Business of the House

Lia Nici Excerpts

Thursday 25th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter, and I would encourage him to raise it with his local commissioners as well, if he has not already done so. They will be responsible for those capital plans. I will make sure that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has heard what he has said, given that her next questions are not until 5 March.

[Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)]

This week, the Diana, Princess of Wales Hospital in my constituency opened its new accident and emergency facilities, which will enable patients to get to expert clinicians sooner than they have been able to do until recently. The building was backed by £4.4 million of Government funding. Would the Leader of the House agree to our having a debate on the amount of infrastructure that the NHS has built since the last election to recognise the scale of the investment and the beneficial effect it is having on patients?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank my hon. Friend and congratulate her on what she has helped to secure for her constituents. The Government are investing record sums to upgrade and modernise NHS buildings so that staff have the facilities needed to provide world-class care for patients, including over £9 billion in this financial year, and totalling over £25 billion over the spending review period. These are incredibly important investments that often not only increase the capacity in places such as her A&E department, but are designed with the staff who will be working in them so that they are set out in the best way for them to deliver good care. I have to say that—in some cases for the first time—this includes facilities for members of staff to enjoy a break and a sleep when they need it.

Business of the House

Lia Nici Excerpts

Thursday 20th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)]

As the Government forge ahead with initiatives, policies and trade deals that we were unable to do when we were a member of the EU, would my right hon. Friend allow a debate on Brexit benefits, particularly the support the UK Government are giving to fishing and seafood processing companies and our preparedness as we take back full control of all our fishing quotas in 2026?

[Penny Mordaunt]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; one of the reasons we left the EU was to enable those opportunities across all sectors, but particularly fishing and food producers. We negotiated successfully a significant uplift in our quota shares following our exit from the EU, as she well knows, valued at about £101 million in new fishing opportunities for the UK fleet in this year alone. The UK seafood fund is investing £100 million into the long-term future of the UK fisheries sector, helping to drive innovation, support job creation and boost seafood exports into new markets—[Interruption.] I heard a yell from a sedentary position; I am not sure quite who it came from. Those opportunities could be maximised if the Scottish Government engaged more with their local coastal communities on their plans for protected marine areas.

Privileges Committee Special Report

Lia Nici Excerpts

Monday 10th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I said that it amounted to a co-ordinated campaign, and it did. Every single one of those examples adds up, encouraging others—members of the public and other politicians—to take part. As I have mentioned, that was made worse by the fact that two of those mentioned as mounting the most vociferous attacks did so from the platform of their own TV shows. The named MPs accused the Committee of being a “kangaroo court” and the process of being a “witch hunt”. In reality, as they must know, that could not be further from the truth. The Committee detailed its processes in advance. It took every possible step to ensure fairness. It took legal advice from the right hon. Sir Ernest Ryder, from Speaker’s Counsel and from the Clerks of the House on how to

“apply the general principles of fairness, the rules of the House, and…procedural precedents”.

[Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)]

On the basis of fairness, does the hon. Lady believe it is fair that Members of this House were investigated and listed in a report without prior knowledge that that was going to happen?

[Thangam Debbonaire]

The Committee was open to the Members concerned making their representations to the Committee in the proper way, and they did not do so. The Committee published a report last summer setting out its intended processes, and Members could have taken part in a number of ways, which I will detail. It made further public comments on its workings when appropriate, and gave Mr Johnson further time to respond to the evidence and make his own submission. In short, the Committee did everything it possibly could to ensure fairness and transparency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Harman]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. If this work of the Privileges Committee is to be done in-house by Members of this House, this House must support them in that work. If the House is not prepared to do that, and it is open season on Members who are put forward for the Committee, we would very quickly find ourselves with an independent, outside process. Most Members of the House want us to keep the process in-house, but to do that we must all respect it.

[Lia Nici]

The right hon. and learned Lady talks about collusion and lobbying. Can she explain how it was that Guardian reporters were briefed before Privileges Committee reports were published for us in this place, and, if she knows who had sight of those reports, who was doing the collusion with those journalists?

[Ms Harman]

Again, this is very unfortunate. I say to the hon. Lady that hon. Members are given a task to do on behalf of the House. They do it to the best of their ability, with integrity, and they should be supported in doing that. Although the hon. Lady was very much against the outcome, which came about on the basis of the evidence, it is not acceptable then to criticise the process, except through the channels and in the ways that I have set out.

