Risk-based Exclusion

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Rehman Chishti

Monday 13th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am saying that it would be ineffective because a right hon. or hon. Member would simply maintain the right to turn up. There would be no power to arrest that person when turning up, therefore what would we do next, and what would we do if a person so outraged by the allegation said, “Well, I’m going to call a by-election, stand for Parliament and be returned”?

A general election is coming in the next few months. What would we do if a Member subject to this procedure were reselected by his constituency association and returned? By ancient principle, a Member who is returned cannot then be barred for something that happened in the last Parliament. Are we going to start saying, “The people of constituency X have duly voted in somebody who we suspended in the last Session, and who we are going to re-suspend”? Just before the last general election, Keith Vaz was subject to a report that was not entirely in his favour. Everyone recognised that that suspension could not carry over a general election.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

I have immense respect for my right hon. Friend’s knowledge of constitutional matters. As an excellent former Leader of the House, why does he think that the Government have introduced an unconstitutional measure, rather than apply the due court process by having the House of Commons make the decision?

[Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg]

It is because we have become confused about the limits of exclusive cognisance. The House has exclusive cognisance about its own affairs, but acting as the whole House. Look at the case of the exclusion of Bradlaugh. That was an action of the whole House. What did we do when Bobby Sands was elected to Parliament? We changed the law so that people subject to a criminal sentence could not stand for Parliament. We did not try to set up some approvals committee that would decide who could put their name forward; we followed a proper constitutional process. To answer my hon. Friend, I am astonished that our learned Clerks, who must have advised on this, have allowed such an extraordinary power grab by Standing Orders to undermine a fundamental of our constitution.

I know that when Members of Parliament talk about privilege it sounds as if they are talking about themselves, but it is about our constituents’ right to be represented. They are not represented only by votes. Indeed, most of the time they are least represented by votes, which go the way of the Government majority, with one vote more or less not making a hap’orth of difference. They are marginally represented by written questions, but not much. I have given answers to written questions; sometimes they seem to be as unilluminating as possible. I always tried to improve the illumination where I could. The real representation is in this very room. It is not even in Westminster Hall or in Committee; it is in this great cockpit of debate. A cabal taking away that right is against the constitution.

I will make a couple of little points about the proposal. I do not have a strong view on whether the term should be “arrested” or “charged”, as long as the process is proper and constitutional. I think that it would be perfectly fair even if it was automatic, if it were done by a proper constitutional process. That is not really the issue, but I think that what is proposed is deeply unfair. I will point to two things.

First, the panel will not be given the name of the Member being risk assessed. Dare I say, tell that to the marines. We know in this place that it is inconceivable that a panel of two Deputy Speakers and a panjandrum would not know the name; we would all have been told it by the Lobby correspondents. That is how I find out everything that goes on here, usually from The Mail on Sunday, which has a hotline to what is going on. Those on the committee would know very soon, so that seems to me to be phoney, and not recognising reality.

Secondly, the report states that

“Members must not lobby the Panel…We carefully considered whether a Member subject to risk assessment should have the right to make representations”.

If someone is being risk assessed, how can they maintain that they are low risk if they are not allowed to represent themselves? I think it is extraordinarily unfair that they will be tried in absentia by a cabal, undermining the rights of their constituents. If we want to do this, let us find time for legislation, and let us do it properly.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Rehman Chishti

Thursday 27th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Under Operation Pitting, our armed forces and civil service worked around the clock to evacuate 15,000 people, including around 8,300 British nationals and 5,000 people through the Afghan relocations policy. This was an incredibly successful and pressurised operation, and our armed forces, once again, showed what amazing things they can do when called upon to do them. The hon. Gentleman is fussing about a few animals. I think that shows the level of seriousness that he characteristically brings to today’s debate.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

I very much welcome the Government’s excellent vaccination roll-out programme in my constituency, with a vaccination centre in Medway, which all three Medway MPs campaigned for. Linked to that, my constituents very much welcome the £12 billion extra NHS investment year on year. May we have a debate on the Floor of the House about support for hospitals? My hospital in Medway serves half a million people. It needs extra resources in the short term and in the long term in Medway we need a full brand new hospital to serve the needs of our constituents. I know that the Government are committed to supporting the national health service.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and commend him for his brilliant campaigning work locally in his constituency, and for the remarkable work he has done to protect freedom of religion around the world. The Government have used, and are using, taxpayers’ money to support the health service. In September, we announced an additional £36 billion for health and social care over the next three years, which interestingly was opposed by the party opposite. We are doing things to catch up with the backlog that has come through covid. For example, there will be 9 million extra scans and an extra £8 billion to tackle the elective backlog. He lobbies for a new hospital. I will pass on his lobbying to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Rehman Chishti

