Tributes to the Speaker

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Thursday 31st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The answer to the right hon. Lady’s question is that the expectation is that we will come back on the Monday after the general election for swearing in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you. [Hon. Members: “Answer!”] The Leader of the House has made his contribution, but he may respond.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Mr Speaker, I think this has changed from a statement into a succession of speeches, and it would be tiresome for the House if I popped up every other moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

That was extremely gracious of the hon. Gentleman, whom I have known for a very long time. I thank him for what he said, and I know the Leader of the House will want to respond to him.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As this is a statement, I probably should have been replying to everything, but I think, in the broad context, it was better not to have done. But 5G is of course a matter of concern and one that the Government take very seriously, and the security and resilience of the UK’s telecom networks are of the greatest importance. I obviously cannot promise debates at the moment, because we will have Dissolution on Wednesday, but the general election is coming up and I have a feeling that this is a matter that will be of interest to many people, who will want to ensure that we have a safe and secure system. The Government have not yet made a decision on the matter, and that is an important point to underline. In spite of press reports to the contrary, a decision will be made in due course. I think that a wide debate among the British public is the best thing that we can have; we should always trust the people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I am almost beyond words. I am extraordinarily grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Good heavens, Mr Speaker—our right hon. Friend was as beautifully eloquent as ever. On his request for a debate or a statement on open spaces, I could bring his attention to the Adjournment debate that will take place on Tuesday, to which I will be responding. The only drawback is that it is primarily for right hon. and hon. Members who are retiring—a category into which I hope he is not tempted to fall.

[Mr Speaker]

It may well depend upon the interpretive approach taken by the Chair. It will not be me, but we shall see what happens. I note what the Leader of the House has said.

Standards

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Thursday 31st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. It might help the House if I explain that the Standards Committee has specifically asked that the next Leader of the House—or me, if I continue in office in the new Parliament—bring the suspension forward as soon as the House reassembles, so that it is not, in effect, only a two-day suspension. That has been specifically requested by the Committee.

[Mr Speaker]

Forgive me, but I was myself perfectly clear on that point, although I am grateful to the Leader of the House for making it clear to colleagues. It was always intended that, if the House accepted the report, the suspension would take effect after the election. Whether the Committee wishes to revisit the issue, in the light of what the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) and others have said, is, if he will forgive me saying so, a slightly different point.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Wednesday 30th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As far as I am aware, business in Westminster Hall will continue as normal. I am being nodded at from the Box, which is always extremely helpful when I am on a slightly sticky wicket. I am glad to say that my forward defensive stroke has kept the ball clear of my stumps.

[Mr Speaker]

The word “inimitable” springs to mind. I am extremely grateful to the Leader of the House and to colleagues.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Tuesday 29th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady.

[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.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Thursday 24th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

With regard to thin ice, supporters of the Cooper-Boles and Benn Acts know that it is the thinnest of thin ice for people to complain, having abused the constitution, in my view, to push those Bills through. The Benn Act, in particular, was a fundamental change of approach to our understanding of how the constitution works between the Executive and the legislature, so I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to reiterate my comments: people should be consistent in the way they look at our constitutional processes, and not find that one thing suits them one day and the next day it does not.

The question of the Conservative party website probably falls outside my formal remit, but the deal has passed its Second Reading. That is a passage through Parliament and an indication of Parliament’s assent; it is not, however, an indication of the complete legislative programme. I do not think that is an unduly difficult concept, but if people reading and paying attention are now aware of that and wish to make donations, they will of course be very welcome. I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for raising that point so that I can give further publicity to the marvellous work that the Conservative party is doing. The point of it is that the deadline is the 31st, which we are all working towards. That deadline was set by the European Union, not by the British Government; the British Government accepted the European Union’s offer.

The right hon. Lady again raises the question of the CRAG Act. The issue with that Act is that it allows a treaty to be laid on the Table for 21 days, but it is then subject to no vote or legislative procedure. The agreement with the EU is being brought into legislation, which provides much more scrutiny than the minimum provided by the CRAG Act—really and truly. Under the CRAG Act, the Government do not have to provide any time for debating a treaty; they just have to lay it on the Table. Under this procedure, there would have been time, had the programme motion been carried, for debate on the issue.

The right hon. Lady questions the economic analysis that it is self-evidently in our interests to leave the European Union. This is a matter of routine economic debate. I think it is enormously in our interests to have the opportunity to be in charge of our own future—to allow the wisdom of this House to decide economic policy, rather than delegating it to tiresome bureaucrats, seems to me self-evidently to be in our interest. That is sufficient economic analysis. If Members think that poking through economic models to come out with gloomy forecasts will convince anybody, they have another think coming.

The right hon. Lady then went on to Monday’s business, the Environment Bill, which is indeed a very ambitious statement of environmental improvement. I should point out that the reason why the target is not in the Bill is that the target has already been brought into law—that was one of the last acts of the previous Government.

The right hon. Lady was concerned about Brexit uncertainty; we would not have any Brexit uncertainty if the Labour party had voted for the programme motion. Brexit uncertainty would have vanished—it would have disappeared and gone into the ether—as the Bill would have become an Act, we would have left on 31 October, and we would have gone on to the broad, sunlit uplands that await us. Even as we enter November, there will be broad, sunlit uplands. If only the right hon. Lady had led her troops in favour of the programme motion. But now, because of the Opposition, there may be some uncertainty.

I am much looking forward to making tributes to the Speaker’s Chaplain. I will not pre-empt them now, but your Chaplain, Mr Speaker, has been an absolute model of public service. I agree with the right hon. Lady that the ecumenism we have in the House is extraordinarily welcome. As a Catholic, I much enjoy the fact that we are allowed to use St Mary Undercroft for our services, as well as it being used for the services of the established Church. It is an enormous generosity on the part of the established Church to allow us to do that.

The reason why we are not having tributes to you, Mr Speaker, is that the matter was discussed and Mr Speaker modestly said that he felt that the tributes made on points of order were sufficient. However, I can give the House notice that in my statement next week I shall begin by making a tribute to Mr Speaker, so that we may do it in that context. I notice that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen are looking thoughtful and thinking about how they will incorporate into their questions a suitable tribute to Mr Speaker.

Finally, on Mr Verhofstadt—well, Mr Speaker, you are the lucky one.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the Leader of the House for what he said, which is entirely accurate. I am not making the slightest representation on my own account and I would not dream of doing so—I am extremely satisfied—but I do want to thank the Leader of the House for what he said about the Speaker’s Chaplain. I look forward to those tributes. I hope I can be forgiven for saying in respect of my appointment—Rose Hudson-Wilkin was my appointment—that there were plenty of snobs, bigots and racists who were against Rose being appointed at the time. I was right; they were wrong, and I am glad that she is now universally celebrated in this House, as she absolutely deserves to be. I warmly thank the Leader of the House for what he has said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend has probably been the leading politician in raising awareness of autism in this country. I must confess that as a Back-Bench MP, as I became more aware of it and the effect it had on my constituents, the more grateful I became for the work she has done. I will certainly take up her suggestion with the House’s diversity and inclusion team, and indeed the restoration and renewal project, to see whether there is more that we can do to make autistic visitors feel more welcome. Orderly matters are for you, Mr Speaker, but I think that the feeling that clapping is not welcome is widely shared—although it may simply be, on my part, the sadness that nobody has ever bothered to clap me. [Laughter.]

[Mr Speaker]

I must say for the record that I did not think I would ever hear it from the lips of the right hon. Gentleman, but I am delighted to hear that he is signed up to the merits of diversity and inclusion. This is a very encouraging development indeed.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Leader of the House talks of sunny uplands. He may not know this, but I came into politics hoping to bring sunny uplands to the people of this country and the people of my constituency. Actually, that did not include a Government and a country run by old Etonians, but that is just my personal prejudice.

In terms of next week’s business, could the Leader of the House leverage in something that really does concern my constituents and constituents up and down the country—the safety of town centres? There is something wrong when people are now afraid to go into town centres at night. Could we look at how, through the police, more co-ordination or the revival of youth services, something could be done to make sure that ordinary people in this country going about their business enjoying themselves on a Friday or Saturday night do not go in fear?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I have a feeling I supported my right hon. Friend in bringing that Act forward, so I will most certainly take this up with the relevant Secretary of State to find out why on earth there is any foot dragging, which is most uncharacteristic of this Government.

[Mr Speaker]

Single-sentence questions.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

The Government expect and want to leave the EU at 11 o’clock next Thursday. Is the Leader of the House making provision for the House to sit on the Friday to deal with the inevitable disastrous consequences?

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Thursday 24th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend’s point is brilliant, and an incisive explanation of how democracy works. Is it not extraordinary, Mr Speaker, that though they stand up and call for a referendum, they do not wish to put that to voters? If it were in their manifesto and if—heaven help us—they won, then they could do it, but they are so worried that they cannot win, and that they would not win their referendum, that they just try to use legislative legerdemain to try and frustrate the will of the British people.

[Mr Speaker]

Well, whatever the merits, I do like the word legerdemain. It is a splendid word. It has been resuscitated by the Leader of the House.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

The Leader of the House wants a general election on 12 December. Can he explain to the House what the purpose of the Queen’s Speech was?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

If the Leader of the House wants to respond, he can do so briefly.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I thought we were getting a ditch joke, to which I was going to say, “Ha-ha.”

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Tuesday 22nd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Just before I call other colleagues, I want to make something clear. I thought it emerged in the course of points of order and my responses to them, but just in case there is any doubt, the technical term for the status of the Bill is that it is in limbo. That is the technical term, advised to me by the Clerks. I refer Members to the ruling of the Chair on 10 July 2012 and to paragraph 28.58 of “Erskine May”. Any motion to enable the Bill to proceed to Committee or beyond requires notice and so will be considered on another day. One could have had an indication of intent, but there does exist a requirement for notice. That, I think, completes the picture.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I was fascinated to hear that the Bill was in limbo. Theologically speaking, it is reported that Pope Benedict XVI abolished limbo. I wonder whether the Bill is not in the heaven that is having been passed, or in the hell of having failed, but in purgatory, where it is suffering the pains of those in purgatory. [Interruption.] Original sin is beyond the immediate competence of my answer on this statement.

To reply to the right hon. Lady, discussions always take place between Whips Offices, as is well known. The difficulty was that the Opposition wanted the debate to continue past 31 October, which is the deadline for leaving the EU.

I would like to correct the right hon. Lady on the issue relating to tariffs. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union did not say anything about tariffs. It was not a tariff issue. There are no tariffs between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

Oh, we are wallowing in the realms of metaphysical abstraction, as Burke would have said, and almost certainly did, albeit not in relation to this Bill.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May I urge my right hon. Friend to reconsider the point made by our right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith)? I think we all know that the people who voted against the programme motion tonight did not really want more time to consider the Bill; they wanted to frustrate Brexit. They wanted to block it. Nobody is fooled. Why do the Government not play them at their own game? The Father of the House, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), said that another three days would do it, so why do we not start the Committee stage tomorrow? The extra three days that seem to be required could be Friday, Saturday and Sunday. We could sit till any hour on all three days, and we could then see how much appetite there really is for extra scrutiny of the Bill. I suspect that if the Leader of the House were to do that, he would find that, actually, not much scrutiny would be required from Opposition Members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend makes an intriguing suggestion, although far be it from me to say that Opposition Members would not be able to speak at considerable length. One of the skills of many politicians is to be able to speak at considerable—some might say inordinate—length, though I note that one of the great experts in and exponents of this is in the Chamber. The eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) knows no bounds and entertains us all greatly on Fridays.

[Mr Speaker]

My earliest recollection of the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) speaking in the Chamber was an occasion on which he had to wait rather longer than he wanted to ask a question. He was eventually called by Madam Speaker Boothroyd, and at the end of his question—this was only 20 years ago, so I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman remembers this—Madam Speaker turned to the right hon. Gentleman, although he was just an hon. Gentleman then, and said, “Now, Mr Paterson, I hope you are satisfied.” [Laughter.]

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

Since the withdrawal Bill has huge consequences for people in Northern Ireland and since the Northern Ireland Assembly is still not sitting, I wonder whether the Leader of the House could enlighten us about the steps that the Government will now take to ask all the political parties in Northern Ireland about their reaction to the fact that this Bill has received its Second Reading this evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend and Somerset neighbour raises an intriguing prospect: that points of order should be determined by me. Should the House wish to do this, it could of course change Standing Orders and this could be delegated to the Leader of the House, but I think you might not be entirely happy with that, Mr Speaker. So I fear I cannot answer my hon. Friend in the way he might like.

[Mr Speaker]

Not least on account of my concern for my successor, rather than for any particular concern on my part, in the light of the announcement I made a few weeks ago, the right hon. Gentleman’s surmise is correct.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. Gentleman’s dulcet tones, which we had the joy of doing last night, at considerable length. I am sorry that his amendments will not be debated now, and that instead right hon. and hon. Members have to listen to me. Had he voted for the programme motion, he would have found that his amendments were being debated. He talks much about listening, but I think he did not listen to my opening comments about the interaction of Standing Orders on the business that we had before us today. Under Standing Order No. 83A, if a programme motion that commits a Bill to the Floor of the House is lost, that Bill is then committed to a Committee, and we would have to have another resolution to pull it out of Committee. So it is not possible just to proceed tomorrow as if nothing had happened.

[Mr Speaker]

I am advised by the Clerk at the Table that the Bill is not committed to a Committee; it stands in limbo. In practical terms, so far as tonight is concerned, the House should worry not because it matters not, because it does not make any practical difference. That point can always be discussed afterwards if it takes the fancy of colleagues.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Ind)]

Is my right hon. Friend not struck by the irony that those who voted against the programme motion in the hope of cancelling Brexit have in fact made a no-deal departure, which they supposedly fear, much more likely? Does he agree that a departure with a deal is more preferable? Will he introduce a programme motion tomorrow so that the House can sit for as long as it takes—all through the night, if necessary? Even if the Labour party wants to knock off early, we should be able to carry on, make sure that we get the Bill through, get out and get on with other stuff.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It seems there is no point in bringing forward a new business motion, because today’s has been defeated and the time that there would have been to debate the issue has been truncated, because instead of going into Committee now, we are in fact having this business statement.

[Mr Speaker]

That concludes the exchanges on the business statement. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for the information that he has proffered.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Monday 21st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)]

Following the decision of the House on Saturday 19 October, I should like to make an announcement regarding the business for the remainder of this week:

Tuesday 22 October—Second reading of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill, followed by commencement of Committee of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill.

Wednesday 23 October—Continuation of proceedings on the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill.

Thursday 24 October—Conclusion of proceedings on the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill.

Friday 25 October—The House will not be sitting.

[Mr Speaker]

In a moment, I will call the shadow Leader of the House, who doubtless will have a prepared contribution. However, I emphasise to the House that I regard this as a relatively narrow business statement, and I gently discourage colleagues from expatiating on a vast miscellany of matters, which they could happily do on Thursday. Let us keep it narrow, because that is what it should be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Oh, the right hon. Lady asked why I left the Chamber. That is extremely straightforward: points of order are for the Chair, not the Leader of the House. It would be an impertinence of me to think I could possibly know more than Mr Speaker about the proceedings of the House, and I would not like to give the impression of having knowledge that I could not pretend to have. It is for Mr Speaker to rule on points of order, not other hon. Members. I had made my point of order and listened to several others, but there were no further opportunities for me to speak, because it was a matter for the Chair.

