Retirement of the Clerk of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 12th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

One of the great virtues of the Clerks—and particularly of the Under Clerk of the Parliaments—is that whether we are the most junior, most recently elected Member or the Leader of the House, we get the best, cleverest advice confidentially. During that difficult time of the 2017-19 Parliament, which Sir John handled brilliantly, people were going in to seek advice to do completely opposite things. Some wanted to smooth Government business through, and others wanted to obstruct it, and each one of us was given good, professional, thoughtful advice and treated without any difference according to seniority or recent appearance in this House. That is a true mark of a good Clerk and of fairness.

To give an example of the complexity of the issues, one that came up was whether a Humble Address fell at Prorogation or not. The first edition of “Erskine May” says that it does. A subsequent edition of “Erskine May”—about the 12th, I think—says that it does not. After that, nobody mentioned it, because we had not had Humble Addresses for 150 years. The Clerks had to work out which it was and how it was, and advise accordingly. Although this is not the occasion for paying tribute to you, Mr Speaker, because I hope you are going to stay in office for a very long time, it has to be said that you then made the very important statement that you would stick to clerkly advice or give a written reason as to why not, reinforcing the importance and independence of the role, because it is a key constitutional role.

Others have mentioned covid and what Sir John did to ensure that the House sat. He turned the whole House around; it was a really remarkable thing. We went away for the Easter recess having no idea how this House would sit when it came back—none at all. We had no idea whether the technology would possibly work, and yet the Clerk was being told that he had to get Parliament back. It was our democratic requirement that this House should sit and sit safely. That was perhaps easy for some of us to say, because it was the Clerk who had the legal responsibility. We must bear in mind the uncertainty of that time; nobody knew how serious or how dangerous the disease was or what its effect might be, but we knew we had to have Parliament back. As we said to him from time to time, “It is all very well, but you, Sir John”—or Dr Benger, as he was then—“are the one who goes to prison if you get it wrong.” He took that responsibility and ensured that democracy carried on.

He has been an innovator and has introduced things in this House. We have mentioned the ICGS, which he was a great driver behind and which has been hugely to the benefit of the House. He also got rid of the wigs. That came as a great surprise to me. I had always known that the Clerks are some of the cleverest people in the world. We know that whenever we go to see them to ask a question on some procedural point. Their wisdom is phenomenal. I thought that this was because they kept their brains warm by wearing wigs, and that without that warmth, the brainpower would not carry on as it had. But I confess, I turned out to be wrong; their brainpower continues without that warmth.

I should have known what a radical our Clerk really is at heart. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) pointed out, his specialist subject was the Marprelate tracts. One of the things that Marprelate was so against was clerical dress—he ridiculed the clothes worn by the clergy—so it is no surprise that, in a radical act, Sir John simplified the dress of the Clerks. We all wish him enormously well. He has been a model of clerkly wisdom and service to this House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Mother of the House.

Civil Service Impartiality

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Monday 6th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Many people may say that Ms Gray is a splendid woman —I understand she even fed the cats in the Cabinet Office—but does it not smash to pieces the idea of an independent civil service when we know that one of the most senior civil servants in the country was conniving in secret meetings with the party of Opposition? Does that not devalue years of advice and reports that she has given, her views on devolution, which were known constantly to be soft, and her report into my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), which we now know was done by a friend of the socialists? Does this not undermine all her previous work and the idea of an independent civil service?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that, as I said, I do not want anybody creeping into the report—[Interruption.] I know you were careful, but this is just a marker. I do not want this to be a creeping feast.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 25th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I look forward to the hon. Lady’s supporting the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, which is coming later today and will get rid of lots and lots of dreadful EU regulations that are such a terrible burden on businesses. Is it not wonderful, Mr Speaker, that our socialist friends at last have this glorious zeal for deregulation? It is something we on the Conservative Benches have supported since the time of Noah.

