Point of Order

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 25th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Paragraph 19.21 of “Erskine May” states that ministerial statements are undesirable on Opposition days. Opposition days happen 20 times in a regular parliamentary Session, but today we have the general debate on Welsh affairs, which happens only once a year and is actually not a full day but only half a day. I would be interested, Mr Speaker, in your judgment on whether it is appropriate for three statements to happen on Welsh affairs day, meaning that our debate on all things Wales is going to be shoehorned into 90 minutes at the end of today’s session.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of his point of order. He is right that “Erskine May” refers to a preference to avoid ministerial statements on Opposition days. There will be times when it is necessary to make statements on Backbench Business days. However, I do think it is unfortunate that the Government have decided to make two statements today when many Members wish to speak in the Welsh affairs debate in particular; it is an important occasion for many of our colleagues.

I am sure that the Leader of the House will reflect on that. I also know that the Backbench Business Committee will want to be mindful of potential pressures on debates. It has a difficult role in trying to ensure that colleagues’ requests for debates are met. I know that it will consider whether, on some occasions, a single debate may be preferable. I do not know whether the Leader of the House wishes to add anything.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Just to say that this is the general pressure on business. People want statements made on important issues. There is demand, which you have to deal with, for urgent questions; I deal with the demand for statements and for Backbench business. I am very conscious of the desire to protect Backbench business, but the two statements today are both extremely important. It is the typical balance in a pressured parliamentary timetable.

[Mr Speaker]

I am suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.

Business of the House

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 25th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Valerie Vaz]

I thank the Leader of the House for advance sight of the statement and for the motion on Westminster Hall that he has tabled. I know that the Chairs of the Procedure Committee, the Backbench Business Committee and the Petitions Committee will be delighted, but it must continue to be hybrid while there are still deaths happening.

I am not quite sure whether the Government have decided when Prorogation will be, but a number of Bills are hanging around, such as the Environment Bill. Will they be taken before the House prorogues, or carried over?

May I make a plea on behalf of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart)? I know that the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) has been pressed into service, but the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire has had difficulty in attending today because he has a Select Committee. The business is clashing. I know that he is trying to resolve it by consensus, but I think that some of the Committee members are not enabling him to do that. I wonder whether I could prevail on the Leader of the House to talk to some of his colleagues about that. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire needs to take up his rightful place in this House. He has been appointed by his party, after all.

I thank you, Mr Speaker, for the excellent letter that you have sent to the ethics committee at King’s College. I know that hon. Members and our staff—I am sure the Leader of the House has had representations—will agree about how appalling it is to send out fake emails. Our staff have been absolutely amazing since last March, getting stranded constituents back and dealing with distressed people who have absolutely nothing. Some of them have even had covid. They have had to handle working from home and a new type of working. They have been amazing. I put on record my thanks to all my staff, and to all hon. Members’ staff. At a time when we have the worst death rate—182 per 100,000, according to the John Hopkins University, while the US has 152 per 100,000—to have to deal with fake emails is absolutely appalling. I wonder whether the Leader of the House will join me, and perhaps the leader of the Scottish National party, in writing a joint letter to say that the House absolutely condemns that kind of behaviour.

Next week is Foreign Office questions, as the Leader of the House said. I wonder whether the Foreign Secretary will update the House on Nazanin’s case and Anousheh’s case. I thank Ambassador Macaire for raising Anousheh’s lack of telephone privileges, but Amnesty International has identified two further British nationals: Mehran Raoof and Morad Tahbaz. Could we have an update on all those British national cases?

The shadow Home Secretary has raised the issue that almost 1,500 people’s claims under the Windrush scheme have not been paid yet. Only £4 million has been paid to more than 300 people. I know that the Home Secretary said that she wants to take personal charge of this, so I wonder whether she could come to the House and make a statement.

We gave the Government the powers that they wanted because we were in the middle of a crisis, but we did not know that they would throw an invisibility cloak over some of the transactions. I thank the Good Law Project for upholding the rule of law. It seems that only the Government’s friends, those in their social circle or those in their economic circle need apply. An applicant can have no previous experience, such as the new chair of the Office for Students, but why does it take a judgment to publish the names, and what is a technical breach? I do not think that the judge actually mentioned a technical breach. The Health Secretary has been found to have acted unlawfully, so could he please come to the House and explain it?

We also need an explanation of why frosts are disappearing, literally. Apparently, after Lord Frost’s new appointment to the Cabinet, he is on a leave of absence, so he is not accountable to the House of Lords. Yet he is now in charge of this new EU Joint Committee and he cannot come to the House. Could the Leader of the House say how we hold Lord Frost to account on the negotiations that he is having with the EU? Worse still, we had a press release on Friday from the Business Secretary and a written statement on Monday. He wants exactly the same kind of regime—he said “light touch”—for his new research agency. Again, we are talking about an invisibility cloak, because apparently we cannot make a freedom of information request for any of the contracts that are given out under it.

I am afraid that this time I am with the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) when he asks for local government to be held to account.

What would the Leader of the House do if a councillor who worked for a Minister shoved through cabinet something that put a site in a Labour MP’s constituency, without there being any criteria in relation to air quality, residents’ views or even green spaces, when a site allocation document, which had been agreed and on which there had been consultation, stated that it should go in the Minister’s constituency? What would the Leader of the House say to that person? May we have a debate on local government accountability?

Finally, I want to thank you, Mr Speaker, for your statement on Julia Clifford. We all knew her for a very long time; she knew lots of hon. Members and looked after us. You have made a lovely gesture in naming the Tea Room after her. We send our good wishes to John, Ben and Jack. May she rest in peace. She beat cancer but then, with a reduced immune system, succumbed to covid.

There is a debate on Welsh affairs later today, and I want to praise the Welsh Government because they have reached their vaccination target. They were the first nation to reach their target in February and they are now on the second dose, which they have given to 60,000 people. For Monday, “Dydd Gŵyl Dewi hapus”!

