Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Tommy Sheppard

Thursday 23rd September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend raises an important point: people must be entitled, in all circumstances, to defend themselves, and it would be unfair to penalise somebody who believed they had acted in good faith for that belief. The assumption must very often be that Members do act in good faith. That is not to say that we do not make mistakes, but to defend oneself must be a natural right of Members of Parliament.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

The Leader of the House may be aware that last week a High Court judge refused the Cabinet Office leave to appeal against a first-tier tribunal decision that it should release information to me that I had requested under the Freedom of Information Act concerning public opinion research in Scotland. Sadly, earlier this morning the Cabinet Office’s Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) declined to confirm that the Department would comply with that ruling. May we have a debate in Government time on why the Cabinet Office is acting as a rogue Department within government and refusing to comply both with the law of the land and with the courts?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the guidance given to Ministers is that answers given in this House should be at least as full as those given to Freedom of Information requests. So he may wish to table a written question, because that ought to have exactly the same effect and would use the procedures of this House. However, Her Majesty’s Government obey the rule of law.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Tommy Sheppard

Thursday 28th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. For many years, illegal Traveller encampments have brought crime to local areas, as well as antisocial and threatening behaviour. It remains the Government’s intention to bring forward legislation when parliamentary time allows that strengthens police powers to tackle unauthorised encampments. As we set out in our recent “Planning for the future” White Paper, we intend to review and strengthen existing powers and sanctions to ensure that they support the new planning system. We intend to introduce more powers to address intentional unauthorised development, consider higher fines and look at ways of supporting more enforcement activity. We want a fair system for all. The Government’s overarching aim is to ensure fair and equal treatment for Travellers, in a way that facilitates their nomadic way of life while respecting the interests of the settled community. I hope that my hon. Friend will make his views known to Ministers in the normal way, but an Adjournment debate might be an excellent means of getting his views further on the record.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]]

First, may I associate myself with the remarks of the shadow Leader of the House and the Leader of the House regarding Holocaust Memorial Day?

I would like to ask for a debate on the role of Government Ministers and the Prime Minister in particular in setting an example by following the rules that they make for others during the lockdown. I know that every time the Prime Minister opens his mouth on the subject, his ill-informed views drive support for Scottish independence upwards, and I know also that his stage-managed visits to selected Scottish supporters make the SNP’s case for it. So in normal circumstances, he would be most welcome, but these are not normal circumstances. We are telling millions of people not to leave their homes and only to make essential journeys. The Prime Minister is more than capable of patronising us from his office in Whitehall, so what exactly is so essential about his 1,000-mile round trip to Livingston today? This galivanting is a blatant piece of electioneering, while most people are focused on fighting covid, but the real tragedy is that his actions will undermine the public health message, which we all need to succeed.

Let me turn to the Government plans to cut universal credit by 20% in April. This would be the most cruel and immoral decision of this Administration, heaping pain and misery on the very poorest in our communities, who have already borne the consequences of covid to a greater extent than most. The decision is extremely unpopular, even in the Tory party, but rather than have a proper debate on the matter, the Government are trying to buy time by delaying it until the Budget at the start of March. That may suit the Government, but to leave this threat hanging over the heads of so many families is unforgivable. The House should debate this measure now, not in March.

In December, the Government laid changes to the immigration rules that fundamentally altered the nature of asylum, leaving many vulnerable people in limbo. Members across the House have supported an SNP motion to oppose those measures. When will we get the chance to debate them? Finally, may I ask again when we will get a third party Opposition day, which is long overdue?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As always, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. We have facilitated a debate, coming up shortly, in response to a prayer from the SNP on a statutory instrument. We are doing our best to facilitate all Opposition parties, but I bear in mind his request for an Opposition day debate, which is important, as set out in Standing Orders.

As regards universal credit, the hon. Gentleman is simply getting the wrong end of the stick or not paying attention. It was debated in the House not long ago in an Opposition day debate, as is the normal way of things being debated in the House. That is why there are Opposition day debates—so that people can discuss things that the Opposition want to talk about. The Government have made it clear that the £20 uplift introduced by this Government to help the least well-off in society during the pandemic is under review, and there will be an announcement in the Budget in the perfectly normal and proper way. It is cheap point scoring that does not score any points to complain about it at this stage, when the decision will be announced in due course.

As regards the Prime Minister’s visit to Scotland, I used to think that Mona Lott was a fictional character, but it turns out that it is actually the First Minister of Scotland. All Mrs Sturgeon can ever do is moan a lot. She moans when distinguished royal personages visit Scotland, and she moans when the Prime Minister visits Scotland—people doing their duty and doing their job. The visit to Livingston is something we should be proud of as a nation. The Prime Minister is visiting a vaccine factory that has made enormous strides to develop and produce a vaccine that is awaiting approval to help in the fight against covid. The Prime Minister is doing his job. Mona Lott will have something to moan about in early February, when Mr Salmond gives evidence to a committee of inquiry in the Scottish Parliament and we find out all that is going on up north to the disadvantage of the Scottish people, led by a hopeless Administration.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Tommy Sheppard

Thursday 21st January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Madam Deputy Speaker, normally it would be disorderly to have a prop, but on this occasion I have one that is a face mask, and as face masks are so strongly encouraged in the Chamber, I hope you will allow me a semi-prop face mask. I agree with my right hon. Friend that we should try to buy British where we can. Of course, I am not in favour of protectionism, but the British produce some of the best goods in the world, and it has to be said that Morrisons often provides my joint for a Sunday lunch. Its beef is not only delicious but also good value. Good-value British products are what we want, and we want to eat more of them.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]]

May I add my congratulations to President Biden and Vice-President Harris? I hope that this Government will embrace the opportunities that their election offers.

After this week’s urgent question on the Government’s failure to maintain an EU visa exemption for performers, everyone must now be aware just how big a kick in the teeth this is for our music industry. The Minister for Digital and Culture wrung her hands but had nothing to say about rectifying the situation. When can we have a debate so that we can demand that the Government go back to the EU and negotiate a new scheme?

Keeping with the consequences of Brexit, let me turn again to fishing. Last week, the Leader of the House grabbed headlines with his jokes about happy fish. I hope he will now take it more seriously. We need an urgent debate on protecting our fish producers from Brexit red tape, including a six-month grace period and full compensation for the catches not landed and the lorry loads destroyed.

Earlier this week, the House voted overwhelmingly to reject the Government’s plan to cut universal credit by £20 a week. We know that there is deep disquiet within the Tory party about this, with many simply bewildered at the Government’s planned assault on the very poorest. Given the many billions that have been spent in the wake of covid, how can this clawback from the poor have any political or moral justification? We know that Opposition day debates do not change Government policy, so when will the Government put their proposals before the House, so that we can force them to do the right thing?

Finally, in a week when the 19th Scottish opinion poll reports majority support for independence, I ask again for a debate on this Parliament’s response. Yesterday George Osborne—a man whose intervention single-handedly boosted yes support in the last referendum—demanded that the Government ignore democratic decisions. He seems to believe that if this Union cannot be maintained by consent, it must be maintained by coercion. If that is becoming the Government’s view, surely this Parliament should discuss it.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As regards the musicians’ requests, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave the shadow Leader of the House. What the British Government asked for and offered was generous, and it was refused by the European Union.

As regards my comments last week, at least I did not joke about happy Members of the SNP, because that really would have been a joke too far; I do not think it has ever yet been achieved, but perhaps one day—we live in hope. I reiterate the £23 million of extra support for the fishing industry, the increased exclusive area for UK fishermen to use and the additional quota that is coming, with a 15% uplift already, going to 25% within five years. That is an enormous increase in our control of our fishing waters, which will ultimately repay the fishermen of the United Kingdom for the damage that was done to them when we joined the European Union. That is fundamentally important.

On universal credit, it was this Government, under my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who introduced universal credit, and this Government have allowed an extraordinary increase in support for the most vulnerable in society, including the £20 a week uplift. That is £1,000 a year, in addition to the £170 million winter grant scheme; £380 million in free school meal vouchers in the summer; increasing the national living wage; an extra £670 million for councils to help families pay their local bills; and supporting the most vulnerable families with £165 million for the troubled families programme. This Government have shown their absolute commitment to the least well-off in society and have done their best in these very difficult times to provide the support that is needed.

Ultimately, all the hon. Gentleman wants to do every week is moan about the devolution settlement. The referendum was won by the Unionists in 2014. It was accepted that it would be for a generation. A generation is not a mere six and a half years. The Scottish people made their choice, and he is still grumpy that they did not make the choice that he wanted. This Parliament respects the free choice that the Scottish people made more than he does. When the SNP is in such an awful muddle with its rows and disagreements, with Mr Salmond and Ms Sturgeon getting together and fighting like cats in a sack, it is a most disagreeable spectacle. That is why we should all support the Union and not leave it to the dangerous activities of the SNP.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Tommy Sheppard

Thursday 14th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As it happens, I very much enjoyed “The West Wing”. I found it compelling TV watching and even bought the DVD set, which may sound surprisingly modern. Allegra Stratton’s role is one that has been carried on in the shadows for an extremely long time with the lobby briefings. Of course the Government have to brief journalists from both the newspapers and electronic media, to ensure that Government policy is advertised to the world at large. There are two lobby briefings every day; one of them will now be filmed and in public. This is open government, which I thought my hon. Friend might like, but it will not in any way change the requirement of the ministerial code that policy announcements are made to this House first.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]]

First, may I associate my party with the comments made regarding Godfrey Cameron and send our condolences to his family? I also take this opportunity to note the sad passing of the Archbishop of Glasgow, Philip Tartaglia, who died suddenly yesterday. I know that the House will join me in sending condolences to his family and to the Catholic community of Glasgow.

I will start with two agenda points. First, I note that the Labour Opposition have been allocated two debate days in the current business statement. When might my party expect one? Secondly, the debate on the House of Lords Trade Bill amendments is scheduled for next Tuesday, yet the amendments themselves will not be published until after the Lords finish their debate late on Monday night. Can I ask why there has been this undue haste in the scheduling?

Turning now to the Brexit fishing disaster, boats are confined to harbour, lorryloads of seafood have been destroyed, and the industry is losing £1 million a day as firms go bust. This is all the result of Brexit red tape imposed by this Government, yet when asked about this yesterday the Prime Minister refused to answer. When asked this morning how long this would last, the Government Minister contemptuously replied, “How long is a piece of string?” When can we have a debate about compensation for the Scottish seafood industry for the havoc that has been wreaked upon it by this Conservative Government? The Select Committee that oversees our relationship with the European Union is being scrapped. What parliamentary mechanism will replace it?

Finally, let me turn to the question that the Prime Minister refuses to answer. Can we have a debate on what democratic mechanism is available to the people of Scotland if they wish to change the way in which they are governed? I ask because today’s The Scotsman newspaper has published a poll stating that 57% of people in Scotland wish to become an independent country—the 18th poll in a row to report a pro-independence majority. It is no use the Leader of the House repeating the “once in a generation” mantra, as if expressing a view seven years ago means that people are forbidden from doing so again. What happens if a majority in Scotland take a different view and vote to have the right to choose an independent future? We need to have a debate on what this Parliament’s response to that outcome will be, and whether it still believes in the claim of right for Scotland, which states that people have a right to choose how they are governed.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Once again, the hon. Gentleman repeats his question, and I will therefore repeat the answer: it is very clear that the people of Scotland made their views clear in a vote in 2014, which was said to be a generational vote. That was the democratic mechanism that they had, the democratic mechanism that was used, and the democratic mechanism that was accepted by the Scottish National party at the time.

What is going on in the SNP is interesting, is it not? I thought the hon. Gentleman might want to tell us a bit about that—about the rows between Mrs Sturgeon and Mr Salmond, with one accusing the other of not being entirely accurate in her evidence to the Scottish Parliament’s Committees. I thought he might be asking for a debate on that. Would it not be interesting to understand all the shenanigans that are going on—the accusations of forgetfulness, of money being spent, and of breaches of the ministerial code? Not a word of that: just the old complaint that the referendum in 2014 was not a valid referendum. It was: it was authoritative, and it was a once-in-a-generation vote. That is absolutely right, and we see the benefits of the Union. The figure I have previously given for UK taxpayers’ support for Scotland has gone up: it is now £8.6 billion. The strength of the United Kingdom is helping Scotland face this pandemic, and that is why the United Kingdom is so strong and is to the advantage of all its people.

As regards bringing forward amendments to the Trade Bill, it is an important piece of legislation, and we want to get it through as swiftly as possible. People are well aware of what has been going on in the House of Lords, and will be quite capable of discussing those issues. I am always happy to have discussions about an Opposition day for the SNP with the hon. Gentleman, as well as with the SNP Chief Whip, and I am sure those discussions will take place. I am aware of the Standing Orders commitments.

The fishing issue was covered a moment ago by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have tuned into that debate, rather than bringing it up at business questions, but the Government are tackling this issue and dealing with it as quickly as possible. The key is that we have our fish back: they are now British fish, and they are better and happier fish for it.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Tommy Sheppard

Wednesday 30th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is right to raise this deeply troubling issue. It is quite wrong that Greater Manchester police—the country’s second largest police force—has got itself into this position and has had to be put into special measures. The Home Office and Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services have stepped up their efforts to work closely with the police force to improve its performance rapidly. The police force is, of course, operationally independent and it is not for a Minister to weigh in on its daily affairs, although I understand that it exhibited serious failings in how it recorded crimes.

It is, I suppose, a case of who guards the guards themselves when we find that a police force is in special measures. We do expect and hope—although this may be the triumph of hope over experience—that the Mayor of Greater Manchester will remember that his primary job as the local police and crime commissioner is to keep his local communities safe. I hope that MPs like my hon. Friend will continue to bang on his door and ensure that he is at least making some effort to do his job.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]]

First, let me welcome the Leader of the House’s conversion to virtual participation. A big majority of those who participated in today’s debate did so safely and efficiently from a remote location. Can I ask him also to stop resisting remote voting and to switch the system back on, so that all Members can vote according to their own conscience and without breaching public health guidelines?

When are we to expect a third party Opposition day, which is now long overdue?

Today, we saw the Government push through their deal with a complete lack of scrutiny and examination. The Government created this timetable by refusing even a short extension to the transition period, hoping that Christmas and covid would provide a smokescreen for their awful deal. The Government, and probably the Opposition, will be hoping that this concludes the matter, but it does not. Many Members on the call list did not get taken today, and many more who wanted to speak did not even make it on to the list. I would have thought that the first order of business in the new year would be to continue the discussion of the deal and allow those Members the chance to participate.

I ask for a specific debate on the Scottish fishing industry, which has now been betrayed by this Government. The removal of quota swaps and leases, which this deal includes, means that in five years’ time fewer white fish will be landed in Scottish harbours than happens now. That is a major kick in the teeth for Scotland’s coastal communities and the Government ought to be prepared to debate how they will mitigate the effects of this disastrous deal on them.

The Leader of the House may be aware that earlier this afternoon, the Scottish Parliament voted by 92 votes to 30 not to give consent to today’s Bill. Given that, can we have a debate on the consequences of the deal for devolution and on what this House should do when people vote in the Scottish general election for the right to choose to become an independent country?

Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I wish you, the Leader of the House, the shadow Leader of the House and all colleagues a very happy new year when it comes?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I heartily reciprocate the kind good wishes of the hon. Gentleman. I hope he has a splendid new year and that he, his party, his friends and family and everyone in this House have a very jolly new year and a better 2021 than perhaps 2020 has been.

Every week, the hon. Gentleman complains that he lost the referendum in 2014. However, that does not change the fact that he lost. And when he lost, it was said by the SNP, which we now know is nationalist with a small “n”, that the result was for a generation. It is still for a generation, that generation has still not passed and he has still lost. I basically just repeat what I have been saying for the past few weeks.

The fishing industry, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, is one of the great beneficiaries of Brexit. Is it not extraordinary that the Scottish nationalists, with a small “n”, wish to hand it back to Brussels and lose all the opportunities for Scottish fishing, so that they can be regulated from Brussels? It is quite extraordinary. It must be—what is it?—Stockholm syndrome that they have got. They have been imprisoned so long by the EU that they cannot bear to leave and want to be controlled, even at the cost of their fishing communities.

