Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kate Green and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 14th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Value for money is on the face of the Bill; it is a crucial part of what will be going on. When the Bill has completed its passage, it will be issued alongside principles of procurement for Government bodies to follow. This will ensure that value for money is put front and centre, which, it must be said, was the essence of the hon. Lady’s question. She asks what we are doing to ensure value for money, then when we do something to ensure it, she does not like it.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

11. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the cost of phone calls to Government helplines on low-income households.

Committee on Standards

Debate between Kate Green and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 10th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct—that is absolutely true. The initial Commission papers did not say which party, and both my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) and I raised exactly the same concern before we knew that it was a member of the Labour party under question.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House is a member of the House of Commons Commission, which is of course responsible for the oversight of the whole process, including the issuing of the recruitment pack, which specifically indicated what party political activity would and would not be acceptable in a candidate for appointment. Why did he not raise his objection about the nature of the political activity that would be acceptable at the time that the Commission commenced the recruitment?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Commission looked at a broad paper setting out the way the recruitment would take place; it did not look at the details and the questions that the Committee would ask in terms of political affiliation. The issue—[Interruption.] That is just such a fatuous point. It is not about packing it; it is about having people who do not have a political affiliation of a recent kind.

As I said, objections were raised before we knew what party this lady belonged to, because the politicians on the Standards Committee are the Members of Parliament, not the lay members, who need to be impartial. Lay members should be genuinely independent and that did not seem to be the case, so questions were raised. It was at that point that it emerged that Ms Carter had joined the Labour party this year to vote in the Labour party leadership election. It seemed to me that anyone who had recently joined any political party in order to cast a vote in favour of an individual to lead that party, believing that doing so would ensure a viable Opposition, would find it hard to persuade people that they were genuinely impartial. Under those circumstances, it is perhaps not surprising that the House of Commons Commission did not achieve consensus in approving the appointment.

In the light of this candidate’s noted support for one particular Labour leadership contender over another, I find myself in the perhaps unexpected position of juggling the interests of the rival factions of the Labour party. A lay member of the Standards Committee should be impartial towards politics that I do not like as well as politics that I do like.

As Leader of the House, I have a responsibility to all Members to protect their interest, which extends to all Members who competed in the Labour leadership election, some more successfully than others. Let me ask the House what view it would have taken of somebody who applied to join the Standards Committee who had joined the Conservative party just to vote for my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) in the Conservative leadership contest because they believed in the need to get Brexit done. Under those circumstances, we would not be having this conversation. The same principle applies to somebody who joined the Labour party to support one particular candidate.

I do not make these points in an academic, theoretical or philosophical way. It is likely that, in the near future, the Standards Committee will be asked to consider a case relating to the activity or conduct of an MP. In this instance, there is a real risk of the appearance of bias, because this proposed member has made clear her support for one candidate over another and joined a party specifically to vote for that one candidate over the other. We cannot have a situation where a lay member of the Standards Committee is perceived as being linked to a faction within a political party—as it happens, within the Labour party, but it would be just as unsuitable if someone were to be linked to a faction within the Tory party, although of course the Tory party does not have factions. What happens when that lay member is asked to make a judgment about the activity or conduct of an MP from within that faction?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think that is completely wrong, and I also think that the hon. Gentleman is trying to put the cart before the horse. The House is not bound by the rules set for it by the selection process. It is entitled to challenge and question that process. That is the job of the House. We are not a rubber stamp, here merely to approve it.

I come to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). She is a lady of considerable integrity, and I do not and would not question—and would not even think of questioning—that, but the process undertaken by the selection panel has inadvertently created the appearance of a political pas de deux, because the person who was selected by a Committee that had only one Labour politician on it was somebody who had joined the Labour party to vote for a candidate for the Labour party leadership. It is the recruitment process that is at fault here, so I make the observation that we must do better than we have done in this sorry affair and that any future recruitment process for lay members should not make the same mistakes. I reiterate that had somebody been a recent member of the Tory party joining to vote in the leadership election, my view in the Chamber would be exactly the same.

[Kate Green]

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way again. I note what he said about learning lessons for the process in future and I think that is very good advice, but is it not unfair to the candidates who applied for appointment this time to move the goalposts at this point in the process? Does that reflect well on this House, and does it speak to a process that is conducted with complete integrity?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The process is quite clear and it ends with an hour’s debate in this Chamber. The hon. Lady did not tell the candidates that that was the process—that is a matter for her, not for me. That is a right of this House and we must use our rights in this House; that is what we are here for. There has been no change to the process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am questioning her impartiality between various factions within the Labour party, because she joined the Labour Party to support one particular faction. The right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) slightly gave the game away, because I think he thinks that it was his faction that she supports. I do not know that and I am not stating that for certain, but he seemed to imply that in his joy at welcoming the proposed appointment.

