today, of course, it is the Leader of the House who is all over the headlines, as he emerges as the latest Government Minister to be investigated because of his outside interests. Six million quid! I never knew he was so loaded. He could buy two peerages in the House of Lords with that money. We have to debate the Standards Committee’s report. Will he now pledge to recuse himself—

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Pete Wishart

Thursday 25th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was here when you were elected to that role from being Mr Deputy Speaker, on that auspicious occasion in 2019.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting prelegislative scrutiny, which can be extraordinarily effective. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which was passed earlier this year, benefited from it very greatly, and if one thinks back to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, one will see that rushed legislation very often does not work. I can reassure my hon. Friend that the Government continue to consult with all interested parties and those who have been involved with conversion therapy, in addition to the public consultation, which is designed to hear the views of the wider public. The consultation follows the Cabinet Office consultation principles of 2018. It is always important in sensitive areas that proper consultation is carried out so that something of this kind can be carried forward with considerable consensus.

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

I am sure that we are all appalled by the scenes we witnessed from the channel yesterday. I know we have a statement later from the Secretary of State, but can we have a full debate where all the issues around this tragedy can be explored and can we have it urgently? Top of those issues must be securing safe, secure legal routes to the UK, and the UK meeting all its obligations and its fair share of accommodating those fleeing violence and oppression. I think we can all agree that this cannot happen again.

Will the Leader of the House tell us exactly what is wrong with the Prime Minister? The delusional, gibbering stream of consciousness that we got this week—absolutely hilarious—was excruciating in the extreme: from Peppa Pig, to those weird car noises, to quoting Lenin, to his inability to read notes directly in front of him. If aliens had landed in Westminster last week, requested to be taken to our leader and found that dribbling wreck, they would have immediately asked to be transported back to the planet from whence they came. Surely, the days of this unfunny faux buffoonery are coming to an end. The nation is not laughing with him anymore; they are laughing at him. Perhaps it is time for this “Looney Tunes” Government to say, “That’s all, folks!”. [Laughter.] They liked that one, Mr Speaker.

We need a debate about the Metropolitan police. A couple of weeks ago, I wrote to them to investigate the recent cash-for-honours scandal, after it was revealed that all recent Tory treasurers had been given places in the House of Lords following £3 million donations to Tory party coffers. It took the Met less than three days to refuse to investigate, giving no reasons why. Along with the Good Law Project, I have written to the Met requesting that they give the reasons why they refused to investigate, or we will ask for that decision to be judicially reviewed. Surely the Leader of the House will agree that every whiff of corruption must be properly investigated? If the Met will not do it, maybe the Prime Minister could get his good friend Inspector Gadget to do it for us?

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Pete Wishart

Thursday 18th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this matter to my attention, because I did not know that the Association of Jewish Ex-Servicemen and Women had a parade on the week after Armistice Sunday. I congratulate him on bringing that to the attention of the House. I also congratulate the association on its work and on the commemoration to recognise one’s gratitude to the veterans from the Jewish community who served in Her Majesty’s forces—or His Majesty’s forces, as they then often were—and to ensure that their contribution, along with the contribution of others, is not forgotten. It may be difficult to facilitate a debate immediately, but remembrance should be discussed in this House.

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

May I start by congratulating the Leader of the House? I congratulate him on actually still being here. I mean, he has defied every single rule and principle of political gravity by ensuring that this disastrous period of sleaze now goes into its third week. But at least he has had the good grace to concede that it was all his fault and that it was he who encouraged the Prime Minister to pursue this disastrous action. It might have been the Prime Minister who crashed the car into the ditch, but it was the Leader of the House who provided the directions.

When the history books are written on this sorry saga and detail how this rotten Government lost their momentum, their lead and their authority, there will be a chapter that starts, “And Jacob Rees-Mogg rose to his feet to oppose the report from the Committee on Standards.” To still be here after all this, the Leader of the House must know where the top hats are buried. We need at least two days of debate on all the issues around Government sleaze and corruption, and we need to see the Prime Minister leading those debates. The Leader of the House has ensured that this is the issue that is consuming the public, so I am almost certain that he agrees that we must now satisfy that public demand.

We definitely need a debate about the House of Lords, because there are huge public concerns about how people get a place in it. The Prime Minister yesterday all but conceded that donors are given a place in the House of Lords for their contributions when he said to my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil),

“Until you get rid of the system by which the trades union barons fund other parties”,

we have to go ahead—conceding that money buys people a place in the legislature that allows them to define, determine and amend the laws of this country.

Lastly, may I thank the Leader of the House for advancing the cause of Scottish independence in the most dramatic, compelling and convincing way possible?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

One could never accuse the hon. Gentleman of being knowingly understated. We have had “disaster”, “sorry saga”, “rotten”, “sleaze”, “corruption”, “huge public concern” and “dramatic” all in about a minute. I do wonder whether he is capable of lowering the tone even further than he normally does, or of lowering the temperature and raising the tone at the same point.

It is so absurdly overstated; we have spent quite enough time discussing ourselves in this House in the last 10 days or so. For example, I return to the Finance Bill. It is a bit of a concern that when we have a debate that could go to any hour on something that affects the livelihoods of every single one of our constituents, the Opposition are too idle to turn up, but when we are talking about ourselves, they want even more time to focus a little bit more on our own concerns. On the idea that there is this huge public concern about the House of Lords, well, the hon. Gentleman must move in very different circles from those in North East Somerset, because the number of letters that I receive on House of Lords reform can be counted in single digits most years.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Pete Wishart

Thursday 4th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important issue, which has also been raised with me by constituents. That is the sort of question that may well have come from Sir David Amess in the past, because he was a passionate campaigner for those suffering with endometriosis. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence publishes authoritative evidence-based guidelines for healthcare professionals that help to ensure that the diagnosis, care and treatment of NHS patients is based on the best available evidence. I hope that eight years is not seen as an acceptable length of time for people to wait for diagnosis and treatment. In the spending review an extra £5.9 billion of taxpayers’ money was announced for capital expenditure to support elective, recovery, diagnostic and technology over the next three years, and we are rolling out 44 community diagnostic centres to increase capacity. That could deliver up to 2.8 million scans in the first full year of operation. We aim to deliver up to 100 community diagnostic centres in total by 2024-25, and we will publish the delivery plan for tackling the electives backlog later this year. I will, of course, pass on my hon. Friend’s concerns to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.

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

What an absolute and utter mess, and I am not entirely sure that it has been much helped and assisted by what the Leader of the House said about the process this morning. He is inviting us to capitulate to this Tory kangaroo court Committee, and go along with what the Tories are intending to do on reform. If he wants us to participate, we must return to the status quo. We have to get back to where we were before we voted yesterday, with an intact Standards Committee, and abide by the findings of that Committee. Only on that basis will we enter any discussions or talks with the right hon. Gentleman.

What we have is disgraceful. We effectively have two Committees—perhaps three if the Leader of the House gets his way—that have no legitimacy in the House, no confidence of the membership of the House, and no trust from any members of the public at all. No wonder so many gloomy Tory MPs are kicking around the House this morning—the magnitude of what they attempted to do yesterday is starting to dawn on them. What they did was to legitimise and sanction paid advocacy, and signal a return to cash for questions and grubby brown envelopes stuffed full of cash for doing their paymasters’ bidding. They have effectively dispensed with independent investigation, and they have transferred that to a kangaroo court Committee on which they have given themselves a majority. We will play no part in that Committee of corruption, and I am glad the Labour party will not either.

I heard the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy say this morning that the standards commissioner should review her position. That is akin to giving the referee a red card because we do not like the decision of that referee. It is not too late. Return us to the status quo and to where we were yesterday, and we will enter into discussions. But not on the basis of this ridiculous attempt at reform.

Mr Speaker, I have given up trying to get the Leader of the House to wear a face mask. I have now accepted that he does not care a jot about the safety and security of his colleagues or staff in this House. We now have an outbreak in this House, and we have him, with his weird individualism and arrogance, refusing to do anything about it. Maybe that is something that his Tory kangaroo court Committee could look at, because it will have precious little else to do.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I will just add in response to the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) that I have had a note to tell me that the party chairman responded on behalf of the Prime Minister to the letter on Islamophobia. That was done earlier this year.

Nobody would wish to defend paid advocacy. I would say to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) that his pre-prepared fury every week is becoming very much a broken record. It does not matter what the subject is; the fury is enormous. It may be that it is raining outside and the hon. Gentleman is furious. It may be that there has been a debate on standards and the hon. Gentleman is furious. Anything that comes up, he comes here to be cross, and he gets crosser and crosser as the weeks and the days go on.

If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said, rather than concentrating on his pre-prepared fury, he would have noted that I said that we need to make sure that this happens on a cross-party basis. It would be idle to pretend that there are not concerns about the system. It would be idle to pretend that there are not many people in this House who feel that not having a proper appeals process is a flaw in the system. It would be idle to suggest that there are not people in this House who recognise that the system set up for the ICGS, with the IEP, has, with a High Court judge, a better legal focus than the other system. These things are all true and they all need to be looked at, but of course, to maintain high standards and proper processes, we want to have cross-party support.

Committee on Standards

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Pete Wishart

Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is not true that all the posts are elected. The Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, for example, is not elected. The hon. Gentleman, who is on the Procedure Committee, really ought to know better and know the details of the composition of Select Committees of this House.

I shall turn briefly to a letter sent to me yesterday by union representatives about the importance—

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We only have an hour and a half to discuss this. This is the time that the Government gave us to discuss this matter. There is huge interest in this debate. Is there anything that you can do to encourage the Leader of the House to wind up his remarks?

[Mr Speaker]

I think the Leader of the House has just said that he is coming to his conclusion.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Pete Wishart

Thursday 28th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I begin by thanking my hon. Friend for the tremendous work she has done since her election in 2010 to support the family and all life from the point of conception through to the point of natural death? She is heroic in what she has done. The first 1,001 days is a very important staging post. The work of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire has brought that to people’s attention. She has campaigned for and succeeded in making the funding available. In terms of a debate, I am going to slightly cop out and point to the Budget debate that is carrying on later today, which will be a great opportunity to raise the issue further.

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

The Leader of the House should be thoroughly embarrassed about his ridiculous comments from business questions last week, when he suggested that Tory MPs are protected from covid because they have

“a more convivial, fraternal spirit”.——[Official Report, 21 October 2021; Vol. 701, c. 945.]

It is so convivial that several of them are now off having caught covid, along with the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Whip of the Scottish National party.

Tory MPs are not immune. Staff and visitors are now obliged to wear face masks but MPs are not in a “Do as we say” edict. But progress has been made and my campaign to get them to mask up is beginning to bear fruit. More of them are actually starting to care about colleagues and members of staff by wearing a face mask, and I welcome that, but I note that the Leader of the House’s fizzog remains unadorned from this modest, disease-stopping piece of cloth. He has a perfectly good Union Jack face covering; for goodness’ sake, man, put it on! Be the Leader of the House, not the libertarian of the House.

I want to support you, Mr Speaker, in your campaign to make sure that important announcements are made in this House first. The pre-announcing of the Budget was an absolute disgrace, designed to soften up the press and the public. I like the idea of Ministers being forced to resign if they break the trust of Parliament. I suggested bringing them to the Bar of the House last week, but let us maybe have a debate and see what we could do. We could have a prize for the most creative and inventive sanction that could be applied to Ministers that break the trust of the House.

Lastly, COP comes to Scotland next week and our beautiful country will be on show to the world. Scotland leads the UK in renewables and climate change legislation and we will be a good host of the summit. The world will also see a nation ready to take its own place in the world. The Leader of the House knows that debate is coming soon. He knows it is coming. Let us get on with it.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

One does like to think sometimes of what dinner must be like in the household of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), because everything is “a disgrace”, it is “an outrage”, it is “shocking”. The sound and fury that enthuses him whenever he gets to the Chamber allows no time for nuance, for things being degrees of acceptableness or not being favourable. It is always this absolute outrage, which fortunately, I answered entirely in my answer to the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), the shadow Leader of the House.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Pete Wishart

Thursday 21st October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Scottish National party spokesman, Pete Wishart.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.