[Mr Speaker]

We come now to the shadow Minister, Seema Malhotra.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think the answer is in the name of the Department, which is the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy: any policy relating to energy is one the Department has a role in.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson, Stephen Flynn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I was actually in Coventry last week because it is a centre for battery technology development, and my hon. Friend knows very well that Andy Street is one of the most effective campaigning advocates for the west midlands. What is needed is for companies to indicate that they want to invest in gigafactories, and the Government stand ready to support as much as we can.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Government’s economic crisis is now being paid for by every household and business in this country, but the Government’s failure goes well beyond the pantomime of the last few weeks. Twelve years of Conservative Government have given us the lowest rate of business investment in the G7, and that is with the lowest headline rate of corporation tax. So why does the Business Secretary believe the Conservative party has been so consistently unable to provide a platform for the UK’s fantastic businesses to invest in throughout the last 12 years?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

What we have seen is the lowest level of unemployment in this country since 1973. That is real people and real jobs, and employment is the best route out of poverty. We have seen the most enormous advance in clean energy, with more offshore wind than any other country in the world. We have ensured that, during this difficult winter, we were one of the first countries to come forward with a comprehensive package to protect both domestic and non-domestic users to ensure that the economy could thrive. The hon. Gentleman complains that everything that has gone wrong is the fault of the Government. He seems to have forgotten about Ukraine and covid. Perhaps he should read the newspapers occasionally.

[Mr Speaker]

I think you have forgotten that topicals have to be short and sweet.

Energy Prices: Support for Business

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy if he will make a statement on Government support for businesses facing rising energy prices.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)]

I am delighted to make a statement, Mr Speaker. As you know, I am a great believer that this House should be informed first. I was unaware of any precedent of a statement being made on a day set aside for taking the Oath, and therefore unaware that your generosity would have allowed such a statement to be made. I point out to the House that, in my membership of the House, a statement has not been made by the Government during the taking of the Oath days set aside, nor was any statement made in 1952 on the last occasion when the Oath was taken. I apologise to you, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

In fairness, conversations would help to overcome any of these difficulties.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That is why I am saying that I am very grateful, Mr Speaker. I always think it is important that this House gets to know, and your generosity in setting a precedent where statements can be made on the days set aside for taking the Oath is, I think, a good one.

It is vital that businesses have the support that they need to pay their energy bills this winter. His Majesty’s Government are determined to grow the economy. We cannot do that if business becomes insolvent thanks to what is tantamount to blackmail by a malevolent state actor. His Majesty’s Government announced yesterday that they will provide a discount on wholesale gas and electricity prices for all non-domestic customers, whose current gas and electricity prices have been significantly inflated by global energy prices. That includes all UK businesses and covers the voluntary sector, such as charities, and the public sector, such as schools and hospitals. The scheme will apply to fixed contracts that have been agreed on or after 1 April 2022, as well as to deemed variable and flexible tariffs and contracts. It will be applied to energy usage for six months from 1 October until 31 March next year.

As with the energy price guarantee for domestic customers, in order to benefit from the scheme, customers do not need to take action. The discount will automatically be applied to their energy bills from 1 October. In terms of real-world savings, non-domestic users will start to see the benefits of the scheme in their October energy bills, which are typically received in November. The level of price reduction for each business will vary depending on its contract type, the tariff and the volume used.

We will publish a review of the operation of the scheme in three months to inform decisions on future support after March 2023. The review will focus in particular on identifying the most vulnerable non-domestic customers and on how the Government will continue assisting them with energy costs beyond the initial six-month period.

A parallel scheme—based on the same criteria and offering comparable support, but recognising the different market fundamentals—will be established in Northern Ireland. For those who are not connected to the gas or electricity grid, equivalent support will be provided for non-domestic consumers who use heating oil or alternative fuels instead of gas. Further detail on this will be announced shortly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support, and I am glad that businesses in his constituency are already being helped. I also recognise the importance of support for those who are off grid and using fuel oil. That is a specific issue in Northern Ireland, of which my right hon. Friend, as a former Northern Ireland Secretary, has particular experience. We are looking at the comparables, because the heating oil price has not risen by as much as the gas price. We need to be fair to all users, and we are working on that currently.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Scottish National party spokesman, Stephen Flynn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has to learn to ask a question, not make his own statement.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman might like to apply to the Backbench Business Committee for a debate on the subject.

The reason we are going for a cap on the wholesale price is so that the market should remain as open as possible, and therefore there should be opportunities for discussions with companies as to the right level of price at the retail level and all that goes between the wholesale and retail level for the non-domestic sector. I hope that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman.

Shale Gas Extraction

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Indeed, the hon. Lady is right to be saying that I need to find the right page because I am having some difficulty in finding the right page immediately, but do not worry. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Is there another copy we can give the Secretary of State? [Interruption.] He has got it.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for asking his urgent question. I am glad to be able to announce that the moratorium on the extraction of shale gas is being lifted, and a statement about that has been laid before the House.