The hon. Gentleman complains that the debate was not long enough. Well, it was long enough—it was probably 50 years of debate over our membership of the European Union in truth—but if he wants to speak further on it, I know that the House will be waiting with bated breath for his contributions in the global Britain debate, which will be held on 11 January.

As regards the prospect of increasing the period of transition, that would have been a very unwise thing to do, because it would have potentially entered us into billions of pounds of risk, as it would have taken us into the new multi-annual financial framework. It was fundamentally important that we did not take that risk and that we left when we said we would. It is also quite important to stick to commitments made to voters. We had promised the voters that we would leave, and so we did.

Proxy voting allows people to vote effectively and safely, and with their conscience. The hon. Gentleman might not have noticed, but the Deputy Chief Whip has facilitated people voting against the Government, if that is what they wish to do. The votes are being recorded according to the Member’s desire, not what they are ordered to do, because one cannot order Members. Members vote of their own accord, although occasionally their friends give them helpful advice.

As regards the move to more hybrid technology, the hon. Gentlemen is in Scotland and may not have noticed that London has gone into tier 4. We have therefore adopted a similar scheme to the one we had earlier in the year, when the highest level of restrictions was in place. This is merely responding to the reality in the country at large, which we always said we did. It is therefore consistent, but I look forward to us getting back to normal and having a full, bustling Chamber, without Perspex screens, plastic markings and signs facing this great Chamber.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Tommy Sheppard

Thursday 17th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I thought my hon. Friend was going to invite me to a cream tea; I feel rather let down. He is absolutely right to highlight the heroic contribution of all our key workers, and to mention Sam, Lindsay and Vicki and the fact that they will be working over Christmas. Key workers have shown a huge amount of dedication throughout the pandemic; whether they are public servants or essential workers in the private sector, they are the ones who have kept our economy turning under immense pressure. They have shown great dedication to their work and to the nation, be they supermarket staff, cleaners, teachers or bus and train drivers. We should be really proud of the contribution made by the subjects of Her Majesty during this pandemic.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

What a sad and inglorious end for the Brexit adventure: days before the end of transition, we are limping to the finishing line with no idea whether there will be a deal or, if there is, what will be in it. I understand the Government’s intention is to recall Parliament if there is a deal to discuss, but what if the Government fail to get a deal? Are we not to consider the consequences of a hard break in trading with the EU? Have the Government no plans to present to Parliament to mitigate that disaster?

What if there is a deal? When will we see an economic assessment of its provisions? When will the devolved Administrations be consulted on the many areas within their purview? How on earth are hon. Members seriously expected to digest and analyse 1,600 pages of text? Is it not the truth that the Government are preparing to railroad through a grubby little deal, using their majority to avoid scrutiny?

Mr Speaker, this is the season of goodwill, and I wish you, the Leader of the House and all hon. Members a happy Christmas. However, it is also a time to reflect on the big changes of 2020. This is a year in which support for this Government evaporated in England, and in Scotland, this is the year in which the long-standing majority of people who have been opposed to the Tories for 70 years have coalesced around the prospect of independence.

Hon. Members know I like to keep the House updated on Scottish public opinion, and in recent weeks there have been further opinion polls that report a majority for independence. The latest today is in The Scotsman newspaper, which puts yes at 58%. That is the 17th poll in a row recording a majority for Scotland to take control of its own affairs, so I repeat the question I have been asking all year. When will this Parliament have the opportunity to consider changing opinion in Scotland and, if people vote in the coming Scottish general election to review the way Scotland is governed, will this Government respect that vote? Perhaps, since it is Christmas, the Leader of the House might give me an answer this time.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

What a pleasure it is to see that the joy of Christmas has spread to Edinburgh and to have the hon. Gentleman’s joyful, happy countenance shine down upon us once more, wishing us all a merry Christmas, which I heartily reciprocate. I hope he heard me say earlier what a pleasure it was—I mean this genuinely—dealing with him over the course of the year.

The hon. Gentleman mentions the deal that is being done, or not being done, and the need for it to be ratified. He criticises the Government for potentially using their majority to pass any consequent Act of Parliament. I would point out that that is how democracy works: you get a majority and then you use that majority. It is not particularly shocking—it is what is done in Parliaments across the world. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pointed out, it is going to be a great opportunity for Scotland. He pointed out that Mrs Sturgeon is going to have more fish than she could eat in a lifetime, because we will have control of our fishing waters. Indeed, I think they are going to need to get a bigger boat in Scotland to collect all that essential fish.

The strength of the United Kingdom grows every day. Have we not just heard that Aberdeen City Council wants to separate from Edinburgh, to avoid the machinations and failures of the SNP—the failures in education, the failures in policing and the failures in the health service in Scotland, led by the SNP? What is Aberdeen saying? “Let’s cut out this failed Administration run by the SNP—why don’t we go directly to London to have our settlement done with London?” Is it not fascinating that the failures of the left-wing SNP are making councils in Scotland try to escape from its auspices and authority? The strength of the United Kingdom has provided £8.2 billion to keep the Scottish economy going. Together as one country, one group of taxpayers have helped every part of the country with a depth, a strength, a thoroughness that would not be possible if they were separated.

When the Scottish people had a vote, a real vote, not a gossip with an opinion pollster, and they went to a polling station and put a cross in a box, how did they vote? They voted to remain part of the United Kingdom. We should be proud of that and delighted about it, and we should celebrate. We should have an extra glass at Christmas to celebrate the one United Kingdom.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Tommy Sheppard

Thursday 10th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend has led the way in this, because it was her pressure to ensure that the Elizabeth Tower should have disabled access when she was Leader of the House that has ensured that one of the ventilation shafts will have a lift in it, which will make disabled access possible. The lift will improve safety and help reduce the time it would take to evacuate a mobility-impaired person from the Tower. In more general terms, the Elizabeth Tower team is back working at full productivity, and the work is continuing across all sites, in line with advice from the Government. The Commons is working with its supply chain to update its programme of work, ascertaining and limiting the impact of covid-19 on all projects. It is encouraging that the work is going ahead full steam and that there will be disabled access, and I thank her for the contribution she has made to ensuring that.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]]

It seems the Conservative party’s toxic political cocktail of British exceptionalism and arrogance has hit the buffers of the real world. We await Sunday, but if there is a deal, it will be a sordid and pitiful affair. Can the Leader of the House at least answer this: in what fashion will the Government involve Parliament in this endgame? Will they put down a resolution, introduce a Bill, table a statutory instrument or simply make a statement, which we can neither amend, nor agree? With three weeks to go, if the Government do not yet know how they will present to Parliament our future relationship with the EU, is this not only a failure of statecraft, but a shocking level of domestic political mismanagement?

It seems that the people of Northern Ireland will get to march to a European beat after all. In consequence, the Government have withdrawn part 5 of their United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, but the assault on devolution remains, so may we have a debate on why Scotland is the only nation within the UK that is getting a hard Brexit against its will? If a bespoke solution is available for Northern Ireland, why is there not one for Scotland? The arguments against are unconvincing. A border is a border; it has the same legal and economic status whether on land or on the seabed. Yesterday, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was effusive about what he called the “primacy of democracy”, saying that it is

“for the people of Northern Ireland to decide”—[Official Report, 9 December 2020; Vol. 685, c. 849.]

their future. May we debate why the Government take that view regarding one part of the UK but not another? May I give the Leader of the House another opportunity to say whether he will respect the outcome of the Scottish general election in May next year? That is something he has refused to do so far.

Finally, today is international Human Rights Day. Given his comments a moment ago, will he support a debate on the Justice Secretary’s plan to review the Human Rights Act and give an assurance that it will not weaken the protection of the European Court of Human Rights or the authority of the devolved Administrations in these matters?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

What a joy it is, as always, to hear from the hon. Gentleman. He is an uplifting advocate for the United Kingdom, because he comes on and talks about sectionalism, but what is the most sectionalist party? Oh, good heavens: it is the Scottish National party that is the one trying to split up the United Kingdom. I would say “pot and kettle”, but it has to be said that there is no kettle, only a pot. He then says that Her Majesty’s Government believe in the primacy of democracy—unlike, it must be said, the Scottish Government or the SNP.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Tommy Sheppard

Thursday 3rd December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend raises a genuinely important issue, and he is right to stand up for law and order. Catalytic converter theft has been a growing problem in recent years, and I know that it has been a considerable concern up and down the country. The police are indeed brave and heroic—they run towards danger and do everything within their power to keep our communities safe—and he is therefore right to pay credit to them. Thanks to the efforts of the Home Secretary and the Policing Minister, we have made good progress in hiring new police officers towards the target of 20,000, with over 5,000 new recruits in 2020 alone. He raises an important point, and we must always focus on law and order.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]]

On the timetable, can the Leader of the House now rule out Parliament having to debate the Brexit chaos between Christmas and Hogmanay?

Can we have a debate on the ministerial code and whether it should be strengthened to ensure that Ministers’ statements on social media are accurate and truthful? I ask because the Leader of the House claimed yesterday on Twitter that the accelerated licensing of vaccines in the UK was made possible by our leaving the European Union. In fact, as made clear by the regulator, the very opposite is the case and the licences were approved via a fast-track procedure provided for under EU regulations.

This applies in other areas too. Previously the Leader of the House was somewhat coy when I asked if he agreed with the Prime Minister that devolution had been a disaster, but recently he has been opining on social media that the so-called Blairite constitutional tinkering needs to be corrected. Given that the principal constitutional change of the Blair Government was devolution, I presume it is this that he has in his sights. If the UK Government are about to reverse a policy of more than two decades, surely this Parliament ought to debate the matter. The current Government have no UK mandate for this change, and it represents a total and absolute disrespect for Scottish public opinion.

It seems that at the coming Scottish general election, two alternative paths will be offered to the electorate: either the Government’s assault on devolution ends up with direct rule from Westminster, or the Scottish people defend their right to decide matters for themselves by demanding the choice of becoming an independent country. Yesterday, another opinion poll by Ipsos MORI recorded a 12-point lead for independence—the 15th in a row to record a yes majority. The question for this Parliament is whether it will respect the results of the election in Scotland or whether it will ignore them and aim to govern without the consent of the people. Does the Leader of the House agree that at some point we must have this debate?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The failure of the SNP is not something I would have thought the hon. Gentleman would wish to boast about. The SNP in government has failed on Scottish education, it has failed on Scottish health, it has failed on Scottish law and order; it is a shameful record in Scotland of the SNP. It has let the people of Scotland down.

The hon. Gentleman loathes genuine elections because in 2014 he lost—L-O-S-T, lost. He had an election, and it was going to be for a generation. The generation has hardly lasted six years before he quotes opinion polls. Opinion polls are not proper elections where people go out and put their cross and put it in a ballot box; they are a taster of opinion at a passing moment of fancy, whereas a genuine election is what was had in 2014, and that is the result supported by the people of the United Kingdom.

It is worth reminding the hon. Gentleman of the success of the United Kingdom. The UK taxpayer has provided £8.2 billion to help Scotland through the pandemic. It is of fundamental importance and shows the strength of this nation together. It is the SNP that has been the failure, not devolution. Devolution could work perfectly well if only the Conservatives were in charge in Scotland, which would make a triumphant success of it. If anyone does not believe me, they just have to look at how well London was run when it had a Conservative Mayor and what a hash is being made of it by a socialist Mayor.

To come to the issue of Brexit and the vaccine, why is it that the UK has managed to approve this vaccine and our friends in Germany, France, Italy, Spain and so on have not? Do you think it might just be because we are leaving the European Union and we are taking back control? We are able to crack on. Now we see the European regulator does not think we should have done it in the first place. It is a bit miffed. Why is it miffed? Because we got there first. That is absolutely splendid and we should be proud of United Kingdom achievements.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Tommy Sheppard

Thursday 26th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Throughout the pandemic, one of the most heartening signs was the huge national effort by so many people across the country to rise to the challenge. The NHS does have a tried and tested track record for delivering vaccination programmes and will work with existing partners across the healthcare system to ensure a covid-19 vaccine can be deployed both safely and effectively. Detailed planning is under way, building on the NHS’s expertise in delivering immunisation programmes, and that includes consideration of the settings required to vaccinate the public against covid-19. We are grateful for the support that businesses have offered. My hon. Friend cites Hercules, and this will be one of the 12 labours of Hercules as it is rolled out.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]]

I ask again: can we have a proper debate in which Members discuss and decide, on a free vote, the nature and extent of virtual participation in the proceedings of this Parliament while the pandemic lasts? The procedural shenanigans displayed by the Government on Tuesday, when they engineered call lists to conjure up a debate where none had been planned, were an affront to democracy. The attempts by the Leader of the House to suggest that those of us who argue for every Member to have the right to remote participation were in fact trying to deny that right to colleagues who are clinically vulnerable is offensive. I say to him in all sincerity that he is in grave danger of losing the confidence of the House, which he needs to perform his constitutional role. I hope that, rather than a glib response or a puerile putdown, he will demonstrate thoughtfulness and leadership, and allow elected Members to decide this matter.

The Leader of the House has made much of the need for democratic debate and scrutiny to continue, but yesterday the biggest change in public policy in a decade was announced in the spending review, with no opportunity to debate, amend or agree. We must debate public sector pay if the Government intend to cut the wages of those key workers they applauded from the steps of Downing Street. We must debate overseas aid if the Government are to slash support for the world’s poor, severely damaging the UK’s global reputation in a manner that would make Trump proud. These are not manifesto promises. The Government have no mandate for them, and they ought not to become the policy of the land without a vote in Parliament.

Finally, I come to the tragedy of Brexit—just five weeks to go and no deal in sight. Last week, I got no answer about the shared prosperity fund. Today, I want to ask for a debate on plugging the £170 million black hole left in Scotland’s rural economy as payments under the LEADER scheme end following withdrawal from the common agricultural policy. The silence on this is reckless and damaging to Scotland’s rural economy.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

To misquote P.G. Wodehouse, it is never difficult to tell the difference between a member of the SNP with a grievance and a ray of sunshine. It seems to me that the cloud across any ray of sunshine can always be provided by the hon. Gentleman. What does he say to us today? He says that a debate of over two hours is undemocratic. It was undemocratic to have a debate—that, I think, is an unusual view to hold—and then he thinks that a democratic vote, of 52% of the people of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union, is a disaster. He seems only to like the votes that he wins, but the SNP, fortunately, does not win votes across the United Kingdom at large and lost a very important vote in 2014.

Why I think the hon. Gentleman should be a ray of sunshine is that he should be asking for a debate on the £2.4 billion extra announced in the spending review yesterday that is going to Scotland. He should be celebrating the fact that £1,633 extra is attributed to public spending per capita in Scotland against the United Kingdom average, and he should celebrate the fact that £8.2 billion of UK taxpayer money has gone to Scotland to help it fight the coronavirus. The evidence is that the United Kingdom is extraordinarily strong as a single United Kingdom, with taxpayers coming together to help one another.

I notice that the hon. Gentleman carefully avoided the fact, when he talked about the House’s confidence, that in Scotland, confidence may be ebbing away. I noticed that the SNP lost a vote in the Scottish Parliament yesterday over publishing the legal advice given to the Scottish Government on the judicial review brought by Alex Salmond. They were very happy to vote for the Attorney General to release his advice here under an Humble Address—sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander, or are they just turkeys waiting for Christmas?

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Tommy Sheppard

Thursday 19th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. Pharmacies have shown themselves a bedrock of local communities this year. Their doors have remained open and the pharmacists within welcoming and wise. They have been a model of public service, and I commend community pharmacies for the essential work that they have done throughout the pandemic. The drive to vaccinate the nation will require a great national effort, and my hon. Friend makes an important point about the role of pharmacists in distributing and administering the vaccine. He is right to raise it, and I will pass his suggestion on to the Secretary of State.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]]

The Leader of the House confuses matters with references to MPs as key workers. Of course our democracy cannot be compromised by covid. Members must represent their constituents and hold the Government to account, but we do not need to be in this place to do that. His continual references to “coming to work” show that he does not understand the distinction between work and place of work. It seems that he is unable to grasp that many Members are working remotely. We should help them to do that. Indeed, that is precisely what we are exhorting every other employer in the land to do. A majority of Members want to participate in debates without putting themselves and the public at risk, and they should not have to divulge confidential medical information to do so. When will he listen to his own Back Benchers, the Procedure Committee and the Liaison Committee and switch the virtual technology back on?