Our special report draws upon “Erskine May”. I invite hon. and right hon. Members to read paragraphs 15.14 and 15.16 of “Erskine May”, which make it crystal clear that it is not acceptable for a Member of this House to seek, by lobbying or arousing public hostility, to influence the decision of members of the Committee, or to undermine the Committee’s credibility and authority. All this is about protecting the House from being misled, by ensuring that there is a strong and fair Committee that will, on behalf of the House, undertake an inquiry, and that there are Members prepared to serve on the Committee and able to do that work without interference.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

Yes, I understand entirely the point my right hon. Friend makes. But there are, of course, significant differences between the work done by the Committee and the work of a court. It comes back to the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg), which I enjoyed too much to interrupt. It seemed to me that the point he was making about Lord Hoffmann also bears some scrutiny in this respect. Courts are decision-making bodies. The Privileges Committee is not a decision-making body. The House of Commons as a whole is the decision-making body. There is therefore a difference between the way the Privileges Committee operates and the way in which a court operates. Where I do agree with my right hon. Friend is that it is important to the integrity of the Committee’s investigation that Members of this House, having delegating authority to that Committee to do the work, do not seek to derail it while it happens. That does not mean that they are not entitled to criticise any conclusions that the Committee may reach, and nor is it inappropriate, as I have done myself, for a Member not to agree with the conclusions the Committee has reached.

[Lia Nici]

My right hon. and learned Friend is making a very interesting point. Does he not therefore think that there is some form of contempt when persons who had sight of the report and decided, before the report came to this House and was published, to leak it to a Guardian reporter?

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I certainly do not think that material of that kind should be leaked to newspapers before it is discussed in this House. I have no knowledge of the facts of who did what, but I agree with my hon. Friend that there should be no leaking of that kind.

We can only, in the context of this debate, discuss the motion before us. If for nothing other than novelty’s sake, perhaps I should speak a little bit about the motion. The Committee makes a good argument that, given there is little material difference, either in process or in the potential consequences for a Member being investigated, between privilege cases on one hand and standards cases on the other, the protection that this House gives to the Privileges Committee and the Standards Committee in the exercise of their duties should be the same. That is a good point, but I think it is also worth noting that the motion does not quite achieve that equality. For standards matters, as is quoted in the special report, the code of conduct states that there must be no lobbying of members of the Committee. There is no mention in the code of conduct in that regard of intimidation, or of impugning the integrity of the Committee, as there is in this motion.

Two questions surely arise. First, should those additional considerations of intimidation and impugning the integrity of the Committee be included? Secondly, if so, should they not be included in relation to standards matters also? On the first, it should not really be necessary to say that intimidation is unacceptable, but it surely cannot be wrong to say it, so I completely support its inclusion in the motion.

As for impugning the integrity of the Committee, as I mentioned in an intervention on the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), it must be a possibility that the integrity of a future Committee—not, of course, this Committee or any previous Committee—could be impugned. The Committee cannot be invulnerable to challenge and criticism, if that criticism is merited. But were that to be the case, as Members of this House we have the right to raise our concerns in debates about the Committee’s recommendations and about any allegations about another Member’s integrity. Members of the Privileges Committee, or not, may well raise themselves the sorts of standards and privileges matters that should be the subject of separate investigations. With that clarity that the impugning of the Committee’s integrity, if any, is not appropriate while an inquiry is under way, again that seems to me a sensible inclusion.

On the second question, the position should surely be equivalent for standards and privileges. Although I fully subscribe to the view, expressed by many, that we really need to move on from this, I am afraid that on another day we will probably at least have to return to the question of whether we need to improve the language on the protections we offer to the Standards Committee, so that it can match this motion, which I hope the House will pass this evening. As others have said, I hope it will pass without a vote, but if it does not, I shall vote in favour of it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Lady makes a fair point, although I have two contentions with it. First, on the specifics, the point I was making is that the determination of whether that constitutes harm is put in a report by the people concerned, which then comes back here for us to support, so there is very little review. Secondly, an interesting underlying issue is that we are living through a period when harm is being interpreted differently. The way that people who are much younger than me appreciate how harm is done is different. The amount they are prepared to take on themselves—rather than to say, “Well, that’s just the way the world is,” and not to see it as harm—is much less than it was in my day. That might be a good thing or a bad thing, but it is different for different generations. That is another aspect of how to assess what is harmful, and we are going through such a fluid period that it is difficult.