The Bill will be published very shortly. The presentation of Bill will be the first item of public business when we come to the business of the day. At that point, simultaneously, as if by magic, the Bill will appear in the Vote Office for right hon. and hon. Members to peruse. I am sure they will enjoy that. The programme motion will be down tonight in an orderly way—well, I hope it will be orderly, but Mr Speaker will rule on that if it is not—for debate tomorrow. And of course the Bill will not be pulled.

The right hon. Lady is one of the most charming Members of this House, and has enormous grace and thoughtfulness, but when she said we were running scared of democracy, she must have been trying to pull our collective legs. It is this Government who have offered a general election not just once, but twice. How frightened is that of democracy? We are so terrified of the voters that we want them to have the chance to vote. We are so scared that we think they should be allowed to go to the ballot box. No, if there is any scaredness, any frightenedness, if anybody is frit, it is the Opposition.

[Mr Speaker]

Let me endorse what the Leader of the House said in all solemnity about the absolute and precious right of Members and staff to go about their business safely and unimpeded. That has to be an absolute and non-negotiable right. Where that right has been threatened, that threat is to be unequivocally condemned. Sometimes I fear that people think that one form of hollering or protest is acceptable and another is not. The truth is that no behaviour that could be intimidating, threatening or worse can be justified in our democracy.

I note what the Leader of the House said more widely about points of order. Points of order are matters for a response by the Chair. Nevertheless, there was no obligation on him to beetle out of the Chamber during the said points of order, given that most of them were proxies for commentaries upon his own. Nevertheless, I note what he said. There was no disinclination on my part for there to be an emergency business statement. I had rather thought that that was what the Leader of the House was going to proffer, and therefore there was just a genuine misunderstanding between us on that point. I ascribe no ulterior motive to the Leader of the House, and I know that he would not ascribe one to me.

[Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)]

May I press the Leader of the House on when the debate on the Queen’s Speech will conclude? We always knew that 31 October was a date, and we always knew when the Queen’s Speech would be. Presumably, the timing was agreed between the Government and the Palace.

The fact is that Parliament has spent the best part of three years discussing what it does not want, and it is now time for us to move on. I welcome the business statement, but will we have an opportunity to vote directly on what the Prime Minister has brought back to the House, which is not the Prime Minister’s deal but a deal between the European Union and the British Government?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

It would be churlish of me, in the current context, to ask for additional time for Back-Bench business. I was mindful of, and very much regret, the harassment of the Leader of the House when he departed from the House on Saturday. With that in mind, I understand that the Government may suggest that over the next three days we might sit until any hour, and if that is the case I hope that they will be mindful of the welfare of all Members, including Back Benchers, on all occasions as they arrive at and leave the House.

[Mr Speaker]

Let me say, by the way, in case the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) thought that I was being churlish—which was certainly not my intention—that as far as I am concerned, and long may it remain so, the hon. Gentleman is indestructible. He is indestructible.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I might add, Mr Speaker, that the Attorney General, who is sitting next to me, pointed out that the treatment of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone was particularly unpleasant. That gives me another opportunity to thank the police for their sterling work. They are very brave in doing this, because they are heavily outnumbered.

May I begin my congratulating the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) on being re-elected unanimously to his post on the Backbench Business Committee? It is rare in the House to be so highly esteemed by right hon. and hon. Members that no one dares even enter the contest.

The point that the hon. Gentleman has made is a serious one, and I hope that it will be communicated to the Serjeant at Arms so that appropriate measures can be taken.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Mr Speaker, earlier you were kind enough to quote what I said on 18 March, but not, I fear, in full. I went on to make another sentence, which was:

“Dare I say that there is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repented than over the 99 who are not in need of repentance”,

because, I, like my hon. Friend, am greatly in favour of continuing to follow precedents and using them as a guide. And they are a guide, and the guide in this case may be what you yourself, Mr Speaker, said on that day:

“It depends on the particular circumstance. For example, it depends whether one is facilitating the House and allowing the expression of an opinion that might otherwise be denied”.—[Official Report, 18 March 2019; Vol. 656, c. 778-79.]

I think this has been a very important guide to the decisions that you have made both recently and historically in your term as Speaker, so no doubt these things will be in your mind as you deliberate and consider further what my hon Friend has said.

[Mr Speaker]

Yes, and in relation to column 778 of Hansard on 18 March of this year, I do not want to be anything but fully generous to the Leader of the House, but there was a further segment—a very delicious and juicy segment—in his question to me, and that was, if memory serves me correctly, whether there would be an opportunity for decision via the Second Reading of the withdrawal Bill, and I confirmed in my reply to him that his thinking on that matter was correct. So I completely accept the sinner and repenteth bit, and it was only in the name of time that I did not quote that, but I am quoting another part, so we have now got the full smorgasbord of the intervention of the right hon. Gentleman before he became a right hon. Gentleman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. and learned Friend is somebody who has always wanted us to remain in the European Union and who disapproves of referendums. He has always made that absolutely clear—[Interruption.] No, that is relevant because that position deserves admiration because he has not tried to use procedural methods to hide his view. His view has been clear to the House and the country throughout, and I happen to think that that is extraordinarily impressive and straightforward. I bow to his position as the Father of the House, which is one of great distinction and gives him a sense of history for what goes on in this place. I would say to him that using accelerated procedures has come about because of the deadline that we have of 31 October, and here I disagree with him: this is not a phoney deadline. That deadline was set because of the workings of article 50. The point is that this should have ended in March. We have already had one extension and there is other business that this country needs to move on to. The second deadline is 31 October, and we have managed to get a new agreement with the European Union, which everybody said was impossible. That is a significant achievement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but because of that we now have this deadline to meet. Yes, of course I would be happy to sit overnight if that is what the House wishes. I am not entirely convinced that it is what the House wishes, but we need to get this legislation through, to deliver on what 17.4 million people voted for.

[Mr Speaker]

For the benefit of those observing our proceedings who are uninitiated on this matter, I should emphasise that it is now 49 years, four months and three days since the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) was elected to this House, and he has remained a Member of this House throughout that period. It is a quite remarkable state of affairs.

[Mr Speaker]

I think that is what is called the privilege of being the Father of the House; it is otherwise utterly disorderly!

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I said that you and I both enjoyed the sound of our own voice, but we are mere amateurs compared with my right hon. and learned Friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I thank the hon. Lady for all that she does to be a voice for the people of Northern Ireland in this House. It is of fundamental importance to remember always that we are United Kingdom, and the effects on Northern Ireland are important within this proposed legislation. In principle, I would be delighted to accept her invitation, but I am unsure whether the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would want me to, because it is his bailiwick. However, I would be absolutely honoured to visit Northern Ireland, and it would be a pleasure to return there.

[Mr Speaker]

Bailiwick is an excellent word. The Leader of the House and I share an affection for it.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I am glad that the Leader of the House has been able to contain himself on the Front Bench right the way through all these questions. Unlike the Father of the House, I fully intend to vote against the Bill on Second Reading and, for that matter, on Third Reading. Having not had the courtesy of sight of a draft programme motion through the usual channels, I wonder whether the Leader of the House can tell us whether the Third Reading debate will have protected time, so that those of us who do want to make every effort to stop Brexit on behalf of our constituents who voted against it will have that opportunity?

European Union (Withdrawal) Acts

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Saturday 19th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am not a lawyer—I say that as a matter of some very considerable pride—but my understanding is that the legal position is clear. I do not dissent from what the hon. Gentleman has just said about the legal position. Ministers have made—I say this quite neutrally—a number of statements about adherence to, or compliance with, the so-called Benn Act. Those statements have not always been immediately and obviously compatible with each other. I think we have to await the development of events. In general terms, it is of course true to say that Ministers have emphasised their commitment to observe the law, including the Prime Minister, who has said that on a number of occasions. It is also true that the Prime Minister has indicated that he is not willing to seek an extension.

My understanding of the legal position is the same as that of the hon. Gentleman. We must await the development of events. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), from the SNP, raised a similar concern about this matter, which has now been echoed by the hon. Gentleman. Further enlightenment may follow when the Leader of the House uncoils and addresses us from the Dispatch Box—I do not know. I am not psychic; we shall see.

I think that matters are coming to a conclusion today, but the House will sit on Monday and I confidently anticipate that the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) will be in his place and ready to leap to his feet with alacrity to advance his point of view and that of others. [Interruption.] The Comptroller of Her Majesty’s Household, the hon. Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin), is shaking his head in a mildly eccentric manner. [Interruption.] Not at me—indeed. We are deeply grateful. I was not looking to call him, but if he particularly wanted to raise a point of order, especially as he used to be my constituent, far be it from me to deny him. [Interruption.] He says “Not today”—okay, fair enough.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees- Mogg)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. In the light of today’s decision, I should like to inform the House that Monday’s business will now be a debate on a motion relating to section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and I shall make a further business statement on Monday.

[Mr Speaker]

I note what the Leader of the House has said. We will hear what others have to say—that has been done by him on a point of order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I certainly expect the Queen’s Speech debate to be conducted. It is to be expected that it will be continued. After all, the Leader of the House, who must have contemplated the possible scenarios, informed the House in all solemnity on Thursday of the business for Monday and Tuesday. He has not disavowed it.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

indicated assent.

[Mr Speaker]

The nod of the head from the right hon. Gentleman confirms that he is not disavowing the intention to continue with the Queen’s Speech. I hope that the hon. Gentleman derives some succour from that fact. It is necessary for him not only to listen to me but to observe the head movements of the right hon. Member for North East Somerset.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

It would certainly be helpful if the Leader of the House would elaborate, because at the moment there is extreme ambiguity about intention, and that—if I may very politely say this to the Leader of the House—cannot be right.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that you worry unduly. There will be a full emergency business statement on Monday—that is part of what I was saying—so that people can have a full appreciation of what business there will be. I made my announcement on a point of order because the situation had arisen urgently, and it was important to make clear to the House straightaway what would happen. However, as Members will know, statements are made very early in the day, and there will therefore be an opportunity for full understanding of how business will develop.

The Queen’s Speech debate will continue, but Monday will be as I set out in the point of order that I raised a few moments ago.

[Mr Speaker]

It will be if it is orderly, and I will reflect upon that matter. The Government are not the arbiter of what is orderly, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, and as I indicated to him during the exchanges on the business question on Thursday. That is a matter that brooks no contradiction whatsoever. Even if people feel that they are immensely knowledgeable about procedure or have a right to have their own way, or both, they can do so only within the rules.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I think I can assure the right hon. Gentleman on that point. My instinctive and unfailing approach, to the best of my limited ability, is to try to facilitate the House. It flows from that that I do not want the House to be disadvantaged.

In the ordinary course of events, one would hope that there was adequate notice of a motion and therefore an opportunity for amendments to be submitted on an earlier day. If there is no reasonable opportunity in this case, but there is—and I say “but there is”; it remains to be seen whether there is—an orderly motion before the House, tabled at rather short notice, it must be right that there should be an opportunity for manuscript amendments to be tabled, so that alternative propositions can be put before the House. I think I can say without fear of contradiction that that would be the case. It would be, I think, desirable in processing these matters for any such amendments to be down by midday on Monday. The Government’s motion has gone down today; a simple nod of the head would suffice.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

indicated assent.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful. However, I am happy to hear other views about that, although that would be my instinct—by midday would be helpful. Yes, there would be an opportunity for manuscript amendments.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Thursday 17th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

First, may I thank the hon. Lady for the tribute she has paid to the House staff? We are extraordinarily lucky in the way we are looked after in this House and with the commitment they have to Parliament. This gives me the opportunity to say that every member of my private office volunteered to come in to work on Saturday. That gives me great pride in the team I am supported by, and I know this applies across the House. This House is incredibly good at education and bringing young people in, and it is one of the things you have focused on, Mr Speaker. The team in the education department are stunningly good, and I am certainly in favour of encouraging this, if Select Committees can do it.

[Mr Speaker]

I warmly appreciate what the Leader of the House has said about the staff of the House. I think it will be warmly appreciated by Members throughout the House and, above all, by those staff, who have been very properly acknowledged and congratulated. I thank him for that.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

May I take this opportunity to thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing the NATO Parliamentary Assembly to use the House? The House did itself proud, and many of the delegates, from all around the world, including partner nations, were very impressed by what we are able to do here.

Thousands of women in the UK suffer from the debilitating, chronic disease of endometriosis. Despite employment law requiring employers to support employees with medical conditions, many women find themselves forced out of work, with little redress, especially because, on average, diagnosis can take seven to 12 years. May we have a debate on workplace practices for women who are suffering with this terrible disease, so that they do not have the trauma and stress of losing their jobs, on top of having to deal with a debilitating condition that destroys their work lives, as well as their personal lives?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I see the hon. Lady is shaking her head, and I encourage her to go back to the DWP. If there is anything that I or the Secretary of State can do to support her, I am sure that that will happen. This is one of our proper and right roles; we should always put pressure on the bureaucracy when it makes an error with constituents to ensure that that error is put right. If there is anything I can do to help, I absolutely assure her that I will do so.

[Mr Speaker]

I call James Cartlidge.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am used to waiting, but unfortunately so are my constituents—when it comes to the A14 in South Suffolk. The prospect of an independent trade policy is a great step forward for our economy, but we will only be able to take advantage of it if we support the infrastructure that our crucial ports rely on, including Felixstowe. All Felixstowe’s freight comes out on the A14 so the Copdock interchange is crucial, but it is completely substandard. When does my right hon. Friend expect the Transport Secretary to announce the road investment strategy 2 funding allocations? Let me tell him that it will go down very well if includes funding for the Copdock interchange.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am always happy to try to facilitate meetings where I can. I am willing to see all Members of this House about any issues they seek to raise. Secretaries of State and Ministers have a duty, in my view, to see Back-Bench Members when the issues are sufficiently serious.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the Leader of the House, the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) and the 60 Back Benchers who questioned the Leader of the House.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Thursday 3rd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

If I may, I will answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions in reverse order. The canonisation of Cardinal Newman is a matter of great joy to Catholics in this country and to other Christians. It is a matter of huge celebration. It is very rare that a Briton is elevated and becomes, by God’s divine mercy, a saint, and we should all rejoice at that. I do not know whether a member of Her Majesty’s Government is going to be at the ceremony. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that I should go, but if he was, that suggestion is very welcome. However, that is not for me to decide. I agree that it would be suitable to have a meeting to discuss the 10th anniversary of the Holy Father Emeritus’s visit, which was a wonderful occasion on which he gave a very moving speech.

As regards Opposition days, I am going to say what I said to the shadow Leader of the House. Should the hon. Gentleman want to have a vote of no confidence, time will be made available and we will give him a day in which to speak. That would give us the opportunity to speak in the other direction on the many virtues of this fantastic Government.

[Mr Speaker]

I am bound to observe that the Leader of the House’s enthusiasm about canonisation is beginning to sound a little like ambition.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

Contrary to the claim by the Hollies, who were a well-known musical ensemble, the air that we breathe is not all that we need. But we cannot live without it, as more than 10,000 sufferers of cystic fibrosis know as they gasp for breath each day. Yesterday in this House, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) drew our attention to the drug Orkambi, which can be a life-saving treatment. It is certainly a life-changing one for more than half those who suffer. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made on how that drug can be made available in the United Kingdom as it has been in Scotland? I know that you admire Edmund Burke as much as I do, Mr Speaker. He said:

“There is but one law for all, namely that law which governs all law, the law of our Creator, the law of humanity, justice, equity”.