Let me turn to another matter. Does the Leader of the House agree with the Prime Minister that devolution north of the border has been a disaster, and that it was Tony Blair’s biggest mistake? Does he understand the insult that this is to the Scottish public? The Prime Minister may claim that he is referring to the SNP Government, but that Government only exist because the people of Scotland have voted for them—not once, not twice, but three times. The truth is that the Prime Minister is attacking the democratic decision of the people. Donald Trump would indeed be proud. The exposure of this level of disrespect from a British Prime Minister presents us with a grave constitutional problem. We need to have an urgent debate on devolution, not just, as I have argued for the past six months, to review its efficacy in the light of covid, but to clarify whether the British Government respect their own constitution. In May, the Scottish electorate will vote again. Now that the Prime Minister’s contempt for devolution is clear, a great many people will realise that the only way to protect the limited powers we have is to grasp the political power and capacity that comes with independence.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As I have set out before, I and the whole House have the greatest sympathy for people who are extremely clinically vulnerable and are advised not to come into work and for making provisions for them to participate. I have sympathy with people who are in difficult circumstances that do not fall into that category, even if the guidelines do not actually provide them with the security that they may be asking for. I have much less sympathy for members of the Scottish National party who do not actually like coming to Parliament in the first place.

As regards what the Prime Minister said about devolution, let us look at the SNP Government’s record, because it is a tragic record of failure. Schools were once the pride of Scotland, but schooling in Scotland has gone down under the SNP’s reign. Scotland has fallen to 15th in reading, from sixth in 2000. For maths, it is 31st—nine places lower than England—and down from 17th in 2006 and fifth in 2000. They have therefore failed in terms of schools. They have also failed in terms of the economy; before the pandemic, Scotland’s economy was forecast to trail the UK for the foreseeable future. They have failed in terms of policing; crime is on the rise, and most areas of Scotland have fewer police officers on the frontline since the SNP forced the police merger through.

Before the crisis, the SNP was causing the NHS to suffer. The £850 million waiting times improvement plan was a failure; Scotland’s public sector watchdog said that the NHS was under increasing pressure in 2019; and the SNP has failed to tackle Scotland’s chronic shortage of GPs. After years and years of SNP grandstanding on welfare, the party is failing to deliver on its own welfare promises, and SNP Ministers even had to hand back responsibility for one benefit to the Department for Work and Pensions.

The failure of devolution is the failure of the Scottish National party, and—just to add to the fun of it—its members are also mired in some discussion about who can remember who sent texts to whom, but it might be ungracious of me to delve into the inner workings of the relationship between very fishy Scottish figures.

Participation in Debates

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Tommy Sheppard

Monday 16th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]]

Well, at least the Leader of the House has now accepted that, if Members are not able to be physically present, it is because of legitimate concerns they have about their own and the public’s health, rather than because they are work-shy and trying to avoid their responsibilities. Maybe we should be grateful for small mercies, but really, this is far too little, far too late.

The Leader of the House keeps suggesting that MPs are key workers, but that does not mean that we need to be in the Chamber in order to do our work. Indeed, in any other workplace, we would be criticising employers that did not provide facilities for their workers to work from home, especially when we know them to be available. Introducing virtual facilities on a restricted basis is not going to work. Members should not have to disclose private information about their health in order to have the right to represent their constituents. That is why he must trust that, if a Member chooses not to be here, it is for a proper and honourable reason, and he must therefore allow all Members to take advantage of the virtual facility.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am afraid I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The default position should be that Members attend the House to carry out the business of the House. We are key workers, and we have a job to do. I am slightly surprised that the Scottish National party values democracy so lowly that it does not think that it is important to be here and to be actively involved in the democracy of our nation. I know that the SNP is not perhaps the greatest admirer of this Parliament that we could find, but they are still Members of it, and they are here to represent their constituents—or at least some are—and this is an important contribution to the national debate.

The reason for making exceptional provision is exactly that—it is exceptional. It is exactly what other workplaces are doing to help, aid and assist those who are not able to turn up for work because of the Government’s advice, which is that if someone is extremely clinically vulnerable, they should not go into work. That is being facilitated. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman; it is not a matter of choice for MPs. The default position is that Members should be here to do their job. That is their duty. There are some people in exceptional circumstances who need alternative arrangements to be made, and the House of Commons is quite correctly facilitating those and helping them to work from home, to ensure that they have a good connection and to participate. I hope we will agree to help them participate in a broader range of our activities.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Tommy Sheppard

Thursday 12th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I begin by wishing my hon. Friend well? I think the whole House joins me in praying for her swift recovery. She knows she is one of the most popular and respected Members of the House, who has campaigned cross-party on a number of issues very effectively, so we all wish her extremely well.

The point about bringing back Westminster Hall is that at one point the broadcasting facilities were already being fully utilised, so it was not an issue then of whether we wanted to do it or not. It simply was not an option. But the demand to bring back Westminster Hall was great across all parts of the House. Members who are shielding—who are seriously, critically vulnerable—are able to participate in many aspects of the House’s business. They are able to participate in interrogative sessions such as this, vote by proxy and participate in Select Committees, but we have to get a balance between the needs of hon. Members and the needs of the House as a whole to proceed with its business.

With debates, we need to have the proper holding to account of Ministers, which is the purpose of the debates, and to have the interventions that make a debate, rather than a series of statements. It is a question of striking a careful balance, in these difficult times, between ensuring that Parliament can serve its constituents in full and making sure that Members can complete their duties as safely and as effectively as possible.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]]

I have two procedural points to start. By our calculation, we are overdue a third party Opposition day. As St Andrew’s Day approaches, can the Leader of the House tell us when we might get it? Secondly, we are increasingly concerned not only at the lateness of the advance sight of the Chancellor’s statements, but at the level of redaction therein, especially as we know that media outlets are being provided with full, unredacted copies before they are delivered in the Chamber. This is not good practice. Can the Leader of the House stop it?

I want to ask for a debate on the shared prosperity fund. We are exactly seven weeks from the end of the transition period, yet we have no idea whether and how this fund will work. I would like a Government assurance not only that Scotland’s funding will be maintained, but that decisions will be fully devolved, in much the way that EU structural funds are currently managed. After all, how hard can it be?

Uncertainty over Brexit, of which that is one glaring example, is partly why Scottish public opinion is turning to independence. You know that I like to keep the House informed on these matters, Mr Speaker. This week we have another opinion poll showing an 8% lead for independence. It is the 12th poll in a row to show majority support for yes. These developments have prompted former Prime Minister Major to call for not one but two referendums on independence. Sadly, though, the current Scottish Secretary just burrows further into his bunker. He declared this week that Scotland should not be able to consider this matter again for another 40 years. At least Donald Trump waited until after the election before denying the result. It seems that the Scottish Secretary has gone one better: he is denying the result of the election even before it has taken place. I agree with Joe Biden that it is not for one politician or another to decide the outcome, but for the people themselves. Can we have a debate on whether the Government will respect the outcome of next May’s election in Scotland; for if they will not, what is the point in having one?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman perhaps does not see the irony of what he has just said. There was an election in 2014 and I am afraid that it is the hon. Gentleman who is the Trump of Scotland, because he is denying that result. He is trying to pretend that it did not happen and that the people of Scotland, in their wisdom, did not vote to remain in the United Kingdom. May I beg to remind him that the people of Scotland voted to remain and that at that time the Scottish National party leadership said it was generational? That is why my right hon. Friend the Scottish Secretary is right to say that it must be for a generation. The hon. Gentleman cannot say that he does not like the result and therefore he is going to sulk and, in a state of high dudgeon, complain and moan and object, because the people of Scotland have spoken, and in their wisdom they wanted to remain in the United Kingdom.

Is that any surprise when £8.2 billion of UK taxpayers’ money has gone to the benefit of the people of Scotland? In addition, 779,500 jobs have been saved or supported by the furlough scheme, and £806 million has been paid out to help 157,000 people in the self-employed scheme. This is the success of the United Kingdom.

The hon. Gentleman says that he gets redacted statements. The good news will be boasted about later—such as the £8.2 billion and the 779,500 jobs—but it is routine for a Chancellor’s statements to have market-sensitive information not provided at the time. That is an obvious thing to do.

Opposition days are provided—I am well aware of the Standing Orders requirements—and, on the shared prosperity fund, Scotland shares in the prosperity of the United Kingdom.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Tommy Sheppard

Monday 2nd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]]

The measures to be debated on Wednesday will be for England only and it is not for Scottish MPs to determine what restrictions the people of England should suffer. But I do hope that the Leader of the House will understand the real anger and frustration that the people in Scotland will have when they look at what is happening. For months we have asked for an extension of the furlough scheme and for months we have been told no, but now that stricter measures are thought necessary in England, furlough is to be extended across the UK. Despite repeated questioning earlier, the Prime Minister was ambiguous about whether furlough would now be available to support measures undertaken by the devolved national Governments if such measures were not felt necessary in England. As it stands, we must therefore assume that if the measures proposed for England are discontinued on 2 December, furlough support will be ended in Scotland too—even if businesses there were still mandated to close. This is not acceptable and it means that we need an urgent debate on the inadequacy of the devolved settlement when it comes to dealing with this matter, and on the need for greater policy and fiscal competence to be given to the Scottish Parliament.

With England in lockdown and people being told by the Government to work from home if they can, I, too, ask the Government to lead by example and now introduce procedures to allow virtual participation in debates and electronic voting. Most people will find it difficult to understand why MPs are being encouraged physically to travel across the country and gather in one place when they do not need to do so. Certainly, representing our constituents is essential, but we do not need to be here to do that. The Leader of the House knows well that the technology exists to allow Members to fulfil their duties while working remotely. If this second lockdown is not sufficient, what will it take for him to authorise switching those systems on?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Well, it is very fortunate that we were able to hear the hon. Gentleman in full this time; the last time that he appeared, the technology did not work and we lost his dulcet tones momentarily. It is also worth reminding hon. and right hon. Members that the other place lost its remote voting system, and that hindered the progress of business. It is important that just as hospitals and schools provide essential services in health and education, so Parliament is performing its essential constitutional role of scrutinising the work of the Government, debating key issues, and, above all, making and changing legislation. Our role has been a vital one throughout this year and continues to be so throughout this month—a time when the House is holding the Government to account for their approach to tackling the widespread impact of coronavirus, legislating to shape the nation’s response to the pandemic and legislating in order for our country to be ready for the end of the transition period. Now is not the time to hinder the ability of MPs to scrutinise Ministers and legislation, but that is exactly what would happen if we were to follow the hon. Member’s suggestion for a full return to hybrid proceedings and ending elements of our business entirely. I therefore continue to say that we have our duty to do, and our duty is to be here, to hold the Government to account, and to legislate for the needs of our nation.

With regard to the hon. Member’s earlier point, I have referred him week in, week out to the many billions of pounds and the hundreds of thousands of jobs that have been protected in Scotland thanks to the United Kingdom taxpayer. It is unquestionably the case that the strength of the United Kingdom has allowed all parts of that United Kingdom to cope with the pandemic. That would have been harder to do that without that support and without that unity. It seems to me sometimes that the Scottish nationalists want devolution when it suits them, but that when there are bills to be paid, they want somebody else to pick up the bill.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Tommy Sheppard

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Tommy Sheppard]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

We should, I suppose, be grateful for small mercies, so I welcome the Government’s intention to extend the limited virtual participation and proxy voting until Easter. At least that represents a recognition that normal service will not be resumed any time soon. It is a slightly more mature and considered approach than the histrionics of last week, when the Leader of the House likened MPs to essential service workers.

To be clear, this decision establishes a default position that, although it is better than nothing, hardly represents the optimum or enthusiastic use of technology to deliver democracy. Will the Leader of the House allow a debate at the earliest opportunity after the recess on how we can do it better, which includes switching the remote voting system back on and allowing full virtual participation? I know that he does not support either of those approaches, but he must accept that there is now a majority across the House, including many in his own party, who do so. Let us have an open debate on a Government motion that can be amended by others and, crucially, since individual MPs are affected in different ways, let us have a free vote on the matter.

This week will have brought home to many in northern England what it feels like to be Scottish. Devolved structures are created to allow the voice of people in particular areas to be heard, but if that voice differs from Westminster’s, it is ignored. Moreover, the representatives of the people are then attacked and vilified, just to be sure. I feel much empathy for the people in the great regions of England, but my principal concern is that the Government’s piecemeal approach in England has grave consequences for Scotland. The Barnett formula provides Scotland with a proportion of new public expenditure in England, but what happens when the extra spending is in only 10% or 20% of England? The Barnett formula was not designed for such a situation, and that is why I ask again for a debate on helping the Scottish Government to fight the covid emergency by removing the fiscal and policy constraints that the UK has placed on it.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman’s initial silence spoke eloquently for why we do not need a difference in the technology that we use. It showed why it does not actually work and why we are keeping this House sitting primarily in a physical sense, certainly for legislation: so that there can be proper scrutiny. It may be that some people like silence from the hon. Gentleman—most of us enjoy his questions—but that is not how to scrutinise Her Majesty’s Government.

As regards the funding for Scotland, UK taxpayers have contributed £7.2 billion to help Scotland, protecting 779,500 jobs. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) heckles me, saying “We are UK taxpayers.” Does that not prove how beneficial it is to have the United Kingdom? I am hoping that he will now become a Unionist and join our Benches, because it is the United Kingdom that has provided the £7.2 billion and is helping Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland and all the regions of our great nation.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Tommy Sheppard

Thursday 15th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Government certainly recognise that the aviation sector, which provides passenger and freight air services, is vital for domestic and global connectivity. The Government also recognise the importance of regional hubs. Bristol airport is very near to my constituency, so I completely understand the point my hon. Friend is making. We need a thriving, competitive aviation sector in the UK. The sector has benefited from the £190 billion package of job and income support, but it has been particularly badly affected. I think he ought to ask for an Adjournment debate specifically on Blackpool airport to raise any issues that arise with it.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]]

I will not be the only person who was disappointed at the response that the Leader of the House gave to the shadow Leader of the House a moment ago. Three of the four countries in the United Kingdom have introduced tougher restrictions on the public since we last had similar exchanges, and England will likely follow suit. Across all of them, there is a core message of avoiding unnecessary travel and working from home where possible. Surely, it is time for this Chamber to lead by example.

Many people will feel that the attempt by the Leader of the House to equate the role of MPs with that of frontline healthcare staff is somewhat shameless. Doctors cannot treat sick people without being physically present, but that is not the case for MPs. Everything we do could be done remotely; it is just that we choose not to, with the Government instead putting on a show in the Chamber in a vain attempt at normality. With lockdowns intensifying, this cannot continue. When will the Leader of the House switch the remote voting system back on, as recommended by the Procedure Committee, and when will the Government abandon the arbitrary distinction that allows Members to ask questions online but forbids them from moving motions or taking part in debates?

Secondly, I want to return to the question of Scottish independence. The Leader of the House may have seen the latest opinion poll that was published yesterday by Ipsos MORI, which shows 58% for independence. When I asked him last week if he would regard victory by Unionist parties at next May’s general election as a mandate for the Union, he did not answer, so I ask him again. If he truly believes that the election has no relevance to the Union because of a prior democratic event seven years before, will he confirm that the Conservatives will not be campaigning on that question at the forthcoming election?

More importantly, if the UK Government are determined to ignore the settled will of the Scottish people, can we have a debate on the consequences for the Union? It seems that we are moving away from government by consent, and that the UK Government desire to keep Scotland in the Union against the will of the people who live there. If so, Parliament ought to be told.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is disappointed with me, and that is a yoke I shall have to bear. It is, I fear, his default position to be disappointed with me, and I am afraid that in my answers today, his disappointment will only grow. I am sorry about that; none the less, I must proceed.