This has been a rotten first week back, and I think we are all still struggling to come to terms with and comprehend all the issues surrounding the killing of our friend and colleague David Amess, as well as grieving for the loss of James Brokenshire. The Leader of the House was absolutely right to pay those further tributes. I have been doing this job for nearly six years, and I think that missing Sir David at business questions is something we all feel profoundly today. Let us hope that we never have another week like this one.

Many of us will be leaving to return to our constituencies in the next 24 hours with a greater sense of anxiety, and a greater sense of the responsibility that we all feel for the staff who work with us. I think that what Members are looking for more than anything else is clear advice, bordering on instruction, about how we should do our business in our constituencies. We were grateful for last night’s statement from the Home Secretary, but will the Leader of the House commit himself to further statements, and ongoing information and clear advice from the police and the security services, to acquaint Members with what we can do to keep ourselves and our staff safe?

Another safety issue has arisen on our return: the ongoing comic appearance in this place of those on one side of the House wearing masks and those on the other side not wearing them at all. Yesterday the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said that we should wear them in crowded and enclosed places. He even went so far as to say that Members of Parliament should be setting an example by wearing them, so come on, for goodness’ sake—set that example! I am looking around the Chamber now, and I am looking at my Conservative colleagues. I do not like picking on them, because I consider that so unnecessary, but I think that four out of 14 are wearing masks this morning. That is a little bit better than what we saw before the conference recess, but we must do better than this. We are going to be back with compulsory mask-wearing, we are going to be back with further restrictions—we are going to follow the countries of mainland Europe, because we are way ahead in terms of infections. We are going to have to do something, so let us do it now. Let us set that example.

Mr Speaker was absolutely right to castigate the Government this morning for making major policy announcements outside the House. Today we are in a ridiculous situation: there will be an urgent question and a statement on the same topic. That cannot happen again. Indeed, I would go further: I would bring the Secretaries of State or other Ministers responsible for this to the Bar of the House to apologise for their disrespect if they dare to make announcements outside this Chamber.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Bar of the House, interestingly, is a gift from Jamaica, as Members will see if they pull it out; but I do not think anyone has been called to the Bar of the House recently.

I think the issue really is, what is a major policy announcement? It was the Government’s view that the announcement made yesterday was an entirely routine announcement. Major policy announcements do come to the Floor of the House, but it is important to understand that there is a balance involved in the business of the House. Given the number of statements today, and the urgent question, it would be perfectly reasonable if the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee were to complain that his important debates were being squeezed; and this is an issue that we face every day of every week. Should we ensure that the business of the House—often important legislative business—has its time protected, or should we bring every possible Government announcement to the Floor of the House? There has to be that balance, which I think that, by and large, is got right.

As for the question of mask-wearing, I responded to the shadow Leader of the House on that, but I will say that there is no advice to wear masks in workplaces, and that the advice on crowded spaces refers to crowded spaces containing people whom we do not know. We on this side of the House know each other. It may be that the hon. Gentleman does not mix with his own side. He may wish to keep himself in his personal bubble, away from other SNP Members. I normally find them extraordinarily charming, but the hon. Gentleman may not take this catholic view of his right hon. and hon. Friends. I sympathise if that is the case, but we on this side have a more convivial, fraternal spirit, and are therefore following the guidance of Her Majesty’s Government.

I want to finish with another important point that the hon. Gentleman raised, and I have left this to the end because this is not the politicised bit. This has been the saddest week, I think, for any of us in Parliament. It has been a terrible week because of the deaths that have happened and the memory of Jo Cox, which was in itself a terrible time for the House and for politics. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that Members want very clear advice. The Home Secretary is working closely with the Speaker, and local police authorities will have contacted every Member. Many of them are getting in touch with further advice. I think that advice “bordering on instruction” is what we are looking for, because there are many forms of safety available to Members, but they do not all necessarily know what they are. Of course I could not say in the Chamber what they are, unless we were to sit in private, for the obvious reason that we do not want people who are hostile to us to know what they are. Information is going to be important, as is working with our local police forces, but we also want to know what the real level of risk is. I do not feel that that is yet clear. It might take some time to become clear, but it needs to be communicated to Members along with all the support that is available. I am in agreement with the hon. Gentleman on this, and the Home Secretary and the Speaker will work together try to ensure that Members are properly informed.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Pete Wishart

Thursday 23rd September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Mr Speaker,

“Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you”.

I have done what my hon. Friend asks before he asked for it—before he rose to his feet—because on Monday 25 October there will be the Second Reading of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, which will be an opportunity for him to raise those important points. We also have the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill, which is in their lordships’ House and will come back to us in due course. The Government are very committed to following many of the policies that my hon. Friend has suggested.

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

I join in the tributes to Mark Kelly. When I was Chief Whip of our group and the representative of all the minority parties, Mark Kelly gave us nothing but kindness and great advice. I am sure that he will be sorely missed. I congratulate Rob Foot, who I know will be missed in the Office of the Leader of the House.

Here we are, barely back, and we are just about to take another break so that we can participate in the proceedings of voluntary organisations of which we just so happen to be a member. We will be taking a month off when the UK is facing an autumn of discontent and when hard-pressed families are facing one of the biggest assaults on their weekly income. As this House abandons its station to go to the conference hall and seaside resorts, there are universal credit cuts, energy prices going through the roof, a carbon dioxide crisis, driver shortages, farming chaos, fishing chaos, export prices, the ending of furlough and a Brexit killing a nation. This nonsense of a conference recess has surely run its course and must now come to an end.

We also face an environment crisis, but hey, we have the Prime Minister telling us all to grow up as he quotes Kermit the Frog. Maybe he should have got Kermit the Frog to negotiate a trade deal with the Americans while he was there—maybe we could even get Fozzie Bear to solve the energy crisis. How dare anybody even start to refer to them as a bunch of Muppets?

I know now that there is absolutely nothing that will encourage Conservative Members to take the safety of their colleagues seriously in this House. Their pathetic defiance in refusing to wear a face mask is almost like a pathological childishness. When we come back, will the Leader of the House agree to a meeting with all parties and your good self, Mr Speaker, so that we can agree a joint approach to safety in this workplace and so that at least we do not have the ridiculous spectacle of a House divided by face masks, where Conservative Members defiantly do not wear one but everybody on our side of the House does?

Lastly, may I wish you a good conference recess, Mr Speaker? I do not know whether there is a UK Speakers’ party in which you might be the Chair. I also want to say to the Leader of the House as he goes off that I just hope Sir Toffalot here will manage to find a face mask on his way to Manchester.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

There was a Speakers conference: an enormously successful conference of the G7, which was held in your constituency of Chorley, Mr Speaker, and included very significant Speakers, including Nancy Pelosi from the United States. I think that the hon. Gentleman was intending to congratulate you on a successful conference there. Otherwise I am slightly puzzled by his geography, because I was unaware that Manchester was a seaside resort, but perhaps he knows something that I do not.

As is now becoming traditional, I thought that I would give the hon. Gentleman a date that I discovered from The Times this morning: it is the anniversary of the battle of Salamis in 480 BC, when the Athenians beat the Persians and Xerxes was defeated. I am sure that that will be of interest to the hon. Gentleman, although it is quite hard to see how it relates to Scottish independence.

As regards the question of wearing masks, I do not know whether you are a reader of tabloid newspapers, Mr Speaker, but a certain very senior figure in the socialist party was photographed travelling on a train without a face mask. I do wonder whether there is one rule when the cameras are on and everybody is under vision, and another when people are on railway trains not expecting to be snapped.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Pete Wishart

Thursday 16th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s kind words. On the point he makes, I think he proves that that actually already happens, because nobody would ever dare stop him expressing his views on planning reform to everybody in the Government. The Government are, of course, listening to what people have to say, but the process that has been followed is the proper constitutional one. There has been a White Paper, which is a discussion document setting out the intentions of policy, to and about which there have been many responses and thoughts. That will lead to a Bill that will go through the House in the normal process. I think that I can reassure my hon. Friend that the Bill will be thoroughly discussed and that his views will be extremely welcome, particularly to my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove).

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

What happened to the right hon. Gentleman yesterday? All afternoon, the nation was at one: “What about the Mogg? Surely a big office of state awaits—a promotion is more than due.” Well, maybe he should not have said “No more taxes” in the week that his Prime Minister hiked them through the roof. Anyway, we are glad that he is back with us, doing what he does best: announcing the business of the week.

This is now getting beyond a joke. The scenes from a packed Prime Minister’s questions yesterday were simply a disgrace, with barely a face mask on a Tory mush. The House staff are now getting increasingly nervous and anxious about what they are observing, and it seems as if the Tories have absolutely no regard whatever for the safety of their colleagues and the staff who are here to support and help us.

The Government’s own advice states:

“Wear a face covering in crowded and enclosed settings where you come into contact with people you do not normally meet.”

Now, I do not normally meet any of you lot—I am quite happy with that situation; I have no desire to meet you on a regular basis—and yesterday at PMQs this place must have been about the most crowded enclosed space in the whole UK. The Health Secretary even excused the Tory “no face mask” policy, suggesting that people cannot catch covid from friends. Is this House not sending the worst possible message to the country and contributing to all sorts of confusion? Will the Leader of the House now be a leader? For goodness’ sake, put a face mask on!

We know that the Leader of the House likes his obscure historical battle references—he will probably quote one to me again, as if I am in any way interested in what he has to say—but there is a battle for Scotland going on just now and it is being fought with ideas, with democracy at its core and with a vision for what a nation can be, free from this place. So he can stuff his battles of Flodden and Falkirk where his top hat don’t shine, because this battle of Scotland will be won by its people.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

In the cheerfulness and bonhomie that the hon. Gentleman brings to this House, he is competing with Countess Mona Lott herself. If that is the battle for ideas, they are ideas of gloom, doom and lugubriousness that I think are not particularly welcome in this House.

As regards face masks, the policy is extremely straightforward: face coverings are not mandatory for Members in the House of Commons Chamber, voting Lobbies, the Members’ Lobby and Westminster Hall. The advice of Her Majesty’s Government on face coverings is that they are not required by law in the workplace. The Government removed the legal requirement to wear face coverings in public places in indoor spaces. If someone is in a crowded indoor space where they come into contact with people they do not normally meet, wearing a face covering can help to reduce the spread of covid.

Is it not interesting that the hon. Gentleman—and perhaps this applies to the nationalists generally—does not normally meet other MPs? Perhaps that is because they are not very assiduous in their attendance in the House of Commons, but Members on my side of the House, who are rigorous and regular attendants, meet one another regularly and therefore are completely in accordance with the guidance of Her Majesty’s Government. Is it not a pity that some people do not like to come to Parliament? If they came a bit more, worked a bit harder and put their elbow to the grindstone, or wherever one puts one’s elbow—if they put their elbow to the wheel—they might not need to wear face coverings either, because they would meet Members of Parliament more regularly.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Pete Wishart

Thursday 9th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. Of course, Public Health England is being reorganised and will be changed in due course. We have in front of the House the Health and Care Bill, which will be an opportunity to raise some of these matters. In terms of an additional debate, I point him in the direction of the Backbench Business Committee.

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

Can we have a debate about what exactly is going on in this Chamber? Our constituents are beginning to notice what is happening here, and they are dumbfounded at what they see: on one side of the Chamber, nearly everybody with a face mask; on the other side, practically no one. It is as if keeping our workplace and colleagues safe has become an ideological and political position, and that somehow being a Tory MP makes someone exempt from contracting and spreading covid.

The Leader of the House knows the score. He was at a meeting with me on Monday, where we heard from Public Health England that there are high levels of carbon dioxide in this Chamber. That means the air that we exhale is being confined in here, leading to an increased risk. And those Division Lobbies are an absolute and utter disgrace—Members of Parliament trapped in confined spaces for several minutes, with card readers that are next to useless, as this bizarre and time-wasting headcount continues to go on. Come on, Leader of the House; help us keep the staff and the people in this House safe.