In the name of those virtues, please make this drug available for those who suffer in silence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

May I wish you a speedy recovery, Mr Speaker? On next week’s business, the Speaker is clearly suffering from a problem with his voice and he puts in enormous hours in the Chair, staying there for quite extreme times and having to shout at times to keep the House in order. Would it be appropriate, or would the Leader of the House recommend—I do not know the propriety of this—that the Speaker is asked not to chair those sorts of debates, particularly on the European Union, in order to protect his health?

[Mr Speaker]

The expression “dream on” springs to mind.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is entirely a matter for you to decide which debates you chair and which debates you do not chair, Mr Speaker, although I would say that for the convenience of previous Speakers in past times, before there were deputies, there was a curtain—

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Thursday 26th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Perhaps I should have explained—I will now do so. The next debate, if it is to have two hours, needs to start at 3 o’clock. If people insist on making long interventions, they must know that they are stopping others. It is as simple and incontrovertible as that.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The issue with Max, who has Batten disease, is one of the greatest difficulty, and I am so pleased that the drug is now being made available, but I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a need for greater debate and discussion on the availability of medicines for rare diseases. Again, I think it is a Backbench Business matter, but the Government are taking it seriously, and I am grateful to NHS England for finding the funding so that Max can get the drug he so needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I make an exception for the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, which, for geographical reasons, has slightly fewer constituents, but they are some of the finest people in this country. I would not quite say they count double, but they are heading in that direction. When this matter was being debated some years ago, I thought we should create a rotten borough for him, because he brings so much levity and pleasure to the House through his interjections.

[Mr Speaker]

Often deliberately.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very sympathetic to what my hon. Friend says. The statutory instrument is prepared but is being considered and will be introduced if there is a suitable opportunity.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Stickler though I am—[Interruption.] Pardon? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

I cannot believe the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) has forgotten the fact of his pearls of wisdom so soon after he uttered them. Maybe he has a second set of pearls in mind—I do not know—but it may have to wait. I beg the Leader of the House’s pardon.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to refer to Bills by colloquial names. It is a traditional and perfectly reasonable thing to do. Of course, it is a political matter. People will use the names they use. The forms on language in this House are well set out. As you said earlier, Mr Speaker, nothing disorderly happened yesterday. We have to be really careful. Civility and being polite to each other are important, and when Members on either side are vilified or threats to their safety are made, we must oppose it vigorously, but that is of a very different order of magnitude from robust debate in this House. To conflate the two is a fundamental error and risks making the serious nature of what is happening to some Members appear part of the back and forth of politics. It is not—it is really serious. The term “surrender Bill” is a matter of taste, not a matter of any real importance. I am quite happy with the term “surrender Bill”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think that really is a matter for the Governor of the Bank of England, but it might be worth taking it up with the about-to-be-elected Chairman of the Treasury Committee, who may be able to call him in to ask him about the important question of credit control by banks.

[Mr Speaker]

And that election will take place in the course of October, as I suspect the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) will know.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. With permission, I wonder if I may add to the comments that were just made, because what you said was of fundamental importance. A lot of Members of this House, but particularly women and ethnic minorities, get treated in a quite disgraceful way. I have never tried to make a great fuss about what has happened on my own account, because it is very mild compared with what others have had to put up with, and I am well aware of that. I am grateful for the support that I have had from Members on both sides of the House—I catch the eye of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who has always been very good about this, and of course you, Mr Speaker.

What has happened to me has been very, very minor. What has happened to other Members, particularly on social media, has been deeply unpleasant and troubling. We all have a responsibility to be mild in our language when we are speaking in this House or outside. I am afraid to say that it is something where all sides err from time to time, and it would be invidious to pick on individual examples, but we have a responsibility of leadership. At this particular time, emotions are unquestionably running very high, and therefore calmness is to be encouraged, though we are discussing matters of the greatest importance.

I thank you, Mr Speaker, for what you said, which I think has the support of the House. May I also congratulate you on sitting there for 10 hours, 37 minutes and six seconds without a break, which I think is more than any of the rest of us have managed? I also want to reiterate the thanks you gave to the staff at the beginning of today’s proceedings. As Members will know, the Door- keepers expect to be on holiday at this time in a recess that was long planned, and many of them have had to rearrange their affairs to be here to look after us and ensure that our proceedings run. They are not alone—this applies to Clerks as well and to the staff who work in the catering department—and we ought to thank them for breaking potentially long-standing commitments to be with us.

The business for tomorrow is as follows:

Thursday 26 September—The House will be asked to approve a conference adjournment motion for next week, followed by a general debate on the principles of democracy and the rights of the electorate.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the Leader of the House very warmly for the opening remarks that he made. By the way, my experience, likewise, has been extremely minor by comparison with the experience of colleagues. I merely mentioned it to demonstrate empathy, but he and I are in the same boat in that regard, and I very much appreciate his words.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before I ask the Leader of the House to respond, I should like to emphasise, because it has been a long day, although we are, arguably, just getting going, that this is a narrow business statement. I do not use the term “narrow” in any pejorative sense; it is narrow in the sense that it is tightly focused on the proposed business for tomorrow. I certainly would not have dreamed of interrupting the shadow Leader of the House, who has put a series of points on the record—I make absolutely no complaint about that—but there will be a further business statement tomorrow, and that will be the occasion for wider inquiries about subsequent days and the preferences of colleagues for debates on those days. This statement treats of tomorrow, and therefore it would be helpful if colleagues would observe that in terms of the questions that they ask. I am not trying to prevent anybody from speaking, but this is about tomorrow’s business. It is not a general debate and it is not about a subsequent week’s business. I hope that that is helpful.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) on becoming a Privy Counsellor? I am looking forward, wearing my other hat as Lord President of the Council, to being present when she is sworn in as a member. I think that the whole House is pleased that this has happened.

I am very grateful for, though, I am sorry to say, slightly suspicious of, the hon. Lady’s offer that we could all go off to Manchester and business could carry on here if the business were desperately uncontentious. There has been a recent habit for Standing Order motions to lead to legislation, and it would be a pity if the Conservative Benches were empty because we were all in the wonderful city of Manchester. Tomorrow’s motion to have a recess for three days seems only fair, as the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party have had their conferences and we should have ours. [Interruption.] I understand that this is difficult for the SNP, but had we carried on with the Prorogation it would have been able to have its conference—[Interruption.] Would it not? Well, that is a great loss for so many people.

I share the hon. Lady’s concentration on the Domestic Abuse Bill and the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill. They are both important measures and we will bear them in mind when we make the statement tomorrow, depending on how events go.

The hon. Lady asked about the “constitutional coup”. That phrase has been attributed to me, and I use the word “attributed” with great care.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Prime Minister said earlier that the hon. Gentleman normally makes sensible points. This is the second time today when he has not. That is the most fatuous point I have heard. We know full well that Her Majesty acts on the advice of her Prime Minister. That was set out in front of the Supreme Court and was not questioned by anybody. Her Majesty does not independently decide whether to prorogue or not to prorogue. The British public know that. The only doubt that is ever caused is by hon. Gentlemen opposite raising the point that it is the Queen and trying to politicise Her Majesty, of which I think the great work, “Erskine May”, disapproves. It is quite wrong to drag Her Majesty into it. The responsibility is unquestionably the Prime Minister’s and this is the routine a, b, c of constitutionalism. Anybody who understands the constitution knows that Her Majesty had no discretion. There was no question of dragging her into it and it is the hon. Gentleman—who is, to use your favourite word, Mr Speaker, chuntering away merrily—who ought to go back to school and learn about the constitution. A Ladybird book can be provided.

[Mr Speaker]

It is not for me to say, and it was not evident to me whether the activity was being undertaken merrily, but I can certainly confirm that there was chuntering from a sedentary position. I may say, of course, that the expression “chuntering from a sedentary position” is very commonplace in the work of the House, but I have noticed in my travels to Parliaments around the world that it is a source of regular comment and no little amusement.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

It is great to see the Leader of the House at the Dispatch Box, in his natural element. May I ask him a question that does not relate to Brexit? Before the House was prorogued, because of a Standing Order No. 24 debate it unfortunately lost the opportunity to debate and conclude the remaining stages of the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill. The measure is uncontroversial on both sides of the House, and its basic point is to extend the sentence for cruelty to an animal from six months to five years.

Will the Leader of the House be in a position to say something in his statement tomorrow about finding Government time for this important Bill which, amid all these other controversies, would allow us better to protect animals across the country? The Bill is vital to the millions of animal lovers in the United Kingdom, so could the Government find time to bring back the Bill and get it on the statute book as soon as possible?

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Thursday 5th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me deal with the last point first. I would not have dreamed of saying that you were wrong. I made the point, the classic point, that you have not eyes to see with nor lips to speak except as directed by this House. I believe, Mr Speaker, that that is what you do, properly. You have consistently taken the view that the House should be able to debate what it wishes to debate, although I will confess that sometimes if I were in your position I might come to a different decision. That is not in any sense disrespectful to Mr Speaker.

Let me come to this panoply of questions that we have had. First, I thank the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) for supporting us on Northern Ireland legislation and looking forward to the Lords amendments. The early parliamentary motion will be put down tonight, as it needs to be, before the close of business.

On the very important issue that hon. Lady raises on every occasion, relating to Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, the Foreign Office is doing what it can. It is a very difficult situation. It is so important that the Foreign Office, in all these consular cases—the hon. Lady mentioned a number of them—is as vigorous as it can be. In my view, the statement made by a former Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston in the Don Pacifico affair, is the right approach for Governments to take in defending the interests of British citizens abroad. We should be incredibly robust about it. I believe the Foreign Office is doing as much as it possibly can, but sadly we cannot tell other countries what to do.

We then come on to the Queen’s Speech and what will happen to the Bills that are stuck. The Bills that are stuck will become unstuck because they will fall on prorogation. That is the sort of de-supergluing process that we are able to use. I am glad to tell the House that all the Bills that are needed for leaving the European Union on 31 October are in place.

We then come to the diary questions. What was I doing? [Interruption.] On the ability to leave on 31 October, all the legislation that is needed is in place. We have 580 statutory instruments to make sure it will all happen smoothly. That is all done. It is ready. It is prepared. Her Majesty’s Government have been a model of efficiency and efficacy in preparing this. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is perhaps one of the most impressive administrative Ministers this country has ever seen.

I was asked questions about my knowledge of the next Queen’s Speech. The hon. Lady is aware that one of the main duties of the Leader of the House is to prepare for the next Queen’s Speech. That is what one does. That is what one is briefed on from the very beginning. Bids for items in the next Queen’s Speech come to the Leader of the House, so that has been part of my briefing from the point at which I was appointed and that is the reason why this Session is coming to an end. It has gone on for far too long, as the hon. Lady rightly pointed out—as indeed did the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who seems to be fidgeting at the moment in an uncharacteristically fidgety way.

[Mr Speaker]

How does one fidget in an un-fidgety way?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Mr Speaker, your knowledge of being able to fidget is so extensive that I am sure you will be able to tell the House or make it a chapter in your memoirs on un-fidgety fidgeting.

That is the straightforward reason for the Prorogation. The Prorogation is taking place to have a new Queen’s Speech to set out the really exciting one nation policies that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wishes to set out. [Interruption.] Mr Speaker, I know and we all know, because we have heard you say it many times, that however much chuntering there is from the other side you will make time for me to answer all their questions, which I am looking forward to with eager anticipation. I will be better able to answer them if they wait their turn, rather than making noises imitating a farmyard that I cannot translate because I am not Dr Doolittle. If only I were Dr Doolittle, life might be easier. So that is the routine part of my responsibility and that is why Parliament will be prorogued.

On the conference recess, on the last occasion I appeared at the Dispatch Box to answer these questions I raised the issue of the conference recess. Sitting opposite me was none other than that really distinguished figure, the Opposition Chief Whip. [Interruption.] It was not the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) who is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench now, but the Opposition Chief Whip. When I said that we would have the conference recess, the Opposition Chief Whip nodded. As we all know, a nod from the Opposition Chief Whip is like the nod of Zeus: what it nods at is done and is viewed as authoritative, so let us have no questions about that.

The hon. Lady came on to scaremongering. She seems to wish to compete to become the scaremonger-in-chief. The preparations have been made. They are in place and they have been done with remarkable efficiency. But yes, a lot of remainers wish to make our skins crawl. I am afraid it seems to me that Dr David Nicholl is as irresponsible as Dr Wakefield. [Interruption.] I will repeat: as irresponsible as Dr Wakefield, in threatening that people will die because we leave the European Union. What level of irresponsibility was that?

In conclusion, I say to the hon. Lady and the House that this Government have offered them the opportunity, if they do not like what we are doing, to seek an election and put themselves to the voters, but they dare not do that. They are frightened of the voters and all they wish to do is obstruct democracy.

[Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the future staging of party conferences? It seems to me that these conferences have changed out of all recognition and in future could easily be held over a long weekend.

[Mr Speaker]

What a very sound question. I am even more delighted than usual to have called the hon. Gentleman so early. These are meetings of voluntary organisations which could perfectly well take place over a weekend. The idea that we should be away from our main place of work for this sort of indulgence will strike very large numbers of people across the country as bizarre.

[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.

[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.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is of fundamental importance to us all, and that is why it is right to put this back to the British people in a general election, so that they can decide and the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) can restore the honour of the people of Scotland by showing he is not afraid.

[Mr Speaker]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is indeed an addled Parliament that is not able to get things done, and the conclusion that my right hon. Friend draws is correct. Royal Assent will be given speedily once the Bill has completed its passage through the House of Lords and come back to us, if necessary, with any amendments. I obviously cannot predict what their lordships will do, but if it completes those stages, it will receive Royal Assent, and speedily.

[Mr Speaker]

Single-sentence inquiries. Jessica Morden.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

With the Government’s disgraceful proroguing of Parliament, not only will hon. Members be unable to scrutinise Ministers on Brexit, but I will be robbed of the opportunity to press Ministers following Tata’s announcement that it proposes to close all steelworks in Newport, so what will the Leader of the House do to facilitate a debate so that we can all fight to save our steel industry?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The issues that the hon. Lady raises are of fundamental importance. We will all have had similar cases brought to us in our constituencies. The Prime Minister is fully behind the Domestic Abuse Bill. I cannot tell the hon. Lady what precisely will be in the Queen’s Speech, but I think that I can give a steer that it would be a great surprise to all of us if the Bill were not revived very quickly, because her concern is shared across the House.

[Mr Speaker]

A single sentence. Henry Smith.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

May we have a statement from the Health Secretary on when NHS England’s new genomic medicine service will be fully operational?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I would happily join the Leader of the House on that delegation.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

This is a matter for the Foreign Secretary. I cannot constitutionally interfere in the Foreign Secretary’s business. However, I completely share the concern. If you were to lead a delegation Mr Speaker, I think that that would be very powerful, but I do hope you will make sure that you get back.

[Mr Speaker]

On the principle that Members always speak the truth in the Chamber, I have to assume that the right hon. Gentleman was sincere in what he just said.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

On the Chancellor’s desk since last July has been a shortlist of candidates to succeed Mark Carney as Governor of the Bank of England. Is the Leader of the House aware of the Chancellor’s plans to make a statement on who he has recommended be appointed, so that the Treasury Committee may scrutinise that appointment?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very grateful for that question. The hon. Gentleman has just said that he expects his party to lose the election. Not only has the Labour party passed a surrender Bill, but it has now decided to surrender as a political force. What we have just heard is that Labour Members do not think that they can have an election on 15 October. Why? Because they would lose. If they are so confident that they would win, they can win and cancel Brexit, which is their real purpose, but they do not trust the people.