But the hon. Lady is right: ultimately, I think we would agree, the message today, at the core of this, is to use temperate language. When I came back to the House in 2019, one thing I noticed was how much more coarse political discourse had become in just the two-year period that I was away. It was not just because of the divisions over Brexit or social media; it was also because we were tolerating it. We have a responsibility in this House to oppose that. That is why it is good when we talk across the divide in this House and find agreement, and why that Committee, in cross-party agreement among individuals, was something that we could rely on. The lesson is about using temperate language.

I share the concerns of my colleagues about some of the recommendations. Not only are they difficult to see working in practice, but there will be chilling effects on free speech. We will have to see whether that is the case. I am not defending what was said; I just worry that someone like me, who does not know the law or “Erskine May”, will feel that there are certain things that I may not be able to say, but which perhaps in the past I was —although there are perhaps ways to give reassurances on that.

[Lia Nici]

Does my hon. Friend not believe that there has already been a chilling effect? When we debated the fifth Privileges Committee report, some colleagues were too scared to come here and speak, because they were put under threat by other Members of the House. I was one of only four who dared to come out and express a different opinion, and ensure that we had a rounded debate.

[Richard Fuller]

I hear what my hon. Friend has said. I do not know whether people would say that, but that should clearly not happen in this House. All Members should have the right, and the willingness, to speak without fear or favour. But when I protest about that, I should equally defend that right for members of the Committee. They should be able to look at the issues that they wish to review without fear or favour.

My concern with the motion is that it is perhaps a little too overreaching in what it seeks to do, and is not well structured in its solution and remedies. It has opened up questions that probably need further investigation by other Committees, so that we can achieve something that ultimately provides all Members of this House with clarity on how they should behave and communicate with one another.

Privilege: Conduct of Right Hon. Boris Johnson

Lia Nici Excerpts

Monday 19th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)]

I have to speak in the House today because I cannot see where the evidence is that Boris Johnson misled Parliament knowingly, intentionally or recklessly. [Interruption.] I am from Grimsby, and I have to say it as I see it. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order, it is important to listen to the hon. Lady.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lia Nici]

I have to say it as I see it, because that is what my constituents would want me to do. [Hon. Members: “Have you read the report?”] Yes, I have read it, and I think that is an appalling question to ask a Member in this House. The reality is that Boris Johnson did not knowingly or intentionally mislead the House. [Interruption.] If people would like to listen, the reason I say that is last year, for six months, I was one of Boris Johnson’s Parliamentary Private Secretaries. I was the only Member of Parliament who was with him for the whole day on the publication of the Sue Gray report.

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

The hon. Lady says having read the report that she sees no evidence of Boris Johnson’s wrongdoing. Does she agree that there is none so blind as those who will not see?

[Lia Nici]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, but I am aiming my speech at members of the public who have got more interesting things to do than to spend their time reading the whole of the report, as I unfortunately did. I suggest that people go to pages 85 to 88 and read the quotes. The reality is that there were some people who had parties, but sadly those people were unelected officials who still should have stood by, making sure that they were not putting Ministers potentially in difficult situations by advising them incorrectly.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister led all of those people. He was the team leader for all those working at No. 10 and in the Cabinet Office who were at those parties. During lockdown, I volunteered at West Middlesex Hospital, taking food to the wards because the staff working in them were not allowed to go to the canteen. They certainly were directed by the chief executive of the hospital trust that they could have no parties—not even leaving parties, not even wine Fridays. They had no parties for that whole period. Does the hon. Member have any comprehension of what her constituents in the same position were feeling like when they heard the evidence?

[Lia Nici]

Yes, I do. What we need to look at here is what I witnessed first-hand, and what happened was that people advising the then Prime Minister at no point advised him that there were parties. They advised him again and again—

[Sir Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Lia Nici]

No, I will not give way at the moment. Those people advised the then Prime Minister again and again that no rules were broken and that guidance was followed at all times. Everybody in this place knows that no Minister stands at the Dispatch Box and knowingly misleads. They have to take counsel from people who advise them, many of whom are giving legal advice that they know to be the truth, but the public do not necessarily know that that is the case. If you are a Prime Minister and you are advised in that way again and again, no matter how you question that advice, you have to stand at the Dispatch Box and give those statements, because that is what you have been legally advised to do. People may not like that, but that is the truth, and that is why I am standing here and saying this.

The sad thing is, many people who gave that advice are still working in and around No. 10 and Whitehall, but we do not know who they are because they are not a high-profile politician.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

I wonder whether the hon. Lady might reflect that it sounds like she is trying to deflect blame from Boris Johnson and put it on to unelected members of staff, and that people here and people at home may find that, to put it mildly, rather unedifying.