The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) asked what the Commission knew. The draft person specification that was approved by the Commission in February made no reference to the issue of whether or not it was suitable for a prospective candidate to be a member of a political party. If that information made its way into the more detailed recruitment pack to candidates, that was not with the authority of the Commission.

We come to the failures of the recruitment process. It would have been absolutely reasonable and wise and sensible for the recruitment process to say that somebody who had been immediately involved in politics—not 20 years ago or not five years ago—could not be certain of being impartial and would not give the impression of impartiality to Members of the House. The hon. Member for Rhondda says that, absolutely, prejudices should be put to one side, but as I said, if people had confidence in that being so easy, we would not have lay members in the first place. The reason we introduced lay members is that we thought people could not put their prejudices aside. From a panel on which, as the hon. Lady the Member for Stretford and Urmston told us, she was the only politician—a Labour politician—we get somebody who was a supporter of a particular candidate in a very recent election. That seems to me to leave the impression, the risk, the danger of partiality.

[Kate Green]

I know that the Leader of the House would not question my integrity; he was kind enough to say so a few moments ago. I am probably the only person in the House who knows who Melanie Carter said she had joined the Labour party to support, and it may help the House to know that it was not the same leadership candidate who I supported.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The point is that we have the presentation of partiality. That is why I was so careful to say that I have the highest respect for the hon. Lady’s integrity. I was careful in my speech not to say that I have the greatest respect for the hon. Lady, because everybody knows those are bogus words; I chose the word integrity because I think it is genuine. However, I think her panel made a mistake, and that is why we are here.

Yes, of course, it is a shame that we are here, but if Opposition Members were to think for a moment, had this person joined the Conservative party to vote for my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), they would unquestionably think that that smacked of partiality. I am afraid it is the same the other way around and I will therefore oppose the amendment. I obviously support the motion.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Business of the House

Debate between Kate Green and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 27th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There is no excuse for abusing people who work in shops. It is quite improper behaviour. I cannot promise a statement, but I will raise his question with the Home Office to see what the response is to the report.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), the shadow Leader of the House, I was pleased to notice the motions for the constitution of most Select Committees. However, they did not include motions in relation to the Committee on Standards and the Privileges Committee, both of which have a long legacy of work left over from the previous Parliament. Will the Leader advise me when he expects those motions to be tabled?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady is right to emphasise the importance of those Committees. Motions will be brought forward as soon as is reasonably practical.

Business of the House

Debate between Kate Green and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 13th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I congratulate my hon. Friend on the campaign that he is waging on behalf of his constituents? I believe that his constituency is the birthplace of King Alfred, and he is dealing with this in a way that King Alfred would, I think, be proud of. The Government agree with the value of reopening stations and lines closed following the Beeching report and will spend £500 million to start reconnecting smaller towns. The Government will listen carefully to proposals, prioritising projects of the greatest potential, viability and economic benefit. As we assess and develop schemes, there is an ambition to expand the funding available. I therefore encourage my hon. Friend to keep making his case, and avoid burning cakes.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Last month, FaithAction was informed that its funding under the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s integrated communities English language programme would not be renewed next year. It is having to make staff redundant, and this will also leave a gap in vital ESOL provision. May we have a statement on what new funding will replace this, and when?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

People cannot assume that funding will continue indefinitely and must always plan accordingly in an ordinary business way. There will be questions to that Department on the Monday that we come back, and I think that is the right time to raise this matter.

Business of the House

Debate between Kate Green and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 3rd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman makes a point that has to be looked into. Every possible facility should be given to those who are terminally ill and every pathway should be cleared for them so that they can receive what they are entitled to. I will take this matter up with the DWP and write to the hon. Gentleman after seeing exactly what the situation is. If it is as he says, I hope that it will be improved.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

May we have a statement on progress in introducing the parking code? ESPEL, which operates a car park in my constituency, is notorious for its punitive treatment of motorists, and I, its industry umbrella body and the landowner seem powerless to do anything about it. Could the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent update on this matter?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight), who was here a moment ago, introduced a private Member’s Bill on parking, and I have a feeling that I put my name to it when I was still a Back-Bench MP, so the hon. Lady will understand that I share her concern about the way in which some of these companies behave. What she is saying is unquestionably important. I cannot promise her a debate, but she may want to raise this issue again in relation to other matters in the Queen’s Speech.