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call the Leader of the House, I want to reassure the House that I sent a letter to King’s College on behalf of the House and copied in its ethics committee. What happened was appalling, and I am waiting for a response from the university. It was totally unacceptable.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Mr Speaker, I also thank you for your statement about Julia Clifford and the loss to the House and, of course, to her family. She was enormously popular and loved by Members. We pray for the repose of her soul and send our condolences to her family.

I come to the detail of the right hon. Lady’s questions. The vaccine roll-out across the country has been a wonderful United Kingdom effort. It has been a terrific success. We are ahead of almost every other country in the world and this has allowed the road map for opening up to be brought forward. It is very positive and we should be very proud of what this country has achieved. That does tie into what the right hon. Lady was saying about the award of contracts, which needed to be done swiftly and effectively. That is why the vaccine roll-out has been such a triumph.

This infamous fox murderer involved with the Good Law Project is not somebody I am particularly interested in. He is fussing and wasting time over the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care was getting on with ordering PPE rather than getting officials to spend time filling out forms to keep the fox murderer happy. I really do not think that is a good use of Government time.

As my right hon. Friend has said, it was a technical breach that was going to be put right in due course anyway. He was a fortnight late at a time when very pressing business was being attended to. I am afraid that the Opposition cannot have their cake and eat it, although that is sometimes said to be popular. They want the success of the vaccine project, but without contracts having been awarded swiftly. That is a completely inconsistent position.

The right hon. Lady mentions that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said that she will take personal charge of the Windrush claims. I have every confidence: when my right hon. Friend takes personal charge of things, things happen—she is one of the most effective people in Government at getting things done. It is reassuring that she will be taking charge.

The two further cases that have been raised must be raised with the Foreign Secretary; I will pass those on to him immediately after business questions. As the right hon. Lady rightly says, Foreign Office questions are coming up soon. It is important that, during those questions, the House shows its strength of feeling by asking questions about Nazanin and the other dual nationals who are held improperly.

As regards King’s College, that was really deeply foolish behaviour. I do wonder what the point of an ethics committee is if it encourages dishonesty. Because that is what it is: writing to people with a false name is dishonest and it is cheating. It is the sort of behaviour that no respectable ethics committee would approve. I completely agree with what Mr Speaker has said and I am certainly happy to join in a letter with the right hon. Lady and the SNP shadow spokesman, depending on who that happens to be—the formal or informal one—because this is a serious matter. As the right hon. Lady rightly says, if there were ever a right time to do it, it was certainly not in the midst of a pandemic, when we all know how hard-pressed our parliamentary assistants were, and indeed continue to be.



As regards the meeting of the Scottish Affairs Committee, the Government do not have a majority on that Committee. It is therefore for the Committee to decide the timing of its meetings, although we generally find in this House that a degree of good will and compromise goes a very long way in sorting out problems—but that has to come in all directions, I think.

As regards Bills, Prorogation and all those exciting things, announcements will be made in due course in the normal way; you would expect nothing less, Mr Speaker. The Environment Bill has a carry-over provision, so every eventuality is taken into account. This is a Government who, in their wisdom, ensure that they are looking to all possible outcomes to make the legislative programme smooth.

Finally, I turn to Westminster Hall. The motion is down for consideration today. It provides for an extension to bring Westminster Hall into line with proceedings in the Chamber, and it is probable that we will look to extend that further, so there is no implication that there is provision until 30 March and that it then ends. The motion is very much to bring Westminster Hall into line with the Chamber.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Grundy (Leigh) (Con) [V]]

During a recent meeting with Leigh Miners Rangers rugby league club, I was pleased to learn of its bid for rugby league world cup legacy funding to help improve its sporting facilities for children and young people in my constituency. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this funding would be transformative for my constituency? May I also ask him for a debate on the cultural and economic importance of rugby league to regeneration in deprived communities in the north-west of England?

[Mr Speaker]

I would expect nothing else from the Leader of the House.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue of the work done by his local rugby league club for the people of Leigh. Sports clubs often show some of the greatest community spirit, and we should commend the many thousands of people who volunteer for them and offer local children, especially, a rich and rewarding experience. The Government have worked with Sport England to agree a £220 million package of support to help community clubs throughout the crisis. Sport England has also committed an additional £50 million to help grassroots sports clubs and organisations. We have provided £100 million of taxpayers’ money to further support local authority leisure centres, alongside £300 million to support professional sport through the winter. In addition, there is a £16 million loan scheme for rugby league. So may I congratulate my hon. Friend and Leigh Miners Rangers rugby league club on the work that they both do?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I can never promise that a Bill will be passed, but I said I would ensure that Fridays were brought back as soon as was practicable and possible. There are discussions going on at the moment, and I am full of hope that something will happen and that I will be able to make an announcement, possibly next Thursday, but I do not want to make an absolute promise of that kind.

[Mr Speaker]

There is a hint of hope.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con) [V]]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Freeport East bid for the freeport at Felixstowe-Harwich is the biggest freeport bid? It will make the biggest contribution to levelling up, the biggest contribution to the UK economy and the biggest contribution to imports and exports in this country. How will the bids be scrutinised by Parliament after they have been decided on Budget day? Will there be specific Government time to ensure that the best bids are approved?

Business of the House

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 11th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I begin by congratulating Melanie Beck on being appointed a Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire? My hon. Friend is so right that the honours system rewards people up and down the country who go above and beyond their duty, and who ensure that we have a better community life and community spirit. That has been so apparent during the pandemic.

Our honours system is one of the glories of our nation—one of the baubles of our nation—going back to the Order of the Garter, which was founded in 1348 by Edward III, with St George as the champion and patron saint of our nation. We have had that great link with St George since he took over the patronage of England from various other people; Edward the Martyr, Edward the Confessor and St Alphege were considered rather more before George took over with the Garter. Then there are the other orders of chivalry, including the Knights of the Bath. Henry VIII went through that wonderful ceremony as a baby, pretty much—a three-year-old—when he was installed as a Knight of the Bath and literally did have a bath, before the order was re-founded in 1725 in a different form.

The honours system links us to our history and inspires and encourages people to do great things. It is one of the glories of our country, and should be kept and cherished. But we do bear in mind that whenever we look at a new Labour person and scratch them, they are as red as can be underneath.