The House made a decision to be back in physical form and voted to return to physical voting—a system that is working effectively and ensures that our business can be done. It is essential for debates that we are here. The whole point of a debate is to challenge, to question, to intervene. That is not possible remotely. For Ministers, when we had that brief period of legislation going through remotely, it could not have been easier: all the Minister had to do was read out the prepared blurb. Nothing could be intervened upon; nothing could be questioned. [Interruption.] When we are here, as I am heckled by the Labour Chief Whip, interventions can come from a sedentary position, which may get the pith and moment of the debate, as the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) is so good at doing. That leads to proper, informed debate. [Interruption.] Even Mr Speaker is intervening now.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Tommy Sheppard

Thursday 8th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

There is a massive upgrading of roads programme, with £8.6 billion of infrastructure spending. Sir Peter Hendy has been asked by the Government to consider a range of options to connect the nations within the United Kingdom. The review will be broad in scope and will look at how best to improve road, rail, air and sea connections across the United Kingdom such as the A55, which my hon. Friend mentions and is indeed a very important road. The Government will take their decisions based on the expert advice of Sir Peter. I encourage my hon. Friend to carry on lobbying and perhaps ask for an Adjournment debate on this important subject.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I begin by commending you, Mr Speaker, and in particular the Doorkeepers, for demonstrating by example earlier in the week the need to wear face coverings when moving around the building. I hope the leadership that was demonstrated by you might rub off on the Government when it comes to looking at the procedures in this place and how we debate things.

I want to start by asking the Leader of the House where he has got to in his consideration of the recommendations of the Procedure Committee with regard to remote voting in this place. This is all the more pertinent given that the coronavirus pandemic is not going away. Indeed, it may well get worse before it gets better. We already have in various parts of the United Kingdom, and particularly in Scotland, quite severe restrictions. They may intensify and that may mean many Members will be unable to travel to this place if they wish to follow the guidance of their local health authorities and their national Government to avoid inessential travel. It seems to me somewhat perverse to be in a situation where the travel of Members of Parliament has to be essential only because we choose to turn off the means by which we can make it inessential. In other words, if we have the ability to participate remotely, we would not need to make journeys to this place. So, first, I would like to know where the Leader of the House has got to in his consideration of that.

Will the Chancellor update the statement he made a couple of weeks ago concerning the continuation of support for businesses that are unable to trade because of the pandemic? The announcement on the job support scheme only has relevance to those businesses that are able to start trading at a reduced capacity. It has no relevance for businesses that are told to close, cannot trade at all and have no income coming in. When can we have a statement on that?

Finally, on a completely different topic, I wonder whether I can tease the Leader of the House to answer a question that the Prime Minister refused to answer. In May next year we have elections for the Scottish Parliament. If the Conservative party and other Unionist parties are successful in gaining a majority of seats in that Parliament in that election, would the Leader of the House regard that as a topical mandate for the Union at that election?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

There was a vote in 2014 of the people of Scotland, who decided to remain in the United Kingdom. The SNP at the time was under the leadership of Mr Salmond—a figure SNP Members perhaps do not talk about as much as they used to for reasons I am not entirely clear about. All sorts of interesting things about Mr Salmond and Mrs Sturgeon are currently in the papers—all sorts of conversations between them—to which people may want to pay attention. None the less, SNP Members do not like talking about him much anymore. At the time, Mr Salmond said it was for a generation. Now, I know that we have been talking about octopuses on World Octopus Day, but a generation is longer, I imagine, than the lifespan of the average octopus. It is the lifespan of an individual. A generation is 25 to 30 years. It is a good length of time. We have had the referendum, and we won. The Unionists won. Even the Labour party won in that sense. It is therefore something that we can be very pleased about that happened in 2014.

As regards proceedings in this place, it might be helpful if SNP Members were more rigorous in attending to the details of the rules but, leaving that to one side, we need to turn up to do our job. We are an essential service. I think it is pretty wet, quite frankly, to expect doctors, nurses, police officers, people working in supermarkets, and the cleaners in the House of Commons to do their jobs, and for us to say that we have to stay at home because we are not willing to come here. We have a duty to be here—our public duty. We were elected to be an assembly of the nation, not people sitting remotely throwing stones. There are facilities for people to participate in interrogative proceedings, and there are facilities for people to vote by proxy because of their individual conditions but, fundamentally, the business of the House needs to go on in the Chamber of the House.

Finally, on the Chancellor and updates, as I said earlier we have already had 40 statements from the Government during this period. The Government are committed to keeping the House regularly updated on important policy changes.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Tommy Sheppard

Thursday 1st October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The work done by the St Cross hospital is fantastic. It is so important that people with very serious illnesses should receive the best possible treatment and should receive it locally. The work he is doing in supporting local charities is first class, and the St Cross hospital has the particular respect of this House.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

First, may I, on behalf of the third party, associate myself with the remarks made by you, Mr Speaker, the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House regarding Mark Hutton? He has been a friend of this party over the years, so much so in fact that our Chief Whip takes rather more pride than might be expected in a Scottish nationalist in having his signed copy of “Erskine May” in his office.

I want to begin by talking about our procedures and paraphrasing Kipling by saying “If you can keep your head while all around you are losing theirs, you probably don’t understand the seriousness of the situation.” I think that is what is happening in this Chamber, where we are maintaining this façade of normalcy whilst we know that there is a crisis gripping the country. I do wonder if we are devoting enough urgency to looking at how we can revise and improve participation by remote means in our discussions, given that large parts of the country are now again in lockdown and that these measures may intensify in the weeks and months to come. In that regard, I am particularly disappointed to see that next week Westminster Hall will resume its sittings in a business-as-normal- type way. Surely if there was ever an opportunity to try to test creatively the opportunities presented to us by technology and to have virtual conferencing, it would have been in the setting of Westminster Hall. As it is, these debates will take place with the vast majority of Members of Parliament unable to participate in them, and it is a great wasted opportunity.

I also want to talk about the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, which is trundling its way through Parliament. It is now clear—it is no longer a matter of speculation—that the devolved Administrations of the United Kingdom will not give consent to this ridiculous piece of legislation, and I want to know if we can find the time to debate in this Chamber the consequences for the devolution settlement of that being the case and of the United Kingdom Government choosing to ignore the wishes of the devolved Administrations and steamroller the legislation through anyway.

For my final point, on the job support scheme, I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It was welcome that the Chancellor came to the House to discuss this last week, but there are still enormous gaps. When can we find the time to debate what we can do to assist those companies in this country that are viable, safe and good businesses but that are closed, by order, to meet the public health imperative? Are we simply to say that all those businesses and all those jobs are unviable and they are to be discarded, or are we going to step in after 31 October and offer them some assistance?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman has continued to ask for us to change our procedures and to do things more remotely; it is worth noting that yesterday the remote voting system in the other place fell down and therefore it will have to redo the votes on the business it was supposed to be doing. I think we have to press on with our important business in serving the country, ensuring that we have the debates that are asked for. From the point of view of Government business managers, we have the demand, on the one hand, for debates and votes, quite rightly, and on the other, that we should not be here. People cannot have it both ways. The technology did not provide satisfactory scrutiny and has fallen over in voting in the other place. When we had a problem in our Division Lobbies, we had a fall-back solution and we could carry on with the business. Losing a day’s votes on Report stage of a Bill makes proceeding with Government business exceptionally difficult.

As regards Westminster Hall, the hon. Gentleman says that most Members will not be able to attend, but most Members do not attend Westminster Hall anyway; very few debates are full in Westminster Hall, and although there will be formal limits, considering the numbers who are at most Westminster Hall debates, those formal limits will not be unduly stretched. The resources of our broadcasting teams are being used in other ways, and there are limited resources. Again, people wanted Westminster Hall back, and we have got Westminster Hall back, and that presents an opportunity to hold the Government to account; I think this is a good thing and the right thing to be doing.

The United Kingdom Internal Market Bill is a fantastic Bill. It is one of the best pieces of legislation passed by the House in recent times. It also devolves 70 powers to the devolved Administrations. SNP Members are modelling themselves on Oliver Twist—they are always asking for more. They cannot have more on this occasion. They have a great deal of devolution coming through that Bill, and the Bill will ensure that we have a functioning internal market. The hon. Gentleman effectively asked for further debates on the Bill. It is worth noting that two of the days in Committee were not completely used, so Members are on stronger ground complaining when the time provided by Government has been used up.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for the job support scheme. I remind the House that £190 billion of taxpayers’ money has gone to support the economy so far. That is a very substantial amount. As the Chancellor has said, not everything can be protected, but an enormous amount has been protected.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Tommy Sheppard

Thursday 24th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend raises an important and troubling point. As constituency MPs all know, there are difficulties that come from antisocial behaviour, and that causes pain and frustration to our law-abiding constituents. I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are making serious headway in tackling antisocial behaviour and violent crime. On top of our strong record since 2010, I am pleased to say that we have now recruited over 4,300 new police officers as part of our drive to recruit 20,000 more officers by the end of this Parliament. We have also announced a £200 million youth endowment fund, supporting the children and young people most vulnerable to involvement in crime and violence. This is also often a question of enforcement and using the powers that are already there, and the elections next year for police and crime commissioners will be important, because we want good Conservatives who are in favour of the enforcement of law and order.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

May I begin with the debate on coronavirus on Monday, which is welcome and will give Members an opportunity to raise matters of concern to their constituents? However, it would be a missed opportunity if that debate, as well as being general, were unfocused and unstructured. I therefore ask whether the Government can give serious leadership and direction to that debate, and whether Ministers can spend the weekend formulating specific proposals to put to the House on Monday.

In that regard, I would like to raise the matter of four-nation co-operation and co-ordination in response to the pandemic. The Leader of the House may be aware that the First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, wrote to the Prime Minister last night asking for urgent talks. She also stated the obvious, which is that even further, more restrictive public health protocols may be necessary to keep the infection rate down in the weeks ahead, and that, if that is to happen, it would be beneficial if there were a co-ordinated four-nation response. That is not to say that things have to be exactly the same in every part of the UK, but there needs to be an integrated and consistent approach. In particular, there needs to be consideration of whether the powers and money available to the devolved Administrations are sufficient to deal with the crisis.

That brings me to the Budget, which the shadow Leader of the House mentioned. I appreciate that the UK’s finances are in such a perilous state that there may be a disinclination to discuss these matters in public, but simply keeping a problem secret will not make it go away. A particular problem that arises as a consequence of the Budget delay is that the devolved Administrations are unable to plan their budgets except in the most provisional of terms. Given the covid-19 crisis and the additional expenditure that has been required, the situation is less than desirable. What alternative do the Government have to the Budget in terms of giving direction to the devolved Administrations as to what their planning horizons might be?

Finally, I want to raise unfinished business from last night’s debate, when we discussed extending the voting arrangements in the House. Several Members asked the Leader of the House what the justification is for Members being able to participate virtually in some business but not in other business. If the public health restrictions are indeed going to intensify, and if we need to show more leadership as a House, should we not extend the virtual arrangements to debates as well as to Question Time, to make sure that Members can participate in all the proceedings of the House safely and securely?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I will deal with the last point first. When we had a completely hybrid House, we found it was deeply unsatisfactory for legislation and debates around legislation. Legislation effects changes and alters people’s lives, and it needs to be done thoroughly and scrutinised effectively by the House. Unfortunately, a series of monologues did not succeed in doing that, subject to very tight time limitations. That was the one bit of the hybrid system that did not work, which is why we have gone back to doing legislative business personally, and we will continue to do that for the foreseeable future.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and to members of other parties for their support for Monday’s debate, which is, of course, a change in business from what was previously announced, but I think the House as a whole wanted to have that debate. On the question of its being general, the difficulty is that there are many points that individuals wish to raise on behalf of their constituents. There is always a balance to be struck between the general nature of the debate and the specifics of what is going on, but allowing Members to bring forward individual issues from their constituencies is important.

As regards co-operation between the devolved authorities, devolution inevitably leads to differences, and that is part of its purpose, but the leaders of the devolved authorities have been attending Cobra meetings—they have been invited to some of them, where they have been able to contribute their views. Part of the way of tackling the problem is to have different local options. We have moved away from the one national approach to widespread national advice, followed by very clear but detailed regulations in local areas, and I think that that fits in with the devolved settlement.

The hon. Gentleman also refers to the money issue, and it is worth reminding him that £6.5 billion has gone from the UK taxpayer to Scotland—[Interruption.] I said the UK taxpayer, and that does include Scotland for the time being. We are still a United Kingdom, I am glad to say—[Interruption.] May it remain forever, and I am glad to see some support coming from the Democratic Unionist party for that view. So £6.5 billion and 157,000 people have been helped on the self-employed scheme and 779,500 on the furlough scheme. I am glad to say that money is going where it is needed because of the strength of the United Kingdom. With regard to the Budget, one cannot make decisions on policy until one has the facts available to make those decisions upon, and this is such a rapidly changing situation that it would be premature to give any commitments on the Budget.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Tommy Sheppard

Thursday 17th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Just to say, we do like virtual from Somerset.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

It is good to be here, Mr Speaker, after so many months of absence to discuss matters with the Leader of the House in person.

I begin with your very welcome statement, Mr Speaker, about what happened last night. The Leader of the House ought to be a little less nonchalant in his approach. What we presented to the public and the world last night was quite an unedifying spectacle, to be honest. The conga line going through this House involving Members, many of whom clearly had some difficulty with social distancing, was not a good example to set. When we had the remote voting system, it did not fail; it worked perfectly well on every occasion it was put to the test. It is a system that was fit for purpose, and as he well knows, the Procedure Committee has recommended that whilst the pandemic persists we should go back to that form of voting, which is not only secure but safe and allows people to vote without coming into proximity of one another. I hope that when we discuss these matters next Wednesday at the debate he has announced on proxy voting, we will be able to consider alternatives as well, and I hope we will be able to take some action on this prior to the present arrangements running out at the beginning of November.



Secondly, I invite the Leader of the House to comment on the resignation yesterday of Lord Keen, the Advocate General for Scotland, who reached a point where he found it impossible to continue to serve in the Government because of their intention to proceed with breaking international law. Does he think he will be successful in finding a qualified Law Officer in Scotland who will be prepared to countenance breaking the law in the future?

Finally, I want to ask the Leader of the House about the coronavirus job retention scheme and the self-employment income support scheme, both of which we will discuss in Backbench Business debates this afternoon. Members across the House who will be participating in those very well-subscribed debates look to the Government to bring forward proposals for what will happen after 31 October, when many businesses will have to remain closed by Government order. If that is the case, it seems to me that the public purse has to assist them in getting to the other side of this pandemic. It is not enough to simply close down the scheme and say, “That’s it.”

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is a pleasure that we are back face to face. When the hon. Gentleman appeared remotely, he looked like one of the rather more bad-tempered Old Testament prophets, but face to face, we see his natural joviality shining through. He is very welcome back, and I am sorry that I was not here last week.

Yesterday, the votes worked—that is the key. Had the technology failed remotely, we would simply not have been able to get the business through. It is proving that this House is back to work as the rest of the country is coming back to work. We are leading by example, and we should be proud of that.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about my noble Friend Lord Keen, who is a distinguished lawyer. He has indeed left the Government, and I am sure that there are many brilliant Scottish lawyers who can be found and asked to fulfil the role of Advocate General. The pool of wisdom in Scottish legal circles is very deep, and I have absolute confidence that we will find someone of comparable genius to the noble Lord to take the role that has been vacated.

The issue here is a very important one: do we defend the national interest of the United Kingdom when the EU is acting in bad faith, as the Prime Minister has said? The answer is yes, we must defend our national interest and our United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman does not want the United Kingdom to exist. That is a perfectly respectable position for him to take, and it is put forward by his party in Scotland, but it is not the position of the Government or, indeed, of the majority of people in the United Kingdom, who have an affection, an attraction, a devotion and a patriotism towards their country and want it to succeed. Its success will be determined by laws passed in this House.

