Committee on Standards

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House–

(1) approves the Third Report of the Committee on Standards (HC 797);

(2) endorses the recommendation in paragraph 212; and

(3) accordingly suspends Mr Owen Paterson from the service of the House for a period of thirty sitting days.

As Leader of the House of Commons, it is important that I move this motion to facilitate debate on the report by the Committee on Standards. I have said before that Members of Parliament must uphold the highest standards in public life, which is why the process for this House to consider standards infractions is of the utmost importance. It must be fair and robust, and it must command respect on both sides of the House. There must be tough and robust checks against lobbying for profit, and there must be a proper process to scrutinise and, if necessary, discipline those who do not follow the rules.

However, it is also my role as Leader of the House to listen to the concerns and thoughts of Members on both sides of the House, which are now too numerous to ignore. Since the publication of this report, many hon. Members have expressed their concern about the way in which it was prepared, as is evident in the amendment to the motion tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom).

Today I come not to defend my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) but to consider the process by which he has been tried. It is not for me to judge him—others have done that—but was the process a fair one? “Let justice be done though the heavens fall.” Any disciplinary process concerned, as it is, with people’s jobs and livelihoods must be fair and must respect basic principles of natural justice.

The concerns raised with me in this case and other standards cases by hon. Members from Government and Opposition parties include: the lack of examination of witnesses; the unused mechanism for the appointment of an investigatory panel; the interpretation of the rules relating to whistleblowing; the length of time taken and the lack of continuity in participation and investigations; the application of aggravating factors; and the absence of the right of appeal.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend refers to the lack of appeal, which is a point I have heard on a number of occasions. Are not the oversight of the Committee on Standards and, indeed, the judgment of this House both effective appeal processes in this matter?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Committee on Standards is clearly not an appeal process, because it is the Committee’s report, not the commissioner’s report, that comes before us. The commissioner is the adviser to the Committee and is supervised by the Committee.

I wish this Chamber, as my hon. Friend suggests, were the court of appeal, but as this matter has been discussed we have seen how quickly what happens in this Chamber becomes partisan. [Laughter.] Opposition Members cackle and crow, and they have made my point. It is a sadness to me that this Chamber is not, as one would hope it could be, the apolitical court of appeal for standards cases, but the Opposition have absolutely no desire to do that. We therefore need to consider an independent appeals process, as we have with the Independent Expert Panel.

Business of the House

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 25th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady raises something that will concern the whole House. It is of great importance, and I think it ties in generally with the whole mental health concerns that we have across the country and the need—accepted on a cross-party basis—to do more to help with mental health. That is very much the policy of the Government, with increased mental health funding to £13.3 billion to 2019-20. I was not previously aware that every 62 minutes somebody dies of an eating disorder. That is a figure that will trouble the whole House and is a reminder and a reinforcement that our efforts in regard to mental health must go further, and I think that is something that has cross-party support.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I am very grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to raise this very important issue. Could we have a debate in Government time on the future of faith schools? Ampleforth school in my constituency has had problems in the past, it is fair to say, but those are now behind it. Yet there are some in the education system who are using some relatively minor issues more recently as a pretext for the potential closure of the school. Could we have a debate in Government time so that we can send a very strong message that this House believes that faith schools are an important part of our education system going forward?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Faith schools are fundamentally important, and it is a right of parents to choose to have their children educated in their own faith. That is something of importance to all communities. My hon. Friend rightly says that Ampleforth has had very serious problems in the past, but I understand it now has a new headmaster who has reformed matters and that a decision is awaited from the Secretary of State on its future for admissions. I will pass on to the Secretary of State what my hon. Friend has said, but I absolutely underline what he says: faith schools are a right to which parents ought to be entitled. Speaking as a Catholic, I think that Catholic education is of very considerable importance and worth supporting, and Benedictine education is a particularly noble part of that.

Business of the House

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 17th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

All of us are there in our constituency surgeries to be the advocate and champion of our constituents, and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on doing so, because that is the ancient role of MPs: to seek redress of grievance. I appreciate that in difficult individual cases the generality of statistics is not the greatest comfort to the individual who is suffering, but the overall picture is one of considerable improvement: 400,000 fewer people are now in absolute poverty than were in 2010, and—this is crucial—730,000 fewer children are living in workless households. Work is the route out of poverty. The reduction in withdrawal rates from the switch to universal credit, bringing it down to 62p in the pound from the 90p-plus rate, has been fundamental in helping to reduce poverty, and the number of people in employment is at a record high. I absolutely accept that that is not much comfort to an individual who is in difficult circumstances, but the generality for the country is considerably improved.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the new Business Banking Resolution Service, which is a method of compensation for small and medium-sized enterprises that have suffered historical mistreatment by their banks? The Chancellor stated in his letter of 19 January that the system should carefully consider all cases brought before it, yet research by the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking has identified that 85% of cases are excluded from the scheme by the eligibility criteria.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that he has done on this issue. There is clear evidence that some businesses were treated extraordinarily badly. Some of us, including me, have had constituency cases where the bank in question seems to have behaved quite unfairly towards its business customers. It is important that the resolution system works effectively. I suggest that he takes this matter up again with the Chancellor, and he may also want to raise it during the economy debate on Tuesday. He makes a very powerful point, which I hope will be heard.