Privilege: Conduct of Right Hon. Boris Johnson
Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and William Cash(10 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
It is perfectly reasonable to challenge the views of Select Committees of this House. It is neither eccentric nor, indeed, rare, so I should like to start with some of the things that I think are most contentious in the report, bordering on erroneous.
Let us start with paragraph 48, which makes reference to the fixed penalty notice received by Mr Johnson for the birthday party. It seems to think that the fixed penalty notice is, in fact, an admission of guilt. But in R v. Hamer, Lord Chief Justice Thomas said:
“It is quite clear that the issue of a notice is not a conviction. It is not an admission of guilt nor any proof that a crime has been committed. The scheme of the Act makes that clear. Any person reading the form would plainly understand that it is not to be regarded as a conviction and will not be held against him save in the respect mentioned. It seems therefore clear, both as a matter of the statutory scheme and as a matter of what a person accepting such a notice would reasonably be led to believe, that he was not admitting any offence, not admitting any criminality, and would not have any stain imputed to his character.”
Yet this report, against what a Lord Chief Justice says and against what is a principle of our criminal law, decides to impute a stain upon his character. It seems to me that this is quite clearly a deliberate attempt to take the most unfavourable interpretation of Mr Johnson’s activities, but this is not the only contentious paragraph.
Let us go to paragraph 83, which decides, as if it were an Elon Musk chip, to insert itself in the brain of Mr Johnson to work out what he must have thought at a particular moment. Well, I am glad to say that, as far as I am aware, Mr Johnson does not have one of these little chips stuck in his brain for the Committee’s benefit. Paragraph 83 says
“we conclude that Mr Johnson is unlikely to have been unaware”.
That is an obscure use of a double negative to try to impute malfeasance to somebody where the Committee cannot prove it. The Committee assumes something and imputes something because it wants to come to a particular conclusion.
Sir William Cash
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the very word “disingenuous,” which is used in the context of this report, is in the same category as the things he has just mentioned?
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I refer him further to paragraph 182, on the line to take. Mr Johnson, as Prime Minister, was advised before Prime Minister’s questions to say that the rules had been followed at all times, and the report goes into great detail as to the authority for that advice—who had told him, whether they were senior enough and whether it was right—but it does not ask whether other Ministers were given the same briefing. Was this the cross-Government line to take, approved, as far as I could be aware, by all officials? Well, I can tell the House that, prior to business questions for the weeks when this was at the forefront of public interest, I was given the briefing that the rules had been followed at all times, with “at all times” emphasised. The only reason I did not say this to the House is because the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), the shadow Leader of the House, never had the wit to ask me the right question. If she had, the cross-Government line to take was absolutely clear, yet this report concludes that the Prime Minister, as he then was, was not advised by senior enough people—that they were involved in the press office. The idea that Ministers are not advised by people who work in communications shows quite how long the Opposition have been out of government.
Based on this tendentious reading of the facts, we come to the 90-day sanction. It is a vindictive sanction, it seems to me, that the Committee cannot implement because Mr Johnson has left Parliament, so the Committee goes from the vindictive to the ridiculous by not allowing him a parliamentary pass. Of all the trivial sanctions that could be imposed, that seems to be the most miserable. But the Committee emphasises in paragraph 229 that this sanction has been made more savage, more brutal and more vindictive because Mr Johnson impugned the Committee and undermined the democratic process.
On what basis? Is it thought that this House, when it comes to a conclusion, must be obeyed? Is it the case that we must not criticise the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 because it was passed by this great and noble House, or are we, in fact, allowed to criticise, as a fundamental of free speech, that which happens to us, that which is reported about us and that which is said of us? When a person is in court, they are allowed to say that the court has made a mistake. The protections of the junior courts, in which juries sit, are rightly very strict, but we can still say that the court has got it wrong. Indeed, we are allowed to say a court has got it so wrong that we may go to appeal. We do not have to kowtow but, for some reason, the Privileges Committee thinks it is in communist China and that we must kowtow. The report goes on to say that Mr Johnson was
“complicit in the campaign of abuse and attempted intimidation of the Committee”
without a single, solitary shred of evidence. It is pure assertion.
This leads me on to the issue of partiality. I was most intrigued by the response of the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) to my intervention. She said that she had told the Government, that it had all been approved and that it was fine and dandy. I refer her to paragraph 12 of her own report:
“Our guiding principles included being transparent.”
We suddenly discover, in this transparent approach, that there was a secret agreement that her involvement was all right. Well, I was in the Government at the time, and I never heard that this had happened, so it seems to me that it is important to examine the position in which the right hon. and learned Lady found herself. I note that the Committee does not do this in annex 1, which purports to answer appendix 3. I am sure the House is listening and following very carefully, but appendix 3 is the letter of Mr Johnson in response to the draft report. Fascinatingly, although paragraph 6 of appendix 3, on page 100, questions the impartiality of the Committee, annex 1 ignores that. Annex 1 answers lots of other points, but it rushes over this point, perhaps because the Committee thought it was on relatively thin ice.