As regards the job support scheme, it is worth reminding the House what has been done by taxpayers. There has been £160 billion of support from taxpayers across the United Kingdom, with £35 billion on the furlough scheme, £8.5 billion for 3 million self-employed people, £15 billion on coronavirus business interruption loans for small and medium-sized enterprises and large businesses, and £35 billion on over 1 million bounce back loans. That is an enormous amount of taxpayers’ money, but taxpayers’ money is not unlimited, so the schemes cannot go on forever, but I am sure that the debates later today will be informative.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Tommy Sheppard

Thursday 16th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point. As we try to encourage people back on to our high streets, we of course want to make it as easy as possible for them to get there to support local businesses. Obviously, local authorities have the power to make decisions on parking charges and need to balance the interests of local people, but I am sure that we would agree that it would be wrong for local government to use parking charges as cash cows without considering the wider effects on local businesses. He may wish to return to this matter in the pre-recess Adjournment debate.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]]

Good morning, Mr Speaker. Those who observe these Thursday morning exchanges will know that I have tried, over the past few weeks, to get a debate on the fiscal framework within which the devolved Administrations are constrained. It was not designed to deal with a global pandemic and it is hindering the Scottish Government’s ability to respond. As I have made clear consistently, this is not an argument about the amount of money but about what can be done with it. The Leader of the House has consistently evaded my questions, referring instead to the sums involved. I think that I now know the reason for that evasion: it seems that, far from enhancing the competence of the Scottish Government, the Tory Cabinet is now determined to constrain it further.

This week, there has been a three-pronged attack on devolution. An announcement on state aid made it clear that Westminster will overrule Holyrood when it comes to providing support for our businesses to recover from this crisis, and it was followed by a statement on the so-called shared prosperity fund, which made it clear that the Scottish Government will have no control over whatever funding replaces EU structural funds. The biggest assault will be announced here shortly: a Government press release tells us that the UK will seek to override and set aside decisions by the Scottish Parliament if they feel those decisions affect UK trade. Were this already in force, it could have overturned decisions on free university tuition, smoking bans or minimum alcohol pricing.

This is a major attack on devolution, taking power away from Scotland, but the details are unclear, so I have three specific questions for the Leader of the House. Is it true that the Government will establish an unelected quango to override the decisions of the Scottish Parliament? Do the UK Government intend to force this on the devolved Administrations if they do not consent? Will these measures require new legislation, and if so, when will this be introduced, and what will happen if it cannot be passed before the end of the transition period? I would appreciate straight answers to these questions, perhaps this time without personal references to my appearance or demeanour.

Finally, since this may be our last business statement before recess, may I take this opportunity to wish you a good summer break, Mr Speaker? I am sorry we were unable to get you up to the Edinburgh Festival fringe this year as planned, but I hope we can do so in 2021.

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you, Tommy.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Tommy Sheppard

Thursday 9th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. I cannot claim to be a native gym-goer personally. I did have to go occasionally in my childhood, and I have never quite recovered from the experience. However, many people up and down the country will be very keen to get back to sports centres, gymnasiums and swimming pools to get themselves into peak physical performance—and they can then compensate by eating out to get back the calories that they have just burned off in the gymnasium. The voucher scheme is time-limited to boost hospitality businesses and encourage people to unleash the latent demand that has been pent up over the past few months in a particularly vulnerable sector employing millions of people. I hope she understands that we are not able to offer such support to all sectors of the economy, but I am sure that my right hon Friend the Chancellor will look to support some industries that come under acute pressures in the coming months.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]]

The Chancellor must be peeved that his grand announcement yesterday received such a mixed response, with many industry bodies saying it is insufficient. When we debate these plans on Monday, will the Leader of the House try to persuade his right hon. Friend to listen to others and seek consensus? It is increasingly bizarre that the Chancellor insists on a one-size-fits-all approach to business support, when everyone else knows that different sectors are affected differently. The fact is that, come the autumn, there will be many businesses which would in normal circumstances be perfectly viable that cannot trade because of public health restrictions. As the chief strategist of J. P. Morgan said yesterday:

“Removing the furlough scheme before activity has recovered is like building three quarters of a bridge and not finishing it because it is becoming expensive”.

Secondly, I want to ask again for a debate on the financial straitjacket under which the devolved Administrations are forced to operate. Every time I ask about devolution powers, the Leader of the House gives me an answer about money. I am not sure if he is evading the question or he does not understand it. The fiscal framework of devolution was not designed to respond to a global pandemic, and it needs to be changed. To give this week’s example, the arts rescue package announced on Monday includes repurposing capital spending in England, so why will the Government not allow the Scottish Government to do the same? We hear from many Cabinet members that Scotland’s salvation is due to the strong arms of the Union, implying that only big countries can deal with the pandemic, but that is not true. In fact, many small countries have proven more agile and effective, but if the Leader of the House does believe this, can he explain why support for Scotland becoming an independent country is now running at 54%, an all-time historical high?

Finally, can the Leader of the House confirm whether, in next week’s debate about restoration and renewal, the Government will bring forward their own, revised plans? In particular, does he believe that the decision to build a complete replica of the House of Commons Chamber for a temporary decant is profligate and ought to be reviewed?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is concerned that the Chancellor is peeved, but as his own happy countenance looks down upon us, we know that he himself, in his cheerful, jolly and bonhomous way, would never be peeved—it is hard to think of a less peevish person.

The hon. Gentleman talks about the furlough scheme, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is absolutely right: the furlough scheme cannot go on forever. It has been an amazing effort by the taxpayer to ensure that the structure of the economy is maintained and, therefore, that we can have a V-shaped recovery. However, the Government—the taxpayer—cannot afford indefinitely to provide this level of support. Therefore, October seems to me to be about the right date.

The hon. Gentleman complains that he does not like the answer I gave him on the fiscal settlement for Scotland, but I have good news for him: the figure I gave him last week is lower than the figure I shall give him this week. Owing to the strength of the United Kingdom, the Barnett consequentials have led to £4.6 billion being available to be spent in Scotland. That shows the success of the economic management of the United Kingdom over 10 years of coalition and Conservative Government. The ability to answer the challenges of 2008 and to ensure that the public sector finances got back into proper shape so that we could afford to deal with a fundamentally different crisis, which required a different response and the expenditure of taxpayers’ money, is a tribute to the strength of the United Kingdom. Where would Scotland be had it gone for independence in 2014, with its revenue dependent on the oil price, which has subsequently collapsed? It would be bankrupt. The hon. Gentleman calls for bankruptcy; Her Majesty’s Government have provided solvency and support for the people of the whole United Kingdom.

In regard to restoration and renewal, we will debate that next week.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Tommy Sheppard

Thursday 2nd July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for taking responsibility by joining the board. He is right that this House ought to have an opportunity to have its say on the future of the Palace of Westminster, which it is right to protect and safeguard for future generations. When the last Parliament considered this matter, it did so on the basis of assumptions that are now five years old, and it is absolutely proper that the sponsor body and delivery authority are conducting a strategic review to reconsider their approach. I would urge Members to consider submitting evidence to the review, and to be mindful that the price tags widely reported are also now five years old. There are rumours that the potential costs now far exceed the £4 billion estimate made in 2015. We must be clear that when Parliament takes its final decision on how to proceed, there can be no blank cheque for this work. The Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 specifically requires the sponsor body to have regard to value for money.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]]

Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Chancellor understands that we are still in the middle of this pandemic, and that before considering recovery after covid, we should ensure the survival of as many companies and jobs as possible? The Government will reduce payroll support to firms from 1 August, but how does the right hon. Gentleman expect companies that remain closed to find the money for wages? Does he agree that support must continue for those sectors of the economy that are unable safely to open in the autumn? Will he press the Chancellor to be more ambitious than the Prime Minister, who underwhelmed us all earlier this week? The PM’s package, based on accelerating existing capital projects, involved no new money whatsoever. The sum involved totalled about one fifth of 1% of the UK’s annual production. Compare that with the German Government, whose stimulus package is fully 20 times that amount.

The Prime Minister’s package contains not a single penny extra for Scotland, so I must ask again when we can debate the necessary changes to the fiscal framework of devolution. When I asked about that before, the Leader of the House simply referred to the sums that the Scottish Government are spending under the Barnett formula. It is as if Scotland’s getting its share of UK spending is the result of Westminster generosity, rather than the return of taxes that people in Scotland pay to the United Kingdom. The question is not about amounts; it is about powers, and about changing the rules so that, for instance, the Scottish Government can do exactly what the PM is proposing for England, and bring forward future capital spending. Will the Leader of the House please answer that question about rules?

I appreciate that the Government are led by someone who thinks that the border does not exist, and who does not even recognise that the term “Scottish Government” was introduced in section 12(1) of the Scotland Act 2012. Grasping the subtleties of devolution may be difficult for him, but the problem of Scotland’s financial straitjacket will not go away, and we need to discuss it.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

What a pleasure it is to see the hon. Gentleman looking as cheerful as ever. With his fine smile, he always manages to brighten up the whole House. He mentions borders, and I note that Nicola Sturgeon wishes to have a wall between England and Scotland—perhaps she is modelling herself on other leading political figures. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, there is no border between England and Scotland, and it was shameful to call for a border of that type to be erected to stop people travelling freely between the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. One never thought that Nicola Sturgeon would model herself on American political figures and want to build a wall—at least a metaphorical wall, if not actually like Hadrian, with bricks and mortar.

We will hear the Chancellor’s proposals for recovery on Wednesday, but the Government have already been enormously ambitious with the scale of the furlough scheme: 9.3 million people, as well as 2.6 million self-employed people, have benefited and are being kept in employment. That is crucial, but it has to be phased, and we must move into the recovery stage. The hon. Gentleman wants to stay unreconstructed, and not to take advantage of things changing and opening up so that we get an economic recovery. That is what the Chancellor is doing, and I refer to the enormous amount of money that goes to all parts of the United Kingdom, because we are a single United Kingdom. The £3.8 billion that has gone to Scotland is because the UK is better together.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Tommy Sheppard

Thursday 25th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. Driving instructors are one of the unseen engines of the country. They train future generations of drivers, and I hope they can resume their important work safely as soon as possible. The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency chief executive will be writing to all approved driving instructors on 25 June, setting out plans to restart driver testing and to help them to return to a life that is as close to normal as possible, as quickly and as fairly as possible, in a way that avoids a second peak of infections. From 4 July, I am happy to say that people will be able to take driving lessons on a motorcycle, or in a car, lorry or bus, and there will be a phased approach to resuming practical testing, so learners have the opportunity to practise before taking a test. But he can raise this with the Secretary of State for Transport on 2 July.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]]

There are now less than two weeks until Parliament’s emergency procedures are reviewed. Will the Leader of the House share his insights as to what should happen next? Will he move forward, allowing people to participate equally by switching the e-voting system back on and allowing all Members to contribute to debates; or backwards, disenfranchising those who cannot be physically present?

Last week, I informed the House of the decision of the Scottish Parliament to seek a review of the financial arrangements within which it operates, in order that it could better deal with the aftermath of covid-19. I asked when that request, backed by four out of five parties in Scotland, would be considered by this Parliament, and I did not get an answer. This week, we saw the publication of the report by the independent economic recovery group in Scotland, a mainly private sector perspective. Guess what its first recommendation was? It was also to loosen the financial straitjacket that constrains the Scottish Parliament. We do need to discuss this. The financial set-up of devolution was not designed to deal with the type of problems the Scottish Government now face, and platitudes about how wonderful the Union is will not address this serious problem.

May I ask about hospitality and entertainment, and I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests? Many in the sector will have to stay closed beyond the lifespan of the current coronavirus support schemes. If a business is shut by public order, does the Leader of the House agree it should get public help? I know we have difficulty in getting the Chancellor to write a letter, but will the Leader of the House persuade him to come to this House and say what he intends to do beyond October?

We have six days left in which to seek an extension of the Brexit transition period. It is crystal-clear that the Government’s necessary focus on the pandemic has affected preparations. Why will the Leader of the House not allow the House time to consider extending the time available? Does he not realise that the Government’s Canute-like stance on this matter is looking increasingly foolhardy and cavalier, even to those who support leaving the European Union?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman has made the schoolboy error of not knowing what King Canute did. King Canute took his advisers down to the shore to show that he did not have the power to command the tide; he did not go there to show he had the power and was then embarrassed. The hon. Gentleman may be embarrassed that he has used the analogy incorrectly—as I said, it is a schoolboy error.

As we are on the subject of history, I thought that the hon. Gentleman might be a bit more cheerful today, because I happened to notice in The Times yesterday that it was the anniversary of Robert the Bruce’s victory at Bannockburn in 1314. I thought that might have brought a smile to the hon. Gentleman’s face—but this is a very difficult task to achieve, as I see him looking sternly down upon me.

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman wishes to close down Parliament when it is just opening up the rest of the country, but we are back. We led the way. Things are really working extremely well. Voting is taking place. Next week there is a full programme of legislation. It is a proper Parliament; it is back to work. I am afraid the fact that SNP do not want to come here says more about their politics than it does about the state of the coronavirus.

The hon. Gentleman went on to wanting more money for the Scottish Government. They have already had £3.7 billion from UK taxpayers, and without the strength of the UK economy I hate to think what situation Scotland would be in had it been independent. The separatists’ arguments are crumbling away day by day, and that is absolutely crucial.

As regards industries that have been closed, there has been an unrivalled package of taxpayer support, with 9 million people who are currently furloughed getting support. The Chancellor has said that everybody will be looked after, and that is what has been done.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Tommy Sheppard

Thursday 18th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising an important question. Many of us represent constituents who have worked for British Airways and given long service over many years, and there are concerns about the way that they have been treated. This matter has quite rightly been brought before the House under an urgent question, and I think could be debated next week in the Petitions Committee debate relating to support for UK industries in response to covid-19. The matter clearly comes under that heading, so the debate will be available.

I note the point that my hon. Friend makes about the quarantine regulations, which of course are for a period and will be reviewed. The issue of safe countries is being looked at, as the Foreign Secretary said on the wireless this morning.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]]

First, may we have a debate on how the fiscal framework within which the devolved national Administrations operate should be changed to improve their capacity to deal with the current pandemic and its aftermath?

To date, the Scottish Government have spent more than £4 billion on covid-19. Most of it will be funded through Barnett consequentials, but several hundred million has had to be diverted from other priority spending. For the UK Government, that would not be a problem, as they can overspend if necessary and borrow unlimited amounts to cover the cost. Neither of those options are available to the Scottish Government under the fiscal framework. I hope the Leader of the House will agree that when the framework was devised, no one had in mind the need to cope with a crisis on this scale. On Tuesday, four out of the five parties in the Scottish Parliament united behind a call for additional fiscal responsibilities. Their motivation was practical, not ideological. When can we discuss this Parliament’s response to that call?

Sticking with responses to coronavirus, we have discussed previously how the crisis sadly brings out the worst in some people, and we now hear that companies such as BA are intending, under cover of the pandemic, to execute mass redundancies and then hire back fewer people on worse pay and conditions. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) has launched a Bill, with cross-party support, to outlaw such Dickensian employment practices. It would be an easy matter—would it not?—for the Government either to make time to discuss that Bill or to bring forward proposals of their own.

         Finally, I return to the matter of voting during the current emergency. It seems the Government are determined to do just about anything to stop Members voting remotely, including introducing new technology, as we have seen this week. Why do they not stop messing about and do the common sense thing by switching the e-voting system back on: a tried and tested system that not only allows Members who cannot attend to vote but makes it much safer for those who are on the premises?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

To take the last point first, voting was carried out using parliamentary passes very effectively last night and with a proxy scheme that means that people can be present in the House. I think my hon. Friend the deputy Chief Whip voted for more than 40 Members of Parliament, and a similar figure was true for a leading Whip on the Opposition Benches. There are advantages for the Whips in the scheme, but it ensures that people are able to express their views, and that we have Parliament back, which means that we are getting the work done.

We have four Bill Committees up and running. We are working through the legislative programme, which we committed to doing in the manifesto. The British people expect us to be back at work. We are leading by example, and it is right that people are back, and that we have made provision for people who cannot be back. In that context, private Members’ Bills will be coming back in early July. That will be the opportunity for the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) to introduce his Bill, so that it can be considered in the normal way for private Members’ Bills.

As regards money, £3.7 billion has gone from the central Exchequer to the Scottish Government—their share from the extra expenditure in relation to the coronavirus—so the funds that are going through are very substantial. Of course, part of the devolution settlement is that the Scottish Government have discretion regarding how they spend money and what they spend it on, and they have to work within that discretion.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Tommy Sheppard

Thursday 11th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend, as so often, comes to the heart of the matter. I am surprised that he has not raised Stonehenge, which is known for being the site, or thought to have been the site, of human sacrifice. It does occur to me that if it were removed, then of course the A303 could be widened more easily, making it easier to get to Somerset.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]]

First, may I associate myself with the comments of the shadow Leader regarding Black Lives Matter? I think most people will find it astonishing, given the depth of feeling in the country, that the Government do not wish to lead a parliamentary debate on the matter.