[Mr Speaker]

Sir John Hayes: a sentence.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

Barely a life in this place, or beyond in our constituencies—perhaps through family or friends—has not been touched by cancer and its treatment. You, Mr Speaker, and the Leader of the House will know of the critical relationship between detection, diagnosis and definitive treatment. Will the Leader of the House therefore arrange either a statement or a debate on early diagnosis? It would assuage fear, prevent pain and, hopefully, stop people dying.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I begin by thanking the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for their kind words last week when a protest was proposed outside my house? I was very grateful for that and for their bipartisan approach; I think we all have a concern that Members’ houses should not be affected, and I am genuinely grateful.

The issue the hon. Lady raises is very serious, and I have great sympathy for the WASPI women—it is difficult for them—but the situation we inherited in 2010 in terms of the public finances necessitated it, and although I am not unsympathetic to a debate, I very much doubt the decision is going to be changed.

[Mr Speaker]

I very much endorse what the Leader of the House said about the hon. Members for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) and for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). I have made that point myself before, but I take the opportunity to do so again: people who have political disagreements with public figures should not demonstrate in a way that causes real anxiety and fear either to that Member—that public servant—or to members of his or her family; that is intolerable.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

May we have an urgent statement on UK Government support for the people and Government of the Bahamas given their very difficult situation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Frankly, I think when people start saying that people are going to die because of Brexit, their reputations are destroyed by themselves.

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the Leader of the House and to colleagues for their brevity.

European Union (Withdrawal)

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Tuesday 3rd September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House go back to his point about Standing Order No. 24? It seems to me that he is absolutely correct—as Mr Speaker was correct in his previous statement—that this could not be on a substantive motion. If the motion, which appears to be substantive, is carried tonight, it seems to me that the Government would have every right to declare it ultra vires and ignore it.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman will not presume to argue with the judgment of the Chair, entitled as he is to the possession and expression of his opinion. What I say to him in order to help him and to assist the Leader of the House is this: if, in the judgment of the Chair, a motion under Standing Order No. 24 is expressed in neutral terms, it will not be open to amendment—if it is judged to be expressed in neutral terms. The reality of the matter is that there have been previous occasions upon which there have been Standing Order No. 24 motion debates which have contained what I would prefer to call evaluative motions, notably on 18 March 2013 and on 11 December 2018 with which I feel sure the Leader of the House is familiar. It is in conformity with that practice that I have operated. I have taken advice of a professional kind, and I am entirely satisfied that the judgment that I have made is consistent with that advice. My attitude is simply to seek to facilitate the House. The Leader of the House rightly referred to my responsibility as grave and solemn, and I completely accept that as well as I accept his right to his own view about my judgment in this matter. I have sought to exercise my judgment in discharging my responsibility to facilitate the House of Commons—to facilitate the legislature. I have done it; I am doing it; and I will do it to the best of my ability without fear or favour—or, to coin a phrase, come what may, do or die.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful, as always, Mr Speaker, for your contribution to the debate. It is always very useful that your words are referred to and that the House should be reminded of them. It was suggested by you that this matter should be referred to the Procedure Committee and that the motion should be amended, which it has not been.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

There is, I am sorry to say, a stunning arrogance to that view. It fails to understand where sovereignty comes from. [Interruption.] I do indeed dare to say this, and I say it to my right hon. Friend.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I recognise that there are strongly held views on both sides of the House on all aspects of this matter, but the Leader of the House must be heard.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Sovereignty in this House comes from the British people. The idea that we can overrule 17.4 million people is preposterous, and the idea that our rules do not exist to protect the people from arrogant power grabs is mistaken. Those rules are there for the protection of the people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Mr Speaker, you will be glad to know that I am drawing gently to a close, and therefore I fear that time for interventions, except from my very old friend, the right hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), the Chair of the very distinguished Committee that she is the Chair of. [Laughter.]

[Mr Speaker]

Send him a note!

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

For once, the right hon. Gentleman has made an error and over-promoted me, but I thank him for his distinctive comments.

There is a serious point here: we are a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. I take that judgment seriously, as I know do colleagues across the House. The Government do not have not have a majority and we are in uncharted constitutional territory, so it is absolutely right and proper that we exercise our judgment in the interests of the country to avoid, at the very least, a no-deal Brexit. For all the right hon. Gentleman’s talk, we must exercise that judgment, and that is what we are doing. It is entirely responsible.

[Chris Bryant]

No, you’ve been unjustly promoted!

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not think that the Leader of the House was planning to invite the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) to join him in Balmoral, so I am not sure that it makes a great deal of difference in the immediate circumstances.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am afraid that the hon. Lady is wrong because there is a routine constitutional procedure to deal with the situation she describes, and that is the vote of confidence. Yes, we are a representative body, but where does our sovereignty come from? Here I am in agreement with the Scots: sovereignty comes from the people to Parliament. We hold it in trust for them and they gave us an instruction. If we follow this route, we are left with but three options: we have to accept the deal with its anti-democratic backstop; we have to keep on extending, because Parliament would never accept that we are ready to leave; or we could simply revoke and tell 17.4 million people that they were wrong.

The approach taken today is the most unconstitutional use of this House since the days of Charles Stewart Parnell, when he tried to bung up Parliament. Usurping the Executive’s right is unconstitutional; the abuse of emergency debates to do so is unconstitutional; and the Bill itself is yet more unconstitutional. A. V. Dicey said that all conventions have

“one ultimate object, to secure that Parliament or the Cabinet…shall in the long run give effect to the will…of the nation”.

These conventions are being disregarded today, and so, by extension, is the will of the nation. Parliament sets itself against the people. Sovereignty comes from the people to Parliament. It does not come to Parliament out of a void. If Parliament tries to challenge the people, this stretches the elastic of our constitution near to breaking point. We should recognise that the people are our masters and show ourselves to be their lieges and servants, not place ourselves in the position of their overlords. As we come to vote today, I hope that all Members will contemplate the current constitutional confusion and consider the chaos that this concatenation of circumstances could create.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Thursday 25th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I thank the shadow Leader of the House for her incisive list of questions and, indeed, for the suggestion that I replace nanny with the staff in the Leader of the House’s office. I think they might be a bit bemused if six children trotted in with me and expected to be looked after by House of Commons staff, so I will not go down that route.

“Erskine May” is available online for free. I understand that Opposition Members view themselves as modern, cutting-edge and thrusting. Therefore, going online might not be too problematic for them. Even I can do it occasionally myself. If they do not want to do that, the proper edition of “Erskine May” is available for £400 and may prove a good investment.

The business has been announced for a week, as has been standard practice for some time. I know that historically it was not, but you said yourself, Mr Speaker, that convention has to evolve, and this is one of those conventions that has evolved. Now, we merely have it for one week.

The hon. Lady asked about the conference recess. She knows that recesses are a matter for this House to determine. No doubt a proposal will be made through the usual channels, but I imagine that it would be convenient for Members to be able to attend their own party conferences. That is what has happened previously, and it tends to be to everybody’s benefit. [Interruption.] I am glad to see the Labour Chief Whip nodding, or at least appearing to nod, at that. I therefore think that something may be forthcoming in due course.

The issue of Prorogation is absolutely marvellous, because the hon. Lady asked for a new Session and asked when this Session would end, and then asked me to promise that we would not prorogue. We cannot have both, because we cannot get to a new Session without proroguing. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said that he views Prorogation as an archaic mechanism and that he does not wish to see archaic mechanisms used—[Laughter.] As I am now bound by collective responsibility, that is now also my view.

The Lords message about a Joint Committee will obviously be looked into. We always wish to treat the other place with respect; that is an important way in which we operate. That will be taken care of in due course.

On the written ministerial statements, I was going to use a word beginning with “d” and ending in “n”, with an “-ed” on the end—you are if you do and the same if you don’t—but Mr Speaker might rule me out of order if I did say that, which I do not want to happen on my first appearance at this Dispatch Box. Parliament wants to know what is going on and there is limited time for debates. Earlier this week, Mr Speaker granted me an urgent question on Batten disease. We know that the system for getting statements and urgent questions answered works. Therefore, if there are issues that people wish to raise from the 70 written ministerial statements, there are mechanisms that the hon. Lady is extremely well aware of.

As to the hon. Lady’s very important point about Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe, absolutely I will take that up. I promise that I will take it up every week for her. We as a nation should always put the interests of our citizens first; that is fundamental to how this country should operate in its conduct with foreign nations. The treatment that Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe has had to undergo is shameful and must be so distressing. When the hon. Lady talks about her child—a five-year-old—being deprived of a mother, that is the most awful thing that one can imagine. I have the greatest sympathy and yes, of course I will take this matter up.

May I conclude by reiterating the thanks that the hon. Lady gave to everybody in the House? How lucky I am now to be Leader of the House—what a privilege it is and what a fine House we have. I have always found that, whenever one wants to know what is going on in the House, the Doorkeepers know first and provide us with a fabulous service.

In paying tribute to Paul Evans as he retires, I should say that the British constitution is a hobby of all sensible people. It is the most interesting matter to discuss and be informed about. It is why £400 for “Erskine May” is such a good investment: it educates one about the British constitution. I wish him well in his retirement.

Finally, I pay tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), who was such a distinguished Leader of the House and Lord President of the Council.

[Mr Speaker]

There are, of course, Greek antecedents of the word “archaic”—a concept and fact with which the Leader of the House himself will be closely familiar. However, I think I can say, without fear of contradiction and for the avoidance of doubt, that the word “archaic” as it is now spelt originated in the 19th century, and in France. By the standards of the Leader of the House, it is distressingly modern and also—I say this simply as a matter of fact—of foreign origin. He will have his own views about that matter and others.

[Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I start by welcoming my hon. Friend—I do not think he is yet “right hon.”—to his post. I think he will bring modulated and very moderate tones to these debates. One thing is for certain: having a seat in business questions will now be an absolute must. I welcome my hon. Friend in that regard.

Nothing can be done in this Session, but I want to raise a particular issue. With Lord McColl, I am a co-sponsor of a Bill to change the process relating to modern-day slavery. I ask and urge my hon. Friend to press his colleagues at the Home Office, who have to date been utterly mealy-mouthed about the changes necessary to give victims of modern-day slavery the opportunity to come forward without fearing arrest and incarceration. Will he press his colleagues at the Home Office to urgently bring forward the Bill’s provisions as soon as possible, to improve the quality of the lives of those who suffer most? [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Mr Speaker, we have got perambulators and nannies into this session, which I think must be a first for questions to the Leader of the House. The issue of Prorogation is one that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said is an archaic usage, but there will have to be a Prorogation before there is a new Session. This is the routine constitutional position, and I believe in maintaining the constitutional conventions.

[Mr Speaker]

One sentence. I call Bob Blackman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am frightfully sorry, Mr Speaker. I didn’t hear a word.

[Mr Speaker]

Let’s hear it again.

[Cat Smith]

I do hope that recent kipper waving has not been a red herring. When can we expect to see the Fisheries Bill back in this place?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Those kippers, I can assure the hon. Lady, were absolutely delicious. They were eaten by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister with gusto, showing his characteristic support for the British fishing industry. The hon. Lady knows that Bills come back through the normal channels, and all things will be well and all will be well, and all manner of things will be well.

[Mr Speaker]

Gusto eating is a challenge to even the most vivid imagination, but we will reflect upon that, I feel sure.

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

Earlier this week a group of local authorities representing rural areas formed a coalition under the title Britain’s Leading Edge. Many of these areas have benefited from European funding. Once we leave the EU, will the Government continue their commitment to investing in these areas through the shared prosperity fund?

Batten Disease: Access to Drugs

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Tuesday 16th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order follows on from what you said and I hope it may be helpful to the Minister in giving her a moment to reflect on what you have just said. I would express a broader concern on this sub judice question, because, as you rightly said, it is always the prerogative of this House to discuss what it wishes to discuss, regardless of what is going on in any court. The sub judice rule has only ever been a self-denying ordinance of this House, to feel that it should not trample on things that were immediately before another court, rather than something that can be enforced upon us. In that respect, we are different from any other place in the country—other than of course their lordships’ House—which would be subject to sub judice as a matter of law. We are subject to it only in so far as we feel that it is wise to be cautious and prudent, and not to interrupt another of the separated powers within our judicial system. Therefore, it seems to me that whenever Ministries decide to cite sub judice rules, it would be wise to have consulted Mr Speaker or one of the Clerks in advance, in order to have some clarity before the debate begins.

[Mr Speaker]

Yes, it is a matter of prudence on the part of the House of Commons; it is not a cloak behind which the Executive branch should seek to hide. I know that the Minister would not attempt to do so, but any advice that might be thought to be intended to allow that to happen would be ill viewed by right hon. and hon. Members, and most certainly by their constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

We have 40 minutes left, Mr Speaker, so we are not short of time.

[Mr Speaker]

No, we have plenty of time. We can continue until 7.30. [Interruption.] Oh yes, we have plenty of time. And of course, there will be an opportunity for either a ministerial statement or an urgent question between now and Thursday, so we have, if I may say so, bucket-loads of time to deliberate on this important matter. I know that that message will be extremely well received by the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I understand that discussions have been rapidly going on while we have had points of order and various other things happening in this Chamber. I am not sure whether this is orderly, Mr Speaker, but I happened to notice that there has been a return to the officials’ box of advisers. I wonder whether inspiration might now be forthcoming and heading in the direction of the Minister and whether I am now giving time for such advice to be passed through, or whether the telephone calls that I heard were taking place have not been as fruitful as I might have hoped.

[Mr Speaker]

I am not in a position to know that immediately for the simple reason that the Speaker does not possess eyes in the back of his head, and I have been focusing on the hon. Gentleman, the Minister and other colleagues, rather than on the occupants of the officials’ box. I have seen a note that has been circulating and a Minister is attempting to assist one of my advisers. I assume the Minister is attempting to do so on the basis of information provided. Whether there is something that is so valuable that the Minister in question is about to furnish the answering Minister with it, I do not know, but I am allowing a suitable opportunity for that missive to be passed to the Minister for Care, who is, of course, entitled to digest and reflect upon its contents and to decide in the light thereof how she wishes to continue, but I repeat that there is no shortage of time. I am very grateful to the Minister for her characteristic courtesy.

Leaving the European Union

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Wednesday 22nd May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

A choice between such distinguished colleagues—I call Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg.

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

My right hon. Friend must have noticed the response in this House and overnight to her statement. In proposing this folderol, is she going through the motions or does she really believe in it?

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I would rather deal with this matter. I think it is more orderly to deal with it in that way. If there are no further points of order on this matter, I will—[Interruption.] I beg the pardon of the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg).

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I thought this matter would come at a later stage, because on private Members’ Bill Fridays we do not have money resolutions until Bills need to go into Committee. The money resolution is given at that stage. It is the case that a Bill cannot proceed out of Committee without a money resolution, not Second Reading, is it not?

[Mr Speaker]

That is true, but I say to the hon. Gentleman that there is no automatic or compelling obstacle to the House treating of the matter now. I judged, in consultation with the hon. Member for Stone, that it might be for the convenience of the House—particularly a relatively full House, at this time—for me to say something about the matter now on the back of what he has said. The alternative was for him to expatiate on this point in the course of any speech that he might make on Second Reading.