At that meeting, the Leader of the House said that he would wear a face mask to encourage the rest of his colleagues. Put that face mask on, Leader of the House. We have heard from doctors again today that the face mask is the most effective means to stop the spread of this virus. Tory MPs can be as cavalier as they want with their own health, but when it comes to their colleagues and the people who work in this House, that should be a matter for all of us.

We have to stop playing politics with covid. It is going on again today. Yesterday, this House quite rightly said that there would be covid vaccine passports for nightclubs in England. Today, in the socially distant, virtually inclusive Parliament in Scotland, there will be a vote on covid passports in Scotland. The Conservatives will support them down here and oppose them in Scotland. Has the Leader of the House got a word for that type of behaviour?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I had a feeling that the hon. Gentleman would be a bit grumpy this morning, because it is the anniversary of the battle of Flodden, which was not, it has to be said, Scotland’s finest hour.

As regards the wearing of face masks, the Government guidance is completely clear on when people should wear them and when people should not. It is said specifically in the guidance that a person might want to wear one when they are in a crowded space with people they do not—[Interruption.] Patience; listen to the end of the sentence—in a crowded space with people they do not normally meet. We are not in a crowded space with people we do not normally meet, and people are right to make a judgment for themselves as to whether they will wear a face mask or not. As I said before, there are circumstances in which I will wear one; I went to the excellent Thomas Becket exhibition at the British Museum, which was very crowded and in a small space, and I had a face mask in my pocket and put it on. But look around—the ceilings are high, the doors are open and the Benches are not particularly full; it is perfectly reasonable not to wear a mask in this Chamber and on this estate, in accordance with Government guidelines. The House authorities have done a great deal of work, consistently, throughout the pandemic, to keep everybody safe. This is how it should be. So I think we should allow people to make choices for themselves; I do not think we should always be told what to do by politicians. Allowing freedom and liberty, and encouraging freedom and getting back to normal, in a society that is primarily double-vaccinated, seems to me to be extremely sensible.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Pete Wishart

Tuesday 7th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The House may be surprised that, in the absence of call lists, it is much harder to plant questions. However, my hon. Friend’s is extraordinarily useful, because I am pleased to tell the House that the whole of tomorrow will be available for the Ways and Means resolution, subject, of course, to urgent questions at the discretion of Mr Speaker, and statements that may prove necessary.

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

I thank the Leader of the House for his short statement.

We are getting this “everything’s normal and as it should be” tone from the Leader of the House, even though he knows that nothing is normal about what he is doing tomorrow. I am sure that he is thrilled that the very thing he profoundly opposes will be debated and voted on tomorrow. I remember reading over the weekend:

“Read my lips: no new taxes.”

He is right; people did remember those words, and they will remember them again. Perhaps we will see those defiant lips move in accordance with a matter of principle for him and see him vote against these measures when they come before the House.

Following on from the question asked by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), I am wondering whether one day is enough for all this. We need to hear from countless Tory Members apologising to their constituents for breaking their manifesto pledge not to raise tax, VAT or national insurance. We particularly want to hear from all the red wall Tories, who are now going to have to explain to all their new voters that they will have to swallow this regressive move and how it will impact on them. We will want to hear from Scotland, too, as we will be invited to pay twice for the Government’s social care mess for services that we have already legislated on. All I can say to the Leader of the House is that these lips were made for talking.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

One had noticed that the hon. Gentleman’s lips were made for talking. It is done a great deal and usually to the great entertainment of the House. I am delighted, flattered, thrilled by so many people reading my comments in the Sunday Express. I do a weekly wisdom for them. As my wife points out to me, being wise once a week is probably as much as can be expected of me. None the less, I provide these comments for the Sunday Express and I hope people will carry on reading that estimable newspaper and getting my wisdom on a weekly basis.

The time allowed tomorrow is sufficient and there will, of course, be legislation brought forward, as I said. Tomorrow—I am sure the hon. Gentleman is right—many Conservative MPs will want to wax lyrical on the advantages to the United Kingdom of this proposal, which will see a £300 million Union dividend and help bail out the failings of the Scottish national health system, so badly run by the nationalist Government in Edinburgh. Extra money will be going to Scotland and Scotland will receive more money than Scottish people pay in taxation—or, to be more accurate, than Scottish residents pay in taxation—so it is of benefit to Scotland. I might remind the hon. Gentleman about gift horses not being looked in the mouth.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Pete Wishart

Thursday 15th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I do indeed agree. We have put young people at the heart of our economic recovery plan. They are absolutely at the centre of the circle. It is the right thing to do. I have the greatest sympathy for young people, who have made great sacrifices over the last year. The kickstart scheme has created over 230,000 jobs across the country and over the past month around 2,000 young people have started a kickstart job each week. This is just one part of the plan to build back better and help young people into good jobs after the pandemic. We are also providing a hire incentive payment of £3,000 for employers in England for each apprentice they hire, at all ages. We are increasing the number of traineeships, backed by £126 million of taxpayers’ money.

I just want to add how successful apprentices can be. I am much looking forward to meeting a former apprentice tomorrow, a gentleman called Steve Pickston, who is the vice-president for support and services at Airbus Helicopters. He started at McAlpine Helicopters as a helicopter airframe and engine apprentice in 1985, which only goes to show that becoming an apprentice can really help your career lift off.

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

I suppose it is a case of what could have been: if only that shot from Stephen O’Donnell had gone in when England were holding out for a draw, how different it could have been.

What should have been a look back at a successful tournament has descended into dealing with the multiple issues around the appalling racist abuse received by those fine young England players. Will the Leader of the House agree to an urgent debate next week so that can be properly addressed and to hold everybody to account, whether it is the anonymous thug on Twitter or the Prime Minister himself in The Daily Telegraph?

Monday brings the sense of freedom day—as I think we would call it now—as England opens up to allow covid in to do its worst. It also marks the end of our virtual proceedings. Monday could see the start of England heading towards 100,000 cases per day, with the prospect of a Johnson variant 2 emerging anytime from anywhere. Are we seriously going to do away with all these wonderful facilities when we have no clue where we will be when we come back in September? This has been a true parliamentary innovation. It has been led by the Leader of the House. Surely we want to retain some of these wonderful features, particularly if we do not know where this is going to go.

We in the SNP are still celebrating our stunning success in seeing off English votes for English laws on Tuesday evening, but now that we have beaten that anti-Scottish measure, there is still much work to do. Can we now deal with the anti-Scottish provisions in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, the ones that put constraints on our parliamentary democracy and allow the British Government to determine priorities in Scottish devolved areas? Getting rid of EVEL is a good start. Can we now work together to deal with all the other anti-Scottish stuff, and give our nations what they seem to want?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It is always nice when he can be here, rather than sending one of his many very able deputies in his place. I reiterate what I said to the shadow Leader of the House: the whole House is united against racism, not just in football, but in the country at large. Racism is a scar upon society and, although it has much declined in recent years, the fact that it still exists remains a scar. That is why the powers that will be in the Online Safety Bill are important. In the most serious cases, Ofcom will have the authority to limit or prevent a company from operating in the United Kingdom. It has always seemed to me obvious that the online and social media companies, which can see what people have searched for and said, and ping them an advert directly linked to that, have the technological sophistication to work out when people are putting racist abuse online. It is important that they follow their responsibilities.

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman about opening up. He raises the level of infections, but that is not the point; it is hospitalisation and death rates, and that link, that chain, has been broken. There is now a much lower death rate and much lower entry into hospital. There is still an effect of infections, but there is not the direct link that there was prior to the vaccination programme.

Therefore, to allow freedoms to return is the right thing to do. That is the fundamental philosophical difference between the Conservatives and the parties of the left. All parties of the left are always determined that the collective should tell people how to live their lives, whereas we on the right think that mass decisions made by 60 million individuals across this country lead to better outcomes for the country than ordering people about.

As I said in the debate on EVEL, I was strongly against it in 2011, before it had been introduced. I only supported and voted for it, when it came in in 2015, on the basis that, as it was only a Standing Order, it could be abolished. So I was pleased to be the Leader of the House who did abolish it. I am delighted by the conversion of the hon. Gentleman. I think we are all coming to the conclusion that he does really like being here, and therefore he has shown great commitment to a Union Parliament. That is an enormous public service for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

English Votes for English Laws

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Pete Wishart

Tuesday 13th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As the majority of taxation is set on a United Kingdom basis and the Barnett formula ensures that the level of spending provided for services is proportionate to decisions taken by the Union Parliament, I do not think that is as unreasonable as the right hon. Gentleman suggests. Sometimes the West Lothian question’s significance gets exaggerated.

Last week, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster told the House that the Government believe that the procedure has added complexity and delay to the legislative process. Slightly over 10% of all our Standing Orders are taken up with enabling EVEL-doing and its additional parliamentary stages, notably the Legislative Grand Committee, which is held on the Floor of the House between Report and Third Reading. In theory, that allows English MPs to veto provisions, but not to propose them. In practice, it has resulted only in short-lived and poorly attended debates that have always concluded with English MPs, or English and Welsh MPs, giving their consent to England only, or England and Wales only, provisions.

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

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I know that the hon. Gentleman has been waiting with bated breath. His breath is now unbated.

[Pete Wishart]

Does the Leader of the House recall who has made the most contributions to the Legislative Grand Committee? Perhaps he could tell the House how many contributions that Member made.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I have a sneaking suspicion that we may get the accurate statistics from a careful consultation of Hansard that took place earlier this afternoon by the hon. Gentleman himself. May I point out that I made a speech on the matter in 2011, when I outlined all the difficulties that the system would have? I therefore predate the hon. Gentleman in that I opposed EVEL before it had even been proposed. As a good Catholic, I would be expected always to oppose evil.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Pete Wishart

Thursday 8th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Mr Speaker, it is even better than that. We had an opportunity for a vote, which my right hon. Friend passed up. He is a very experienced parliamentarian. He has been here much longer than I have. He is well aware that estimates are in fact the foundation of the power of the House of Commons to approve the expenditure of the Government. Estimates are votable. The failure to pass an estimate would have been a major problem for the Government, who would have had to bring back a new estimate. The fact that my right hon. Friend has not studied Erskine May carefully enough, and has therefore missed his opportunity, is not my problem but his.

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

It would be churlish not to recognise the great sporting success of the last 24 hours. I am sure the whole House would like to congratulate Surrey for finishing seven not out to deny Hampshire victory—I am sure that is much more up the Leader of the House’s street.

Football may or may not be coming home in the next few days, but I will certainly be going home when business questions concludes. There is one place where there has been a massive defeat, and that is on the Government’s English votes for English laws procedure. We will finally bury that appalling, time-wasting mess next week. I do not know whether it was dividing the membership of this House into two different and distinct classes of Member or the ridiculous attempts to have some sort of quasi-English Parliament squat here in the national Parliament of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that convinced the Government to back down, but it is a massive victory for the Scottish National party; our campaign of ridicule and disparagement of the whole nonsense has won. We do not often get victories in this place, but we will be celebrating next Tuesday.

I support the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). The House simply must have the opportunity to vote on this Government’s overseas aid cuts before the recess. All that rubbish about estimates is not good enough. It has to be a dedicated vote. It is not often that Members of Opposition parties say that the Government must uphold their manifesto commitments, but that is what they must do, and we must have that vote before the recess.

We rise in a couple of weeks, and all the provisions for virtual participation and proxy voting will fall. Infections and hospitalisations are rising exponentially with the Johnson variant, and we do not know where we will be in September. What provision will the Leader of the House put in place for if this House needs to review its arrangements and requires some of the facilities that we have come to rely on over the past year?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is always a pleasure to hear from the hon. Gentleman when he is not feeling churlish. I hate to think what he would sound like when he is feeling churlish.

As regards plans for this House, such plans can always be made swiftly if necessary. On EVEL, I am delighted to suggest it is a victory for the SNP, but is also a victory for people of my way of thinking about our constitution. This is important—within this House, we are the Parliament of the whole of the United Kingdom. That is why on occasions, though not as a general practice of course, laws will be passed without legislative consent motions, as with powers that came back from the European Union—in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, for example—where the Scottish Parliament was not willing to agree legislative consent motions. That is part of an overall package of the restoration of powers to the United Kingdom Parliament from the European Union, and we are the nation’s Parliament. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman recognises that.