The Scottish National party did not oppose the motion to establish proxy voting last night, because we believe that something is better than nothing, but the Leader of the House should not think we are in any way satisfied with the Government’s defence of democratic expression in the age of coronavirus—we are not. Given that the right hon. Gentleman has been dragged kicking and screaming to accept the right of Members to vote by proxy if they cannot attend in person, why does he continue to oppose electronic voting through a system that has already been perfected by our staff? Switching that back on would not only allow Members to vote remotely, but would permit those on the premises to vote safely without the need to congregate in one place.

Secondly, does it not seem odd that there is no place in our future agenda for Parliament to debate the overall approach of the Government to the covid-19 pandemic? We need a full debate on that, not just glib 20-second answers and well-rehearsed soundbites. Given that the Government seem to be losing their grip and are in danger of losing public confidence, is this not the time to reach out and engage all parties in a renewed consensus?

Finally, can I ask for a statement on the Government’s willingness to answer questions from elected Members? Many of us have raised repeated questions with the Chancellor on behalf of our constituents relating to the various support schemes run by his Department and its agencies—most notably, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. It now seems that the Treasury is refusing to answer individual queries and has taken to issuing generic circulars instead. That is not acceptable, and it marks a serious departure from the way in which the Government are held to account in Parliament. I am well aware that things are not normal at the moment, but elected representatives must be able to get answers from those who serve the public. Does the Leader of the House agree?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

With regard to the final part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, I agree absolutely. I view it as one of the roles of the Leader of the House to take it up with Departments when answers are not felt to be satisfactory by Members, and I will unquestionably take up what he has said with the Treasury. Answers ought to be specific to the question raised by a Member of Parliament. That is one of our rights as a Member of Parliament, and if that is not happening, that is a lacuna in the service the Government are providing, so I assure him that I will take that up.

The hon. Gentleman started by saying that he was not satisfied. I so look forward to the day when an SNP Member stands up and says he is satisfied about anything of any kind whatever. He conjured up this fascinating image of my being dragged kicking and screaming. I have to confess that since my earliest infant years I have not been one of the greatest kickers or screamers in any circumstances. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) says I am now, but no, no kicking, no screaming; just listening and seeing how things can be done and working out a system that ensures we have a physical Parliament that can get through the Government’s busy legislative programme. We now have three Public Bill Committees up and running, and we will have four. That is very important and it is why we had to come back physically, while recognising that circumstances require some Members to be absent from this House.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) sort of made my point for me, because he asked for an overarching debate on the coronavirus. He has clearly forgotten that we had one lasting two days when we had a virtual Parliament. Clearly, what went on in the virtual Parliament was so unsatisfactory that it has passed from people’s memory.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Tommy Sheppard

Wednesday 20th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We now go to the SNP spokesperson, who has up to two minutes.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]]

Let me take up where I left off 25 minutes ago. I have still not had an answer on whether the Leader of the House believes his proposals for Parliament’s return are compatible with the equalities legislation of the United Kingdom, and I would like him to comment on that matter. I also have two further points, Mr Speaker.

First, we are told that Public Health England will again inspect the building during recess and advise on whether and how business can be conducted safely. What happens if Public Health England says that that cannot happen? Do the Government then intend to override the public health advice given by their own agency? Would it not have been more sensible to make these decisions after rather than before determining whether they can be implemented safely, or is this a case of wishful thinking taking the place of evidence-based policy? If the advice is that the number of hon. Members must be restricted, on what basis will the Government determine who can attend and who cannot?

Finally, I turn to the question of remote voting. While everyone can see that online participation in debates is not ideal, although it is better than no participation at all, that is not the case with online voting. The process is simple and secure. This is not an abstract or theoretical question: the system is there. It works. Why on earth switch it off when there is no need to do so? It is accepted that voting cannot be the same as it used to be, with hon. Members crammed into Lobbies, queuing to give their name to a Clerk. I know that a physical vote has been trialled; indeed, I have seen the pictures, and I think once the public see how that is proposed, we will be in danger of exposing this Parliament to even greater ridicule. So why is the Leader prepared to go to any lengths, it seems, no matter how ridiculous, not to continue with the system that is already in place and that works?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is, of course, a separatist, and he gives the game away when he refers to “even greater ridicule”, because he does not wish this Parliament to be the Parliament of the United Kingdom. He wants to separate himself from it and therefore uses every opportunity to ridicule it, which I am not sure is entirely helpful or reflects the views of the majority of Members.

As regards remote voting, there was a very clear undertaking that it would be temporary. The consensus reached within the House to allow the hybrid Parliament was based on consent, on the basis of it being temporary. If people want to make an argument for the longer term about remote voting, they are absolutely entitled to do so, and no doubt the Procedure Committee will look at it, but that is an argument for another day. I would be acting in bad faith if I did not deliver on the commitment to those who never wanted remote voting in the first place that it will stop at the point at which we return to a physical Parliament.

As regards how numbers will be kept down, there is a well tried and tested pairing system, and discussions are going on between the Whips. I expect that any Member who is concerned about coming here will not have to attend or will not be whipped to attend.

With regard to Public Health England, Mr Speaker, you and the spokesman for the Commission are probably better placed to answer these questions, but Public Health England has been involved in many discussions. The House authorities have liaised very closely with PHE throughout the whole process. That is why these markings are down on the floor. That is why, Mr Speaker, your plan for effectively a roll-call Division is being tested—it worked rather well yesterday—rather than using the Division Lobbies. That is on advice, which is being followed, and we are acting in line with other businesses that are planning to come back to work. Finally, as regards the hon. Gentleman’s question on whether we are obeying the law, of course the House of Commons and Her Majesty’s Government are obeying the law.

Conduct of Business After the Whitsun Recess

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Tommy Sheppard

Wednesday 20th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Government’s advice is clear: work from home if you can. But what I and many others have increasingly realised is that this House cannot work effectively without meeting physically. Take last week for example: no debates on secondary legislation; no Public Bill Committees; no Delegated Legislation Committees. Compare that to a fairly standard and not particularly busy physical sitting week, such as the week commencing 2 March. That week the Commons considered the stages of four Bills instead of one and nine statutory instruments instead of none. In addition to Chamber time, the House held seven Delegated Legislation Committees and four Public Bill Committee sittings. I therefore very much welcome my hon. Friend’s valuable point that MPs’ work is absolutely essential and that we cannot do it from home.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]]

The position taken by the Leader of the House is reckless, cavalier and downright dangerous. Surely it is his job to make sure that elected Members can represent the views of their constituents, yet he now proposes to force Members to make a choice between standing up for those who elected them and putting their own health and the health of others at risk. The Leader of the House talks of an ancient right to enter Parliament, but what good is that right if it cannot be executed without endangering the lives of one’s family and constituents? Switching off the computer and barring Members from participating online will reduce the ability of Members of Parliament to scrutinise the Government. It is simply Orwellian to pretend that it will enhance it. Moreover, this will not affect everyone equally. Those who are older and suffer ill health will be disproportionately affected, as will those who live farthest away. Has he undertaken an equalities assessment of this proposal, and does he think that removing the existing arrangements is compatible with the laws of equality of treatment of persons in the United Kingdom?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the remarks I made some moments ago when I said that I would like to reassure those Members with underlying health conditions who have been told to shield or who are receiving specific Government advice about their health that we are working with the House authorities to see how they can continue to contribute to proceedings within the House? We recognise the importance of that, but we also recognise the need for business to continue. I understand that the Parliament in Holyrood is still meeting, although with a third of Members turning up and moving all over Scotland to get there, so I slightly think that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Tommy Sheppard

Wednesday 13th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I absolutely understand the vital role that the tourism industry plays in my hon. Friend’s particularly attractive constituency and his concerns that many people will want to go there. The Government’s guidance on second homes remains clear. Restrictions on travelling to exercise have eased, but it is not permitted to travel to a second home or to remain overnight in a holiday destination. As we ease restrictions, everyone must continue to follow the rules. As the recently published Command Paper states, the Government will announce easing measures for different parts of the country in line with the scientific advice. The Government’s objective is to return to our way of life as soon as possible, but it is vital that we do not waste the sacrifices that have already been made, and I understand why that is a particular concern to my hon. Friend.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]]

I should first make it clear that yesterday, when I questioned the wisdom of going ahead with next week’s recess, I was in no way suggesting that the staff of the House should not get the leave to which they are entitled. I was simply wondering whether, given the current emergency, it might be possible to do that without closing the business of the Chamber completely. If we are to go ahead with the recess, I would seek an assurance from the Leader of the House that there will be no dramatic changes in Government policy while the House is unable to question Ministers, and that if such a change is required, the House will be recalled to consider it.

The Leader of the House is extolling the fantasy that on 2 June, we can go back to the way things were without special procedures being in place. If he genuinely believes that, I have some specific questions. How can 650 Members of Parliament possibly work safely in a building of this size and lay-out? What should happen to those who are shielding and have received a letter from the chief medical officer? What should happen to Members who belong to one of the identified vulnerable groups? What procedures will apply in the light of a Member becoming symptomatic or being diagnosed as having the virus as a result of returning to this place? Should Members in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland ignore the advice of their respective Governments to work from home?

In my view, to try to force Members to return to this Parliament in person without those questions being answered is unbelievably reckless, and it will place Members, staff and the wider public at risk. It will also disenfranchise many. I asked the Leader of the House some weeks ago what exactly requires the physical presence of MPs in the Chamber and what aspects of our job cannot be done remotely. I have yet to receive an answer. Is it therefore the case that his decisions are motivated not by necessity but by personal preference?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Yesterday, as the hon. Gentleman crackled through the ether, he was hard to hear, and it was hard to be clear what he was saying. His complaint was that we in the Chamber had an unfair advantage over those who were remote. Today, it is unfair that we should be here in person at all, because we should all be as disadvantaged as he is by being here remotely. That is explanation in itself of why we need to come back: the Chamber does not operate properly when it is done on a remote basis.

On the numbers, the hon. Gentleman suggests that the acres of space at the Palace of Westminster are not large enough for 10%, if not less, of the people who work here on a daily basis. The Chamber is marked out for social distancing. We can get 50 people into this Chamber, which, it has to be said, is often as many as are here for an ordinary debate. It is only on high days and holidays and Prime Minister’s questions that the Chamber is bursting at the seams.

As you so rightly said in your statement, Mr Speaker, there is no change to the social distancing advice. There is no change to the advice to Members’ staff to continue to work from home. The numbers coming into this estate are a fraction of what they normally are, because we have no tours, we have no commercial banqueting and we do not have the thousands—sometimes, tens of thousands—of people who come in every day. We are just requiring MPs to do their job, because, as the hon. Gentleman eloquently pointed out in his electronic communication, their job cannot be done properly from a remote distance.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Tommy Sheppard

Monday 11th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Government are trying to provide as many statements as is reasonably possible. There was one by the Prime Minister earlier, and there will be one from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and one from the Department for Transport tomorrow, so we are running through a pattern of statements. The Health Secretary has been very good at keeping the House up to date on matters that fall within his Department. I am sure we will continue to be kept up to date on all these matters.

As regards the two SIs, there is no date for them at the moment, but the one relating to Northern Ireland has to be brought before the House in due course, because of the requirements of the Act under which it falls.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]]

The events of the past 24 hours must surely have brought home to the Prime Minister the benefits of seeking to engage Parliament, rather than using staged media events to take forward the Government’s response to the current crisis. Had he done that, we might not now be in a situation where the public health message in most of the UK has been compromised and confused.

There is, however, also an onus on Parliament to improve the way we receive and debate Government proposals. I welcome this decision to extend the general debate, but the Leader will know that, even with this, there will still be a great number of Members who would want to contribute and who are unable to do so. My plea is not only that we devote more time for Parliament to discuss the Government’s response, but that we do so in a more joined-up way. Tomorrow, our business comprises two statements, one urgent question and one debate, all on the same subject. For the most part, Members will only be able to ask questions and not comment on or discuss the Government’s proposals. The public must be wondering why we do things in such an apparently haphazard and unstructured way. It is repetitive and inefficient, and it hinders the ability of Parliament to scrutinise the Executive.

Given that our world has turned upside down and that we have changed so dramatically the way we conduct our proceedings, is it not time to alter our rules of debate, to allow the Government to outline their proposals and for those to be debated with urgency? We will discuss the extension of emergency Standing Orders tomorrow. I ask the Leader of the House to consider at that time ways in which we can better debate and agree the most important steps in responding to the crisis.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I would not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the last 24 hours. What the Government have set out is extraordinarily clear and sensible. As we move out of lockdown, inevitably we are trusting people more to make judgments for themselves. It is, of its nature, less prescriptive than the lockdown had to be, and there is a great deal of clarity within that.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the way we debate things. That is why we are so keen to get back to a physical Parliament rather than a hybrid Parliament—because the flexibility of a physical Parliament allows for the interventions, the cut and thrust of debate and the natural progression of discussion from statements through to business around statutes being introduced that make Parliament so effective and such a good place for scrutiny and legislative procedures. I commend to hon. and right hon. Members alike the excellent article by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) setting out why, to her surprise, a hybrid Parliament has not been as satisfactory as the real deal. I am keen that we should get back to the real deal as soon as possible.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Tommy Sheppard

Wednesday 6th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and assure him that I, too, am looking forward to returning as soon as possible to the tried-and-tested means of a physical Parliament, which has significant advantages over a virtual Parliament. Although it has been necessary to begin to look for alternative solutions on a temporary basis to ensure that scrutiny can continue, it is intended only to be temporary. I am grateful to the Procedure Committee for its swift assessment of the House’s voting system, but we want to get back to a fully physical voting system, not a hybrid system.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]]

May I commend our digital team for perfecting electronic voting? I am pleased that we now have a system of voting that is simple, safe and secure, and unlike the Leader of the House I look forward to it becoming a permanent aspect of our procedures.

A lot of disquiet has been expressed—including by you, Mr Speaker—that a major statement of Government policy in relation to the crisis should be made first to the press rather than to Parliament. I had expected that there might be something on today’s Order Paper to indicate a Government statement on Monday. Will the Leader of the House confirm that there will indeed be such a statement to the House, and that it will be made by the Prime Minister himself?

Neil Ferguson’s resignation shows the importance of the Government leading by example. At a time when we are obliging many in the population to endure the privations of lockdown, it seems very off-message for us to be talking about how we can get out of it. Will the Leader of the House tell us what actually requires the physical presence of MPs in the Parliament building? What is it that cannot be done remotely? I believe we should embrace the technological changes made necessary by this crisis and try to make them work better, not engage with them with stubborn resistance and insist that they are but temporary. To that end, I return to the point that I raised last week: we talk of a hybrid Parliament, but in fact what we have achieved is the ability for some to join the physical discussion in the Chamber remotely. The entire thing is still contingent on a physical meeting taking place in the Commons Chamber.

Surely it is now time to consider making use of the digital platform to allow a fully virtual sitting of Parliament. I know that our staff have the expertise and capability to make that happen. It would ensure that there are not two classes of participant and that all Members—including you, Mr Speaker—are on a level playing field. Does the Leader of the House know of any reason why this cannot be done under the provisions currently agreed? If there is a reason as to why the current Standing Orders prohibit such an experiment, will he take the opportunity of the review scheduled for next Tuesday to introduce whatever changes are necessary to make this happen?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s comments with regard to the digital voting, and for the tribute he paid to the House staff for doing that. I re-emphasise its temporary nature. We have proceeded with almost unanimous consent to achieve a hybrid Parliament. We would not have done so had people thought this was a sleight of hand—a prestidigitation—to try to change our procedures on a permanent basis. It has been important to maintain the good will of all parliamentarians.