Of course, the two are not mutually exclusive, but I am sure that the hon. Member for North East Somerset would agree that for me then to interrupt the Second Reading debate to respond to the point would be a rather ungainly way in which to proceed. I thought it better to treat of the matter now, before we embark on Second Reading. I have heard his point, and I respect it, but I do not think it is conclusive.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Monday 1st April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

If the right hon. Lady wishes to apply for the Chiltern hundreds, I will of course give way.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are in danger of straying somewhat from the narrow ambit of the business of the House motion, to which I hope we will return.

[Anna Soubry]

I think it is important to record that, of course, the majority of people in Broxtowe did not vote Conservative and, like all hon. and right hon. Members, I seek to represent all my constituents. As we all should, I put them and our country before narrow, sectarian party interest.

EU Withdrawal Joint Committee: Oversight

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Wednesday 20th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

There is nothing disorderly, but I must say that I am saddened to see the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) holding, until he just put it away in his pocket, his mobile telephone. I have long been conscious that the hon. Member possesses, and indeed uses, such a mobile phone. However, it does conflict very, very, very heavily with my image of the hon. Gentleman as the embodiment of tradition and as someone who thinks that the 17th century is indecently recent.

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

Regrettably, I was explaining why I was delayed for a 2 o’clock appointment—so that I would have the pleasure of being in the Chamber to listen to this important urgent question. My apologies for being unduly modern. I hope, Mr Speaker, you will follow in my footsteps of antiquity as a general rule.

To come to the gist of the question, I wonder whether it is correct that the Joint Committee will be subject to article 4 of the treaty, which means that any rulings it provides are senior law in the United Kingdom and therefore could overwrite statute law—making Henry VIII powers, which have been a matter of some controversy in this House, seem relatively minor?

Speaker’s Statement

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Monday 18th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Gentleman has made his point with force and alacrity. It is not for me to say whom the Prime Minister should or should not meet, but that point is registered and on the record. If I know the right hon. Gentleman as well as I think I do, it will be repeated by him with some passion and vociferousness in the days ahead and, not least because of the force with which it is articulated again and again and again, I feel certain that it will be heard. Whether it is heeded remains to be seen, but it will be heard.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. First, may I say how delighted I am that you have decided to follow precedent, which is something I am greatly in favour of? Dare I say that there is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repented than over the 99 who are not in need of repentance? I wonder whether you might help the House with two points of clarity. First, would your indication today prevent the Second Reading, or even the First Reading, of the so-called withdrawal agreement Bill, which may have the same effect of confirming the meaningful vote? Secondly, would I be right in thinking that a new Session after a prorogation would allow the motion to be returned to the House?

[Mr Speaker]

The House would decide on the principle of the withdrawal agreement Bill at Second Reading, if we got to that point. The point that the hon. Gentleman makes and the—if he will forgive my saying so—partly rhetorical question accompanying it about post Prorogation and a new Session seem to me to be self-evidently valid. I am not advocating that, but that point is self-evidently valid and I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said.

UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Thursday 14th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure the whole House is immensely obliged to the right hon. Lady for offering it her opinion on what the meaning or implications might be. If she feels better as a result then I am deeply grateful to the right hon. Lady, but it is purely her view; it does not mean anything more than anybody else’s view—or indeed, for that matter, anything less.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it would be helpful to have some clarification, because “Erskine May” says that selection is made by the Chair

“in such a way as to bring out the salient points of criticism, to prevent repetition and overlapping….and where several amendments deal with the same point, to choose the more effective and the better drafted.”

I understand that your predecessor gave a memorandum to the Select Committee on Procedure in 1966-67 on how amendments were selected, and I wondered if it might be helpful if you were to update your advice so that in future we would be clearer as to how these decisions are made.

[Mr Speaker]

I do not think there has been any notable complaint of ambiguity thus far. I confess, I say to colleagues and those attendant to our proceedings, that I have been accused of many things over the years, but ambiguity and unspecificity and lack of clarity in saying what I mean has not been one of them. If the hon. Gentleman thinks I need to speak a little more clearly and to enunciate more satisfactorily I am always happy to benefit from his wise counsel in these matters; however, as far as procedure is concerned I am comfortable that a perfectly proper decision has been made after due reflection—considerable reflection—this morning and consultation with my professional advisers. The hon. Gentleman’s view as to which amendment is better worded or likely to be more effective is a view, and I treat it with respect, but I do not think it is definitive so far as the choice today is concerned. If more widely he thinks that a manual on this matter for the future would be of use, that is a matter I will be happy to discuss with him over a cup, or mug, of traditional tea.

UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Wednesday 13th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me—to be honest, even if he will not—I prefer to hear the remaining points of order and then to invite the Leader of the House to deliver the supplementary or emergency business statement. We will see what is intended to take place tomorrow. We may well learn tomorrow of what is intended to take place in subsequent days. There has been a clear expression of will by the House. I rather imagine there will be conversations among colleagues.

Ultimately, the House can debate what the House wants to debate. We will see what it wants to debate and what shape events take in the days to come. I do not want to express myself more forcefully than that—I do not think that would be right—but the right hon. Gentleman need be in no doubt that the matters will be fully debated. Members will have the opportunity to put their point of view. In all likelihood, many propositions will come to be tested.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you might be in a position to confirm that, as a matter of constitutional fact, a motion of this House, though important, cannot override statute law.

[Mr Speaker]

A motion of the House does not override statute law—that is true. If Members who have supported a motion want to ensure its ultimate success, further steps are required. I think that Members who have keenly attended to these matters in recent weeks are aware of that, and they know that there are opportunities available to them if they wish to take those opportunities.

Business of the House (Today)

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Tuesday 12th March 2019 Commons Chamber

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

I notice that this motion is debatable until any hour, subject to a business of the House motion at 7 o’clock. I can assure the House that it is not my intention to speak at that length, but this is very important. We are discussing this afternoon a motion that could determine the nation’s future for a generation or more, and we are expected to do it in just under five hours. I accept that every moment I speak reduces that time, but it is none the less relevant to do so.

This matter is of overwhelming importance to our future. It will determine the basis of our relationship with the European Union, and it may potentially have an effect on the whole basis of the United Kingdom. It seems to me that five hours is not only not enough, but it is not wise. The whole process with which today’s motion has been brought forth is not wise. There is an element of bounce and of theatre. We heard yesterday that a plane was waiting in the airport, fuelled for the Prime Minister. That is very dramatic and exciting, but it is not necessarily right for good government.

What we want is the ability to discuss things judiciously and debate them thoroughly, and squeezing a quart into a pint pot is fundamentally unwise. It also does not help the Government to achieve what they wish to achieve, which is a majority in the vote at the end of today’s proceedings, because if people feel that they have been bounced, hurried and harried, their natural instinct is not necessarily to cave in, but to stiffen their resolve and see how the cards fall.

The Government would be wise, even at this late stage, to allow an extra day for the debate, to ensure that Members are not limited to three-minute time limits at the end of the day but can discuss this matter as fully as it deserves and—dare I say?—as the nation expects, because the nation expects us to consider its future carefully. Although I will not seek to divide the House, I think that this allocation of time motion is misguided, and more time should be provided for debating something of such fundamental importance.

[Mr Speaker]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I note what he says about having no intention to divide the House. At least as importantly, I note, for the benefit of the House, that no amendment to the motion has been tabled, including by the hon. Gentleman.

Question put and agreed to.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Tuesday 29th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman does know parliamentary procedure. Point of order, Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a genuine point of order. I wonder whether you could guide the House on how Members refuse interventions, because I think the reason there is so much noise is that it is not clear whether the right hon. Gentleman has heard the request for an intervention or not. Your guidance would be extraordinarily helpful.

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. If I understand his point of order correctly, the answer to it is that the customary method of acknowledging the intention of another Member to intervene, and perhaps the acceptance of that intervention, is a gesticulation with the hand, at which, among other things, the hon. Gentleman excels. [Interruption.] No, no, I think the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) is a bit confused; it is not about the fact that someone seeking to intervene gesticulates, but the fact that the Member on his or her feet signals acceptance. That has not happened and therefore the Leader of the Opposition has the Floor. The position is extraordinarily straightforward.

Points of Order

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Wednesday 9th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that I am in the hands of colleagues, and I think he knows me well enough to know that I have never ducked a challenge. That is not in my nature; it has been no part of my DNA, either since I have been in this House or in all my life before I came into Parliament. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) says from a sedentary position words to the effect of “Let’s get on.” I would like to move on, but I do wish to treat colleagues with courtesy. [Interruption.] Somebody said “You can,” but I will take a few remaining points of order if people wish to raise them. I say very gently to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who just raised his point of order and talked about the dignity of the Chair and the importance of our procedures, that if people are going to invoke that importance, it would be helpful if they did not undermine that self-same point by continuous and repetitive dispute.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have two points on which I would be grateful for clarity. First, section 9 of the order of the House that sets out the terms of the debate says that no motion may be made other than by a Minister of the Crown, and you have interpreted that to mean that an amendment can be made to the motion. The question on that motion, as amended, then has to be put, and that is the motion that, under the order, needs to be moved by a Minister of the Crown. Is it therefore the case that the question may not be put on the motion, if amended, unless the motion is adopted by a Minister of the Crown?

I then have a second point. [Interruption.] If I may come to the second point, which is the precedential—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have heard the hon. Gentleman’s first point and I would like to hear his second.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The second point relates to the interpretation of the word “forthwith” and, for the benefit of the Commons Journal tomorrow, how it is to be understood in future when such matters arise. Page 458 of “Erskine May”, which I am sure you have, Mr Speaker, says that such questions

“must be put forthwith without any possibility of amendment”.

That reads as a single set, rather than as though “forthwith” was simply being qualified. The question that then arises is on the other important Standing Orders that are affected by the “forthwith” question. I think particularly of Standing Order No. 44, relating to disorderly conduct, which states that the question must be put forthwith but makes no mention of amendment one way or another. It seems to me that it would be deeply troublesome if “forthwith” came to allow amendments under such circumstances, so I think that the precedential effect of your ruling needs to be clarified.

[Mr Speaker]

I am happy to reflect on the second point, which is not altogether dissimilar to that raised earlier by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith). It is a very serious question and it warrants a serious reply. I am not sure whether it is reasonable to expect a full reply today—I am not sure whether that is what the hon. Gentleman is seeking—but if the hon. Gentleman is saying to me in his typically courteous way that this is an important matter and that we need a judgment on it, either from the Chair alone or from the Chair acting on the advice of, for example, the Procedure Committee, I agree with him.

On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, the answer is that if the motion has been moved, the question on it must then be put. For the avoidance of doubt, I say that on the basis of specialist advice.

Appointment of Sir Roger Scruton

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Monday 12th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

What a rich galaxy. I call Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his inspired decision to make beauty an important part of the planning process and his equally inspired decision to appoint Sir Roger Scruton? Sir Roger is a very brave defender of free speech who used to go behind the iron curtain when some people on the other side of this House might have been rather more sympathetic and fellow traveller-ish than they might like now to admit. Any philosopher must be able to discuss issues and is bound to say things in his works that are controversial, because otherwise, discussion and debate cannot be advanced. That is an inevitable consequence of appointing a philosopher.

EU Customs Union and Draft Withdrawal Agreement: Cost

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Monday 22nd October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Succinctness as exemplified, legendarily, by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees- Mogg).

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

Will my hon. Friend say whether, if we stayed in the customs union, any revenues that came from customs would be considered to be own resources?

Leaving the EU: Meaningful Vote

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Monday 22nd October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. People can take whatever view they like, but, to be fair, the Secretary of State is always an estimably courteous individual in the Chamber, and we must hear the fella.

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

Will my right hon. Friend confirm once again that the choice in the meaningful vote is clear—either to accept the Government’s proposition or to leave without a withdrawal agreement?

Universal Credit

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Tuesday 16th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

There is heavy pressure on time, with two further urgent questions to follow. There will of course also be a debate on this important matter tomorrow. It may not be possible to accommodate everybody, but the chances of doing so will be better if we have pithy questions, to be exemplified by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg).

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

The aim of getting the withdrawal rate of benefits down from more than 90% to 63% is enormously laudable, but can my hon. Friend ensure that people do not lose out in the transition?

Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 16th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Several Members, all on the same side of the House, wish to speak. I suggest that the time limit be now reduced to four minutes, but it is not obligatory for Members to consume all four.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I first thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) for making what I thought was a remarkably gracious speech, in quite a fevered atmosphere, and for putting both sides of the case so generously and kindly?

I want to speak to the four new clauses and amendments that I have supported and, in most cases, put my name to. They are broadly in line with Government policy, which is why the Government have accepted them. New clause 37 relates to the Northern Ireland question. It is clearly Government policy that Northern Ireland should not be removed from the rest of the United Kingdom, and I think that to put that in legislation would be beneficial.

Amendment 72 relates to Henry VIII clauses. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve)—or “beacon’s field”, as Benjamin Disraeli pronounced it—that we should not have Henry VIII clauses if we can possibly avoid them, as they are not good legislative practice. The fewer Henry VIII clauses we have, the better. I confess that I would have supported my right hon. and learned Friend in earlier Bills had I not thought that, in so doing, I would have caused suspicion on the other side of the European debate, with people wondering what on earth I was up to. However, I am very pleased that Henry VIII clauses are becoming less popular in the House.

Amendment 73 has been a topic of discussion in relation to no EU VAT regime. This is actually Government policy, as set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on “The Andrew Marr Show”, when he said that once we had left the European Union we would not be part of the EU VAT regime. The difference here is between acquisition VAT and import VAT. Import VAT is the normal way we charge VAT on third countries outside the European Union, whereas acquisition VAT is an EU system. Therefore, if we are leaving, it makes absolute sense to be out of this, and that fits with what the Government have said.

Points of Order

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Wednesday 27th June 2018 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I will come to the hon. Gentleman when there is an appropriate air of hush, anticipation and respect for the hon. Gentleman—to which we are gradually approximating. [Interruption.] I know the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) used to be a teacher, but she does not have to raise her hand in the Chamber, as though she was asking a question. We will come to the hon. Lady and her point of order in due course. First, I hope the House will be quiet as we hear the point of order from Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for taking my point of order earlier than normal. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition referred to me in his comments earlier. He has only been a Member of the House for 35 years, so he may not have learned the form—it is considered good form for a Member to tell another Member in advance when they are going to refer to them—but that is not the point. What the right hon. Gentleman said was false in all respects. My company does not actually run any hedge funds, so to have moved a hedge fund out of this country would have shown a remarkable acrobatic nature within the business; we have not in fact done so. I wondered whether he might like to take this opportunity, as he is still in the Chamber, to set the record straight, rather than otherwise be a peddler of false news or perhaps guilty of terminological inexactitude.

[Mr Speaker]

Ah, I know that terminological inexactitude is of unfailing interest to the hon. Gentleman, who appreciates the historical significance of the term that he has just used. It is perfectly open to the Leader of the Opposition to come to the Dispatch Box if he wishes to do so. [Interruption.] Order. All this hand waving is rather unseemly. However, the right hon. Gentleman is not under any obligation to do so. The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) has made his point, and it is on the record. I thank him for making it, and we will leave it there.

Military Action Overseas: Parliamentary Approval

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Tuesday 17th April 2018 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Just before I call the Prime Minister, I will hear a very courteously articulated point of order from the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Mr Speaker, could you give your ruling at this early stage that the vote must go with the voice? There are rumours that the Opposition are thinking of voting against their own motion, but the Leader of the Opposition has just moved that motion. Would he therefore be entitled, under normal procedures, to do so?

[Mr Speaker]

The answer to that question is yes.