[Mr Speaker]

I don’t think we should scratch anybody.

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]]

The Chemical Industries Association has described UK manufacturing businesses paying twice as much for energy as those in other European countries do, as an “ongoing blocker of opportunity”. Can we therefore have a debate in Government time on providing UK industry with a level playing field on energy prices? This is needed to give chemical companies in my constituency certainty to secure future investment, an essential driver to transition to net zero, and ensure low-carbon UK businesses and their goods are able to compete for market share around the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Let us dampen the tone down.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

It has been 19 months since the Government first launched the review into a cruel benefit system that forces those who are terminally ill to prove they have less than six months to live. In that time, Marie Curie and the Motor Neurone Disease Association estimate that as many as 5,800 people may have died waiting for a decision on their benefits. Please can the Leader of the House chase the Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury to come to the House urgently and make a statement telling us what they are going to do, so that more people do not have to suffer?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. Currently, the Commissions of the two Houses are receiving indications of the costs of the business plan. It is of fundamental importance that what happens to this House has the consent of this House, not a previous House, because Parliament cannot bind its successor, and that the expenditure is proportionate and reasonable. Everybody wants to secure this building and to ensure that it is safe, but we cannot spend billions of pounds on it. That would simply not be proportionate in view of the economic situation of the rest of the country.

[Mr Speaker]

Let us head up to the Shetlands and Alistair Carmichael.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) [V]]

Thank you, Mr Speaker—not quite as far as Shetland today; I come to you from Orkney. I ask the Leader of the House whether we can have a debate in Government time on the operation of the UK-US extradition arrangements, which were entered into under a treaty of the Labour Government in 2003. He will have seen press reports about the case of British businessman Mike Lynch, which demonstrate that the treaty is not only open to abuse but is being abused. We need arrangements that are equal in fairness to each side. Many Conservative Members were critical of the treaty in 2003. Can we now start a debate about getting improvements?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on the work she is doing on promoting the Forest of Memories. As we go village to village around our country, there are war memorials, almost all of which were obviously put up about 100 years ago following the first world war. We have historically been good at remembering people who have died in particular circumstances. The hon. Lady’s suggestion in terms of a forest is a noble cause and, although I cannot promise her a debate in Government time, Mr Speaker is looking remarkably benign at the thought of an Adjournment debate.

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you for that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I have had my Weetabix this morning, Mr Speaker, and I hope you have had yours. Weetabix is a world-famous breakfast cereal made in Burton Latimer in the Kettering constituency. One debate that has been dividing the nation this week, and is perhaps even more divisive than Brexit has been over the years, is whether having Weetabix with baked beans is an attractive serving suggestion for a healthy meal. We all need a little light relief in these difficult times, so may we have a debate on breakfast cereals and their contribution to a healthy diet, so that we can all arrive at the shared position that, with whatever it is served, Weetabix is a great British breakfast cereal fully worthy of promotion?

[Mr Speaker]

I have mine just with milk.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As they used to say: “Weetabix unbeatabix!” My personal preference, if I were to eat Weetabix, would not be to have it with baked beans, which I have always found absolutely disgusting—[Interruption.] I am sorry if I have upset the makers of baked beans. There was an advertising slogan—which would be thought desperately politically incorrect nowadays, and I hope the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) will forgive me—which was:

“A million housewives every day pick up a tin of beans and say, ‘Beanz meanz Heinz’.”

But when I was a child, this was corrupted to “a million housewives every day pick up a tin of beans and say, ‘Yuck, throw them away’.” I am sorry, but that has always been my view of baked beans. However, Weetabix is absolutely splendid served with hot milk and brown sugar, although for preference, Mr Speaker, you will know what I like for breakfast: it is nanny’s home-made marmalade on toast.

[Mr Speaker]

I think the good people of Wigan will be offended, because that is where all the baked beans for Europe come from. I can see the factory at Orrell sending letters to the Leader of the House now.

Royal Assent

[Mr Speaker]

I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Pension Schemes Act 2021

High Speed Rail (West Midlands – Crewe) Act 2021

Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021.

I am suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made.

Business of the House

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 4th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) [V]]

[Inaudible.]

[Mr Speaker]

We cannot hear Chris Law. We will come back to him if we can.

[Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

I know we are all grateful, across this House and of course across the whole country, to the staff, teachers and everybody involved in keeping schools open over the pandemic for the children who need them most. Headteachers in Ousedale School and St Paul’s Catholic School in Milton Keynes have received particularly glowing praise in my inbox recently, and I am sure everybody here will join me in congratulating them on the hard work they have done. Could my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate or a statement to inform the House on the efforts that are being made to recognise school staff, and the steps that are being taken to fully reopen schools as soon as it is safe to do so?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady, my constituency neighbour, for her important question. The Government are committed to leaving the environment in a better state for the next generation. We cannot forget, after all, that it was Margaret Thatcher who led the world, with her foresight, in early efforts to tackle climate change in the late 1980s, and the Prime Minister aims to follow in her distinguished footsteps. This Government want to lead a green industrial revolution in the United Kingdom, levelling up the country, creating thousands of high-skilled green jobs and building back a greener economy, while helping to get to net zero by 2050.

The 10-point plan is the blueprint for a green industrial revolution. It combines ambitious policies with significant new public spending to deliver a vision for the United Kingdom as greener, more prosperous and at the forefront of the industries for the future. Spanning clean energy, buildings, transport, nature and innovative technologies, the plan will mobilise £12 billion of taxpayers’ spending and will support up to a quarter of a million green jobs. This year, with COP26, as the hon. Lady says, and our chairmanship of the G7, we are going to be leading international efforts in this regard.

[Mr Speaker]

Let us try to return to Chris Law.

[Chris Law [V]]

The Perth Road Pub Company in my constituency has been using the furlough scheme since it was introduced last March. Despite Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs approving its claim in December, this was never received. HMRC claimed that it would take 15 days to resolve, but there has been no progress since. The company has been unable to make further claims and employees have lost out on income, with over 30 jobs now at risk. I have written to HMRC and will be writing to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury today. May we therefore have an urgent debate on HMRC’s delays in investigating and resolving unpaid furlough claims?