As regards the 0.7%, I point out that we remain one of the world’s largest donors at 0.5%. That is an impost on British taxpayers, and it is Her Majesty’s Government being charitable on behalf of British taxpayers. I will go back to my constitutional lecture, because I think people are simply failing to understand the importance of estimates, which are fundamental to the powers of this House. The ability to approve expenditure is what historically gave this House its power over the Executive, and the ability to vote down an estimate is one that is rarely used because of its very profound consequence. What I ask the House and those who support the hon. Gentleman is, if they feel as strongly about the issue as they say, why did they not use the tool available to them?

Let me go into this in a little more detail. Had the estimate been voted down, the Foreign Office and overseas aid would have run out of money after the initial estimate, which was done earlier in the year, had expired. A proportionate amount of money is agreed before the beginning of the financial year and would then run out if the final estimate were not to be approved. In that event, the Government have to come forward with a new estimate and it would have to be an estimate that they thought they could get through the House. As a matter of simple constitutional fact, had the House chosen to vote on the estimates, it would have left the Government in a position where they would have had bring forward a new motion for overseas aid expenditure in the Foreign Office. Otherwise, all our embassies would have run out of money. They would not have been able to pay their water bills. It is a failure of those who stand up and chunter about this not to use the tools to hand. It is really not my fault if they have not studied “Erskine May” carefully enough.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Pete Wishart

2nd reading & 3rd reading
Thursday 1st July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Ah, Mr Speaker, your puns are getting almost as bad as mine.

What I would say to my hon. Friend is that he is tempting me in the right direction to have a debate on the great advantages of the county of Somerset and the fact that Alfred’s coming out of the Levels and defeating Guthrum is the foundation not only of England, but actually the United States and Australia. All that flows from that comes from Alfred defeating the Danes, otherwise it would have been a different kettle of fish. So I sympathise with his desire for a debate, but I think the specific issue is more suited to an Adjournment debate. The Government will of course take into account the responses that have come in to the discussion on how the county of Somerset should be administered, but what I would say is of fundamental importance is that actually bureaucratic boundaries are not what people in Somerset mind about. They care about their whole historic united county. That is what matters to my constituents and to his, and bureaucratic boundaries are comparatively trifling.

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

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week. I suppose the first thing to do is to acknowledge this week’s sporting success: I am sure the whole House will want to congratulate Andy Murray on his stunning progress to the third round at Wimbledon. And apparently there was some football game on, too. Now that we are getting rid of EVEL, English votes for English laws, how about we get ESEV, English sport for English viewers, so that Scottish viewers of the BBC do not have to endlessly watch that Gazza goal scored against us and are spared the endless references to 1966 when we are watching Croatia or Denmark?

May we have a debate about ministerial resignations? After the departure of the Health Secretary, the public just do not know what it takes to get the sack anymore. This was a Health Secretary whose tenure was littered with unlimited disastrous policy decisions and riddled with cronyism, overseeing the largest death rate in Europe. But it was not that that brought him down; it was issues around having an affair. Does the Leader of the House not think that that is akin to Al Capone going down for tax evasion?

Today marks the beginning of the end of furlough, and there is no statement from the Chancellor. That will add thousands of pounds of costs to businesses across the country and the Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned that it will lead to lay-offs and redundancies, so why no statement? We also need an urgent update on the settlement scheme, given that the Home Office is unable to cope with the outstanding backlog and that there is ongoing confusion and chaos. Sometimes, it seems the Government are more interested in sausages than people.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Well, haggis to that, I think. When the hon. Gentleman complains about references to 1966, I would say “pots and kettles”, because we often hear from the SNP about 1314. I think 1966 is a little more recent history than 1314.

On the furlough scheme, this was well announced and well planned, and we are getting back to normal. The date of 19 July is a terminus and, to carry on the railway comparison, we are on track. It is therefore right that businesses begin to get back to normal. Bear in mind that £407 billion of taxpayers’ money has been spent supporting the economy. Fourteen million jobs and people have been protected through the furlough and self-employed schemes at a cost of £88.5 billion. There is not unlimited money and it is right that the scheme is withdrawn at the point at which the pandemic’s emergency provisions are drawing to a close.

As regards the settlement scheme, I think that through the scheme 5.3 million or so EU member state nationals have been dealt with, out of 5.6 million applications so far. A generous deadline was set and it has been handled extraordinarily well and efficiently by the Home Office. Officials there deserve considerable gratitude from the nation for handling it so smoothly considering the very much higher number of eligible people than the Office for National Statistics thought were in the country.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Pete Wishart

Thursday 24th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The Perthshire One has been released. Let us go to the SNP spokesperson, Pete Wishart.

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

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Free at last, and it is good to be back. Can I thank the Leader of the House for his support and understanding during my long confinement, and my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) for standing in for me so stoutly, as he always does? Now I am back, I have of course one simple task: to secure something for the Scottish press by gently encouraging the Leader of the House to say something provocative and inflammatory about Scotland. Knowing the Leader of the House as I do, I know that he will oblige me in giving me the headline I seek.

Can I sincerely congratulate the England team on progressing to their historic place and getting beat by Germany on penalties? I also congratulate the Welsh team. It is of course a fantastic feat to get through to the last 16 again. I know the tartan army’s most unlikely new recruit will be gutted at Scotland’s departure. Apparently, he is to go to the Caledonia bar in Leicester Square, where he has left a “See You Jimmy” wig. It is known to be his because it is attached to a top hat, so I hope he will be dispatched soon to reclaim it.

Will the Leader of the House now bring forward the necessary changes to Standing Orders to rid this place once and for all of the total disaster and absolute waste of time that is English votes for English laws? This piece of uselessness has been in abeyance for over a year, and such is the impact that the quasi-English Parliament has made on this House that nobody even knows it is not in operation any more. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has said that EVEL is a hindrance to the Union, so what better incentive than that to get rid of it once and for all.

Lastly—and this is where I hope the Leader of the House helps me out and obliges me—we need a debate about strengthening the Union, because the Government are simply all over the place and seemingly doing everything possible to help our cause. In one week—this week—they tried to gerrymander the franchise before ruling out once again a vote in which they seek to cheat their way to victory, while the strains of “Strong Britain, great nation” bellow out from the children of England in a gesture that is not in the least bit creepy, ominous or embarrassing, so can I thank him for all his efforts in the course of the past week? As the red wall languishes in ruins and the blue wall is breached, the SNP tartan wall stands strong, impregnable and reinforced by the right hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is a pleasure to have the hon. Gentleman back, as he has shown with his stylish question. I am all in favour of strengthening the Union and I am glad he is too. I used to think there should be a special seat preserved invariably, as it is in law, for the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), as he is such an ornament to the Union Parliament. I am beginning to think that something similar should be done for the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), because we have missed him and his style is very welcome in this House.

The Union has been fundamental to the success of the roll-out of the vaccine and, indeed, in dealing with the pandemic, as we have benefited from the furlough payments. It has shown that as one country we are genuinely better together. I think the hon. Gentleman is a little mean, uncharacteristically, about a children’s song. He and I are both old enough to remember “There’s No One Quite Like Grandma”, which was No. 1 on the hit parade in 1980, when I was an 11-year-old. These charming, sweet-natured songs are a feature of public life which pop up every so often, and I think it should be welcomed and one should suffer the little children to come unto us, rather than being a bit miserable about it.

As regards EVEL, evil is to be opposed in favour of good as a general rule, but if we are to take the alternative spelling, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: it has been suspended for the past year and nobody has noticed. There is a fundamental principle, where I share his view, of the absolute equality of every Member of this House, be they Front Bench, Back Bench, Minister, non-Minister or even the Speaker. One of the great advantages of our system of not having a special Speaker’s seat is that the Speaker is one of us, even though primus inter pares. That principle is of the greatest importance. I will be appearing before the Procedure Committee on Monday and I imagine this will be an important part of the discussion. I want to hear its views, but what was reported about my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’s views is not a million miles from my own.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Pete Wishart

Thursday 6th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That is not within my purview—it is not my responsibility—but I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago to the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris). This is an important issue and I will take it up with the relevant Minister on both their behalves.

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

I am glad that the Leader of the House values the contribution of Select Committees. I am sure he agrees that they must look and feel like the areas that they are there to serve. Last Session, the Scottish Affairs Committee was particularly effective because all its members were from Scottish constituencies and it felt a bit like the Scotland that we were elected from. Does he agree that as we go forward, it is important that we have the same type of representation on the Scottish Affairs Committee, that it must feel a bit like Scotland and that it must have Scottish-based Members on it?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

A moment ago, our friends on the SNP Benches were complaining that the English were voting on things exclusively and that that was a bad idea. They are now saying that there should be a Committee that is exclusively made up of people from Scotland—I am not sure the two arguments go together.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Pete Wishart

Thursday 19th December 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her generous-spirited words, as always. How nice it is that we are back facing each other, and what fun it is when we walk together down the corridor to various appointments, including when your appointment, Mr Speaker, was confirmed by Her Majesty. That was greatly enjoyed.

If I were Mr Ladbroke, I would not take bets on the debate on the Queen’s Speech being resumed on the week beginning 13 January. That seems to me to be quite likely, but that is not a promise. It is merely an indication for those interested in placing bets.

The election of Deputy Speakers is a matter for Mr Speaker, and it therefore would not be right for me to give an indication on that. I am sure that Mr Speaker will keep us informed. The reason for the delay with the Select Committees is the Christmas recess, and it will be done as promptly as is reasonably possible.

I agree with the right hon. Lady that it would be extremely helpful to set out recess dates as early as possible. I think that is an advantage to the staff of the House and to Members, and in particular to new Members, in understanding how the year will work through. Discussions on that are going on at the moment and I hope that they can be announced reasonably early, and that obviously ties in with the length of the Session. The number of Bills and the considerable amount of business proposed in the Queen’s Speech means that we hope that there will not be a Queen’s Speech in another six weeks or so. It will be after a rather longer period; I certainly would be astonished if it was less than the normal year.

I absolutely understand the right hon. Lady’s point about Backbench Business days, Opposition days and sitting Fridays. Dare I make the rather obvious point that when the Government have a majority it is much easier to be generous in the allocation of time than when the Government do not have a majority, because the Government can continue to get their business through. I hope that we will find a great outpouring of consensus on finding dates for these matters and I hope that even the Scottish National party will be happy when that happens, although hoping that the SNP will be happy is sometimes a rather forlorn thought.

I was very impressed by what the right hon. Lady said in tribute to those who lost their seats. One is always in an odd position as an MP for a particular party when one looks at the Opposition Benches and thinks of wonderful people who have gone, people whom one liked and admired. Nic Dakin and I made our maiden speeches on the same day, and I am very sorry that he is no longer in this House, but I am glad that the Conservatives have won a seat. There are those mixed emotions that I think we all feel, and I echo her tribute to the many Members who lost their seats who have been great servants of this House, including, of course, the former Member for Bolsover, who had become an institution in so many ways and whose absence is noted whenever Black Rod appears. None the less, I am very glad that Bolsover is a Conservative seat. I am sure Members will understand the mixed feelings that one has.

The right hon. Lady said that the staff are here to help, and that is absolutely right. If I may praise the Clerks, the great thing was that from the day I arrived in 2010 and wanted to tweak the tail of the coalition Government by putting down difficult amendments to various things, the Clerks were invariably thoughtful, helpful and kindly. They are there to help all right hon. and hon. Members, which they do with extraordinary discretion, goodwill and wisdom. That is of particular benefit to new Members. They are not just there to help the Front Benchers; they are there to help everybody. I note what the right hon. Lady said about the “MPs’ Guide to Procedure” being written in 21st-century English. If any new hon. Member would like me to translate it into 18th-century English they need only apply to my office and I will do my very best.