As regards the statement on Sunday, I think the Prime Minister’s answer at Prime Minister’s questions was the right one. Although the week starts on a Sunday, the business week starts on a Monday, therefore the announcement is being made in preparation for the business week on a Monday. It is therefore the right time to do it, but I can confirm that there will be a statement on Monday. [Interruption.] I notice some giggles in the Chamber, although, Mr Speaker, I am not sure I am meant to notice the giggles emanating from the Chair. It slightly surprises me, because I do not think there are any plans for the House to meet on Sunday.

As regards the hybridity of this Chamber, this House must lead by example. The Government have set out in their guidelines that those who cannot work from home are entitled to and ought to carry on working, especially those in crucial roles. To pretend our democracy is not crucial undermines and undervalues the whole purpose of our democracy. What goes on here—the holding to account and the legislation—is essential, and when we are asking other people to work and to go to their places of work, we should not be ones who are exempt from that. I am glad, therefore, that we have made a hybrid system work.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Tommy Sheppard

Wednesday 29th April 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

What a pleasure it is to hear from my hon. Friend in his Somerset fastness—assuming that is where he is—and to admire the collection of ornaments behind him, so elegantly displayed for our delectation.

The spending of public money must always be held to account. It is of utmost importance that what is taken from taxpayers is spent responsibly by the authorities who spend it. The Government have provided £1.6 billion extra for local councils, and £3.2 billion will come in the fullness of time. That money must be accounted for by all councils, even those covering the great county of Somerset.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]]

First, will the Leader of the House confirm that he will introduce a motion to establish the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs for our next meeting on Monday? He will know that the SNP has withdrawn the amendments that we had tabled on that matter, so there is no need for a Division, and it is important that that vital Committee is up and running as quickly as possible.

Secondly, may I express concern about the speed with which we are progressing on implementing electronic voting? I am well aware that there are some Members of Parliament who view such proceedings with suspicion and, indeed, disdain, but I hope that any attempts to placate those views are not the reason for the delay. Perhaps the Leader of the House would update us on when we might expect firm proposals.

Thirdly, how does the Leader of the House intend Members to contribute in learning from the experience of using digital platforms this week, and in how we might develop that facility? It seems that this hybrid Parliament—while I welcome it and the great effort that has been made by many people to make it happen—has a fundamental flaw. It is not really a virtual meeting—it is a means by which some of us can contribute remotely to physical proceedings in the Chamber, so it will always create two classes of participant, whether we like it or not. As an experiment, I wonder whether we can consider having at least one sitting of a full Parliament in which everyone participates on the same basis and does so remotely, so that there is a level playing field and we can at least consider whether that is something with which we wish to continue.

Finally, I note that on 11 May we will have a general debate on the covid crisis and the Government’s response. Rather than that taking place in the abstract, with people chipping in whatever they want from their constituencies, there would be a more focused discussion if the Government could bring to the Chamber at that time their proposals for the second phase of their response. We are now more than halfway through the first phase, and unless we have the opportunity to consider what happens next, I fear that many of our citizens will get increasingly frustrated and disenchanted with what the Government are doing. We need to keep them on board, so having firm proposals to discuss would be exceptionally welcome.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am glad to bring pleasure to the hon. Gentleman, in that the motion on the Scottish Affairs Committee will be back on Monday. May I say that I am delighted that the Scottish National party is now removing its objections? There is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repenteth, etc.

As regards electronic voting, all that is being done is temporary, and it is worth emphasising that. We would not have achieved the consensus across the House to allow these procedures to be implemented if there were any thought that it were permanent. It is being done on a temporary basis, and implemented as quickly as possible. I hope that we will be able to experiment with electronic voting on 11 May, subject to the Procedure Committee considering the proposals and to testing with a large number of Members to ensure that it works.

As regards the hybrid Parliament or all being virtual, I think the hybrid Parliament is actually working well. It is a good indication that those who need to come into work are right to come into work. That has always been the Government’s policy, and people coming in is something that they are entitled to do. It is of great antiquity that we have a right to attend Parliament; it goes back to 1340. I think the way you have run these proceedings, Mr Speaker, has made it quite clear that there is only one class of Member of Parliament and that every Member is given exactly the same treatment: there are no interventions, there is no extension on speaking time and there is no ability to intervene for those who are in the Chamber. I think there is only one class, and it is first class, because of the work done by the House of Commons authorities to get this system up and running as rapidly as possible.

Finally, on 11 May, it will be a general debate. It would be too early to pre-empt what may be said and whether the Government’s five tests have had any fulfilment by that stage—that is still quite a time off—but I was responding, as Leader of the House, to the many requests from Members to have a general debate.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Tommy Sheppard

Thursday 19th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I welcome my hon Friend back to business questions. We have missed him, and I am glad that he is not forced stay at home and is therefore able to raise that point. Consular staff are providing assistance to Mr Sandhu’s son, and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has set out how it can help in its publications available on gov.uk, called “Support for British nationals abroad: a guide” and “Arrested abroad”. We can consider intervening with the local authorities if a detainee is not treated in line with internationally accepted standards or with consent, to raise concerns about mistreatment. However, as my hon. Friend will understand, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office cannot interfere in the judicial and legal processes of another country. We can make representations, but we cannot force. My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

Last night I was due to speak at an event for which more than 300 people had registered but, because of the crisis, the organisers took the event online and all those people were able to participate from the convenience and safety of their own homes. What surprised me was that the hardware I required to do that was none other than the standard issue iPad I was given five years ago by this Parliament. I say that because it convinces me that the technology is available for us to continue to have informed democratic debate without the necessity of having to meet in this Chamber.

Is the Leader of the House considering such procedures? Alongside things such as changing our Standing Orders to reduce the attendance required to make legislation, there are also mechanisms whereby people can represent their constituents and press the case that they want to on behalf of the people who elected them without the necessity to actually attend the Parliament, and I think we need to do a lot more on that.

With regard to the emergency legislation, which we shall see shortly, I wanted to ask a specific point as to whether that will give the Government the scope to take action against some people who are engaged in quite disreputable behaviour at this point in time. While the public response to this crisis has brought out the best in people, there are some instances where it has brought out the worst as well. Many people will be shocked by the fact that there are private medical companies profiteering by charging exorbitant fees for testing at this point in time. I believe such people should be detained and their assets should be commandeered and put to the public good. I wonder whether the emergency legislation will give the Government the powers to act in that way.

With regard to the debate about a universal basic income or a minimum income guarantee, which many people feel is essential to avoid perhaps millions of people approaching the Department for Work and Pensions for benefit claims, the Prime Minister gave a guarantee yesterday that he would meet with others and bring forward proposals on that. When might we expect a statement to the House from the Prime Minister on that, and when will such a meeting take place?

Finally, it seems rather surreal and fanciful to be planning to meet not just next week in full, but the week after. Should we not now be taking steps to wind down our formal processes and go to the Easter recess at the end of next week? Would that not be the sensible course of action and indicate leadership to everyone else in the country?

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Tommy Sheppard

Thursday 12th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. Yes, indeed, I would like to record our thanks to the people working in the House who are ensuring that it is kept open, which is of the greatest importance. As my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary said yesterday,

“we have resolved that we will keep Parliament open…the ability to hold the Government to account and to legislate are as vital in a time of emergency as in normal times. Our democracy is the foundation of our way of life.”—[Official Report, 11 March 2020; Vol. 673, c. 377.]

This is of fundamental importance. I can tell the House that our security and frontline staff, including catering staff, are going to be briefed in the same way as people in the Border Force, and that will take place later today. We are trying to make sure—again, Public Health England is being extremely helpful in ensuring this—that people in this House who are working to ensure that democracy is effective and that accountability is working will be treated properly.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

First, I want to return to a matter I raised last week to do with the establishment of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. Last week, the Leader of the House implied that our party had filibustered a decision on that matter and that somehow we did not want the Scotland Office to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, what we are seeking to do is establish a Scottish Affairs Committee that will properly scrutinise the Government rather than one that is jam-packed with Government placemen and women. That is why we have now submitted amendments to the Selection Committee’s proposals that are with the Table Office, and we stand ready to debate them and to test the will of the House on them. Will the Leader of the House make time available for this matter to be discussed so that we can establish a Scottish Affairs Committee?

I too want to ask about the coronavirus and what it means for how we do our business in this place. We are commendably focused across the House on dealing with this emergency, but there seems to be an attitude that what we do here is keep calm and carry on, perhaps mitigating what we do in some respects but doing the best we can in the way that we normally do it, with the implication that there will come a point at which that is not possible, when we will simply stop. I put it to the Leader of the House that there is actually a middle way: we can fundamentally change the way we do things in order to keep ourselves and the public with whom we deal a lot safer. For example, starting next week, we could use the deferred decision procedure in place of having to stand in Lobbies for up to 20 minutes in an extremely confined space with 600 other people. That could be done from the Budget debate onwards for as long as this emergency lasts.

We could also look at ways in which people can vote without having to be here for an extended time, for example, by concentrating all the votes, on all the topics on which they are required, into a single period of the week, so that people have to attend then and not at other times.

We must also surely be aware that the process of self-isolation, which may rapidly increase in the weeks to come, should not mean that we abandon our ability to act as political representatives. In this day and age, the technology is available for people to be able to function from the confines of their own house. Surely it is incumbent on us to look at how we can do that by using teleconferencing for Select Committees and other matters, and allowing people to engage in discussions and debates even if they are not able to attend this building.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I will deal with the second half of the hon. Gentleman’s question first, because this is an area where we want to have as much cross-party support as possible. It is of fundamental importance that we keep this place open, but it is also important that we are treated, and we treat ourselves, in the same way as the rest of the country, and that we go ahead at the same pace as the rest of the country. There should not be a difference in how Parliament is behaving from the advice that is being given to our constituents. That is important; we should not seek to be a special case for ourselves. After the Commission meeting yesterday, I went into the Division Lobby with the expert who had presented to us from Public Health England, and his view, which I am allowed to share with the House, is that the Division Lobby is not a high risk and the only step he would recommend is that we open the windows, because a flow of air would be beneficial. On the basis that the Division Lobby is not high-risk, making major changes to the way we operate would not be the right response, but we wait upon the medical and scientific advice being given to us by the Government and if that changes, we will of course consider whether any procedural changes need to be made. Currently, that is not the case. On those who self-isolate, it will be better to use the pairing system than to try to introduce other measures, partly so that people who are self-isolating or who have coronavirus may maintain patient confidentiality. Some people who may be affected may not want everybody to know, and if we introduce novel methods, that confidentiality may be harder to maintain.

I come to the hon. Gentleman’s point about the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. He was right to say that it would be wrong if he thought that I had implied that the Scottish National party Members had talked out the establishment of the Committee. I made it clear that I thought that they had talked it out. There is no question of my implying it; that was exactly what they did. They talked out the establishment of the Scottish Affairs Committee and the Government are now considering the way forward, including of course the amendments they have tabled. Deliberation will be given to these important matters.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Tommy Sheppard

Thursday 5th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising this point. It is extraordinary how effective the previous Mayor of London was in cutting crime; it is no surprise that he has gone on to even greater things—and it is no surprise that his socialist successor has failed to cut crime. I am glad to say that this Government will provide an extra 20,000 police officers, and are reinforcing stop-and-search powers to ensure that crime can be reduced across the country.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

At a time when almost the entire country is focused on coronavirus and its implications, observers of our proceedings will find it strange that the matter does not appear on our agenda. Would it not be proper to have a discussion in the Chamber that gave the opportunity for more in-depth consideration than can be afforded by a series of 20-second questions to a Minister? I do not for one second suggest that we should try to second-guess the medical response to the virus—we should simply take the expert advice and make sure that the resources are available to implement it swiftly—but it is clear that there will be profound social and economic consequences from the virus that will require a public policy response from this Chamber. The sooner we start on that, the better.

I am thinking in particular of those companies that will be more affected by the virus than others. Obviously, there will be an effect on every company, but for some, particularly those producing public events, the difference will be between living and dying; the virus will potentially put them out of business. I am thinking of such events as the Edinburgh festival, which is important to not just the city but the entire Scottish and UK economy. Decisions on it are being taken now; the risks are being taken now. Those involved would take succour from Parliament deciding in principle, though perhaps not providing details, that support will be given to people engaged in these activities. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

The Leader of the House will know that on Monday, the House ran out of time to discuss a proposition from the Committee of Selection on the composition of the Scottish Affairs Committee—the rather bizarre proposal that the Conservative party’s representation on that Committee be increased, even though its representation in the country of Scotland as a whole reduced by 50% in the recent election. When will the House have the opportunity to conclude that debate, and when can we put amendments before the House to ensure that the composition of the Committee reflects political opinion in Scotland?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

To answer the second part of the question first, it is of course very sad that the SNP decided to talk out the motion establishing a Scottish Affairs Committee. It is surprising that a party that calls itself the national party of Scotland does not want to have a Committee looking into Scottish affairs. The Government will of course deliberate and consider when it is right to bring forward a motion on the subject, but it is ironic that those who wish for more Scottish debate are those who decided not to have a Scottish Affairs Committee. I know a little bit, dare I say, about the procedures of this House, and I know when somebody is trying to talk something out, and that is exactly what happened. One might think, if it were not disorderly to suggest it, that the SNP were filibustering—to stop themselves having the opportunity to discuss things. It was a filibuster with remarkably little point.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Tommy Sheppard

Thursday 27th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Of course we should be generous to those who have served the country. Medals do not fall within my immediate area of responsibility, but I will raise the matter directly with the Secretary of State for Defence on behalf of my right hon. Friend.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

The schedule that the Leader of the House has presented today takes us to a date that is precisely three months since the general election, but I have to say that I am still finding the pace of the agenda he puts before us rather sedate. I am left wondering when this Government will get into gear, and whether their proposals for radical reform are not nearly as expansive as their public relations department would have us believe.

This week both the Scottish Government and the UK Government are hosting major events on the drugs crisis afflicting every part of this Union. There is a growing awareness in this Chamber that the law needs to change in order to allow more effective interventions that can save lives. Will the Government therefore bring forward a debate on the drugs crisis in the United Kingdom so that we can look at changes to both secondary and primary legislation?

I also want to talk about the procedures for English votes for English laws and for the estimates. The Leader of the House may remember that when EVEL was introduced my party made the argument that many of the matters that are reserved to England and Wales have consequences through the Barnett formula for the funding of services in Scotland. We were told at the time that because Barnett was essentially about money rather than policy, the proper time to debate it would be when the House considers the estimates.

We have a bizarre situation coming up next week, when the House will be asked to approve hundreds of billions of pounds for public expenditure without any debate at all. I know that is because the Liaison Committee has not yet met, but that is hardly our responsibility. Will the Government therefore make arrangements to allow the House to debate the estimates, and to enable us to move amendments about the consequences they will have for public services in Scotland?

Finally, I gently say to the Leader of the House that the fact that he will not answer my question does not make it go away, so I will ask him again. When will the Government bring forward proposals to deal with the fact that they do not have a mandate north of the Scottish border? I say that in a week when another opinion poll has been published, this time asking people whether they wish to have a referendum on the question, and 55% of the Scottish public now want a referendum within the lifetime of this Parliament. When will the Government stop ignoring that and deal with it?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I will deal with the hon. Gentleman’s last point first. He makes a typical confusion. When an answer is given that is not the answer that is wanted, that does not mean that the question has not been answered; those are two separate concepts. I refer him to the answer I have given previously from the Dispatch Box.

With regard to the speed with which the Government have got off the starting blocks, we are the Lamborghini of Governments, or the Ferrari of Governments—I have never known nought to 60 to be achieved faster. If Members prefer, we are the Aston Martin of Governments. I was quite tempted to say that we are the Bentley of Governments, but my 1936 Bentley takes so long to get to 60 mph that that would not necessarily be the right comparison. Bear in mind that within a few weeks of the general election we had legislated to leave the European Union, and that was perhaps the most fundamental piece of legislation we could have passed.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the important issue of the drugs conference that is happening in Scotland today. We are concerned about the rate of drug deaths in Scotland, which is three times higher than the UK average, so it is quite right the conference is taking place in Scotland. There needs to be a balanced policy, involving a mix of enforcement—some dozens of people were arrested yesterday alone in a number of raids over the county lines problem—and treatment. Working out precisely where policy should go is the right thing to do, and I am sure that there will be statements and debates in this place once that is done.