[Lia Nici]

I thank the hon. Lady. What I would say, actually, is that I have had the privilege to work with many unelected officials—special advisers and civil servants —who have been professional, worked hard and been good at giving accurate advice, but, from the evidence in the report, we all know that there were those who did not. We cannot shy away from that; we know that is the case.

[Sir Jake Berry]

To build slightly on my hon. Friend’s point, the report needs to be narrow in scope—it is about what the Prime Minister said to this House—but I draw her attention to paragraph 20 on page 71, which seeks to go much further than that. It talks about not what the former Prime Minister Boris Johnson said but about the interpretation given to that by Members of this House, by the media and by the public. The former Prime Minister cannot be held responsible for what people thought he may have meant; if the report is to hold any water, he should be held responsible for what he said.

[Lia Nici]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that. Of course—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. We really must hear what the hon. Lady has to say. It is not fair just to mutter away when she is making her argument.

[Lia Nici]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank my right hon. Friend for identifying that. Of course, he is absolutely right. I have to say that I do respect the amount of hard work put into the report, but if, in my former job as a college lecturer, I was grading this, I would say it is not impartial. It says Boris Johnson “claimed” and Boris Johnson “purported”, and that is not impartial language. Therefore, in my opinion, the report is not impartial in the way it is written.

To go back to my original point, on the day that the Sue Gray report was published, the Prime Minister was horrified to read what had been going on, and at no time did anybody on oath give evidence to this inquiry that they reported that there were parties or rule-breaking to the Prime Minister. Now, some people might say, “Well, he lived in No. 10—he should have known.” Actually, those people who have worked in No. 10 will know that it is a rabbit warren of rooms with thick walls, the people working there are running the country and the Prime Minister is not the caretaker of the building. It is not the Prime Minister’s job to go round, look in rooms and decide who may be working and who may not be working. In fact, the Sue Gray report did state that unelected officials were rude to doorkeepers and staff, yet given that No. 10 is full of police officers and security people, if the rules were being broken and that was seen, why did nobody report that to the Prime Minister so that he was aware of it?

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

The hon. Lady made the very good point that the Prime Minister at the time was not the caretaker of No. 10. However, he was the caretaker of the nation’s health, the nation’s wellbeing and the nation’s trust. In that, he let people down and he misled this House, and that is why the report came up with the conclusions that it did.

[Lia Nici]

I do not agree. I am from Grimsby and I can only say it as I see it. I saw on the day that the report was published that Boris Johnson had not been aware of the parties that had been going on.

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)]

I am from Birmingham and I say it as I see it. Does the hon. Lady think that there is any chance that Boris Johnson could also have lied to her?

[Lia Nici]

No, I do not believe that he did. I think I am a very good person who can see character, and I saw what was going on in and around No. 10 on that day. Sadly, I believe that some unelected officials—many are very good and professional—made a choice not to inform the then Prime Minister because they wanted to cover their own backs. I am very sad to say that.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Ind)]

Is the hon. Lady aware that, in 2019, Max Hastings, the editor of The Daily Telegraph and a Tory, said about Boris Johnson:

“Johnson would not recognise truth, whether about his private or political life, if confronted by it in an identity parade”?

Is not the truth that Boris has lied for so long and so often that it can come as no surprise that he is lying in this instance?

[Lia Nici]

I am not a Conservative party grandee. I am not somebody who has followed Boris Johnson’s political or other career for a long time. I am somebody who came here to serve my constituency and my constituents, who are the reason I am here. The majority of them supported Boris Johnson, his policies and his vision for the country.

Sadly, the whole saga in and out of the media is becoming a kind of political opportunism for those people who do not like Boris Johnson’s approach, do not like Boris Johnson’s policies and do not like Boris Johnson’s plan. I have to say that that is not what I am getting on the doorstep. Perhaps if the Opposition had a plan and had the people, they might have a chance of getting into government some time soon. This is about people who want a formidable opponent out of their way, because they do not believe that they will get into government in any other way. That is my stance.

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

May I first thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman)? I should probably thank her more than anybody in the Chamber because the wisest thing I have ever done in my political career has been to recuse myself from chairing the Committee. She has done an absolutely admirable job. I also thank all the Committee members—as has often been referred to, the Conservative members in particular. I will not go into the other matters that, for other reasons, the Committee Chair referred to, about privilege and whether this should be referred back. I simply point out that I know all the Conservative members of the Committee because they are also on the Standards Committee. They do a wonderful job every single time.