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

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for when we return, and I join his full tributes to the staff. They have put in a remarkable shift in the course of the past few months, ensuring that we have been properly served during what must have been a very difficult period for them. They deserve all the accolades and praise they get.

I have to say that, like the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), I was concerned about the Leader of the House in the course of the election campaign. I thought that he had become one of the great disappeared, but here he is back in all his Victorian dad splendour. We are absolutely delighted to see him back in his place and taking an active role in the House. I hope that he retains his position as Leader of the House, because we are looking forward to our weekly exchanges—or, as it was towards the end of the last Parliament, daily exchanges. We could all live without them for at least a few months, if not a parliamentary Session.

I also pay tribute to Members who lost their seats. We did not experience that same type of issue, but we did lose one very dear colleague, a great friend of mine and of all those on these Benches, Stephen Gethins. We wish him all the best.

It was a particularly good night for the Scottish National party, and we are delighted to see so many new SNP Members here. I know that they will be coming to the Leader of the House, who will be very generous in affording some of his time for various briefings of new Members, and I know that he will encourage our new Members to take up that opportunity.

It is no surprise that the first week back will be all about the withdrawal agreement Bill. We presumed that that would be the case, given the hurry that the Government are now in to pursue and finish off their disastrous, dismal Brexit, as I called it earlier today. I do not think it will surprise the Leader of the House to know that we will oppose the Bill, because our nation overwhelmingly rejected this Brexit, and I think that that was reaffirmed in the general election last week.

The right hon. Gentleman may have devastated the “red wall” of the Labour party, but he will find that over that tartan border, he has lost half his Scottish colleagues. He will find a Scottish National party with 45% of the share of the vote in Scotland and 80% of its Members of Parliament. We stand dead set against the Government’s Brexit, and we demand the right to ensure that we determine our future on the back of that result. What we want to see from the right hon. Gentleman is a means whereby Scotland can determine and decide its own future, because the days of an unwanted Westminster Conservative Government deciding our future are coming to a close. I think that he and I sense that we are playing out the end of this game, so let me say to him, ever so gently, that the sooner he comes up with a mechanism and a means to allow Scotland to determine its own future, the better it will be for all of us.

Let me wish you, Mr Speaker, the very merriest of Brexitmases, as we might call it this year. I hope that you will have a relaxing and great time. Of course, I extend that to all Members, old and new, but particularly to the staff of the House, who have put in an enormous effort on our behalf this year. They deserve a break, and let us make sure that we can give it to them.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am touched by the hon. Gentleman’s concern for my whereabouts during the election campaign. Had he paid attention to Twitter and other such things, he might have noticed that I was in Stanton Drew briefly. The Wurzels sang a wonderful song called “When the Common Market Comes to Stanton Drew”. I said that, at last, the common market would be leaving Stanton Drew, to the great pleasure of one and all. It is a particularly terrific song, Mr Speaker, because it mentions so many parts of my constituency, and my constituency and popular music may not necessarily be things that people put together in their minds instantly.

I share the hon. Gentleman’s desire not to return to daily business questions—much as I enjoy responding to them, I think that they were beginning to pall in the House—but the weekly sessions will, I hope, continue in the normal way. As for the briefings, I am delighted that members of the SNP have accepted my invitation to come to the roundtables that I am hoping to arrange with members of all parties to talk about the role of the Leader of the House and how, from the point of view of the Leader of the House, the Chamber operates. They are informal sessions to which people are very welcome. Let me add that any Member who wishes to come and see me is always welcome to do so. One of the roles of the Leader of the House is to serve as an interface between Parliament and the Government, and these sessions often lead to my telling Ministers that an hon. Member has not received a response to something and trying to chase it up. I am always willing to do that.

The hon. Gentleman then raised his favourite issue, the Scottish independence or separatist question. I think that the issue is that there was a referendum, and I seem to remember that Mr Cameron, Mr Salmond and Miss Sturgeon reached an agreement about how the referendum would be carried out, and that it would be a one-off event. Mr Salmond, the then leader of the Scottish National party—not to be mistakenly called the Scottish Nationalist party, which should only be done if one wishes to tease them, because they get quite upset by it—said that it was a generational thing. When I look at the Benches opposite and at the hon. Ladies and hon. Gentlemen who are sitting there, I see that they are not fruit flies, and that therefore the generation we are talking about is one of many years and not just a short period of months. So I think that there is no reasonable reason for a second referendum, and I think that we should stick to what people said before the referendum was held. I seem to remember that Miss Sturgeon spoke of the gold standard of referendums, and I do not think that gold has tarnished.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Pete Wishart

Wednesday 30th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee is absolutely right to highlight the importance of that Bill, and the Government are committed to bringing it forth as soon as possible. I congratulate him on his service to the people of Northern Ireland and to the people of Dorset—something that he carries out with great distinction. I am biased, of course, because he is one of my oldest friends in this Chamber, so I do listen to him particularly carefully. I have absolutely heard his message, as I have heard the message from the shadow Leader of the House. Let us see what their lordships do. The normal processes will then grind through, and we will see what can be done.

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

There is nothing too old-fashioned for the right hon. Gentleman. I think we are all getting used to these daily business statements, and we look forward to another thrilling episode tomorrow. However, I had real concerns when I saw this business statement about whether there would be standard business questions tomorrow, because I remember the right hon. Gentleman’s clear commitment that there would be the opportunity for tributes to Mr Speaker. I am pleased and relieved to see that that is included in the statement and that there may be the opportunity to discuss other matters as we conclude this Parliament.

I am very concerned about the business for next week, and the arrangements for the election of the next Speaker are particularly unsatisfactory. Members like myself will have to come down all the way from Scotland during an election campaign for the sole purpose of electing a Speaker. I do not know how many hours that will take, but we will have to decide what will be the better use of our time: fighting an election or coming down here to decide the next Speaker. There is a real chance that Members of Parliament from Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom could be disenfranchised in the important business of electing the Speaker.

How have we got to this situation? Conversations were ongoing through the usual channels between the political parties and among the candidates for Speaker about trying to resolve the matter this week, so that the House could dissolve on Thursday or Friday. We could then we make the decision about the Speaker when we returned with a new Parliament. What has happened to those conversations? Has there been any blockage? If so, who is responsible? What type of discussions have been had? From speaking to colleagues—not just those within the Scottish National party—there are real concerns about the election of a Speaker happening exclusively on Monday, and we need to better understand what has happened and how we have reached this situation.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that nothing is too old fashioned for me, and I shall try not to disappoint him in future. I am sorry that his travel arrangements will be inconvenienced, and I mean that genuinely because I appreciate that the situation is difficult for Members who have to come a long way. People must order their priorities accordingly. My personal priority always revolves around the Chamber of the House.

I will point out that a right hon. Friend of mine, whose name I will not give away, will be a long way out of the country on long-planned business and is going to pay a £1,000 of his own money to make sure that he is back for an important parliamentary occasion. Some people take that view of attending for business, and others may indeed wish to start their election campaigns early. That is a choice that they must make. However, Monday and Tuesday are sitting days, and once Mr Speaker has resigned, we must elect a Speaker if the House is sitting. That is completely routine and standard and orderly, and it is important.

I will, if I may, correct the hon. Gentleman on the question of Dissolution, as I was corrected by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). The date of Dissolution is set backwards from the date of the election. With the election being on Thursday 12 December, Dissolution has to be on Wednesday at one minute past midnight. It cannot be on any other day. There is no flexibility in the terms of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011.

I confess, Mr Speaker, that there were conversations about whether we could have finished tomorrow, but for everybody who said to me that we should stop on Thursday, somebody else said that we should stop on Tuesday. There was no clear consensus. It is my view as Leader of the House that my responsibility if there is no consensus is to ensure that things carry on as they were planned to be. It would be wrong for me to force the House in a way that there was not a consensus to go down.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Pete Wishart

Tuesday 29th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call Pete Wishart, I appeal to Members who are leaving the Chamber—say I, playing for time—to do so quickly and quietly, so that the remaining Members can attend to what the hon. Gentleman wishes to say on the matter of this relatively narrow business statement. If people are about to be beetle out of the House walking past the hon. Gentleman, I hope that they will do so quickly so that he is not interrupted as he orates in his inimitable fashion.

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

It will not be a point for oration when I get down to the business that the Leader of the House has announced. I join the shadow Leader of the House in saying that we must stop meeting like this for these impromptu business statements. However, we will all miss them and the Leader of the House’s genuinely individual style as he announces emergency business statement after emergency business statement. We look forward to the next enthralling episode tomorrow, when we will all be congregated again, and the three of us will obviously enjoy the get-together that we have been experiencing over the past few weeks.

The SNP has no problem with or objection to the business announcement, and we look forward to the debate on Grenfell. I also look forward to our continuing get-togethers, which have become a regular feature of our time in the House. Finally, we are pleased that the Bill passed this evening. It is worth saying that, under the last Division result, the Prime Minister would have had the two-thirds majority that he was trying to secure—[Interruption.] I see the Leader of the House laughing and grinning there. The SNP is looking forward to this election and to coming back in increased numbers to ensure that we will oppose the Government’s hard Tory Brexit. We will continue to fight for Scotland’s right to choose Scotland’s future.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I just say what a pleasure it is to see the hon. Gentleman’s good nature shine through in a question? He normally keeps it so carefully hidden on the Floor of the House, but it is always so apparent in private.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Pete Wishart

Monday 28th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I do not think my hon. Friend’s point is really the right one to be making on this occasion. The withdrawal agreement Bill did indeed achieve its Second Reading, and then lost its programme motion. My hon. Friend will be aware that without a programme motion, or an allocation of time motion coming forward subsequently, the Bill remains simply in limbo. But the reason for not bringing forward an allocation of time motion is that the House has made its mind clear: it does not want to deal or engage seriously with the withdrawal agreement Bill. That means that the only sensible option remaining is to go back to the British people to see what they have to say—to trust the people and democracy, and in so doing ensure that we can stop this stalemate.

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

I thank the Leader of the House for this short statement. Scottish National party Members look forward to meaningfully engaging with the piece of legislation that is to be brought forward. We will be scrutinising it very closely in the course of the morning before it is presented to the House. I have just a couple of questions for the Leader of the House. Will we be able to see the draft Bill soon so that we can properly consider it? When will it be made available to us? The date of 12 December is mentioned in the information that I have received from the Leader of the House. Will he explain his thinking behind that particular date? We look forward to engaging with the Government tomorrow, and will look very carefully at what is included in the Bill.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his enthusiasm for an election, and pay credit to the Scottish National party for actually wishing to engage with its own voters, unlike some socialist parties that I can think of—[Interruption.] Other socialist parties; I am corrected.

The hon. Gentleman asks a very specific question about the date proposed for the general election. It is customary, though not established by law, that we have our elections on a Thursday. The reason that the date of 9 December did not work is that it would have required Parliament to dissolve just after midnight on Friday 1 November in order to provide the statutory 25 working days to prepare for an election. That would have made it very tight to get Royal Assent for the Bill that is to be introduced tomorrow, but we also we need to pass the Northern Ireland budget Bill before Parliament dissolves to ensure that the Northern Ireland civil service has access to the funding it needs to deliver public services in Northern Ireland. There are therefore technical reasons why that earlier dissolution would not actually have worked. I also think the British people are very comfortable with elections on Thursdays as a matter of routine.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Pete Wishart

Thursday 24th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point and for the remarkable work that he has done over many decades to ensure that our sovereignty is protected. It is only a pity that the Bill did not manage to go into Committee, and therefore we were not able to debate the clauses that he thinks—and I agree with him—are so important to maintaining the national interest.

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

We also look forward to joining in the tributes to you next week, Mr Speaker, and, if it is all right with the Leader of the House, perhaps the right hon. and hon. Ladies will be able to get a few words in, too.