Business of the House

Debate between Kate Green and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 25th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend is a genius at getting debates in this place, so he hardly needs advice from me. He already has an Adjournment debate coming on 4 September, which I expect will be even better attended than this morning’s session. I feel that I am inadequate to advise him on how to achieve more debates, but his subject is indeed a worthy one, and I hope that his plea has been widely heard.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House is known for his courtesy, so I am sure he will agree that language describing Travellers as an invasion or a disease, contrasting them with decent people or talking of them as a problem—all of which have been heard in this House in recent months—is deplorable. Will he arrange a debate, perhaps in Hate Crime Awareness Week after the recess, on how we can use language respectfully towards everybody in this country?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I thank the hon. Lady for her generous compliment. It really is important that we use language properly, that language is effective and that language is powerful. You, Mr Speaker, control how it is used in this House to ensure that it is orderly, but the general tone should be one of generosity and kindliness, and I would always encourage that. I do not think a debate on language in Government time is likely, but as I have said, there are Adjournment debates, Backbench Business debates and Westminster Hall debates. It is a really important issue, and I would encourage and share the hon. Lady’s view that good manners go a long way.

Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill

Debate between Kate Green and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 26th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman’s point is fundamentally flawed. In 1997, the socialist Government decided to stick to Conservative spending targets. That is the one sensible decision that they made. It is not surprising that they managed to reduce the public debt by doing what the Conservatives had said that they would do. As for the deficit that built up before the crisis hit, there was a structural deficit—probably equivalent to 7% or 8% of GDP—which had resulted from excessive and extravagant expenditure. That is the nub of what we are debating today. We need to examine these benefits, and establish whether they are right in principle.

I will declare an interest. My three children have been the fortunate beneficiaries of £250 each—£250 spent extraordinarily well, Members may think, beneficially and wisely, so that in 18 years’ time my children will have something to spend when they are a little older. Is this really a sensible use of taxpayers’ money? It is too small a sum to make a difference even with the benefits of compound interest, yet too large a sum for our public finances to stand when aggregated across the whole of the economy and the total number of children who will be born. It is a wrong benefit, which is rightly being abolished. To contradict the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who spoke before me, it is also a benefit that cannot be spent for 18 years; it will be of no economic benefit until the child is 18.

[Kate Green]

I apologise if I have misled the hon. Gentleman, but what I said was that the health in pregnancy grant would be spent immediately. I absolutely accept that the child trust fund moneys are locked up until the child reaches the age of 18.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I thank the hon. Lady for that useful clarification.

The health in pregnancy benefit is paid to ladies towards the end of their pregnancy so that they can eat properly. Again, my wife was entitled to it. I have in the past been mobbed up somewhat on nannies and issues relating to that subject, but the one type of nanny of which I most firmly disapprove is the nanny state. This patronising approach, saying to these ladies, “You ought to eat your greens and here’s some money so you can do so,” is not what government is about. The Government are here to allow people to lead their lives as freely as they possibly may, without interference from the state while also providing a safety net for those who fall on hard times, not to tell people how to lead their lives, at the expense of the taxpayer and the economy.

Finance Bill

Debate between Kate Green and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 6th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I do not believe that I had mentioned Greece in the few words that I had spoken. I would say, however, that it is better to cut before getting into a Greek situation. I admire my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer because, in his foresight, he has brought forward action early. Countries in a Greek situation find that they can get no money from the financial markets and have to go cap in hand to the International Monetary Fund or the European Central Bank. How much better it is—how much more “prudent”, to use a word once popular with Labour Members—to get our house in order before reaching that state of desperation.

[Kate Green]

rose—

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Of course I will give way.

[Kate Green]

I am following the hon. Gentleman’s argument, I think, thanks to the probing questions of my hon. Friends. Are we not talking about a balance between getting the long-term interest rates sufficiently low and not overreacting and over-dramatising, which I fear the hon. Gentleman is in danger of doing?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady ought to allow me to get over-dramatic before accusing me of being so. Her point is to some extent valid; of course we need to consider these things rationally and deal with them in a sensible and prudent fashion. That is exactly what we have done. The point that I am trying to establish is that the level of debt needs to be tackled urgently. I am not saying that the United Kingdom is bankrupt; there are studies that show that there has been no default on our debt since 1688. I do not believe that the situation was going to lead to a default on gilt-edged securities. We had not reached that stage.