Thursday 23rd September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I presume the Leader of the House meant the Labour party. That aside, before I call Rehman Chishti, I want to thank all the staff who have worked hard and made this House safe. They are due to have a break and, as much as the SNP spokesperson might like to cut it, they deserve it and need it. I also offer a big thank you to my team, the security team and all those who came up to help ensure that we had a great Speakers’ G7 in Chorley. It involved solid business, with real resolutions coming out of it.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

On that point, Mr Speaker, may I thank you for all that you have done to ensure that our House can operate? To you and your team, from all of us, thank you.

I am reluctant to raise this sensitive but important matter with the Leader of the House. Both of us are men of faith, and it is important to give credit where it is deserved. A certain event took place at Edgbaston cricket ground on Saturday 18 September when, as my right hon. Friend will know, Kent beat Somerset to be crowned champions of the T20 cricket competition. Will he join me in congratulating Kent on their well-deserved win against Somerset? Will he also allow a debate on the Floor of the House to support grassroots cricket across the country?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Fortunately it was T20, and therefore my heart did not grieve too much, but I am of course delighted to congratulate Kent on their victory. My earnest hope and desire is that I shall live to see the day when Somerset win the county championship. We are one of the few counties never to do so in all our history, and I hope that my hon. Friend will join me in thinking that it would not be unreasonable to let Somerset do it at least once.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Rehman Chishti

Thursday 5th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The first half of that question referred to jokes, and the second half was wrong.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

Hospital Radio Medway has raised a real concern about hospital radio stations being able to get appropriate licensing from Ofcom, which is preventing patients from accessing radio in hospital. That cannot be right. May we have an urgent statement or debate on that?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Hospital radio is very important for cheering people up when they are in hospital, and actually it is a very good training ground for people starting a career in radio. I think that it is a more suitable topic for an Adjournment debate or a Westminster Hall debate, rather than taking time in the Chamber.

Further and Higher Education (Access) Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Rehman Chishti

Friday 4th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am in complete, almost sycophantic, agreement with the Minister on that. We really do not want to put on such constraints. Freedom is tremendously important.

I return briefly to the insidious argument that once one takes the Government’s shilling, one has to do what the Government say. It is very hard, as the recipient of the shilling, to say, “No, I am not going to do what the Government say.” It is much easier for a Government who love freedom, who believe in our ancient freedom and who see how strong this country has been because it is a free nation, to say, “We will give you this money—we will allow it to come to you through the students—but as we do so, we will take the shackles off and allow you to stand or fall by your own brilliance—your own success in admitting people.” We must assume that universities want to take the cleverest, the brightest and the best—those who will give the university glory when they go on to their future careers, those who may stay and ensure that its research is of the highest quality, or those who will become, like Cardinal Wolsey, so rich that they can establish new parts of the university.

In that way, our universities can have the freedoms enjoyed by some of the American universities, which have endowments running into tens of billions of dollars, allowing them a freedom from the American state and a freedom to take the best and the brightest from around the world and to fund them through their studies. Surely, that is what we must aim for. We must aim for an ambition that returns our universities to the status they had in the middle ages when they were places that people looked at with envy and when people who went to them, who could be supported in doing so, felt that attending them was the highest possible achievement.

[Rehman Chishti]

I always follow my hon. Friend’s speeches with interest; they are fantastic. He was making a point about students wanting to meet their aspirations. In line with that, the policy of the previous Government that 50% plus should go to university was completely wrong, because we all have different skills and abilities that need to be nurtured. That is what our Government are pushing; those who want to go to university should have the right support, but the previous Government’s 50% plus policy was wrong.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Yes and no, if I may sit on the fence. We should aim for excellence for everybody, and for as many people as possible to go to university, but university will do different things for different people. Not all higher and further education needs to be the same; we want to get the most from everybody, but the 50% target became a bit of a box-ticking exercise. Box-ticking exercises are a mistake. They do not lead to what we ought to focus on, which is not ad hoc bits of legislation that deal with—