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week. Of course, it is much more notable for what is not included than for what is included, because, of course, there is no Committee stage of the withdrawal agreement Bill, which is now in some sort of Johnsonian purgatory. We are supposed to be leaving the European Union a week today, but we will be debating—probably appropriately—children’s services. We were supposed to be leaving next Thursday—no ifs, no buts—but we are not. This date was “do or die” and “die in a ditch”. It was the very basis of the Prime Minister’s Conservative leadership campaign. Of course, we will not be leaving next Thursday, and it will be somebody else’s fault. Perhaps it is just me, but I cannot remember this ridiculous pledge being dependent on: “If only this pernicious remoaner Parliament lets us do it,” and, “If only these Nats were more reasonable.” It was an unconditional pledge, without caveats.

I know that the Leader of the House likes his surrender rhetoric; we have heard a lot about that in the past few weeks. Will he now say that this date is dead in a ditch and that it will not be met? The white flag will be raised. Halloween will go back to being the preserve—the exclusive preserve—of the ghouls and the spectres. This date is a dead parrot, Mr Speaker.

May I say ever so gently to my friends in the Labour party that if they get round the table to draw up another programme motion with the Tories—if they have a timetable for a Tory Brexit—their current precarious opinion poll ratings will be as nothing compared with what is about to come?

Can we have a debate about the responsibilities of the devolved institutions, perhaps just to outline to the Prime Minister exactly what they are? In referring to the withdrawal agreement yesterday, he said that

“the Scottish Parliament has no role in approving this deal.”—[Official Report, 23 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 963.]

The only thing is that it has, and I know that the Leader of the House knows that because he has been looking at the withdrawal agreement. Annex A of the explanatory notes contains countless instances where legislative consent is required. For the first time ever, the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments will refuse to give that consent to a Bill. Will the Government care a whit? Probably not because they never do. What was all that rhetoric about—lead, not leave, the UK, and a partnership of equals? Is it not the case that if we are to secure the rights of our Parliament, we will have to become an independent nation?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

During his comments, the hon. Gentleman made the remark, “If only the Nats were more reasonable.” Well, that is something to be looked forward to, but I think it may be in the next world rather than in this that it finally comes. But the Nats in their unreasonableness are at least very straightforward; they want to stop Brexit and have always been very clear about that. Although I disagree with them, I respect their position. There is no false pretence in what they say. It is a position they hold. They are not using procedural mechanisms to try to frustrate what 17.4 million people voted for. They are absolutely upright and straightforward in their opposition. I disagree, but I respect the honesty of that position. And they are certainly not on thin ice because they have opposed Brexit the whole way through.

The responsibility of the devolved Administrations is a very important issue. This Government respect the rights and responsibilities of the devolved Administrations, but the devolved Administrations ought also to respect the rights of the United Kingdom Government. The conduct of treaties and the agreement of treaties is a matter for the United Kingdom Government. Some of the detailed implementing legislation may require legislative consent motions, but the two are different and separate concepts. Therefore, what the Prime Minister said was absolutely right.

The hon. Gentleman asked if 31 October is still the date on which we will leave. That is still the date set in law. We do not yet know what the European Union will do. The European Union knows that the request for an extension is not the Prime Minister’s request. It is the request of the Benn Act. Her Majesty’s Government do not want an extension. Let me say it again: Her Majesty’s Government do not want an extension and are making every preparation to leave on 31 October.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman wondered what had happened to the withdrawal agreement Bill. I think the answer lies with Sir Percy Blakeney:

“They seek it here, they seek it there

Those parliamentarians seek it everywhere

Is it in heaven, or is it in hell?

That demmed, elusive Brexit Bill”.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Pete Wishart

Thursday 24th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Earlier today, I was actually praising the Leader of the Opposition, and now I am able to quote him. His words are words of wisdom. On 24 September 2019, exactly one month ago, he said:

“This crisis can only be settled with a general election. That election needs to take place as soon as this government’s threat of a disastrous No Deal is taken off the table”.

We have met the condition that he set. The Prime Minister has got a deal; no deal is off the table. And yet, for some reason, the Opposition still do not want a general election. We know why that is: we know why they will not have an election. It is because they are afraid of the voters. So alienated are the voters—so disenfranchised do they feel by their socialist friends—that the socialists are running away from an election.

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

What an extraordinary business statement, once again, from the Leader of the House.

This simply confirms that the Queen’s Speech has been nothing but a charade, a simple electioneering stunt. For us the priority remains the same: we need to see an extension secured, and that extension must be long enough to protect us from the cliff edge of a no-deal Brexit. We have seen the Prime Minister’s letter to the Leader of the Opposition, and we need to know that this Tory Government cannot play any games or tricks to use an election period to engineer a their way to secure their no-deal Brexit. The Scottish National party is clear: we want the opportunity to stop this Prime Minister, and to stop this toxic Tory Brexit that Scotland did not vote for. If there is to be an election, that election should be a chance for people to deliver their verdict on the deal and for the House to reflect it. That should come first.

Tomorrow the EU will make a decision on an extension, and we patiently await confirmation from Brussels and the terms that the Prime Minister proposes. We will not be pushed today by this Prime Minister. He may be hoping that the electorate will fall for his con tricks, but the SNP certainly will not.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

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

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Pete Wishart

Tuesday 22nd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The problem—the constraint—is, of course, the fact that this is a bicameral legislature. However long we sat, the House of Lords would also have to sit, and the deadline is Thursday week. Even if we were to sit around the clock, having the hours that we were to have had today, given the time required for the House of Lords, there would still be very little time left; and after people have complained that the time is insufficient, it might be peculiar if they were then to say that an even shorter time was sufficient. I welcome the intent of my right hon. Friend’s question, but I do not think that that will work.

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

I thank the Leader of the House for his short business statement. He is absolutely right: he has met his obligations according to the Standing Orders of the House by making the statement. I also thank him for not making it through a point of order, as he did on Saturday. He has done the right thing by addressing the House with a business statement on which we can question him about certain aspects of what he has said.

I listened carefully to the Leader of the House. He described the current withdrawal agreement Bill as “in limbo”. I was hearing from the Prime Minister, and I think that several journalists in the Press Gallery were being briefed today, that the Prime Minister was prepared to withdraw the Bill if the programme motion was not passed. That was a very clear statement. Will the Leader of the House therefore clarify the “limbo” that he has described? When are we likely to see the withdrawal agreement before the House again? I remind the Leader of the House that the 31st is next Thursday. The Prime Minister is committed to adhere to the Benn Act and seek an extension. I think that the Leader of the House should explain how these competing tensions will be resolved.

The Queen’s Speech debate is to return to the House. That is right, too, and I congratulate the Leader of the House. It is right for the House to consider the Queen’s Speech properly and to have an opportunity to vote on it. However, we need to know will happen beyond that. There is only one week until the Prime Minister’s self-imposed deadline, so what is going to happen?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I hate to quibble with the hon. Gentleman, but it is not a self-imposed deadline. It is a deadline that was selected by the European Union. Members may recall that the previous Government went to the European Union suggesting a deadline around June. It was rejected by the EU, which set a deadline of 31 October. In a remarkably short space of time, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister renegotiated the deal, which nearly everybody had said was impossible, and the deadline has remained fixed.

The hon. Gentleman raised the question of limbo, and how that correlates with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s reference to the Bill’s being withdrawn. The key thing to remember about limbo is that to enter it, one cannot still be alive, and therefore the Bill is no longer a live Bill.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Pete Wishart

Monday 21st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend has made an excellent point. We have indeed spent the best part of three years debating these matters at inordinate length, and it is amazing that anyone thinks there is anything to be said on the subject that has not already been said.

Subject to your ruling earlier today, Mr Speaker, the first opportunity for us to vote on the content of the agreement between Her Majesty’s Government and the European Union will be on Second Reading of the Bill tomorrow.

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

I thank the Leader of the House for his short business statement.

May I endorse what was said by you, Mr Speaker, by the Leader of the House and by the shadow Leader of the House about the efficient way in which the House was organised on Saturday? It was a credit to everyone who works in this place. Let me also say that I was appalled at the scenes of the Leader of the House and his son being harangued. There is no excuse for that sort of behaviour in and around the House.

It was entirely right, Mr Speaker, that the Leader of the House was refused the right to bring the motion back today. The Government had an opportunity to engage meaningfully with the meaningful vote, but they chose not to do so, and they cannot simply bring it back on terms that they choose and dictate. The House operates on the basis of motions and amendments to motions, and democracy requires that process to be observed. No one messes with “Erskine May”.

What the Leader of the House has proposed in relation to the withdrawal agreement Bill is totally unacceptable. We shall be debating its Second Reading on the same day as the beginning of its Committee stage in the House. I have been in the House for 18 years, and I cannot remember a Bill being presented and debated in such terms, particularly a Bill that will become a full treaty of this country. We shall have three days in which to consider a Bill which, it has been suggested, will contain 100 pages. How on earth will we have a chance to assess it properly? There will be no economic impact assessments. What about the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which requires any treaty to be laid before the House for 21 days before it can be ratified? What about the devolved institutions and Administrations whose legislative consent is required before any Bill can be passed? The arrangements for this Bill are simply not good enough.

At least a change in Government business has been announced by the conventional means of a business statement. I hope that the Leader of the House will never again change significant Government business by way of a point of order. He mentioned leaving the Chamber. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) was addressing the House when the Leader of the House breezed past him. That is no way for a Leader of the House to behave.

Only last week we asked Her Majesty to put on her best crown, get into the State Coach, and come to Parliament to read out the Conservatives’ next election manifesto. When is the Queen’s Speech debate coming back? Was all that just a supreme waste of time?

The Prime Minister may have died in that ditch as the white flag was raised in the so-called surrender Bill, but we will not give up. We will ensure that this Bill is given the proper scrutiny that it requires.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As always, it was a pleasure to listen to the hon. Gentleman. He made a number of points. First, I would quibble with his claim that Her Majesty came here wearing her best crown. Her best crown is probably the Crown of King Edward the Confessor, which is used only at the Coronation. At the state opening of Parliament, the Imperial State Crown is probably Her Majesty’s second best crown; but far be it from me to be pedantic about such matters.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act. That Act will be taken care of in the Bill. The point of it is to ensure that non-legislative treaties can be voted on in the House. Legislative treaties inevitably fall into a different category.

The hon. Gentleman must have a remarkably short memory, because he said that he could not recall any Bill being introduced at such short notice. There have been two such Bills in the last year, one colloquially known as the Benn Act, and the other known as the Cooper-Boles Act. I also remind Members that the abdication was dealt with in 24 hours. A king-emperor left within 24 hours, and we are removing an imperial yoke in over a week.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Pete Wishart

Thursday 17th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is one of the most thoughtful Members of this House; the things that he brings forward have always been carefully considered. I would say to him that the motions that the Government are tabling are in relation to Acts of Parliament, and when we have amendments of many kinds to motions that follow an Act of Parliament, it is more likely to cause confusion than elucidation of the point.

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

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing—well, something, anyway, that it looks as though we will be doing next week.

I, too, welcome the new Serjeant at Arms, Ugbana Oyet. I think that all of us on these Benches are looking forward very much to meeting him and working with him in the future.

It was uncharacteristic of the Leader of the House not to announce today that he had secured his deal—and well done to him and his Government for eventually getting something after all this time. The only problem is that it is a worse deal than that of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). It takes Scotland out of the European Union against its national collective will, it deprives us of customs union and single market membership, and it will stop the freedom of movement on which our economy and so many vital sectors depend.

They are all still on the Hillary Step. The dark clouds are still there, and the mist is still in the air in the shape of the Democratic Unionist party. Sherpa Foster has unshackled herself from the Prime Minister, and is busily descending the mountain as we speak.

May we have a debate on culinary delicacies? The plat du jour for the Leader of the House is his own words: a delicious Northern Irish Brexit jambalaya of choice vocabulary including “impractical”, “bureaucratic” and “betrayal of common sense”, all washed down with the finest Château Cretinous. Churchill may indeed have found his own words very nutritious, but I suspect that the Leader of the House will only get indigestion.