UK/EU Future Economic Partnership

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Monday 5th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Ah yes, a very well-behaved fellow—I call Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that compliment.

Does my right hon. Friend, having made such a generous offer to the European Union, expect more generosity than it has shown so far? I think particularly of the aggression in the draft legal text of suggesting a solution to the Irish problem that would have been in contradiction to the confidence and supply agreement with the Democratic Unionist party, threatening the existence of the Government. Does my right hon. Friend think that it is right for the European Commission to behave in such a high-handed fashion?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Thursday 1st February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I was about to say that the hon. Gentleman chunters from a sedentary position, but he almost yells from a sedentary position his expression of sympathy for the former Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am sure the former Chancellor of the Exchequer will bear with stoicism and fortitude not being directly referenced by the representatives of the Treasury Bench.

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

Will the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), confirm that he heard from Charles Grant of the Centre for European Research that officials in the Treasury have deliberately developed a model to show that all options other than staying in the customs union are bad, and that officials intend to use the model to influence policy? If that is correct, does he share my view that it goes against the spirit of the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms that underpin our independent civil service?

Leaving the EU: Implementation

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Monday 29th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let us hear from the voice of North East Somerset. I call Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg.

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

How does my hon. Friend square paragraph 4 of the European Union’s guidelines, which requires the phase 1 agreement to be respected in full and implemented in legal terms, with the idea that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed?

European Council

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Monday 18th December 2017 Commons Chamber

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

Will my right hon. Friend clearly reject the negotiating mandate handed out by the European Council, paragraph 1 of which undermines the principle of nothing being agreed until everything has been agreed, and paragraph 4 of which would make the United Kingdom in the transition phase no more than a vassal state, a colony, a serf of the European Union—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I want to hear the hon. Gentleman, who is in full flow. I want to hear the fullness of the flow.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I urge my right hon. Friend to model herself on her predecessor, the late noble Baroness Thatcher, and to show real mettle and steel in rejecting the EU’s rather hostile negotiating terms.

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Monday 13th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is all sorts of flailing and waving about. It is not statesmanlike and the source from which it emanates is a source from which I usually expect the most statesmanlike conduct. The right hon. Gentleman’s question suffers from the disadvantage that it is not even adjacent to—does not even hover over, does not buzz around—the urgent question that has been posed, so he will have to pursue other opportunities to favour the House with his thoughts, or to seek to extricate from the mind of the Foreign Secretary his own. On that point, we will leave it there for now.

Now, I am sure we can expect a wholly orderly question from the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), very likely delivered in a sentence with no split infinitive. It might even be a series of sentences amounting to a lucid paragraph.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that generous introduction.

Will my right hon. Friend carry on his Palmerston-like approach to defending British subjects overseas, which is one of the first duties of Her Majesty’s Government? Does it concern him, as it concerns me, that the treatment of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe in Iran, barbarous as it is, is being given succour by the socialists on the Opposition Benches?

UK Plans for Leaving the EU

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Monday 9th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I was going to call a fellow, but he has beetled out of the curtilage of the Chamber so I cannot. He may beetle back again, but we will see.

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

Will my right hon. Friend confirm unequivocally that after 29 March 2019 the European Court of Justice’s writ will no longer run in any way in this country and that any new laws agreed under the acquis communautaire after that date will not have effect here unless agreed specifically by Parliament?

Nomination of Members to Committees

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Commons Chamber

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

This is not some great constitutional crisis; it is within the thread of our constitution. The great Duke of Wellington’s guiding constitutional principle was that the King’s Government must be carried on. In older age, he changed it to the Queen’s Government. That is the situation today. Since 1881, when, Mr Speaker, your illustrious predecessor, Speaker Brand, brought debate to a close, it has been recognised that the rules of the House must ensure that business can be proceeded with efficiently. That has been put into Standing Orders, and Standing Orders have been consistently amended and altered, suspended or changed, to ensure that the Government of the day can get their business through. It is very straightforward: if the Government of the day do not command a majority, a vote of no confidence is tabled and the Government fall. That is the fundamental principle of our constitution.

After that, what we are dealing with is purely administrative, not highfalutin constitutionalism. We know, because the Queen’s Speech was carried, that in the House there is a majority for the Government’s programme. It is therefore legitimate for the motion for an amendment to Standing Orders to be passed tonight, to ensure that that which has already been established on the Floor of the House applies in Committee.

The absurdity of the Opposition’s position is that the Committee of Selection, when there is an odd number on a Committee, should always give that odd number so that the Government can be defeated. How does that represent either the result of the general election or the combination of seats in the House? It is clear that with an odd number, the majority must belong to the governing side, with the support of our friends in the Democratic Unionist party who voted for the Queen’s Speech.

When the numbers are even, the result in the Bill Committee will of course be determined by the vote of the Chairman, who, by convention, will vote for no change. That will mean no change in the Bill passed on the Floor of the House, which will mean that both Government and Opposition amendments will fail in Committee if it is even-numbered, and will be tabled again on Report. Any Bill must have been presented by a Government who have a majority, and who have not been overturned by a vote of no confidence. It must be the case that the Bill has been given a Second Reading, and therefore, in principle, commands a majority in the House. On Report, any changes made in Committee can be overturned, so if we lose the support of our friends in the Democratic Unionist party, any proposal that is disliked can be stopped. Then there is the final stage, Third Reading. At every stage, the will of the House will be respected.

The speech, of great elegance, that was made by the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), and the speech—of equal elegance—that was made by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), had the great virtue of enormous and gloriously synthetic anger. Their fundamental good nature shone through. We saw that they knew that if they were in the Government’s position, exactly the same motion would be before the House. We know that in 1976, such a motion was snuck before the House on a quiet Friday when no one would notice. There is tradition for this; there is precedent for this; and it is the right thing for the party, the House, the Government and the nation.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Kevin Foster.

Mr Foster was on the list, but he has obviously taken himself off the list. In that case, we will have the joys of Mr Eddie Hughes.

Grenfell Tower

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Thursday 22nd June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. As befits the occasion, these are thoughtful and solemn exchanges, but I must advise the House that progress thus far has been very slow. I am keen to try to accommodate the extent of the interest, and therefore I appeal to colleagues now to confine themselves to pithy, short, single-sentence questions, of which the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) is a notable exponent.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

At the end of her compassionate and comprehensive statement, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that we had to think about the people living very different lives from ourselves. As I am sure she knows, in opinion surveys going back over decades people never said they wanted to live in tower blocks. Can we change public policy so that tower blocks can become a thing of the past?

Debate on the Address

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Wednesday 21st June 2017 Commons Chamber

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, said about 10 minutes ago, “In conclusion.” I fear, as time has passed, that he may be in danger of inadvertently having misled the House, and I thought you might want to take the opportunity to set this right.

[Mr Speaker]

No. Some people may think that the hon. Gentleman is fastidious and others may conclude that he is pedantic. You pay your money and you take your choice, but there is no disorder here, although if people persist in raising what they know not to be points of order, that would itself be disorderly, and I know that the hon. Gentleman of all people would not want to stray into such misdemeanour.

Sky/21st Century Fox: Proposed Merger

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Monday 6th March 2017 Commons Chamber

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

May I begin by declaring my inherited interest in this subject, but perhaps also jog the mind of the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) on the half a million pounds he received from Mr Mosley, which may have some bearing on these matters? What I want to ask my right hon. Friend is whether she will be certain not to involve herself in this socialist witch hunt against Mr Murdoch and News Corporation/Fox News, which has done so much, both through newspaper publishing efficiency after Wapping and through the launch of Sky News, to increase plurality in the media in this country. This wonderfully successful company should not be persecuted because the left does not like it.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Just before the Secretary of State responds, may I just say to the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) that I am sure he is not suggesting—and I hope he will take the opportunity to make this clear—that pecuniary gain has influenced a Member in his thinking or statements in the Chamber?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Most certainly not. I was merely declaring my own interest and it occurred to me that it was only fair to remind the hon. Member for West Bromwich East that he had not referred to his interest in the half a million pounds he received—I am absolutely certain it was an inadvertent oversight.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said, but I would just say—I do so on advice—that he has, uncharacteristically, over-interpreted his responsibility. It is his responsibility to declare his own interest, but he does not have to declare and should not declare, whether out of a spirit of altruism or otherwise, another Member’s interest. It is that Member’s responsibility so to declare as he or she thinks fit. We will leave it there.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am now better informed. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his characteristic good grace.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Monday 23rd January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry, but we must move on.

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

Mr Speaker, as the matters we are about to discuss are of the utmost confidentiality and may give succour to Her Majesty’s enemies, I beg to move, That the House sit in private.

Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163), and negatived.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 10th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Lyn Brown]

Oh, really.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let the hon. Gentleman put his concern on record.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady is promoting me. The Prime Minister is Prime Minister to the sovereign, not to me.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Tuesday 1st November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before we come to the first group of amendments, may I say that, as the House knows, there are 377 Lords amendments to the Investigatory Powers Bill, which were passed to this House yesterday evening? I must inform the House that none of the Lords amendments is certified—it says here “are certified”, but that is quite wrong; “none” takes the singular—under the EVEL Standing Orders. The Scottish Parliament passed a legislative consent motion on 6 October, copies of which are available with the Bill documents online and in the Vote Office. I must also inform the House that two of the Lords amendments—270 and 271—engage Commons financial privilege. If they are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have made reference to the Sewel convention and to the legislative consent motion being available in the Vote Office. The legislative consent motion from the Scottish Parliament is dated 6 October. Amendment 15—one of the most important amendments we will consider—was passed on 11 October and deals with a matter referred to by the noble Lord Howe as being outside the ordinary ambit of the Bill and a considerable advance from what was in the rest of the text. I am concerned, therefore, that amendment 15 by their lordships is not approved by the Sewel convention or covered by the legislative consent motion that we have received from the Scottish Parliament. I know that, strictly speaking, this is a matter for the Government, not the House of Commons itself, but I fear that the House would be doing a discourtesy to the Scottish Parliament if we were to proceed to legislate on a devolved matter, which media policy is. It would be helpful to have your guidance, and perhaps ruling, on where we should go with the Sewel convention, and perhaps for the Government to clarify their position.

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for advance notice of his point of order. Might I just mention in passing that his exegesis of the legislation, and his courtesy and regard for the principle of courtesy in respect of other Parliaments, are impeccable, as is invariably the case.

As the hon. Gentleman will know—I welcome this opportunity to clarify the position, and it does require clarification—section 2 of the Scotland Act 2016 enshrined in legislation the statement that:

“the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.”

That does not prevent the House from considering amendments that the Scottish Parliament has not consented to.

We are just about to come to the first debate on a group of Lords amendments that, as the hon. Gentleman rightly observes, includes Lords amendment 15, and it is, I believe, with that that he is overwhelmingly concerned. The Government have given notice of their intention to disagree with Lords amendment 15, among others. We will have to wait to learn from the debate why the Minister takes that view. I am giving due notice that the House will certainly expect an explanation on that matter—whether the House as a whole does, I feel absolutely certain that the hon. Member for North East Somerset will.

If the hon. Gentleman’s thought about Scottish consent had not already occurred to Ministers, or those advising them, I surmise from the attentive attitudes of right hon. and hon. Members on the Front Bench, including much nodding of heads and expressions of sagacity, that it will have done so now. I hope that will do at least for now. I thank the hon. Member for North East Somerset because he has done the House a service. These conventions matter, and he has reminded us of that point.

Clause 8

Civil liability for certain unlawful interceptions

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Tuesday 19th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

In the hope that the hon. Gentleman will provide a masterclass in the asking of a question, I call Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment. I accept that that is not a question but a statement. May I go on to point out to him that Brexit provides a great opportunity? The £24 billion purchase of ARM by SoftBank is a sign of that. The trade deals that are being offered are a sign of that. Will he grasp this fantastic opportunity and lead us through to the “broad, sunlit uplands”?

Debate on the Address

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Wednesday 18th May 2016 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, am I not right in thinking that it is a customary courtesy in this House for people, though they do not have to, to give way in speeches that last over 20 minutes?

[Mr Speaker]

The essence of the hon. Gentleman’s point was encapsulated in that first sentence: customary, but it is not required. There is no obligation. Members may want the right hon. Gentleman to give way, but he is not obliged to do so. I gently say to the hon. Members for Winchester (Steve Brine) and for Sherwood (Mark Spencer) that they can have a go, but if the right hon. Gentleman does not want to give way they will not advance their cause by shouting. That, in itself, is uncivil, of which the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) is never guilty.

EU Referendum (Privy Council)

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Monday 14th March 2016 Commons Chamber

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

As the Lord High Chancellor is the keeper of the Queen’s conscience, is it not inconceivable that he could misapply his conscience to Her Majesty? In the Privy Council oath, Privy Counsellors are asked to swear:

“You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance to the Queen’s Majesty; and will assist and defend all civil and temporal Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates.”

How, therefore, can members of the Privy Council go off and be European Commissioners swearing allegiance to the European Union?

[Mr Speaker]

That is an interesting point—some would say a fascinating point—but it is perhaps mildly tangential to the urgent question that I have selected. But we all savour the observations of the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), so let us savour the reply.

Royal Naval Deployment: Mediterranean

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Monday 7th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Let us hear from a cerebral inquisitor. Yes—Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg.

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

I thank my right hon. Friend for his characteristic courtesy in coming to the House in person to answer the urgent question. Is this not a very interesting case study of the difference between the European Union and NATO? NATO manages to get on and save lives in a problematic situation for which the EU must take at least a large share of the blame, and which has been exacerbated by the consequences of Chancellor Merkel’s decision. While NATO is there, actively doing things, the best—the most mealy-mouthed meeting of murmurating Ministers—that can be provided by the European Union does nothing.

Prayers

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Friday 22nd January 2016 Commons Chamber

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

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

A point of order?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is not a point of order, but I beg to move, That the House sit in private.

[Mr Speaker]

Indeed. Other than by reason of formality and constitutional precedent, I cannot ordinarily imagine the hon. Gentleman “begging” anything.

Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163).

NHS (Charitable Trusts Etc) Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Friday 22nd January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That is absolutely right, but I think that slipped in is a perfectly fair phrase on Fridays, because the debates then tend to be quiet and relatively poorly attended. However, it is nice to see our Benches so full and well trooped, if I might say so, by people who are in the Chamber to support the Bill. I am rather surprised that our friends from Scotland are all absent, but I suppose that the Bill does not immediately affect them, at least not in the first half.

I want to move on to the comparison between the amendment getting rid of the affirmative route for statutory instruments and the one on public consultation. It seems to me to be an extraordinary approach to take to say that when a regulation is changed by the Secretary of State, it is better that it should be consulted on with a group of self-selecting individuals who take the time to get in touch, taking away the ability of this House to act as that safeguard and check. Surely we are here, with a democratic mandate, as the main people to be consulted on behalf of our electorate, to whom we have to report every so often. Issues should not be put out to local consultation, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) said, is often more of a fig leaf and an attempt to consult and either achieve a result that is already intended. If not, the consultation is ignored. Consultation has become immensely fashionable and we should always be cautious of fashion. Fashion ebbs and it flows, it comes and it goes, but there is a permanence to this House and in our way of doing things. We are the democratic sounding board for our constituents, so that there are not endless self-selecting consultations with people who are not necessarily particularly interested in the issue.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. If the hon. Gentleman himself has ever been fashionable, which is in itself extremely doubtful, it can only have been by accident.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Mr Speaker, as always, you are correct. I think that I would take being called fashionable as a grave insult, although I know that your ties are regularly a model of fashion.