Business of the House

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 28th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I begin by agreeing so much with the right hon. Lady, and by thanking you, Mr Speaker, for arranging a very sombre and moving ceremony? How right it is that we remember one of the greatest tragedies, if not the greatest tragedy, that the world has ever suffered. The debate later is very important.

The right hon. Lady mentioned the 100,000 deaths. This is, for every family affected, a deep sadness, and we pray for the souls of the departed. We look forward to a brighter future as the vaccine is rolled out and people are protected from this terrible and deadly disease.

I am sorry that the right hon. Lady was not satisfied with the response given to the Adjournment debate in relation to people held illegally, particularly Ms Zaghari-Ratcliffe, whose sentence, as the right hon. Lady said, comes to an end in 14 days. We expect people who are held improperly to be released. We expect states to observe the rule of law, and we hope that she will be released. The right hon. Lady is always right to raise this case, which I take up with the Foreign Office every week on her behalf.

I am glad that the right hon. Lady welcomes the announcement of the forthcoming recess. She asked if I knew about it. Yes, I did know about it, she will be reassured to know, and I think the motion formalising it is in my name, so it is lucky that I knew about it, too.

The Environment Bill is being carried over because, as much as anything, the House of Lords’ legislative programme—the Government’s legislative programme, delivering on our manifesto commitments—is very full. It turns out that when we do things remotely, they sometimes take longer than they did when people were physically present. Some inevitable delays are caused by the covid crisis, but that does not reduce the Government’s commitment to environmental improvement. The Prime Minister has set out the 10-point plan, and COP26 will take place in Glasgow later this year. This Government are a world leader in environmental improvement, and that will carry on being the case.

With regard to flooding, the £5.2 billion of taxpayers’ money announced last year is going ahead and will be implemented to provide more flood defences, protecting hundreds of thousands more homes. That shows the Government’s commitment to protecting people’s homes. The right hon. Lady also asked about repairs. Some £120 million has been set aside for repairs, so again that is taking place.

On the specific request for a debate in Government time on International Women’s Day, the right hon. Lady will remember that last year the Backbench Business Committee had not yet been set up, and therefore the Government provided time for the debate. The Backbench Business Committee knows that, when it was set up, one of the things that it had responsibility for was the International Women’s Day debate, as it has for the debate later today on Holocaust Memorial Day. These very important debates come out of the Backbench Business Committee’s allocation.

I completely understand the right hon. Lady’s frustration in relation to schools, with five children of my own being home schooled—although, I must confess that the burden is falling primarily on my wife, rather than on me. This is something that parents are finding difficult, because it is hard. But to ask for clarity in an uncertain situation is, I think, simply not reasonable. Things are developing all the time, sometimes for the better and sometimes not. We had a new strain that turned out to be more virulent, but now we have progress with the vaccine roll-out, so we have to deal with events as they arise. It is not possible to set out with complete clarity what will happen and be certain that that is what will happen, because of the unknowable nature of the progress of the virus and the responses to it.

With regard to EU businesses, we are much better off being out of the European Union. That is what the country wanted and what we have delivered, and we are seeing the benefits day by day. It is really good news that we are out. The Government have not advised businesses to set up in the European Union—that is a fiction.

Finally, the Government have been great supporters of employment rights in this country, but then the Tories have always been great supporters of employment rights. If I may claim Elizabeth I as the first Tory, as I am tempted to do, an Act of Parliament was passed in her reign—

[Mr Speaker]

The royal family are not political, and the Leader of the House knows that.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The current members, Mr Speaker; I think I must be allowed to comment on previous members. Otherwise, all my exchanges with my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) would be out of order, because Alfred the Great was certainly a member of the royal family. I think I am allowed to refer to Queen Elizabeth I, who introduced an Act to protect people from unfair dismissal. Of course, it was Lord Shaftesbury, that great Tory hero, who was the mainstay of 19th-century improvements in employment rights. The Conservatives have always been committed to that and will continue to be, which is why employment rights in this country are much better than they are in Europe, including on maternity leave and holiday time. It is because this nation and the Conservative party have a great commitment to employment rights.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady mentions Bath Spa University—its main campus is in North East Somerset, at Newton St Loe—which is a very fine establishment. In all decisions of this kind, there are difficult balances to be made when allocating resources. There are not unlimited resources and there are many things that clamour for taxpayers’ money, so it is really a question of getting that balance right.

[Mr Speaker]

Thinking of Alfred the Great, let us go to Ian Liddell-Grainger.

[Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) [V]]

Mr Speaker, thank you. I was worried to hear that some of our colleagues do not realise that Somerset is God’s county.

My right hon. Friend will remember that the Vikings were very pleased to get other people’s money. They begged it, borrowed it, stole it, buried it. Unfortunately, that is what has been happening in the county council: it has been hoarding the covid grants. It thought it had been given £32 million, as it said publicly. It turns out that the accountants tell it that it has been given £80 million, which is what it should be using for covid. We want to know what has happened to the money, and we want to see the proof.

Unfortunately, this county council wants to become a unitary, which is going to be disastrous for the people of Somerset. We need a full-county solution and we need a debate. King Alfred and I would love such a debate, and I wonder if my right hon. Friend will be so kind as to give it to us both.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

May I just add that the House Service will also be recognising International Women’s Day?

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Shopworkers, particularly those in supermarkets and other food stores, have really been on the frontline during this pandemic, keeping us supplied with the essentials of life. They do not have the option of working from home. Yet, too often, retail workers face abuse and poor treatment from a few customers. Just yesterday, one of my staff witnessed a shopworker being spat at for asking someone to wear a mask going into the store. Can we have a debate in Government time on the impact of covid-19 on retail workers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for allowing me to raise a point of order in relation to what I believe was a misleading statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday. He said—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot use the word “misleading”.

[Hon. Members]

Inadvertently.

[Mr Speaker]

Yes, “inadvertently” would be a nicer way of dealing with it.

[Jim McMahon]

I am more than happy to take that advice, Mr Speaker. Thank you.