We will deal with the issue of the Saturday sitting when we debate the motion, but we will complete our debates on the Queen’s Speech in the next few days, and it looks very likely that a Queen’s Speech will be voted down for the first time since 1924, when Stanley Baldwin was in power. May I ask the Leader of the House what happens in such circumstances? He will obviously tell me that he thinks and hopes that the Queen’s Speech will get through, but what will happen if it does not? We have heard from the Government that they intend to introduce the measures in the Queen’s Speech Bill by Bill. If that is indeed their intention, I should like the Leader of the House to confirm it to the House. I know that he likes to give his views on such issues, so let us see whether he can be straightforward with the House today.

The Leader of the House will have noted from what was said at the Scottish National party conference that we intend to hold an independence referendum next year. We as a nation must unshackle ourselves from this whole ugly, disastrous Brexit business, an issue that we wanted absolutely nothing to do with. Is it not interesting that under the deal that has been announced today, Northern Ireland will be given a differential deal on single market membership, Wales will get what it wants, and the rest of the UK will get what it wants as well? The only nation that does not get what it wanted in relation to Europe is Scotland, and that is not good enough.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It’s being so cheerful as keeps the hon. Gentleman going. It is always a pleasure to listen to him. He mentioned the deal. I am pleased to say that it is a really fantastic and exciting deal, and I am very glad that he has given me the opportunity to speak about it. When I was speaking on behalf of the Government on Sunday, I was doing so because I trusted the Prime Minister and knew that he would get a good deal. I was supporting the deal on the basis of trust, and now that I know what is in it, my trust has been completely justified. It is a really exciting and positive deal. It removes the undemocratic backstop, and it is a huge advance for the whole United Kingdom. It will ensure that we are one single customs territory.

I am aware of the details of the deal. I actually have the text of it here. I am glad to say that, unlike the hon. Gentleman, I have had a chance to peruse it in detail. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says, from a sedentary position, that I have not read it. How do you peruse something without reading it? Does the hon. Gentleman think that I have understood it through extrasensory perception? I tell him he is wrong. It has not come to me through the ether. I have looked at the words on the page, of which the normal definition is reading. Perhaps, after this session, people should be given remedial education so that they can understand the normal use of words in English.

We have a really good, exciting deal that takes out the undemocratic backstop and delivers on what the Prime Minister promised he would do. In 85 days, he has achieved something that could not be achieved in three years—

Business Statement

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Pete Wishart

Tuesday 15th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend makes an absolutely valid point. It was of course the surrender Act that set the date of 19 October for its coming into force and that is why events may have to take place on Saturday. I hope that Members of the House will be reassured that the House has met on a Saturday in 1956 and 1982. We are Members of Parliament. It is our duty to attend to the serious business of the state, as we had set out to us by Her Majesty only yesterday, and to meet twice or three times on a Saturday in 70 years is not too inconvenient, even for those with the most pressing diary concerns.

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

I thank the Leader of the House for making this short statement this afternoon. It is disappointing that we are still in the realms of “surrender Act”. For goodness’ sake, let us try to see if we can improve the language used in this House. Using terms like that is singularly inappropriate and I believe it does not catch the mood of the House at all.

The Leader of the House made his statement with all the enthusiasm of a prime ministerial speech at a People’s Vote rally. The last thing that he wants to bring to the House are the constraints that were given to this Government under the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019. We did that because we wanted to ensure we did not have the situation where they could possibly have their no-deal scenario. Thank goodness we have this extra piece of security at our disposal to ensure that the Government have to continue to come to Parliament every week to give some sort of statement. We are grateful for that.

I agree with the concerns of the Labour spokesperson. We need to see more about the proposed motion. It is just not good enough to glibly say, “Sorry, it’s not available.” This should have been available to us. How many hours have been set aside for this tomorrow? We are halfway through the Queen’s Speech debate and this is now going to be included. Will it disrupt the business of debating the Queen’s Speech? How long will we get to debate it? I also share the concerns about Saturday. We need to hear what is happening on Saturday. We need to have some sort of plan. We are from Scotland, Leader of the House. You have already destroyed our conference. We are all here missing our leader’s speech today. We are possibly going to have to come back. We do not know what we are going to be doing. Give us some certainty and security. [Interruption.] If he is going to say to me—[Interruption.]

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Pete Wishart

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

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

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Pete Wishart

Thursday 5th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

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

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

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Pete Wishart

Thursday 25th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

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

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

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

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

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

[Pete Wishart]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

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

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Pete Wishart

Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

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

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

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

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

[Pete Wishart]

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

Private Members’ Bills: Money Resolutions

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Pete Wishart

Monday 21st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is a great constitutional expert, but his point is completely irrelevant to this debate, which is on money resolutions relating to private Members’ Bills. He seeks to widen it to the virtues of the Bill that is being considered, but we need to focus on this basic constitutional principle, which is at the heart of how this place operates.

A Government elected on the basis of popular suffrage come to the House with their demands for expenditure. We as Parliament and the House of Commons hold that Government to account for the expenditure they wish to have. It has never been the role of the House to say that money should be spent if the Government do not wish to propose it.

[Pete Wishart]

What about the sovereignty of the House, which is an underlying principle for the hon. Gentleman? Does that not matter? If this House decides something, should it not have its way?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is not focusing on the totality of the constitution. The sovereignty of this House is there to give confidence to the Government of the day. If the Government do not have the confidence of this House, they fall. Therefore, if the Government do not operate correctly in bringing forward their requests for expenditure in terms of their dealings with this House, or if the House does not approve, the Government change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I will not give way again.

[Pete Wishart]

What about sovereignty?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Of course we are sovereign, but we are sovereign in that we have the ability to dismiss the Government.

The separation of powers is very important. If we allowed the House to do all that the Government try to do, we would in effect not have an Executive. We would simply have Committees of the House trying to run the whole Government, which would be completely impractical and a novel constitutional experiment. For very good reasons, we have the Standing Orders we have. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) rightly said that we can change our Standing Orders—we can change Standing Orders Nos. 48, 49 and 50 so that money resolutions are not needed.

Restoration and Renewal (Report of the Joint Committee)

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Pete Wishart

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

It is a puckish grin with which I am also familiar. All I want to do is to assist hon. Members: help us in our campaign to reclaim our time so that we can properly spend the time debating and looking after our constituents—[Interruption.] Yes, take back control, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) says.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

On that very issue, how can I resist the hon. Gentleman?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He says that time in the Division Lobby is wasted. On the Conservative Benches, we find it quite useful talking to our friends and colleagues. Is that not true in the SNP?

[Pete Wishart]

I do not know how much of a blessing it is to Front Benchers when hon. Members get backstage and buttonhole them. And this is what we get—the shrieks of, “Oh, we need to meet up with our ministerial colleagues in the Lobby.” But that prerogative is exclusively the right of Conservative Members. I do not detect many Government Ministers, as we spend most of our time voting with Labour, and I am pretty damned certain that no Labour Members have encountered a Government Minister in their Lobby over the course of these years. The Conservative Members may have that right, but it is a right that is not open to the rest of us.

I will help Conservatives Members with this one: we could have electronic voting that we would have to do in the vicinity of the Chamber. We would all have to come here and we would get some sort of device, because the technological solution would be to press a button that is handed out to us. We would all be here, so if hon. Members wanted to speak to Ministers or talk to the Leader of the House about a particular issue, they could just go up to them and say, “Hello, Leader of the House. Can I have a word with you please?” None of that would be stopped.

Nomination of Members to Committees

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Pete Wishart

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

I am almost grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Yes, the Government with their grubby £1 billion deal with the Democratic Unionist party have a confidence and supply arrangement on the Floor of the House; what they most definitely do not have is a majority on the Committees of this House, which are determined by the country and how the people voted.

This minority Conservative Government have 317 Members out of the 650 Members available in this House; that amounts to 48.7% of the membership of this House. What they are therefore entitled to is 48.7% of the membership of the Committees of this House. But that is not the case for this Government; for them, democracy is a mere impediment as they grimly hold on to power and ensure they get their way in everything they try to undertake. This is a Parliament of minorities, and the structures and arrangements of this House must reflect that reality and that fact.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

I give way to the hon. Gentleman; how could I not?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, whose speeches are normally compelling, but on this occasion there is one flaw. If this motion is passed, it is the democratic will of the House of Commons that Standing Orders be amended, and therefore that has democratic backing. For him to say it is not democratic is simply wrong.

[Pete Wishart]

The Government will pass this tonight; they will get their way because they have the DUP in their £1 billion pocket, but that does not make it right or democratic. They have 48.7% of the membership of the House; they should not have any more than that proportion in terms of Committees.

Scheduling of Parliamentary Business

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Pete Wishart

Monday 17th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

That is because they were superb candidates, particularly the nominee for Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

I cannot resist the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman has left out the amazing abilities of the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil).

[Pete Wishart]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has reminded me of that. How could I forget my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That is where I think the Opposition have misfired today:

“To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven.”

But this is not the season or the time. So much is happening of general urgency, and this debate strikes me as fiddling while Brussels burns. We have the massive Brexit debate to consider, we still have a huge deficit to be debated and we have a great housing crisis that has been so starkly brought to our attention by what happened at Grenfell Tower, and what do Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition ask for? They ask for a debate on Standing Orders—a debate on a debate. A debate on conversation. Even for one who loves procedure and thinks it of great importance, can that be what is of most urgency to us today? It is a question of proportionality.

The hon. Member for Rhondda made many important points about how the House has limited powers to hold a strong Government to account and about how it should use those powers, but the Opposition have asked for this debate a few days into the Session, before we have had any real opportunity to discover how many Opposition days we will have, and well before it is decided whether additional days will be given because it is a two-year Session. I have no doubt that further days will be given. Indeed, if all 20 days have been used up a year from now and the Government come to the Dispatch Box to say that there will be no more days, I will be on the side of the Opposition. I would support the Opposition in asking for a proportional share during the second year of this Session, which would be only right. I would also be in favour of an extra three days for the Scottish National party, because that is what this Parliament ought to do, but the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), the shadow Leader of the House, has misfired—this is too soon and too early, and it is not genuinely urgent.

[Pete Wishart]

I sort of accept the hon. Gentleman’s point. Maybe it is a bit too early, but he knows the history of previous Parliaments and of how Opposition days were granted after the Select Committees and Standing Committees were up and running. It is unusual for those Committees not to be up and running after four weeks. Surely he must have some concerns about that.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Again, I think the hon. Gentleman is premature. The issue is the month lost between May and June. We have the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, and we have gotten used to having elections in May. We therefore expect these things to be up and running in time for the summer recess, which I absolutely accept, but he misses the point that the election was under not the normal procedure but the extraordinary procedure of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. We therefore assembled a month later, closer to the summer recess. The process of electing Select Committee Chairmen and Select Committee members takes a little time, and the Opposition are simply being unreasonable. If we were having this debate in September, they would have a fair point; and if we were having it in October, they would have an outrageous point if they did not have any Opposition day debates by then.

This Session has hardly begun. It is in its infancy. It is like Sixtus, my newborn son. It is still in the mewling and puking stage. It has not reached the stage of toddling, walking and taking bold steps.

House of Lords Reform and Size of the House of Commons

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Pete Wishart

Wednesday 19th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

Absolutely, and we have an increasing population. I still do not know the Government’s case for the reduction in the number of MPs—well, I think I know why they decided to reduce the number of MPs. I think it was an attempt to stuff the Labour party, but the Labour party does not need any favours, help or assistance in that regard. It seems to be doing a pretty good job of that on its own.

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

The hon. Gentleman is being very unfair on that point. I think that the decision was made to reduce the number of MPs because in 2010, when the policy came forward, there was a great deal of public feeling that MPs had become too expensive. It was a response to the national mood at the time.