As regards estimates and EVEL, I have sympathy for what the hon. Gentleman is saying. There are deadlines by which the estimates have to be approved, but the Government are conscious that they owe the Liaison Committee and the Backbench Business Committee time to consider these issues. That will be an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman and his party to debate the matters that they wish to bring forward.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Tommy Sheppard

Thursday 13th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend possibly means United Kingdom Day rather than United Nations Day, which, from memory, is 24 October. If we are thinking of a date in June, is not 18 June a particularly special day, Mr Speaker?

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

Given the events of today, I suppose we should congratulate the Leader of the House on surviving, at least thus far, the Cabinet cull that is currently under way. We should be grateful that our business is led by someone who has proven his indispensability to the Prime Minister.

I want to make a general comment on the business because, not for the first time, it appears to be somewhat lacklustre and thin. We now seem to be moving to having Opposition day debates on an almost weekly basis because of the Government’s inability to fill their timetable. Some of the matters in this statement are relatively minor, or there is no great disagreement on the direction of travel, merely, as in the case of the environment, on the speed with which we should be progressing.

Given the Prime Minister’s bravado in the aftermath of the election, when can we expect to see, in legislative proposals, the Johnsonian vision for the future of Britain? When can we expect something rather more meaty than the proposals before us today? Or is it the case that, in fact, the Government do not have the ideas to which they alluded during the election campaign?

Finally, I return to the question I have now asked several times simply because I have not yet had an adequate answer. When will this Government bring forward proposals to recognise the fact that they do not have a mandate for their programme in the nation of Scotland? The result on 12 December made it clear that people in Scotland wish to choose an alternative direction to the one proposed by the Government, and the Government should not continue to ignore public opinion in Scotland in this way.

When I have previously asked the Leader of the House about this, his response has been, “Oh, there was a referendum six years ago that settled the matter.” Well, I ask him again. Does he accept the notion of the claim of right for Scotland and that the people who live in that country have the right to determine the form of government best suited to their needs? Does that right exist today, or is it just a matter of history?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his gracious welcome of my continuing presence. I am sure that if I am suddenly called away, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries), will be more than able to take over for the rest of the session.

The Government are bubbling over with brilliant ideas; I have never known a Government with more ideas coming through. Chairing the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee, I see these fantastic ideas. Parliamentary draftsmen are drafting away at the speed of light to prepare an exciting outpouring of Bills, which were announced in the Queen’s Speech and which will be coming through. To say that what we are offering up after the recess is “thin” is absurd. We are having a fundamental Environment Bill, which will legislate for the future of our environment and be a world-leading Bill. We also have the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill, which will ensure that we are at the forefront of medical technology. Those are two fundamentally important Bills. If necessary, we will also be dealing with the remaining parts relating to a terrorism Bill safeguarding the nation. Some Members really are hard to please! We then put in an Opposition day, and for the Opposition to complain about Opposition days is like turkeys complaining that Christmas has been cancelled—it seems to me to be an eccentricity. As regards the claim of right, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I have given several times before.

Business Statement

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Tommy Sheppard

Tuesday 11th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

Like the shadow Leader of the House, we support the intentions behind the Bill. As all Scottish Members will know, we long ago separated the concept of early consideration from the actuality of the outcome of that consideration, so we look forward to seeing the details of the legislation. However, the Government have said that they regard this as a matter of extreme urgency. It will be possible to conclude the Bill’s Commons stages tomorrow, but if it then goes to the other place and its Members choose to make amendments, when will this House consider those amendments, and when might there be a prospect of our actually getting the Bill on to the statute book? We seem to have approached this in a somewhat haphazard way when it comes to making a timetable.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has been in touch with the justice Minister in Scotland, and I am grateful for the collaboration that there has been across all parties in the House. The other place obviously regulates its own business, but the urgency and the message coming from this House are very clear to its Members, and I therefore expect that they will handle this in a reasonable manner. Of course if they make amendments those will come back to this House in the normal way, but as there is cross-party agreement and the Opposition Front Bench has considerable influence in the other place, I anticipate that the business will be concluded swiftly in both Houses.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Tommy Sheppard

Thursday 6th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend’s constituency is exceptionally beautiful and attractive—just for the record, it is not quite as beautiful as Somerset, but none the less—and I understand completely the concerns about the possible implications of development in the Oxford to Cambridge arc, and particularly about proposals for a new road link between Oxford and Milton Keynes. The Government will provide an update in due course on whether the Oxford to Cambridge expressway project should continue, but I recommend that my hon. Friend raises the issue prior to the recess in the debate on matters to be considered before the forthcoming Adjournment, because that is exactly what that occasion is designed for.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I have two questions for the Leader of the House this week. The first is: when can we expect the Government to bring forward proposals to scrap the English votes for English laws procedure, which is now an embarrassment to this Parliament and everyone in it? I ask because this week saw the outrageous spectacle of Scottish Members of Parliament being denied the opportunity to participate at Committee stage in legislation that would have a direct and material effect on the people they represent. The NHS Funding Bill will have an effect on the Scottish block grant, and it will therefore have an effect on the money available for my constituents. As much as the Government may try to laugh it off, this is actually a very serious matter that should be of concern to anyone who calls themselves a democrat.

My second question relates again to the Scottish claim of right. When I last asked the Leader of the House when he would bring forward legislation so that the Government might recognise and deal with the fact that they do not have a mandate in Scotland, he gave me a rather flippant response. In order to understand the Government’s motivation, let me ask him again: does he agree with the concept of the claim of right for Scotland, and does he agree that it is something that continues to exist, after 18 September 2014? I ask that question because not once, not twice, but three times since we last discussed it opinion polls have been published in Scotland that give an indication to the thinking of people in that country, and every single one shows that there is now a majority of people who wish Scotland to become an independent country. I congratulate the Government, because that rise in public opinion for independence is entirely their responsibility and entirely their contribution. I assure the Leader of the House that, when we in the SNP get started on our campaign, that figure will rise even further. If the Government really want to do something about the integrity of the Union, surely it is time for them to recognise the different situation that pertains in Scotland.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

With regard to the English votes for English laws issue, I remind the hon. Gentleman that his party did not oppose the programme motion, which led to there being no Report stage, during which it would have been possible to move amendments. However, all Standing Orders of the House are considered and are open to discussion through the Procedure Committee. A new Procedure Committee is in the process of being established—the Chair has been elected—and although it would not be for me to tell the Committee what its business ought to be, this may well be a matter that it would like to look at.

As regards the Scottish claim of right, the decision was made in 2014. The right was debated, the vote was held, and the SNP lost. Sometimes it is hard to accept a defeat, but that is what happened. The people of Scotland voted to remain in the United Kingdom. Dare I say it, but on the first Opposition day offered to the SNP, did SNP Members go for the subject that they raise all the time, that comes up at business questions week after week, and that they constantly want to discuss? When they get their half day, do they decide to debate the claim of right? No, they think of something else.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Tommy Sheppard

Thursday 23rd January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend, who represents Cleethorpes with such panache, is quite right to advocate for his part of the country. I am sure that what he says will have been heard and that the Food Standards Agency could probably think of nothing nicer than moving to Grimsby, but that will probably be a matter for it rather than for me.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

Can I start by asking when Heather Anderson will be appointed to the European Parliament in order to fill the position left vacant by the election of my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) to this House? We regard it as being of the utmost importance that our country is fully represented, albeit in its dying days of representation in the European Parliament, in order to oppose the direction that the Government have taken in that body. It would be wrong if either through administrative oversight or a lack of political enthusiasm we were not to be fully represented. Yesterday in the House, the Minister for the Cabinet Office gave a rather lacklustre response to my colleague on this matter. I hope that the Leader of the House can do better today.

Secondly, I note that the Labour Opposition are to have two full Opposition days two weeks in a row. Will the Leader of the House confirm when the third party will be given an Opposition day?

Finally, I want to return to the matter I raised last week—the claim of right for Scotland. Despite a rather awkward moment when the Leader of the House compared the constitutional aspirations of the nation of Scotland to those of the county of Somerset—a move I thought was rather foolish—he did acknowledge last week that the claim of Scotland is something he agrees with. He seemed to indicate that it was in some way discharged at the Scottish referendum in 2014. Will he confirm whether he believes that the claim of right existed on 19 September 2014 and every day thereafter, or is it the case that a right can be invalidated and extinguished by its exercise?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman forgot, absent-mindedly, to ask for a debate on the claim of right, but I am the servant of this House, because there is a claim of right debate on Monday 27 January in Westminster Hall. I am even able to deliver on that which has not been asked for, which is the type of superior service that those on the Government Benches like to offer. The best I can do is to quote his esteemed leader in this House, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), who said, “Scotland said no”. Scotland did indeed say no—it said no to separation in 2014. It decided in its claim of right to claim the right to be a part of the United Kingdom, and thank heavens for that.

With regard to an Opposition day debate, I am doing my best to ensure that some time will be made available to the SNP prior to the February recess. It is not an absolute promise, but that is what I hope we will be able to do. As regards the European Parliament, I cannot think why anyone would want to go there for eight days.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Tommy Sheppard

Thursday 16th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

When I was a Back Bencher, I thought it was the most brilliant private Member’s Bill ever introduced. I am concerned that there is an allegation of foot dragging. Feet should not be dragged by Governments; Governments should be fleet of foot. I will therefore take up this matter on behalf of my right hon. Friend, although there will also be an opportunity to do so at Transport questions. It may also be something, Mr Speaker, that you would consider for an urgent question or an Adjournment debate, or—heaven forfend—a debate under Standing Order No. 24; we have not had one of those recently.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I note that we are to begin Opposition day debates again, and ask the Leader of the House to recognise that the Scottish National party suffered something of a disadvantage in the last Parliament, in as much as there were about one and a half days of time that we ought to have been allocated, but were not. I hope, therefore, that the third party of the House will be granted an Opposition day in the short term.

I understand that NHS Funding Bill was in the Government’s manifesto, and they made a big feature of the issue in their election campaign, but it really is a political stunt of the greatest order. Notwithstanding that, I understand that we are talking about large sums of money, and it is inconceivable that this would not have consequences for Scotland through the Barnett formula. Therefore may I ask whether this Bill is to be considered in Legislative Grand Committee, either instead of or as well as in Bill Committee? If it is, what opportunity would Scottish representatives have to put forward their views and vote on these matters? If the answer is that they will have none, is this not an unnecessary evil and is it not time, at the start of this Parliament, to reconsider these ill-advised measures that were brought in by David Cameron?

I did not receive a satisfactory response to this question last time, so I ask again: when will the Government bring forward proposals so that this House can consider the fact that it does not have a mandate in Scotland? For the first time in this Union Parliament, the two principal countries have a different political mandate on the question of the constitution. That is not something that this Government should ignore, and it is certainly not something that this Parliament can ignore. If Parliament does ignore it, it will suffer consequences for its integrity. Are the Government going to ignore this, or will they do something about it?

Finally, it would help me to frame future questions if I could ask the Leader of the House personally: is he committed to the claim of right for Scotland, which says that the people of Scotland have the sovereign right to determine the form of government best suited to their needs?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I answer the last question first? Of course I believe in that sovereign right, but the hon. Gentleman’s memory is a little short. The people of Scotland exercised their sovereign right in 2014, and they decided to remain part of the United Kingdom. SNP Members may not like the decision made by the people of Scotland in their wisdom, but that is the decision that was made, and that is why there is a mandate for this Government in Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland—because they are all part of the United Kingdom. It would be like saying that when there is a socialist Government, but Conservative MPs in Somerset, there is no right to rule Somerset. It is not the way a democracy works and I am sorry to say that the point is fundamentally flawed.

Let me come to an area of greater consensus. I am very well aware of how well the Scottish National party did in terms of representation in the local elections—[Interruption.] Sorry, I mean in the general election. I therefore recognise the importance of ensuring that Opposition days are fairly given and that the third party is recognised. The balance between it and the Official Opposition has changed, and that right must be borne in mind in the allocation of Opposition days. On the one and a half days, I kept begging the SNP to take up one of those with a no confidence motion, but it was reluctant to do so in the end, so it was not entirely the Government’s fault that the SNP did not get its full allocation.

On the NHS Funding Bill, I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that I have raised the question of Barnett consequentials, and they apply to the Bill, so it will benefit Scotland. Certification under the EVEL Standing Orders is a matter for you, Mr Speaker, and will come at a later stage. If it were to be so certified, all Members would vote on Second Reading, Report and Third Reading, so opportunities would be available for Opposition Members from all parts of the country to vote on the Bill in its entirety.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Tommy Sheppard

Thursday 9th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I can reassure my right hon. and learned Friend that the animal welfare Bill is a priority of this Government. It has not ceased to be a priority of this Government; there is a busy programme of legislation, but this Bill will remain within it.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

There is always a degree of excitement in starting any new job, and I feel I will have to have an ongoing challenge of curbing my enthusiasm for this one, but let me begin by paying tribute and a word of thanks to my friend and colleague my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who preceded me in this role and who for a long shift—four and a half years—stood here every Thursday to represent my party in his own inimitable style. I intend to pick up where he left off, and while the style may be different I assure Members that the message will be the same.

Let me also say that I very much look forward to a weekly verbal joust with the Leader of the House, and I only hope that we do not have a spoilsport Prime Minister who will dash my expectations by an imminent reshuffle and changing that position.

Turning to the business statement itself, I have to observe that, given the times we are in, it does seem a little self-indulgent to be spending six days debating what is essentially a mission statement by the Government rather than any specific legislative proposals. I understand that the Queen’s Speech debate is important, but is it not time to get on to matters of substance? Even for a Government bathing in the afterglow of an election victory that does seem a little excessive.

There are many things we ought to be discussing that are not in this business statement, and let me offer three this morning. The first is the Government’s proposed departmental reorganisation. If this House is to have the role of scrutiny of the Executive, it is clearly important that we understand what the shape and structure of the Executive actually is. This House ought to be kept up to date on the proposals being made for changes in Government Departments so that we can consider what changes we might need to make to our agenda and procedures in order to adequately hold them to account. Will the Leader of the House therefore please update us on what the obstacles to the current reorganisation are, when they might be resolved and when we can expect an announcement?

Secondly, given the events of the last seven days, we can see that there is a very precarious military and political situation in the middle east. Not only that, but we can see how compromised this country is in trying to influence those events. Should not the Government be bringing forward an urgent debate on these matters so that this House can consider how better we can influence these events?

Thirdly, and finally, when are the Government going to hold a debate recognising the consequences of the 12 December general election, which for the first time has created a situation within this island where the two principal countries have a different political mandate? Are the Government going to bring forward proposals in order to acknowledge Scottish public opinion and to accommodate Scottish political representation? If they do not, and if they do not recognise that their mandate ends at the Scottish border then—

--- Later in debate ---

[Tommy Sheppard]

Apologies, Mr Speaker; this is my first time, but I was a sentence away from my conclusion, which is simply to say that I caution the Government: if they do not do this and do not recognise that different mandate, they are going to become a recruiting sergeant for those on these Benches who wish Scotland to have an independent, alternative future.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his first outing in holding this Government to account and bringing on the fast bowling to start with.

The Brexit Bill started us off, so even before the Queen’s Speech we passed a major piece of legislation, but that does not keep the hon. Gentleman happy; what more can we do?

As I have said, we hope to announce the reorganisation of government today: the share-out of Select Committees begins the process, the Chairmen will then be elected and Committees will be established, and they will be adjusted if there are any changes. This is all perfectly normal. There will be regular statements and oral questions continue. That is all in place; it is there, and it is for the hon. Gentleman to use it.

On the hon. Gentleman’s first go, I do not want to be unkind and point out that, as I said in my statement, we will be debating foreign affairs on Monday. That will be an opportunity to discuss all matters relating to Iran, so I am granting his wish almost immediately after standing up. We also had a statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence earlier in the week.

On the consequences of the election, the hon. Gentleman says that we may become a recruiting sergeant for the SNP, which makes me wonder what he is complaining about. If that is what he thinks we are doing, I would have thought he would be quite pleased. What I would say is that he and other SNP Members must not forget that there was a rather important election in 2014, and it was won by people who wanted to remain in the United Kingdom. There is not the division that he talks of. The United Kingdom is united, and that was what the people of Scotland voted for in their wisdom and good sense.