ISIL in Syria

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Wednesday 2nd December 2015 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Though it is indeed customary that he who holds the Floor decides whether to give way, is it not also customary to answer questions when they are put in interventions? We are waiting for the right hon. Gentleman’s answer on Iraq.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) is a sufficiently experienced parliamentarian to know that he has made his own point in his own way, and it is on the record.

Tax Credits

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Commons Chamber

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

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I think I will do a wrap-up at the end. Let us hear from the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), and then we must hear from Mr Rees-Mogg—the day would not be complete without him.

[Christian Matheson]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am pleased to hear the late conversion of Conservative Members to democracy and the rejection of an unelected Chamber, but can you give me some guidance? Is there not a constitutional role for the other place in giving pause to this House when it has made a decision that is out of sync with feelings in the country, so that the House can look at that decision again?

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I say to the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), who is a very distinguished taxi driver by profession, that he will be aware of the cab rank principle, and also of the principle of waiting in a queue for one’s turn. We will come to him. Don’t worry, he will not go cold. We will look after his interests, I am sure.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder what you will do to remind their lordships of our declaration of privilege from 1678, declaring that all financial matters pertain to this House, a privilege that the House of Lords has now ignored only three times since 1860. As our mouthpiece, will you bring that to the attention of their lordships in no uncertain terms?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer to the last question, which I think had something of the character of a rhetorical inquiry, is no.

Let me say, with all courtesy to the House, that I was keen to hear all the points of order before responding. I intend no discourtesy to the House when I simply say this: the responsibility of the Chair is for order. Nothing disorderly has occurred. There has been no procedural impropriety; that would not have been allowed. Whether people like what happened last night, because of the substance of the issue or their views on constitutionality, is a matter for each and every one of them. In terms of where matters rest, as I said last night from the Chair in response to a point of order from the shadow Chancellor, this is now a matter for the Government to take forward as they think fit.

With reference to the point of order from the Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), the hon. Gentleman flatters me. He does not need guidance from me on how to go about his duties, and neither does any other right hon. or hon. Member. It is not for the Chair to put a gloss on what transpired last night. I think, in truth, that Members are actually not all that interested in my gloss or my response to their points of order; they simply wanted to get their views on the record, and that they have done.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I will indulge you with one further point of order, Mr Rees-Mogg.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker. I want to refer back to this House’s claim of privilege, which we have made for many centuries. I would have thought that you were the defender of this House’s privileges and that this is beyond the immediate political debate.

[Mr Speaker]

The matters that are currently in dispute are inevitably of what I will call a high-octane character. In such circumstances, if I may very politely and respectfully say so to the hon. Gentleman, I do not think it helps matters if the Chair adds in substantive terms, without exceptionally good reason, to the total number of evaluative comments that have already been made. I think it would be better not to do so. I do jealously guard the rights of this House, but I have to rest with what I have said—that nothing procedurally improper has taken place. Let us wait to see how matters are taken forward. As I said to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) last week, in the final analysis each House knows what its powers are and are not.

Debate on the Address

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Wednesday 27th May 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for putting that on the record.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. If we go back to the Bradlaugh case, it is well established that this House is entitled to limit the voting rights of individual Members. The House refused to let Bradlaugh take the Oath, and it was upheld by the courts that that could not be interfered with outside this Chamber, and that is in our Bill of Rights.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, on whom we can always depend for his historical exegesis, but I think that does rather underline why it would be imprudent of me to say anything beyond what I have said today. I note what has been said by other Members, and I think it sensible and wise to leave it there for today.

Today’s Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Thursday 26th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. What the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) has just said about the Prime Minister—calling him “vindictive” etc.—cannot be within the bounds of parliamentary discourse. I really object most strongly. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I just respond to the hon. Gentleman as follows? My strong sense, and I do take advice on these matters, is that what has been said is a matter of taste—[Interruption.] Order. If I felt the need of the advice of the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley),I would seek it, but I am seeking to respond to the point of order. It is a matter of taste; it is not language that I would use, and it is certainly not language that the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) would use. I have responded to him, and I think that we should leave it there.

Procedure of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Thursday 26th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

If the hon. Gentleman’s complaint is that there is inadequate time for right hon. and hon. Members to be called in this debate, let me say, with a clarity that is beyond peradventure, that I would be happy to sit here all day and all night for right hon. and hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman is a constitutionalist, and I think that he prides himself on understanding Parliament. The motion was tabled by the Government, and the time for it was determined by the Government. I think that that is clear.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As there is such widespread demand for an increase in the time available, would it be permissible to suggest, under Standing Order 24, an emergency debate on the subject?

[Mr Speaker]

The answer to that, I fear—as far as the hon. Gentleman is concerned—is that the Government tabled the motion earlier in the week, which removed any possibility of Standing Order 24 debates today. The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s point of order is that there cannot be such a debate, but that is the reason. It has nothing to do with a decision by the Chair; it has to do with a judgment that the Government have made.

I must now put the Question.

European Commission: National Parliaments

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Tuesday 10th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), who knows only too well about that by-election. It is extraordinary that other people within government try to subvert the will of the Prime Minister. Our constitution works well as the Prime Minister, as the head of the Government, shows leadership. However, there are then people, minions—I do not know who they are, as they will not emerge or admit the role they play in undermining parliamentary scrutiny—who deliberately undermine what the Prime Minister has promised. That is the most extraordinary state of affairs, Mr Speaker, as the Prime Minister needs your help to deliver on his promises. Your impartial help is needed to get the Prime Minister out of a hole dug for him by his own officials. This is a quite extraordinary and regrettable state of affairs.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is making liberal reference to the Chair, to which I have no objection, but in so far as he is foraging in the undergrowth to try to find a solution to Parliament’s difficulties as we approach Prorogation and then Dissolution, he might find that the shortage of allocated time is such that his only recourse is to seek a debate under Standing Order No. 24. He should not be put in that position, but he can always have a go, with no promises and no advance undertakings. We should not be reduced to this state of affairs, but needs must.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful, Mr Speaker. I was worried when you said that I was making liberal reference to the Chair; I hope that I was making Conservative reference to the Chair. Other than that, I am much obliged for your helpful reminder of the Standing Orders of the House.

I do not want to go on for too long, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) has an important debate that will follow this one. In that context, I note that when I sit down before the full time for the debate is complete the Government will once again say that the debate did not run for its full time and that the desire for such debates is therefore not as great as we might think, so they do not need to give them in future.

Members’ Paid Directorships and Consultancies

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The answer is very straightforward, and it is twofold: first, of course individual Members must take responsibility for what they say in this House when they rise to their feet; and secondly, very simply, the interest in question has to be sufficiently clear to be informative to the House in the context of the debate. It is a very straightforward point and I have now made it twice. I hope that it is clear to all right hon. and hon. Members.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. It might be helpful to ask you about my understanding that it is not customary to explain points of one’s interests in interventions or supplementary questions; that is normally reserved for main speeches, the idea being that it advances the debate.

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer is that the declaration should be made where it does not impede the progress of debate, and it should certainly not impair the decorum of the debate. [Interruption.] Order. Members can study the matter, which is treated of in some detail in “Erskine May”. The House would be the first to complain, and rightly so, if I were to read out what is in “Erskine May”. I do not do that. I do not need to do that. Members should apprise themselves of what is said in “Erskine May” on the matter and judge their actions accordingly, which I know the hon. Gentleman, in particular, is extremely adept at doing. I suggest that others could usefully follow his example.

International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Friday 5th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has misspoken in attributing an amendment to me. It is not my amendment, but that of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would like an opportunity to correct the record.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) has heard the point of order, to which he may wish to respond.

Points of Order

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

It is open to the Home Secretary to do so. She may feel that she wants to set out her thoughts in the debate, and she is welcome to do that.

In all courtesy, I must come to the point of order from the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg).

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for your helpful reply to my inquiry on this matter. Is it not right that debates are, on most days, in the hands of the Government? They are perfectly capable of putting down clear motions that people will understand. If they want a vote on the arrest warrant, they can have one. Does this not seem to you, as it does to me, to be procedural prestidigitation to persuade people that they are voting on something on which they are not really voting? Would it not be better if the Government were to put down a clear motion on some future day that we could vote on properly?

[Mr Speaker]

I say to the hon. Gentleman that all sorts of things might be better, as he puts it, but as I said in my statement, the Chair and the House can deal only with what is on the Order Paper. I understand, because it has been communicated to me by several Members, that there is considerable irritation on this matter. I absolutely understand that, but what I am trying to do, operating within the limits of the powers of the Chair, is to facilitate the will of the House. I have only a partial ability to do that—I cannot create a vote for which provision has not been made—but the House will want to debate what the House wants to debate. In future, it would be better if these matters were handled in a way that is straightforward, and if the hon. Gentleman’s appetite for the honouring of commitments were to be met.

Business of the House (Today)

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not sure that the Home Secretary was listening earlier when you said that the European arrest warrant can only be mentioned peripherally in the main debate, because she has just said that she intends to speak about it. It might be helpful if you reiterated your earlier advice, in case she had not been listening.

[Mr Speaker]

I think that I referred to the requirement for Members to deploy some ingenuity, and I gave quite a full explanation of the situation as I saw it. I do not recall using the word “peripherally”—I hesitate to argue with the hon. Gentleman, who is always very precise in his use of words—but I think that the substance of what I was getting at was clear. Let us now hear what the Home Secretary has to say.

Criminal Law

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I have not seen the document in question, although it may be presented at some point. At this stage, all I am saying is that it is not obvious to me that a state paper is at stake or that the hon. Gentleman has suffered any detriment. We will leave it there. I think that the right hon. Lady was about to take an intervention from Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) quite understandably does not read his communications from the Whips Office with care and attention. Had he read section 4 of the document on today’s business, he would have found that it said:

“We then move to a motion to approve the draft Criminal Justice and Data Protection (Protocol No. 36) Regulations, which includes the European arrest warrant.”

I hope I have been able to clear up this matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The matter is, of course, debatable, but what is debatable is whether or not the Question be not now put, rather than the merits of what we have previously been debating.

[Mr Speaker]

I think that the context is germane to the question of whether the motion be approved, or not approved, as the case may be. I therefore think that an excessively narrow interpretation would be wrong. I think it only right for the Home Secretary, if she wants to speak to the Question that the Question be not now put, to have an opportunity, in an orderly way, to make her case. Let me now hear what I hope will be an orderly account.

European Council

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Monday 27th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

What a delicious choice. I call Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg.

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

The Prime Minister has saved the European Union from the crime of living off immoral earnings. That has made him enormously popular. Will he follow up his popularity by refusing the European arrest warrant, and most importantly by telling the Home Office that it is not befitting a great Department of State to give briefings that are not entirely accurate factually?

House of Lords Reform (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Friday 28th February 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move amendment 2, page 1, line 2, after ‘peer’, insert

‘and has been a peer for 10 years’.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 3, page 1, line 2, after ‘peer’, insert

‘and has been a peer for 10 years and is over the age of 65’.

Amendment 4, page 1, line 7, leave out ‘a witness’ and insert

‘two witnesses, both of whom must be peers of the same degree’.

Amendment 6, page 1, line 10, at end insert

‘after the date specified in 2(a) above’.

Amendment 7, page 1, line 10, at end insert—

‘(5) This section does not apply to unelected hereditary peers who sit in the House of Lords’.

Amendment 8, page 1, line 10, at end insert—

‘( ) An hereditary peer who retires or otherwise resigns in accordance with this section shall be deemed to have died allowing any heir to be eligible to be elected.’.

Amendment 9, page 1, line 10, at end insert—

‘( ) A life peer who retires or otherwise resigns in accordance with this section will upon petition to the Queen be raised to the state degree style dignity title and honour of viscount.’.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

With hindsight, how fortunate it is that we are not sitting in private to discuss these important matters, which will be of interest to the nation at large, concerning retirement or resignation from the House of Lords.

Amendment 2 would simply add a line to clause 1 to the effect that a peer may not resign until they have been a peer for a minimum of 10 years. If somebody accepts a great honour from the Crown, it seems to me that they have an obligation to live up to that honour. Circumstances might change and require a different lifestyle that makes it impossible for them to attend the House, but to enter lightly into the receipt of a peerage—that great honour bestowed by our sovereign of being a legislator in the second House of Parliament—and then to give it up after a day or two or, conceivably, even after a minute, seems improper.

People enter into a life peerage, and understand that they have done so for life, hence the name. It is amazing how often an obvious point about something is made in its title. There is no obfuscation in the title “life peer”. It is not a temporary peerage, a Parliament peerage or a dated peerage, but a life peerage. One of the glories of the House of Lords is that it represents age. It is not full of scribbling youths, but has people of mature years, of wisdom, of grey beards, and even of grey flowing locks, which shows how much they have learnt and experienced over the years.

Citizenship (Armed Forces) Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Friday 17th January 2014 Commons Chamber

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

Mr Speaker, I do not believe you ever weary of listening to speeches in this Chamber.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) is entirely correct in his surmise.

Amendment of Standing Orders

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Monday 2nd December 2013 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to refer even to himself, who is by virtue an honourable Member, as a charlatan and a fraud?

[Mr Speaker]

It is not disorderly, but it is an example of unwarranted self-flagellation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

As I understand it, Mr Speaker, for a motion to be withdrawn, it requires the consent of the whole House, and one Member opposing it can stop that withdrawal taking place. It is too late for my hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, to withdraw his motion.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman’s understanding is correct. The motion is now owned by the House, and withdrawal of it would require the assent of the House. It cannot be summarily withdrawn.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Friday 8th November 2013 Commons Chamber

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

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

We shall shortly begin with new clause 1, but not before I have heard the point of order from Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is stated clearly in “Erskine May” that the vote must go with the voice. Many hon. Members shouted Aye; none voted in favour. Will you investigate the question of whether any Members who shouted Aye then voted No?

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and I respect the spirit in which he has raised it. My understanding of the situation is that a Member who shouts Aye must not then vote in the contrary direction, or vice versa. I do not think, although I entirely respect the spirit of the hon. Gentleman’s point, that it reflects in this case because a Member is not obliged to vote simply because he or she has shouted. What he or she must not do is shout one way and vote the other. But the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised is an important one, and I thank him for raising it.

Deep Sea Mining Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Friday 6th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

That is an exciting way of looking at it—to adopt a real free-market approach, which allows companies to go out to prospect, as they did in California in the 19th century, and as Cecil Rhodes did when he went to South Africa. He found great acres of space and he made a claim and he dug and he dug and he dug, and he found gold, diamonds and platinum, and he put them into a great company, and he made millions—in modern money, billions—of pounds by doing that. That was not through state regulation, not through international bodies, not through the United Nations reaching an agreement to say, “You may do this,” or “You may do that,” but by enterprise, hard work and energy—by all those great British virtues of which we should be so proud. Why not say that of the oceans? Why not mount expeditions? We could launch one together, Mr Speaker, to try and find the lost city of Atlantis, which we would expect to have all sorts of valuables—metals, gold, excitements—in it.

We could have other companies, perhaps, doing more careful geological surveys to locate those metals—the rare earth metals. An interesting fact about rare earth metals is that they are not particularly rare. The Chinese sold them very cheaply to start with, but they became a monopolist and then they raised the price. In doing so, they showed absolutely classic monopolistic behaviour. Those metals are not particularly rare, although they are quite expensive to gather together. People could go off as a free-enterprise endeavour, without having to pay for licences and regulations.