The Prime Minister said:

“It was only recently that the shadow Transport Secretary was saying that quarantine measures should be relaxed.”—[Official Report, 27 January 2021; Vol. 688, c. 366.]

He went on to repeat a similar comment. This relates to a statement that was made over 200 days ago in July last year and had nothing at all to do with current regulations or our current covid rates. It was in response to the Government themselves lifting quarantine restrictions for a list of countries. We have been critical of the Government for failing to have a proper track and trace system and failing to do pre-screening and testing on arrival, so, far from calling for relaxation, we were criticising the Government for their own failures. I think the record should be put straight.

[Mr Speaker]

That is not a point of order for the Chair, but hopefully those on the Treasury Bench will have picked up on it. If nothing else, it is now on the record. I will now suspend the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made.

Business of the House

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 14th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

Obviously, there is no overwhelming evidence for that, but let us head to Mansfield with Ben Bradley.

[Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con) [V]]

The Government have put levelling up at the heart of their agenda for this Parliament, but the fundamentals that underpin many of our structures are sometimes contrary to that aim, not least the Equality Act 2010, which embeds identity politics and physical characteristics into everything that we do but ignores the socioeconomic and geographical inequalities that really drive disadvantage. Can my right hon. Friend find the time for us to debate that in the House, and to debate how we might reform things to seek equality of opportunity and fairness rather than to artificially equalise outcomes?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend makes an important and good point. He is a dogged campaigner on this issue, and I commend him for raising ways in which we can improve our approach to equality and disparity. I refer him to the words of the Minister for Women and Equalities, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), who said in December:

“We will not limit our fight for fairness to the nine protected characteristics laid out in the 2010 Equality Act”,

which have arguably led to a narrowing of our discussion about inequality, neglecting factors such as socioeconomic status and geography. I hope my hon. Friend will join me in welcoming the Minister’s announcement that an equality hub is being established. It will truly broaden our understanding of equality in the UK today and it will work closely with the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, so excellently led by the Minister for Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch).

[Mr Speaker]

Let us head to Gateshead to the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, Ian Mearns.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) [V]]

I thank the Leader of the House for the business statement and say that I very much welcome the return to a two-week statement, which really does assist with planning. I also thank him for announcing the Backbench debates on Thursday 21 January, when we have a long-awaited debate on errors in payments made to victims of the Equitable Life scandal and a debate on the operation of the child maintenance service during the pandemic, and also on Thursday 28 January, when we have a very timely debate on Holocaust Memorial Day, the date of which is the 27th, as Members will know. The Committee has asked me to request protected time for that debate because, as we know, urgent questions and statements by Ministers eat into the time available for Backbench Business debates.

With the closure of Westminster Hall for the time being, may I echo the sentiments of the Chairs of the Procedure and Petitions Committees regarding the need to ensure that there is appropriate time for Backbench and Petitions Committee debates, which should be protected during the duration of the Westminster Hall closure? As always, the Backbench Business Committee would be very happy to facilitate the filling of any time that might become available on days other than Thursdays.

Lastly, youth unemployment rose in my constituency by 58% between March and November—the last date for which we currently have figures. Notwithstanding the pandemic, this highlights the precarious nature of employment for all too many young people under 25 years old. Can we have a debate in Government time on rebalancing the economy, levelling up and the need urgently to address the scourge of youth unemployment in places such as Gateshead in the north-east of England?

Sittings in Westminster Hall (Suspension) (No. 2)

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 13th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call the Minister, I inform the House that I have selected amendment (a) to motion 4 in the name of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) and others, and amendment (a) to motion 5 in the name of the same hon. Members. The amendments will be debated together with the main motions, and the Questions necessary to dispose of the motions will be put at the end of the debate. Just before I call the Minister to move the motion, I must point out to everyone that there are a number of speakers, so please do not hog the time. I am not going to put a time limit on, but let us see if we can help each other.

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

I beg to move motion 4,

That, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 10 (Sittings in Westminster Hall) and the order of this House on 23 September 2020, there shall be no sittings in Westminster Hall with effect from Thursday 14 January until the House otherwise orders.

[Mr Speaker]

With this we will consider the following:

Amendment (a) to motion 4, to leave out from “until” to end and insert “Monday 22 February”.

Motion 5—Business of the House (Private Members’ Bills) (No. 9)—

That the Order of the House of 16 January 2020 (Business of the House (Private Members’ Bills)), as amended by the Orders of the House of 25 March, 22 April, 12 May, 10 June, 1 July, 3 November and 30 December 2020, is further amended as follows: leave out “15 January 2021, 22 January 2021, 29 January 2021, 5 February 2021, 26 February 2021, 5 March 2021, 12 March 2021 and 26 March 2021”.

Amendment (a) to motion 5, to leave out from “leave out ‘15 January 2021” to end and insert:

“( ) The Orders for Second Reading of Bills and for subsequent stages having precedence in accordance with Standing Order No. 14(9) on each of the days listed under Day 1 in the table below are read and discharged.

( ) Each such Bill is ordered to be read a second time or to be set down for the relevant stage on the corresponding day listed under Day 2 in the table; and

( ) Those Bills are so set down on the appropriate Day 2 in the order in which they were so set down on the corresponding Day 1.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

There are a number of Members on the call list, and it is important that we were able to hear from them. I therefore intend, perhaps uncharacteristically, to keep my opening remarks succinct. I have brought forward these motions reluctantly, following representations made to me from across the House. I want to be clear to hon. and right hon. Members that I do not believe it would be right for me to bring forward unilaterally these sorts of restrictions to our business without there being requests to do so. The matter was discussed at length by the House of Commons Commission on Monday, and I do not think there can be any misunderstanding of the views of members of the Commission, including those from Opposition parties, that these motions should be brought to the House, although this is a matter for the House and not for the Commission. I understand that there will be some disappointment about the effect of these motions, but I hope that all sides can support them today, in view of the current circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We have to remember that there are people on the speaking list. If we are going to have interventions, they have to be short, and they have to be relevant to what we are discussing.