The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), was right to say that it is very difficult to sit in judgment on your colleagues, including your opponents. That is not actually any easier than sitting in judgment on people who have sat on the same Benches as you or have been in the same party as you. But let’s face it: Boris Johnson lied. He said the guidance was followed completely. It wasn’t. He said that the rules and guidance were followed at all times. They weren’t. And I take the plain meaning of his words. You do not have to investigate any further—just the plain meaning will do. He said he had repeated assurances. He didn’t. He misrepresented the facts as he knew them. Meanwhile, people died in isolation, lost their livelihood—we often forget that bit—or missed out on a wedding or another very important moment in their family life because they abided by the rules. They thought that the big truth of the pandemic was that we were all in this together. That is why there is visceral anger. I hear it often from those who think that some people did not abide by the rules and that those were the people who wrote the rules.

This is not a single instance of accidentally mis-speaking either. Many Members have said that of course that happens. We have a proper process, which we have had since 2007, for a Minister to correct the record. Interestingly, the only time Mr Johnson corrected the record as a Minister was when he said that Roman Abramovic had been sanctioned and realised that he had not been sanctioned. So a Russian oligarch is perhaps more important than other matters. Yes, Mr Johnson was careless—reckless, you could say—about the truth, but far, far worse than that, he deliberately, intentionally and with knowledge aforethought sought to cover his tracks. It was a pattern of behaviour, a string of lies. And I do not much care for the version of the debate today which says, “Oh, it was all junior officials and they should be thrown under the bus” or “It was the fault of the police because they did not bother to report it or deal with it.”

[Lia Nici]

I thank the hon. Gentleman most graciously for giving way. Actually, it was not just about junior unelected officials. Where were the senior managers in this? Where were the line managers in this stopping this happening? Does he know?

[Sir Chris Bryant]

The thing is that, sometimes when you try to take the spade off somebody when they are digging the hole, they are absolutely determined to take it back and bring a pitchfork and a JCB to the process as well.

Mr Johnson says he has been brought down by a witch hunt, but in all honesty the only person who brought down Mr Johnson was Mr Johnson and I suspect he knows that. I think that this House feels that he should be ashamed of himself and that will be what it concludes later today, but I fear that he remains completely shameless.

Is the sanction proportionate? Of course, it is very difficult to sanction somebody who has already taken the option of running away from this House and from facing the music here or for that matter in their constituency. But that is still important. What we debate today is not an academic matter. That is not a criticism—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lia Nici]

Does my hon. Friend realise that Mr Johnson was advised by advisers not to challenge that fixed penalty notice?

[Nick Fletcher]

No, I did not know that. It is good that it is now on record and that the House does.

The report looked at six events and the photos that had been produced and concluded that they were in breach, but not at the events in the most recent videos. Parties happened, and stronger leadership may have prevented them, but the right hon. Gentleman was not at those parties. I saw this weekend the video of others partying. He was not there, but I can see the hurt that it has caused, and I know that people feel wronged and want justice. I know that people lost loved ones; I did, too. But the storing up of hate for those people will not bring our loved ones back, so I ask this for their sake: somehow, we need to find it in our hearts to move on.

The right hon. Gentleman has lost the top job. He has now resigned his post as a Member of Parliament. Trust me, he has paid the price. As for the young people in that video, they should have known better and do not deserve to be honoured, but I cannot ask the public to forgive and not do so myself, so I do. But I ask them to learn from these errors, or life will be tough for them and everyone around them. The video was posted by the media—a media whose only intention is to sell papers. Do not be tricked, anybody: the media are bastions of free press, but not always for the right reasons, so I say to the press: “Do the job, by all means, but think of the implications.” I ask them to use their power wisely.

I come now to the motion. If I vote for the report, my haters will love me for five minutes and then hate me again. If I vote against it, the ones who have lost loves ones will think that I do not care, and I desperately do. If I abstain, I please no one. But I am not here to please; I am here to do what I think is right. I will therefore vote against the report because I think the process is flawed. I will vote against because pleasing the Opposition will not bring back my constituents’ loved ones. I will vote against because the right hon. Gentleman has already left, so, in some cases, the vote is already futile. I will vote against because he has been punished enough. I will vote against because if I ask people to forgive, then so must I. I will vote against because this country has had enough, and so have I.

I finish by asking the right hon. Gentleman whether, if he cares about our country and his party as much as I think he does, he will back our Prime Minister and our party, and help to get this country back on track. This country and its people have suffered enough through covid, and it is time to move on. A decade of Labour will be terrible.