Every pound that is spent on a licence is a pound that cannot be spent on exploration, or on exploitation of the asset once it is found. How relieved I was to hear from Mining Weekly about the speed with which the sea bed—the mighty sea bed—restores itself to pristine condition after someone has been down and done a little digging. That conjures up wonderful images. I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) say that there is always a Cornish miner involved, and that they go down and dig, even at the depths of the ocean, to find valuable assets that we may be able to exploit for the benefit of the British people. That is a free-enterprise endeavour.

Interestingly, those who spoke in the debates in the early ’80s thought there would be a great expansion of activity at the depths of the ocean. Why did that not happen? Is it not obvious, Mr Speaker? The dead hand of legislation and bureaucracy came crushing down on those who wanted to be enterprising in their prospecting activities. So there was no equivalent of the Californian gold rush. There was no shout of, “There’s gold in them there hills,” or anything of that kind, of the undersea hills.

As we are talking about geology, it is worth mentioning that the great father of geology, a Mr Smith, started all his work in North East Somerset, in the village of High Littleton. Going down in a mineshaft, he saw the different layers of the earth and worked out—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am all agog at the racy and intoxicating oration that the hon. Gentleman is delivering to the House, but I have two concerns. First, if the hon. Gentleman leads a lengthy sojourn, either accompanied or unaccompanied, in the terms that he describes, he may be sorely missed in North East Somerset. Secondly, I feel sure that, ere long, notwithstanding the quite legendary eloquence that the hon. Gentleman has thus far deployed, he will turn his attention to the contents of the Deep Sea Mining Bill itself.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Because so many other Members are keen to speak in the debate, I shall keep my remarks short. I know the Benches are not currently filled, but people are waiting in their offices to come racing down into the Chamber the minute the Minister has said a few words, such is their excitement to talk about the details of the Bill.

The details of the Bill are of course crucial. Its worst aspect is that it removes the Secretary of State’s ability to repeal legislation. If there is one thing that I take particular exception to, it is the idea that legislation that was temporary and could be removed is now to become a permanent burden on our statute book. When we look, in the No Lobby, at the statutes of this great nation, we see one volume covering the first few hundred years of the existence of Parliament, and now we see a volume barely doing a Session of Parliament. How glorious it would be if more Bills gave Secretaries of State power to take them off the statute book—to deregulate. I would urge that the Bill should have a more deregulatory ambition, and therefore in the early stages of its consideration we should delete the conversion of the 1981 Act from temporary to permanent, because the temporary nature of legislation is one of the pious hopes that all legislators should have. We should wish our legislation to deal with a temporary problem and then restore the liberties of the British subject as soon as possible. That would be my first concern over the Bill and the regulations within it.

High Cost Credit Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Friday 12th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s point of order is that nothing disorderly has occurred.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. It was noticeable that the shouts for Aye were very loud and the numbers voting in favour were quite small. Am I right in thinking that the vote ought to go with the voice, as recommended by “Erskine May”?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct on that point, which is also not incompatible or inconsistent with my answer to the earlier point of order. The hon. Gentleman’s reference to “shouts” is correct: vote should follow voice. That is the well-established principle enunciated by “Erskine May”, which I exhort colleagues to follow.

Draft Voting Eligibility (Prisoners) Bill (Joint Committee)

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Tuesday 16th April 2013 Commons Chamber

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

Let me reassure the hon. Lady that I am not an anarchist, although I serve on the Committee, and that, actually, we follow my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) very carefully.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I just say that the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention was demonstrably superfluous?

Sittings of the House (Wednesday 17 April)

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Tuesday 16th April 2013 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you rule whether such turns of phrase are parliamentary?

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer is that what has just been said was distasteful, but was not disorderly. It does not seem to have evoked any great display of misery on the part of the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke), but I know that when the hon. Member for Bradford West rises to speak again, he will do so with the degree of calm and measurement of his words for which I know, in future years, he will want to be renowned.

Sittings of the House (22 March)

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Oliver Cromwell used his troops to stop Members voting the wrong way in a Division—even the Whips do not try that one.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. These exchanges are most entertaining but they are somewhat wide of the mark. I cannot encourage the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) to dilate any further on the matter of Cromwell. He must dilate, if he has to dilate, on the terms of the matter before us, which I feel sure he will now do.

Succession to the Crown Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Monday 28th January 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 1, clause 2, page 1, line 10, at end insert—

‘(2A) A child of a marriage, which at the time of the marriage disqualified one of their parents from succeeding to the Crown or possessing it, who is at the time of the coming into force of this section of the Roman Catholic faith shall not as a result be for ever incapable of succeeding to the Crown.’.

Amendment 2, clause 2, page 1, line 10, at end insert—

‘(2B) A child of a marriage, which takes place after the coming into force of this section between a Roman Catholic and a person in line of succession to the Crown, who is of the Roman Catholic faith shall not as a result be for ever incapable of succeeding to the Crown.’.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

It occurs to me that the Leader of the House must have a sense of humour. Today, as I am sure you know, Mr Speaker, is the anniversary of the death of his late Majesty King Henry VIII, so it seems only appropriate that we should be discussing the Succession to the Crown Bill on such an anniversary. After all, King Henry introduced three succession to the Crown Bills, and some of the problems we are dealing with today originate with his reign. I have proposed two further amendments, which you have graciously said, Mr Speaker, we can deal with in the course of our debate on the new clause, and I shall come to them secondarily.

New clause 1 is the crucial part of what I am proposing. It is a development within the context of the Bill to attend not just to one discrimination but to a second that is inherent within the current rules governing the succession. From time immemorial, the succession has gone to the eldest male heir, but since the Act of Settlement 1701 it has had to go to a Protestant. There has been a religious discrimination as well as discrimination on the grounds of sex. My new clause seeks to amend that to allow for anybody of any faith to succeed to the Crown while making provision for the established Church.

Many countries in the world have a Crown that is only temporal; they do not have a Crown that is spiritual as well. The mediaevalists debated at great length where power should rest in those two spheres, and I do not wish to rehearse the schoolmen’s arguments. There are, however, two distinct and separate powers and authorities: the temporal one that deals with the laws we live by and how we should lead our lives in respect of society; and the spiritual one that looks to the higher plane and the greater authority that comes with religious belief and religious conviction.

In our country, those two powers are merged in the Crown. The Crown is both the spiritual head of the Church and the temporal head of the nation for one part—and one part only—of the Crown. On Tuesday last week, on Second Reading and indeed in Committee, we debated whether that was right and how it applied in a more modern age. It is worth looking, as we did last week, at some of the detail. Because the Queen is Supreme Governor of the Church of England, she is or has under her an established Church in Scotland, but she is not formally head of it. She puts in a Lord High Commissioner to represent her at meetings of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, but she is not the Supreme Governor of the established Church in Scotland in the way she is Supreme Governor of the Church of England. There is no established Church in Wales; there is no established Church in Northern Ireland. As far as I am aware, there is no established Church in Antigua and Barbuda, in Australia, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, St Christopher-Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, the Solomon islands, Tuvalu or in Her Majesty’s other realms and territories. When we deal with one discrimination but not the other, therefore, we leave a discrimination that applies only to a very small part of the totality of the Crown.

Succession to the Crown Bill (Allocation of Time)

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move amendment (a), in paragraph 1(3), after ‘Reading’, insert

‘and on any Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that has been selected by the Speaker, which shall be debated with the Second Reading,’.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to consider amendment (b), leave out paragraph 2(b).

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

We are discussing what may be the most important constitutional issue to which the House has ever turned its mind, namely, who shall be our sovereign. Who shall be eligible to receive perhaps the greatest office in the world? Who shall be the King or Queen of England?

When the Bill that became the Act of Settlement was debated, it spent six days in Committee. The allocation of time motion allows us two days in which to treat this Bill as if it were anti-terrorism legislation, which seems a particularly inopportune comparison given that it relates to matters that could not be further removed from that type of activity. As far as I am aware, the only constitutional Bill that has been treated to such a small amount of time—or, rather, an even smaller amount—is the Bill that became His Majesty’s Declaration of Abdication Act 1936, which, I believe, completed its passage in the House of Commons in under a minute; but that, too, is not a happy precedent.

Leveson Inquiry

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Thursday 29th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Last but never forgotten, I call Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I thank the Prime Minister for standing up for our ancient liberties and refer him to the rather ominous phrase on page 1781 of the report, which states:

“In order to give effect to those incentives I have recommended legislation”?

It is very hard to see how giving incentives by legislation is not licensing. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that it is better ultimately to have an irresponsible but free press than to have a responsible but state-controlled press?

Points of Order

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Monday 9th July 2012 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Would you be willing to rule on the question of hybridity relating to the House of Lords Reform Bill, which we are about to consider on Second Reading? The Speaker has previously defined a hybrid Bill as

“a public bill which affects a particular private interest in a manner different from the private interest of other persons or bodies of the same category or class”.

Clause 19 of the Bill treats some bishops of the Church of England in a different way from the class of bishops in the Church of England. I therefore wonder, Mr Speaker, as this matter is very important in relation to the Parliament Acts, whether you would consider referring it to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills to see whether the Bill is hybrid.

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for notice of his point of order. As he will know, and as, I think, he has just indicated that he knows, a hybrid Bill is a public Bill that affects a particular private interest in a manner different from the private interest of other persons or bodies of the same category or class. The key phrase here is “private interest”. The only interest of bishops affected by the Bill is that of being part of the legislature. That is a public interest, not a private one. Accordingly, no question of hybridity arises. I hope that that is helpful both to the hon. Gentleman and to the House, not to mention the bishops.

Ministerial Code (Culture Secretary)

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Wednesday 13th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Members can shout as loudly or for as long as they like, but it will make no difference. I am simply saying that on the advice that I have taken, nothing disorderly has occurred. [Interruption.] Order, Mr Brennan. I simply ask the Secretary of State to continue with his case.

I appeal to Members to exercise restraint in the frequency—[Interruption.] Order. Members must exercise restraint in the frequency with which they intervene for the debate to continue in an orderly way and for there to be a reasonable opportunity for Members from both sides of the House to contribute.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As in this debate it may be orderly to accuse my right hon. Friend of being a liar, would it be orderly to accuse Opposition Front Benchers of being the most sanctimonious, hypocritical humbugs in recent political memory?

[Mr Speaker]

The answer is no, it would not be legitimate to make such a charge against an individual Member who was not the subject of the motion under debate in the House. The hon. Member for Rhondda has said what he has said. I have explained why it may not be proper for him to say it. I know that, being as well behaved as he is, he will not persist.

Changes to the Budget

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Monday 11th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Accommodating the interests of colleagues will require brevity, to be exemplified by Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg.

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

Does the Minister agree that the real things that must not be changed are a tight fiscal policy and a loose money policy? There is no alternative.

Budget Leak Inquiry

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Thursday 22nd March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is extensive interest in this subject, which I am keen to accommodate, but that requires brevity, a great example of which can now be provided by Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg.

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

I wonder whether my hon. Friend notices the incongruity of those who oppose openness in the Budget but were all in favour of it in terms of risk registers. Does he agree that the criticism is either muddled or synthetic?

London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Wednesday 25th January 2012 Commons Chamber

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

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I choose randomly for a point of order. Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think many hon. Members would consider being called neanderthals remarkably modern.

[Mr Speaker]

I note the hon. Gentleman’s value judgment, and indeed his sense of humour. If there are no further points of order, we come now to the petition.

Drugs (Roadside Testing) Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Friday 10th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

This is a very interesting discussion of the effects on people’s behaviour. One of the most dangerous ages for driving is 18 to 25 for young men. If they are having accidents because they are going too fast, and cannabis slows them down, are you saying that they ought to be using cannabis when they drive?

[Mr Speaker]

I am not saying anything, but I think that the hon. Gentleman might be.

BSkyB

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I gently remind the House that right hon. and hon. Members who came into the Chamber after the start of the statement should not expect to be called. That is a long-established tradition of the House.

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

May I indicate a family interest, although not a personal one?

I congratulate the Secretary of State on his excellent statement. It is tremendously important that business is allowed to get decisions quickly, so that it can carry on. He has ensured that the pace of government has run at the pace of business, which is hugely to be welcomed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Commons Chamber

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

Mr Speaker—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I wish to hear Jacob Rees-Mogg.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Is not the lesson from the noble Baroness Thatcher that, when you have set an economic course, you should stick to it—“there is no alternative”?

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 5—Expiry and revival of section 2—

‘(1) Section 2 expires when the Parliament summoned to meet in May 2010 dissolves.

(2) In the course of the first month of the day of first meeting of any Parliament after the expiry of section 2 as a result of subsection (1) above, the Minister may by order bring the section back into force for the remainder of that Parliament.

(3) An order made under subsection (2) above is to be made by statutory instrument and shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.

(4) If no order has been made under subsection (2) above, an early parliamentary general election is to take place only if the House has passed a motion that there should be an early parliamentary general election.

(5) The polling day for an early parliamentary general election under subsection (4) above is to be the day appointed by Her Majesty by proclamation on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.

(6) If a polling day is appointed under subsection (5) above, the reference in section 1(4) to the polling day for a parliamentary general election appointed under section 2(6) shall be construed as if referring to a day appointed under subsection (5) above.’.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

May I begin by thanking the Minister for the enormous courtesy, good manners and good temper with which he has responded to the many criticisms of the Bill? I, among others, do not think it the best Bill ever to have come before Parliament, but he has invariably answered questions kindly. I also thank the Clerks for warning me that I was, in their terminology, to “open the batting” in this debate, which I might not otherwise have known. As far as cricketing metaphors go, I am probably more of a night watchman than a Geoffrey Boycott, or Somerset’s own Trescothick, but I shall bat on with regard to the Parliament Act 1911 and my new clause in relation to it.

The 1911 Act, as the hon. Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) reminded us earlier today, was introduced, broadly, as a temporary measure. The preamble to the Act says:

“whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation”,

but “immediately” has now extended to 100 years of failure to introduce a popular rather than an hereditary form, although not all elements of heredity remain in the upper House. The 1911 Act still allows the House of Commons to get through major constitutional reforms that the House of Lords may oppose.

The reason for introducing my new clause to exempt purely the first section of the Bill—the bit that limits the life of a Parliament specifically to five years, rather than continuing with the flexibility that we have previously had—is that this is a crucial constitutional development that we should be careful about changing, willy-nilly, as coalitions come and go. Our constitution should be safeguarded and preserved; it is not something that should be treated lightly or in an airy-fairy fashion—and one thing that the House of Lords can do, and does extraordinarily well, is prevent that from happening.

By the way, it is notable that their lordships sat throughout last night, fulfilling their proper constitutional role of ensuring that a serious constitutional change is properly debated and reviewed. We in this House find that guillotines come crashing down upon our necks to prevent the detailed deliberation that some of us might like over a rapid raft of changes to the constitution, but their lordships—some of whom are not in their first youth—have stayed up overnight, battling for the great British constitution, which has served us extraordinarily well for hundreds of years. Looking upon their lordships as the guardians of the constitution is a good reason for ensuring that the measure cannot be changed without their consent and approval.

Public Services (Social Enterprise and Social Value) Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Friday 19th November 2010 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman cannot raise that at this point. It should have come before, and it did not. What is required now is an indication of “now”.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

Now.

Second Reading.

Sustainable Livestock Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Bercow

Friday 12th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is enormously generous in giving way. Is it not true to say that the glories of England are created by God and the farmer, and not the bureaucrat?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) should respond to that very graceful intervention within the terms of the debate on the Bill, and I feel sure that that is what he will do.