To help the Leader of the House, I would say that there are proposals to look at other rooms, but it will take three to four weeks to get that ready. That is now consistently being looked at—especially if the order goes through tonight—in order to make that happen and to try to ensure that we have a real proposal to go forward.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his intervention. I made it clear in my opening remarks that I am very reluctant to remove this scrutiny. Scrutiny is important not just because it is the right of Members to hold the Government to account, but because it leads to better government. Scrutiny of the Government’s ideas and processes, and seeking redress of grievance, helps our constituents, so I would not have brought forward these motions had there not been a widespread appeal for them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment (a), in line 3, leave out from “until” to end and insert “Monday 22 February”.

May I first thank you, Mr Speaker, for selecting the two amendments in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and for facilitating this debate? It is a pity, in my view, that this debate was not volunteered by the Government and that it had to be forced on them by us objecting to the motions that were put down on the Order Paper for yesterday. One consequence of that is that at least we were able to have debates in Westminster Hall today, which otherwise would have been curtailed by the Government.

This is an important issue because we are talking principally about Back-Bench scrutiny. The Leader of the House, in his opening remarks, which I thought were very reasonable, said that he recognises the importance of Back-Bench scrutiny. What we have on the Order Paper at the moment is a proposal that will remove 21 hours a week of scrutiny of the Government—16 hours in Westminster Hall and five hours in private Members’ Bills each week. My right hon. Friend is reluctant to do that and he has said that he will come back to the House as soon as he can to bring forward alternative proposals. What I would like him to do tonight is to guarantee that the Standing Order that requires that there should be 13 sitting Fridays where private Members’ business takes precedence will be complied with in any event in this Session, and that if it cannot be complied with in this Session, the Government will honour the spirit of the Standing Order and allow for the carry-over of those Bills that are set down for days that are not able to be used.

If my right hon. Friend gives me that guarantee, in a sense, it will negate the need for amendment (a) to the second motion, because that amendment is designed to ensure that we can carry on with private Members’ Bills between the period after half-term and the end of April, and it is modelled on the previous motions brought forward by him, most recently on 30 December, when he arranged for the Friday sitting scheduled for 8 January to be moved to 15 January. That system was working perfectly all right and my question is, why, in one week, has it not been possible to replicate the same motions that were put forward previously?

The Prime Minister said today that he will be reviewing, for example, what happens in our schools after half-term. Surely it is appropriate that we should, in any event, have a guarantee that these issues will be revisited by the Leader of the House after half-term. We are talking about no fewer than 151 private Members’ Bills. I have received stick from the Government and colleagues in the past for having insisted that individual private Members’ Bills are debated, but never did I think I would be in the Chamber when the Government put down on the Order Paper a proposal that has the effect for the time being —unless it is ever amended—of depriving 151 private Members’ Bills of any opportunity to be heard and discussed in this Chamber.

I wait to hear from my right hon. Friend—I am happy for him to intervene to give me this guarantee, because I am concerned that we will get to the end of this debate and there will not be an opportunity for him to respond, and this question will go unanswered. I hope that it will not.

[Mr Speaker]

I might be able to help to reassure the hon. Gentleman on that, because I will be bringing the Leader of the House in at 7.50 pm, so whoever may be speaking I would expect to sit down. Let us go to the Chair of the Petitions Committee, Catherine McKinnell.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) [V]]

The public health situation in the capital and across the country is extremely worrying, and it is vital that the House ensures that Members and staff are working in the safest possible conditions. However, this eventuality should have been planned for before now, because the Government’s plan to close Westminster Hall without an alternative is not just taking away our ability to hold debates, but reducing the opportunities for members of the public—our constituents—to engage with Parliament.

Already in this Parliament, around 11 million people have signed a parliamentary petition, but the public are once again seeing the space for their debates being shut down. On Monday I led a debate on support for the hospitality industry, following a petition that got more than 200,000 signatures, and I heard from many hon. Members that they cared deeply about the subject and knew their constituents did, but felt they could not travel down from their constituency to Westminster to take part. Last week my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House asked—this was mentioned earlier—about hybrid proceedings in Westminster Hall, and the Leader of the House said that the potential £100,000 cost was too high for the Government to consider. Perhaps we now have an answer to the question, “What price democracy?”

But where there is a will there is a way; and when Westminster Hall closed in March, the Petitions Committee innovated. We held one-off sessions and inquiries. We undertook a huge range of online public engagement. We held our own hybrid e-petition sessions, allowing Members to contribute in lieu of the debates we would have liked to have. For some shielding Members, it was actually the first time that they were able to contribute substantively to a Backbench Business debate since the first lockdown began.

Those innovations, however, cannot be a substitute for the proper parliamentary debates that I know we want to see. Hybrid debates may not be perfect, but surely the Leader of the House, who I know considers himself a champion of Parliament, would accept that some form of debate taking place safely, either in hybrid form or entirely virtually, is better than no debates at all. So, since Westminster Hall reopened in October, the Petitions Committee has held 22 debates, covering 37 petitions, signed by over 7 million people. Thirty-three petitions are waiting for debate and the number is growing every week; they share more than 6 million signatures. Petitions debates since March have been viewed more than a million times and are some of the most-read debates in Hansard, and the Backbench Business Committee also currently has at least 12 debates that it wants to schedule. The closure of Westminster Hall without an alternative prevents both our Committees from scheduling any of our debates, and so for petitioners, for Back Benchers and for the good of debate, which is vital to our democracy and the good functioning of government, I urge the Leader of the House to urgently bring forward a motion to ensure a hybrid Westminster Hall, whether that is in the existing hall or in a new location, so that that can come into effect as soon as possible.

[Mr Speaker]

I just want to say that the decision on spending the money is for the House Service; it is not a Government decision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD) [V]]

This debate has clearly demonstrated the value of Westminster Hall debates and private Members’ Bills for very many Members on both sides of the House, and, most importantly, for the constituents we represent. They allow Back-Bench Members to make their own contributions and advocate for specific topics on behalf of those constituents, as well as helping to shine a light on issues that the Government would not usually be held to account on.