Business of the House

Lia Nici Excerpts

Thursday 9th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising that incredibly serious point. It is a concern to us all in this place, but it would also be a concern to members of the public. We clearly do not have a full picture from the leaked messages, and I think the whole situation is highly regrettable, but she will know that there are very strict rules about how such decisions are arrived at, whether through a funding programme or a particular request from a constituency. Ministers are often not involved in the assessments that go on. The questions I have asked since seeing that report have reassured me, and indeed the Member concerned, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly), has confirmed that he was not spoken to in those terms.

I also remind the House that we have a Select Committee, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and the Chair of that Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), raised concerns about the matter at the time as well. It is not just the checks we have in Whitehall, but the checks and scrutiny we have in this House, that should give Members of this House and the public confidence that such things do not happen.

[Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)]

Today, if someone wanted to travel to or from Grimsby by train, they would find it very difficult. There is one train leaving Grimsby at around 2 pm, and another train back into Grimsby at 8.40 pm. TransPennine Express has offered the unions overtime of £480 a day, but the unions have refused it, and now my constituents cannot get anywhere by train. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is about time the unions stopped playing with people’s lives and the levelling-up agenda and got back to work properly?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I am very sorry to hear of the situation in my hon. Friend’s constituency. That is clearly not acceptable. We often say that we want more people to use public transport and leave their cars behind, but for many people the car is their only option. We must ensure those services work, and she is right in her assessment. The next Transport questions is not until 20 April, so I will write this afternoon on her behalf and bring that to the Transport Secretary’s attention.

Business of the House

Lia Nici Excerpts

Thursday 28th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady is right to raise this, because it is an issue of the greatest concern. Everyone should be able to go out and go about their lawful business feeling safe, and the fact that young women do not feel safe is a blot on the safety that we expect in this nation.

I assure the hon. Lady that these matters are taken extremely seriously by the Home Office and by the Home Secretary, who has asked the police for an update. The police are now conducting inquiries. Criminal offences must be investigated, and offenders must be charged and prosecuted. People who spike women’s drinks should find themselves facing the full force of the law, women going out for drinks should feel safe, and bars have a strong responsibility to ensure the safety of their own premises.

[Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)]

As everyone in the House will know, next week is Parliament Week, and I am very pleased and excited to be talking to my local Guides and Scouts and to pupils at Strand Primary Academy in Strand Street and Littlecoates Primary Academy. Great Grimsby sent two burgesses to the new model Parliament in 1295. Would the Leader of the House like to talk a little bit to young people in Great Grimsby, and across the UK, about the importance of our Parliament and our democracy?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I was not at the Parliament in 1295, I am sorry to say. I clearly missed a treat.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that she is doing in Great Grimsby to highlight Parliament during Parliament week, which follows Hallowe’en. I do not know whether we should read anything into that; perhaps people will be tucking into pumpkin soup made from the leftover pumpkins.

It is so important that we engage everyone with Parliament and the work that we do. One thing that should always concern us, as hon. and right hon. Members, is who does not come to see us, and who does not know that they can seek redress of grievance through their Member of Parliament. Most of the time when something has gone wrong and we take it up on behalf of a constituent, it can be put right. We want to ensure that more people know that, and we want to encourage, for instance, the brilliant pupils in my hon. Friend’s constituency to stand for Parliament so that they can go forth and become involved in the democratic process.

I shall certainly be active during Parliament Week, but although it is no competition, Mr Speaker, I have a feeling that you will be even more active than me.

Business of the House

Lia Nici Excerpts

Thursday 9th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Yes, I would happily join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating Sir Brendan Foster on the 40th Great North Run, as long as nobody expects me to do any running. I offer my warmest and most enthusiastic congratulations. I absolutely note the hon. Gentleman’s point about the importance of the Baby Loss Awareness Week debate. I cannot promise anything at the moment, but I have heard what he has asked for.

[Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)]

On a day when we remember colleagues, Mr Speaker will be fully aware that in the summer recess we heard the sad news of the loss of Austin Mitchell, my predecessor and the longest serving MP for Great Grimsby, with 38 years. Will the Leader of the House suggest something we could do in this place to remember the amount of work that Austin did, in the House of Commons and for Great Grimsby?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend because, like many Conservative Members, I knew Austin Mitchell with great affection. I first met him when we both spoke in a debate in the Oxford Union, which must have been in the late ‘80s.