As I set out in the previous urgent question, it is important that we use all available sources of fuel within this country. It is more environmentally friendly to use our own sources of fuel than to extract them in other countries and transport them here at great cost, both financially and in terms of carbon. It is therefore something we need to revisit, and we need to revisit the seismic limits to ensure that shale gas extraction can be done in an effective and efficient way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

We obviously want to work with local communities, and it is really important that companies that seek to extract shale gas come up with packages that make what they are proposing to do welcome to local communities. That is of fundamental importance and is what the Prime Minister has set out.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Stephen Flynn, SNP spokesperson.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 14th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

What we are trying to do is get back from the covid backlog. It is undoubtedly the fact that people have not been going into their offices. If we take the DVLA as an example, the mail was not being opened. It was piled up in room after room because people were not going in. Some 4 million envelopes were unopened because people were not going into the office, because of a combination of the requirements of covid and the excessive rules of the socialist Welsh Government that made it very difficult for people to go in. That backlog has to be dealt with, but technology is unquestionably the answer. Try renewing your tax disc with the DLVA, Mr Speaker: you can do it in seconds. You no longer have to go into a post office to do it. That is the type of efficiency we need.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the Minister for that very thorough answer, but we have to move on otherwise nobody else will get in, and we all want to hear Lee Anderson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Yes, I agree philosophically and practically, because you will notice, Mr Speaker, that my hon. Friend and I carefully refer to taxpayers’ money when the socialists normally refer to it as Government money. There is no such thing; there is only taxpayers’ money that we have a duty to protect. When they are in office we see botched IT projects such as the NHS one that my hon. Friend referred to, costing £26 billion, but what have we done? We have an IT project that is working like billy-o, looking after hundreds of thousands of extra universal credit applications through the pandemic. The Tories know how to spend money sensibly.

[Mr Speaker]

Can I just that that was far too easy a wicket for the Minister to bat on? Patricia Gibson.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. For the record, may I say that it is easier if I call Members? I was actually calling Patricia Gibson, but do not worry—it is fine: I will come back to her later.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Once again, we hear the socialists calling for two different things, contradictorily, within the same question. First we should be focusing on value for money—yes, I absolutely agree—and then we should be putting all the hobby horses of the left into the procurement process. We want value for money, and that is what is being legislated for in the other place, and the Bill will come to this House in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I think the Minister has got the gist.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

You are right, Mr Speaker: I have got the point, and it is a terribly bogus point. At the height of the pandemic, all Opposition Members were calling for PPE to be delivered “yesterday”, and the Government managed to increase the proportion of domestically produced PPE from less than 1% to nearly 80%, excluding gloves. The hon. Lady talks as if the Scottish National party, our separatist friends, were any good at this. May I say to her “ferries, ferries, ferries”? That was one of the biggest and most scandalous wastes of money, and it was done by the SNP.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 9th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is a great one for holding the Government and the bureaucracy to account, and he is right to do so. That is why we are looking to significant productivity increases by reducing the size of the civil service back to where it was in 2016, to ensure that services are provided to the public efficiently and effectively. As we reduce the number, so there will be significant taxpayer spending on better technology, because the use of technology speeds up actions for citizens and reduces costs for the taxpayer.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Angela Rayner.

[Mr Speaker]

I should just say that he is no longer the Leader of the House. I know we all assume he is, but there we are.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I was going to point out to the right hon. Lady that business questions will follow in due course and that that would be her opportunity to raise such things with the Leader of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I have had assurances from the Foreign Office that it carefully evaluated the bids in line with its procurement process, and that the answers and documentation supplied provided limited assurance that either supplier could deliver electronic countermeasure systems within the procurement timeframe required. However, I commend my hon. Friend for standing up for his constituents and seeking redress of grievance, which is what this House exists for, and I will question the Foreign Office further to give him further reassurance that the process was carried out fairly and his constituents were not disadvantaged.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister, Rachel Hopkins.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I do not know where these figures come from. The hon. Gentleman himself said it, but I am not sure there is any greater source for these figures, though perhaps he will make them available in the Library if there is some better evidence for them.

What we have done by not adding controls on 1 July is ensure we do not add costs to things coming into this country. We believe in free trade. We do not believe in non-tariff barriers. We believe in being as open as possible. That is why my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is negotiating dozens of free trade agreements, many of them already successfully adopted. That is what we will continue to do because a free and open market reduces prices, which we can do as we are no longer under the yoke—the onerous yoke—of the European Union.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Peter Bone, who is no yoke.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I have good news for my hon. Friend: DEFRA’s equine identification team has been in contact with Weatherbys during the development and launch of its e-passport, and the merits of its e-passport will be considered along with responses from a recent consultation, which closes on 28 June. So it is a case of, my hon. Friend asks and it shall be given. Seek and he shall find.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Scottish National party spokesman, Brendan O’Hara.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 31st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Government were facing an emergency. PPE was needed immediately. It was obviously right to order more than was necessary—that was fundamental. At the beginning of the pandemic, nobody knew precisely how much would be needed, but we knew we needed supplies. The Government succeeded in getting domestic production, excluding gloves, up from 1% to 70%.