Like other speakers in this debate, I would like to see Westminster Hall become fully virtual, allowing all Members to take part. I understand the broadcast capability constraints that have been reported previously, but I wonder whether an option might be to facilitate virtual participation in Westminster Hall and to record those sessions for later uploading and access by members of the public on the parliamentlive.tv site rather than via live broadcast.

During the autumn, before the Westminster Hall debates were back up and running, the Petitions Committee ran a series of Westminster Hall-style virtual debates that were accessible to those who had not been able to attend the House in person. They were invaluable to many of those hon. Members. I wonder what conversations the Leader of the House has had with either the Commission or the Petitions Committee and its Chairperson about to what extent it is possible to get those up and running again in the short term, or to adapt them to cover a broader range of debates while we look at how we bring Westminster Hall back in a virtual form.

Now that Westminster Hall debates and private Members’ Bills are to cease for the next few weeks, it is true that the avenues by which Members of Parliament can scrutinise the Government will be reduced. It is therefore vital that the Government ensure that those means that are available are working as efficiently and effectively as possible.

Regarding the Chamber, I agree with those hon. Members who have said that the Backbench Business Committee should be allocated a generous amount of time on the Floor of the House to enable it to address the long-standing backlog, which clearly the closure of Westminster Hall does not help. That is one of the few remaining mechanisms by which Back-Bench MPs can get an issue debated in this House, so I ask the Leader of the House to consider allocating further time to the Committee on that basis.

Beyond events in the Chamber, there are questions that we table and letters that we write to Ministers, and there are still real delays in answering parliamentary questions, even when they are named day questions. When they are answered, too often the answers we currently get give insufficient detail or are out of date.

I have concerns about the responses to those letters, and I highlight the Treasury in particular as a Department where we are still receiving stock replies. That is very frustrating for my constituents, who are often seeking a specific response to their query—that is why they have contacted my office in the first place—and I would be grateful if the Leader of the House could speak to the Chancellor about why that delay in particular is ongoing still within the Treasury, more than nine months on from the initial outbreak of coronavirus.

Finally, I pay tribute to the essential members of staff who are present in person on the parliamentary estate, who are allowing proceedings to continue in their current form. I ask the Leader of the House to set out whether any decision has been made in relation to testing for those that are on the estate, an issue I have raised before, to ensure that any outbreak, when it does happen, is caught before it spreads further.

[Mr Speaker]

As I said, we have got to bring the Leader of the House on at 7.50 pm, so please try to share out the time. There are five people to come.

--- Later in debate ---

One hour having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the Business of the House (Today) motion, the Speaker put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Order, this day).

[Mr Speaker]

I call Sir Christopher Chope to move his amendment (a) to motion 4.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

In the light of this debate, I am going to put my trust in the Leader of the House; if that trust is not well founded, I will behave like the late Sir Alan Herbert. Having said that, I will not move my amendment.

[Mr Speaker]

I think we will leave it that the amendment will not be moved.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 10 (Sittings in Westminster Hall) and the order of this House on 23 September 2020, there shall be no sittings in Westminster Hall with effect from Thursday 14 January until the House otherwise orders.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to motion 5. Sir Christopher, I take it that you will not move your amendment (a), so I will put the Question, with your agreement.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

indicated assent.

Business of the House (Private Members’ Bills) (No. 9)

Ordered,

That the Order of the House of 16 January 2020 (Business of the House (Private Members’ Bills)), as amended by the Orders of the House of 25 March, 22 April, 12 May, 10 June, 1 July, 3 November and 30 December 2020, is further amended as follows:

leave out “15 January 2021, 22 January 2021, 29 January 2021, 5 February 2021, 26 February 2021, 5 March 2021, 12 March 2021 and 26 March 2021”.—(Mr Rees-Mogg.)

[Mr Speaker]

Can I just say to everyone that the Commission of this House takes seriously its role as an employer and its duty of care to all who work here? At its most recent meeting, as has been the case many times before, we have been guided by Public Health England’s advice. We want to do everything in our power to make our workplace as safe as possible for both Members and staff alike, even if at times that means we have to put some limits on our activities, which goes against all our instincts as parliamentarians.

I am thinking of the tragic loss of one of those people who serve this House, so at this time my thoughts are with their family and their colleagues. All I can say is that it is not a great time for this country—it is a sad time—and as soon as we can, I want this House back to normal. That is an assurance from myself, as well as from the Leader of the House.

Virtual Participation in Proceedings during the Pandemic (Temporary Orders) (No. 2)

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 30th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I just want to say that we also welcome the return of full virtual participation. I think it is regrettable that the Government have not given us remote voting. That means there are twice as many SNP MPs here today as there otherwise might have been, so I want to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow East (David Linden) and for Midlothian (Owen Thompson), who will act as Tellers for us later today. They would not have had to be here if we had had electronic voting.

[Mr Speaker]

Leader of the House, any further comments? No.

Question put and agreed to.

Virtual participation in proceedings commenced (Order, 4 June and this day).

[NB: [V] denotes a Member participating virtually.]

European Union (Future Relationship) Bill: Business of the House

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 30th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call the Leader of the House to move the motion, I should inform the House that I have selected the amendment to the motion in the name of Ian Blackford.

Business of the House

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 17th December 2020 Commons Chamber

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

The business for the week commencing 4 January will include:

Monday 4 January—The House will not be sitting.

Tuesday 5 January—Remaining stages of the Financial Services Bill.

Wednesday 6 January—Opposition day (14th allotted day). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 7 January—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 8 January—Private Members’ Bills.

Subject to the House’s decision later, we will rise for the Christmas recess at close of business today. Hon. and right hon. Members will recognise that talks with the European Union continue and, should a deal be secured, it is the Government’s intention to request a recall so that Parliament may pass the necessary legislation. Parliament has done and continues to do its duty, and has long shown that it can act quickly and decisively when needed. I am sure that the whole House will agree that the country would expect nothing less.