EU Retained Law
Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and William Cash(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Rees-Mogg
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that he and I have been consistent in our views on this matter, and therefore it is interesting, as always, to cross swords with him. He brings us to an important issue, because obviously where there are devolved consequences from laws coming back from the European Union, the power to amend will be with the devolved authorities. We have already seen a great flow of power from Brussels to the devolved Administrations so that the Scottish Government have received powers. The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 provided a great swathe of extra powers to the devolved authorities, and that will continue under this Bill and will provide benefits for all the devolved authorities to take back control for themselves. We will indeed ask for legislative consent motions, which is the habit of this Government. I cannot promise whether they will be granted; in that instance, he will be more influence than me.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the enormous progress he is making with respect to the freedoms Bill, and the opportunities that it will give the United Kingdom to regain its sovereignty, its self-government and its democracy? Does he agree, given his experience and having been a member of the European Scrutiny Committee for many years, that one of the most extraordinary aspects of EU retained law is that for about 50 years the laws were made by majority vote in the Council of Ministers—Ministers of other countries—behind closed doors and without even so much as a transcript, unlike in this House, so people did not even know the basis, let alone who had actually voted for them? Does he not regard that as so extraordinary that he would be surprised if anyone could possibly justify legislating for a country in that way, and particularly for a country such as the United Kingdom, with its freedom and democracy? It is completely unacceptable for it to have continued for so long?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the way legislation was made in Europe was entirely undemocratic. It was unscrutinised and then became our law automatically, and if we did not turn it into our law properly, we could be told to jump to by the European Court of Justice. The situation was entirely unsatisfactory. However, because we are a democracy and we believe in the rights of Parliament, we are ensuring that the process of reversing that is done in a proper parliamentary manner, and I hope that he will play his part in that manner.
Parliamentary Partnership Assembly
Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and William Cash(2 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Rees-Mogg
This is one United Kingdom, of which my hon. Friend—the hon. Gentleman, to be more accurate—is a great advocate. It is important to understand that Members of this House can represent the whole of the United Kingdom, otherwise we would be insisting that every delegation should have a Member from Somerset or from Yorkshire, and I can see that that would be attractive. Although I very much understand the importance of Northern Ireland, any delegation from this Parliament can represent the whole of the United Kingdom without trying to divide it up into its constituent parts.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
As a former member of the European Scrutiny Committee, of which I have the honour to be Chairman, the Leader of the House is fully aware of the legal and policy expertise of the Committee’s members. We have been doing this for a long time—in my case, for 37 years on that Committee. If I may respectfully suggest so, I believe it would be wholly appropriate for representation on the UK delegation to be ensured for a reasonable number of members of the European Scrutiny Committee, who would play a very good and sensible role, as we do in COSAC—the Conference of Parliamentary Committees for Union Affairs of Parliaments of the European Union—and other committees, to ensure that we can make a major contribution to the proposed assembly.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend has played a good and sensible role in the history of this nation since he has been a Member of Parliament, and his distinction is, I think, unparalleled in the European debate, so I note what he says. He has of course written to me about this matter and people are aware of the representation that he has made.
Committee on Standards
Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and William Cash(2 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
My right hon. Friend was interrupted in the course of his speech by an intervention; he was about to say something regarding the question of contested cases, which is at the heart of this issue. Report after report, including by the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, has said that in such cases criteria for fairness have to be applied. As he has so adequately stated, this investigatory panel does provide for such a state of affairs but it was not applied by the Committee in this case.
Business of the House
Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and William Cash(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise this pressing matter. We are deeply concerned at the severity and scale of violations of freedom of religious belief in many parts of the world. In December, the Foreign Secretary announced an independent review of Foreign and Commonwealth Office support for persecuted Christians overseas, and there was debate on the persecution of Christians on 6 February. However, this does not mean that we are not concerned about the persecution of other religions across the world. I urge the hon. Gentleman to raise this matter at next month’s Foreign Office questions, but the seriousness of what he has mentioned in the House today has not passed the Government by.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
May I congratulate the Government on the statement that has been made with regard to the future relationship with the EU? Would the Leader of the House note that the European Scrutiny Committee will be fully engaged in this? It is being set up now. The questions of sovereignty and of the vital national interests of the United Kingdom are matters within our remit, and we will be giving them our absolute and total attention in future.
May I ask a question about the procedural motion on high-speed rail? What is this for? Is it not simply to provide for a carry-over motion? Should not phase 2a be rolled into phase 2b?
Mr Rees-Mogg
We are back to 2b or not 2b, which seems to be my hon. Friend’s question. It is a procedural motion of a standard and routine kind that we need for the progression of business.
I am delighted that the European Scrutiny Committee will be bringing its eagle eye to look at the questions of sovereignty. My hon. Friend chairs that Committee with such brilliance. When I served on it for some years, it was one of the best Committees possible to be on. The diligence he applies to this is a model for us all.