[Pete Wishart]

Of course there is a national mood in favour of such a cut. If we were to ask any member of the public whether they would like to see the size of Parliament and Government reduced—I am sure I will find this when I go back to my constituency at the weekend—they would say, “Yes, of course.” My point, and I believe that the hon. Gentleman might respect this, is that we seem to be reducing the number of elected Members but letting the other place grow exponentially. That is the key point. I am beginning to get the sense that the public are starting to look at what we have got down the corridor and deciding that we have to do this. Enough is enough.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Pete Wishart

Tuesday 12th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

Here is something for the hon. Lady, for whom I have a great deal of respect, to consider: how about if we all retain equality in the House of Commons? How about we retain the same rights and privileges, just as we did just a few short weeks ago? The hon. Lady and all her hon. Friends obviously feel very strongly about this. I understand the passion of English Members of Parliament on this issue. How about they create a Parliament? How about designing a Parliament in their own image, where they can look after these issues like we do in the Scottish Parliament? Why do not they not have a Parliament, one that does not necessarily sit in this House but in one of the other great cities throughout the United Kingdom, where democracy could be seen in action? How about that as a solution? We could then come back together to this House as equal Members and consider the great reserved issues of foreign affairs, defence and international relations. That is how most other nations do it. It is called federalism and it seems to work quite adequately in most other nations.

What Conservative Members have done today is create this absolute mess—a bourach, a guddle. Nobody even understands how it works! We have just rung the Division bells to suspend proceedings, so that the Speaker can scurry off and consult the Clerks to decide whether it is necessary to recertify certain pieces of proposed legislation. This is what has happened to the business of this great Parliament. This is what we have resorted to today.

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

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who I also like very much.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I think he has actually got it fundamentally wrong. Two tiers of Members of Parliament have not been created by the mechanism that has been used. By using Standing Orders, which can be changed by all Members of Parliament, and by this being a Grand Committee—we see where the Mace is—and not the House sitting in full session, the rights of every individual Member remain intact. That is crucially important.

[Pete Wishart]

In all candour, I have to say that that is not what it feels like on this side of the House. If a Division is called, the hon. Gentleman will be able to vote and express his view as a legitimately elected Member of Parliament. My hon. Friends and I, as equally legitimate Members of Parliament recently elected at the general election, will not be allowed to vote. We will be banned. We will be barred. We will be effectively banished from that process.

Standing Orders (Public Business)

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Pete Wishart

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is most important that the proposal does not create a second-class tier of Members of Parliament. Given that it comes under Standing Orders, in the event of there being a Government who are dependent on Scottish votes for their majority, they could repeal the Standing Order. Therefore the basis of the authority of each MP remains identical.

[Pete Wishart]

I have a lot of respect for the hon. Gentleman’s views, but he is quite simply wrong. The basic principle of the plans is that I and my hon. Friends will be second-class citizens in the unitary Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is unacceptable.

Scotland is watching this debate and the mood is darkening. If this is an exercise in saving the Union, the Government could not have contrived a more inept way to do so. Support for independence is increasing. The Conservatives got 14% of the vote in Scotland at the general election. It was an historic low. They have not secured such a vote since the 19th century. Once this has been done to Scottish Members of Parliament—our elected representatives—just watch their polls continue to plummet.

Justice and Home Affairs Opt-out

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Pete Wishart

Monday 7th April 2014 Commons Chamber

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

In the House, one always “follows the hon. Gentleman”, which often highlights differing views. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) on this occasion. He and I have almost diametrically opposite views when it comes to issues such as this, but I enjoyed his speech nevertheless.

In her opening speech, the Home Secretary produced a list of countries, some of which were of great interest to me, for it is always fascinating to hear about our bilateral relationships with some of our friends in Europe; but she did not refer to one nation that is a bit closer to home. My nation, Scotland, did not receive a single mention. Indeed, not one of the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies was considered important enough for the Secretary of State to mention. It should never be forgotten that we have our own judicial system in Scotland, and that we are responsible for the delivery of justice and home affairs there.

I think it reasonable to say—and I will say it to the Home Secretary, who is still present—that this opt-out is not particularly popular in Scotland. What it has in fact managed to do is unite the Scottish Government, the whole of Scotland’s legal community, all the police enforcement agencies and all the civil rights institutions in opposition. There is probably no issue that has managed to unite all those different and divergent sectors in Scotland ever before. That is how unpopular this opt-out is in Scotland. The bottom line is that we overwhelmingly do not want this opt-out in Scotland and we remain very concerned for the security and safety of our citizens in Scotland if this opt-out is pursued. We are very much concerned about the cavalier attitude of this Government in opting out of this chapter and their hope that they can selectively just opt back into the important measures that help keep people in our respective nations safe. We do not share the Government’s Eurosceptic agenda that informs this political decision and we despair at the self-defeating nonsense of all of this.

Even though we do not want this, however, and even though it is overwhelmingly opposed, Scotland will get it. That is just the way it works. The UK Government decide what they will do on behalf of the rest of the nations and Assemblies in the UK and that is what will happen.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman does not seem to want any of these opt-outs, but is not the great argument for independence in the referendum in Scotland that it means Scotland will leave the EU and opt out of everything?

[Pete Wishart]

This is the difference between me and the hon. Gentleman: he wants to opt out of Europe and be a little Englander, all self-enclosed in a joyous new future he would propose for his nation, whereas we want to reach out—we want to share with the rest of our fellow citizens across Europe all the wonderful benefits of EU membership and EU entry. That is what we will secure in Scotland and thank goodness we will not be part of the rest of the United Kingdom, pulling in one direction under the UKIP-informed political orthodoxy that is starting to emerge here. We will do it in our own way and we will reflect our own particular political values when it comes to EU membership. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that topic.

We are going to get this measure in Scotland even though we feel it is not in the best interests of the communities we represent, but, as the hon. Gentleman alluded to, this will end soon when we have the referendum in September. No longer will we have our devolved responsibilities dictated by this Government. The Secretary of State will have seen the correspondence from the Scottish Ministers—the screeds of concerns, the evidence from the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee—but she will of course ignore them. That is what happens; we put forward our concerns and they are first ignored and then binned. This is what this Government still laughingly call the respect agenda.

Colleagues in the Scottish Government have stated repeatedly to UK Ministers the value we place on EU police and justice co-operation measures. We have pointed out that we have our own distinct legal system that needs to be dealt with differently, and we have our own processes of bringing serious criminals to justice and our own particular European partnerships for tackling growing levels of cross-border crime.

For us, the measures in the home affairs and justice chapter are extremely important. They are not something to barter in a game of Eurosceptic or Russian roulette with UKIP. They are measures that ensure that people accused of serious crimes are brought to justice quickly and efficiently. Unlike this Government, we very much support the sharing of information between police forces. We want to see improved joint investigations of cross-border crimes. We think it is a good thing to have better identification of people using false documents and the efficient transfer of criminals back to their own countries.

This has been done with no or little consultation. Scottish Ministers have repeatedly written to explain the possible implications of this decision on Scotland’s devolved justice system and to state clearly their very strong preference to remain fully opted into these measures, but the Government simply brought forward their intention to proceed with this opt-out without even a cursory discussion with the devolved institutions. That just is not good enough any more.

The lack of real discussion and the failure to listen to the devolved Administrations demonstrate this Government’s Eurosceptic arrogance at its worst. We all know why they are doing this. It is all because of the threat of UKIP at the polls, so they have got to be seen to be doing something—anything—about the big Brussels bogeyman.

It would be as well just to have Nigel Farage on the Front Bench trying to get this through. Of course UKIP has not got a Member in the House, but it pulls the strings in the House all the time, and this Government just respond by taking that agenda up. I do not know who will win the battle of the Eurosceptics, but it looks as though UKIP is going to win the battle of the European election polls in May. The point is that you cannot out-UKIP UKIP; they are the masters of Euroscepticism. This Government will never beat them in their race to the bottom to try and be harder on Europe and try to scare people out of Europe more and more. We do not do UKIP in Scotland—we barely do Tory; we have only one Tory Member of Parliament—yet we are going to be dragged into this Euro race to the bottom as the parties attempt to win Eurosceptic votes in the May elections.

The Government say that they are going to opt out of the home affairs chapter, only to opt back into the important stuff. The stuff that they will not opt back into is mostly dead and never used, as the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) said, but we could be put into a dangerous period of limbo—a gap during which the important stuff will not apply—that could diminish our security and safety. We have been forced to opt out of everything, including important measures for investigating cross-border crimes and bringing serious, organised criminals to justice.

Those measures include the European arrest warrant, which has been the focus of most of the debate today. Yes, the Government say that they will opt back into the European arrest warrant, but there will almost certainly be a lag period, and that is what concerns us the most. We know that there are those on the Tory Back Benches who do not like the European arrest warrant; we have heard from them today, and they remain disappointed that the Government will seek to opt back into the measure. For them, the warrant is a totem of EU badness—something that sums up Brussels, and must go—whereas to us, it is central to European justice and security, and to the safety of our communities. It has done a great deal to bring dangerous criminals to justice.

I suspect that opposition to the European arrest warrant is based on Euroscepticism, but our experience of it in Scotland is totally different. We have heard today of the example of Moira Jones. The European arrest warrant was instrumental in securing the conviction of her murderer, in that it allowed clothing and other property to be seized before it could be destroyed. That helped to lead to a successful prosecution. The speed with which extraditions take place is important, and long-drawn-out processes can be avoided only by using the warrant. We have none of the issues with the warrant that have been mentioned by other hon. Members. It has been particularly successful in Scotland, and it is something that all our law enforcement agencies welcome.

I shall give the House another example of how the European arrest warrant is working for us in Scotland. In January 2012, Grzegorz Gamla committed a violent attack and murder in Edinburgh. He was arrested within five hours of the issuing of the arrest warrant. That was achieved through the European arrest warrant system, but it was also facilitated by direct contact between Scottish prosecutors and the authorities in Poland under the European judicial network, which the Government say that they will not opt back into. Those two cases show how the ability to act incredibly swiftly using the arrest warrant allowed the criminal process to proceed much more quickly than it would otherwise have done.

There are other important Europe-wide security and policing arrangements from which we might find ourselves excluded for an unspecified period. We have heard about membership of Europol and Eurojust, for example, as well as practical police and judicial co-operation measures and joint investigative teams. The Government have said that they will opt back into most of the important stuff, but they are not seeking to opt back into the European judicial network, which underpins much of the good work of the European arrest warrant. We have been told by Scotland’s police and legal community that that network is invaluable to Scotland, but once again, the concerns expressed by our legal community have been overlooked.

This is all so unnecessary, and it represents a real threat to security and safety in Scotland. We do not share the ingrained Euroscepticism that now infects this Government at the highest level, and we refuse to have our political agenda determined by the threat of UKIP in the polls. The bottom line is that any gap between opt-out and rejoining has to be kept to a minimum. The longer the gaps and transition periods that have to be dealt with, the greater the likelihood of the problems that we have been discussing occurring.

Our preference would have been not to have the opt-out in the first place, but we are part of a UK that barely listens to us and that is pursuing an almost opposite set of political values and a different political agenda from ours. This will be resolved in September when we vote yes overwhelmingly in the independence referendum and Scotland gets what it wants on these issues, at which point we will secure our membership of the European Union on our terms.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Pete Wishart

Thursday 30th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

Yes, and I will tell the hon. Gentleman something else: an independent Scotland will sign up fully to the European convention on human rights and take our responsibility in that regard very seriously. We will not be cavalier, as this Government seem to be in their approach to some of these very important human rights. I look forward to the day when Scotland, as an independent nation, will take very seriously its responsibilities to protect our citizens and ensure that they are properly protected by international laws and regulations.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman does not have the courage to claim that Scotland would be the successor state and would therefore inherit membership of all those bodies, leaving England, Wales and Northern Ireland free from the European Union?

[Pete Wishart]

I invite the hon. Gentleman, who I know takes a great interest in these matters—

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Pete Wishart

Tuesday 10th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[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.

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

The hon. Gentleman famously campaigned with a notable third party—his nanny—in the Glenrothes by-election. If she was in receipt of payment from the hon. Gentleman, would she have been in contravention of what his amendment suggests?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

That is a gloriously roundabout way of examining this issue and it gives me an opportunity to pay tribute to a wonderful nanny who campaigns for me and who is now hard at work looking after my four children, which is a great thing for her to be doing. She was a volunteer when I campaigned in Glenrothes and therefore would in no sense have been caught by this clause. Although any payment that is made to her does come from me, it is not money that I receive from the public.