The Government realise that that duty falls not just on MPs and peers but on the parliamentary staff who make this place function, and to whom we are very grateful. While we may therefore sit again in the coming days, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the staff of the House, civil servants and Members’ assistants for the commitment and dedication they have shown in keeping the parliamentary show going throughout this extremely difficult year. Hon. Members are always grateful for the hard work of the ever-informative Doorkeepers, the cheerful cleaners who have gone about their work regardless of the perception of risk, which was particularly high at the beginning of the pandemic, and the wise Clerks, whose intelligence does not seem to have been affected by the loss of their wigs, which I used to think were essential to keeping their brains warm and up to full speed—

[Mr Speaker]

I still think they are essential.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am glad to note your intervention, Mr Speaker, which has, I hope, been recorded.

We are grateful to the smartly behelmeted police officers, who cheer us with their badinage and keep us safe with their blunderbusses; to the catering staff, who have not lost their appetite for keeping us well nourished; the broadcasting team, who have probably been under more pressure than any other part of our community but have none the less gone about their work quietly and effectively; and the Hansard team, who always correct my errors and smooth away the knots and gnarls of an extempore text.

I hope that all those whose work supports the smooth running of the United Kingdom Parliament feel proud of their contribution in tackling the pandemic this year. I know that should the House be recalled, they will continue their dutiful service to our democracy. For that, Mr Chri—I mean Mr Speaker, not Mr Christmas. You see, Mr Speaker is a very Father Christmas-like figure, spreading goodness and cheerfulness wherever he goes. For that, Mr Speaker, they deserve the highest praise and a restful Christmas. I can deliver the first, but I fear that I cannot promise the second.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady raises an interesting point. That matter has been considered by the Commission, and it will be kept under review. It is a reasonable thing for her to suggest, because this is a covid-secure workplace, and the authorities have worked very hard to ensure that, but we should certainly consider taking further measures that may help. I am sorry that I cannot give her a clearer answer than that it is under consideration.

[Mr Speaker]

Let us head to the home of Alfred the Great, with Ian Liddell-Grainger.

[Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) [V]]

Good morning, Mr Speaker.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that the misuse of public funds is tantamount to theft. Somerset County Council is squandering public money to promote this ghastly nightmare plan for a single unitary authority. The latest lunacy, believe it or not, is a glossy full-page newspaper advert full of lies, but the scandal is that we have to pay for it. The leadership are behaving like Danish Vikings, pillaging the public purse. They have even used money earmarked to fight covid to balance their books. They have no interest in reuniting Somerset. Can we have a debate on greedy thugs wasting money? King Alfred would be appalled. Rudyard Kipling had the answer:

“We never pay any-one Dane-geld,

No matter how trifling the cost;

For the end of that game is oppression and shame,

And the nation that plays it is lost!”

Merry Christmas!

--- Later in debate ---

[Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)]

For the first time ever, UNICEF, the UN agency responsible for providing humanitarian aid to children, is having to feed working-class kids in the UK. While children go hungry, a wealthy few enjoy obscene riches: from Tory donors handed billions in dodgy covid contracts, to people like the Leader of the House, who is reportedly in line to receive an £800,000 dividend pay-out this year. Will he give Government time to discuss the need to make him and his super-rich chums pay their fair share, so that we can end the grotesque inequality that scars our society?

[Mr Speaker]

I do not like to personalise too much in the House. I understand that Members want to get things on the record, but I want to show at least some kind of Christmas spirit at the moment.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is a real scandal that UNICEF should be playing politics in this way. It is meant to be looking after people in the poorest and most deprived countries in the world, where people are starving and there are famines and civil wars, and it makes cheap political points of this kind, giving £25,000 to one council. It is a political stunt of the lowest order.

What have this Government done about child poverty? We are committed to our manifesto pledge to reduce child poverty. We have expanded free school meals to all five to seven-year-olds, benefiting 1.4 million children. We doubled free childcare for eligible working parents and will establish a £1 billion childcare fund, giving parents the support and freedom to look after children. We are spending £400 million of taxpayers’ money to support children, families and the most vulnerable over winter and through 2021. Between 2010 and 2018-19, there were 100,000 fewer children in absolute poverty in this country. This is a record of success of conservatism and UNICEF should be ashamed of itself.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The second point that my hon. Friend raises is of the utmost importance. In a constituency such as his—and indeed my own, where there is a former mining community—this must be a matter of the greatest local concern. I assure him that I will pass this matter on to my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary immediately after these proceedings, because my hon. Friend has raised a fundamentally important point and he is right to seek redress of grievance.

[Mr Speaker]

Let us head over to Wales with Kevin Brennan. Can I just say that there is a dress code for Members who are not in the Chamber as well as those who are?

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab) [V]]

I thank the shadow Leader of the House for mentioning Luke Symons, who is still being held captive by the Houthis in Yemen. May I press the Leader of the House to ensure that his colleagues in the Foreign Office are doing all they can to secure his release?

My constituent Bailey Williams turns 19 this week. He suffers from multiple seizures, except when controlled by medical cannabis. He can get hold of his medicine, but many children and young people in that position cannot, because the Department of Health and Social Care has confirmed that after 31 December it will be impossible to import that important medicine from the Netherlands. May we have an urgent statement from the Department of Health and Social Care, in writing if necessary, to indicate what it thinks families who are faced with the prospect of their children losing their vital medicine should do?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I begin by wishing the hon. Gentleman a very happy Christmas? I have a feeling that he is the only Member of this House who is disappointed that I have announced the recess dates, and would prefer that we were sitting on Christmas Day itself, which would be the best way he could celebrate. [Interruption.] Well of course one goes to church first and then comes into the House. I do wish him and all his family a very happy Christmas.

The hon. Gentleman has raised a deeply concerning subject—the reports of armed men attacking a secondary school in Katsina in north-west Nigeria and abducting over 300 children. Violence against children studying in school is a despicable act. To go back to an earlier question, one does wonder whether UNICEF might think a bit more about this than faffing around in England. The Minister for Africa tweeted on 14 December expressing our concern, and we are monitoring the situation closely. The UK is providing—this is important—a comprehensive package of support to Nigeria to help tackle insecurity challenges, including serious and organised crime and terrorism, but there is clearly a great deal more to do. Over Christmas, both the hon. Gentleman and I will remember those children in our prayers.

[Mr Speaker]

In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.