The hon. Gentleman refers to 50% of suppliers having something faulty: all that means is that in a shipment that may have been of tonnes of PPE, one item was faulty. It does not mean that 50% of the items received were faulty. That is a fundamental error that people have been making in deliberately misunderstanding what the National Audit Office has said. Our duty was to get PPE in quickly. That was done properly, professionally and to the benefit of the nation.

[Mr Speaker]

I call shadow Minister Rachel Hopkins.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)]

We will bring forward a Brexit freedoms Bill to end the special status of retained EU law. It will accompany a major drive to reform, repeal and replace retained EU law, thereby cutting at least £1 billion-worth of red tape for UK businesses. The Government’s “The Benefits of Brexit” paper reinforced Departments’ commitments in response to TIGRR, and Departments are pushing ahead in delivering the recommendations in its report.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Chris Stephens. Not here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman is joining thousands of readers of the Sun and of the Sunday Express in pointing out ways in which we can cut red tape further. There is more joy in heaven over the one sinner who repenteth than over the 99 who remain pure.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I thank my hon. Friend for his brilliant and inspired question. There are obviously difficulties with the Northern Ireland protocol, which was set out in the agreement to be amendable, changeable and alterable, and that must be done. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is working on that and it is important to get it right, because nothing must undermine the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a single entity. That is the Government’s policy, that is the Government’s aim and that is what will happen.

[Mr Speaker]

That is the end of Cabinet Office questions. We now come to the urgent questions, as no statements were forthcoming.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 24th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I welcome Jacob Rees-Mogg to the Dispatch Box.

[The Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker; it is a rare treat.

Her Majesty’s Government are delivering an ambitious programme to seize the opportunities of Brexit and deliver growth and innovation across the United Kingdom. The Brexit Opportunities Unit co-ordinates those reforms in close partnership with other Departments, including by working towards our target to cut at least £1 billion of EU red tape to help businesses to innovate and grow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friends the Members for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) compete with each other to be greatest champion of their constituencies. I look forward to visiting Cleethorpes in the not-too-distant future. There is a date in the diary, and I am looking forward to the finest food that Cleethorpes can provide when I go there to speak.

[Mr Speaker]

Don’t get too excited. You should be going to Lancashire for food.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 3rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. You will be coming in later! I call the Leader of the House.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It would be wrong of me to predict what is happening in Northern Ireland at the moment. We have to wait upon events, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the British Government take responsibility for the whole of the United Kingdom. It is one single and undivided United Kingdom, and Her Majesty’s Government have a responsibility for the best interests of the whole of our country. We recognise the serious difficulties that are being caused by the Northern Ireland protocol and its implementation, and the effect that it has had on Northern Ireland. Her Majesty’s Government are aware of the issues, but we are a Unionist Government who attach great importance to being part of the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I must declare that I have been to the museum.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It must be a very great place if it has been honoured by a visit from Mr Speaker himself. It is one of the glories of our country that we have museums for almost everything. A lawnmower museum is a reminder of the pride that we take in having finely cut lawns. It is worth bearing in mind that until, I think, the 1860s, the cricket ground at Lord’s—Thomas Lord’s ground—was cut by sheep. It is therefore relatively recently that lawnmowers have been used to assist the tending of Lord’s cricket ground.

Socialist councils are an absolute menace. We know that Sefton Council is a particular menace to all good ideas locally. It is absolutely typical that it is trying to stop something that gives pleasure to people. I am glad to say that £850 million of taxpayer spending was announced in last year’s spending review to support world-class cultural and heritage buildings. We should take pride in and support our local museums, and—dare I say it—we should cut socialist councils down to size.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I am sure that the Leader of the House will be delighted to know that, following a campaign by the women’s parliamentary Labour party, the journalist Rose Stokes and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, Boots has announced that it is slashing the price of its morning-after pill from £15.99 to £10.99, removing the sexist surcharge that is attached to that medication. It is interesting to note that Superdrug is still charging £13.49, whereas people can get generic emergency contraception for £3.99 on the Chemist4U website. I am raising this because cuts to public health budgets and the fragmentation of the NHS have meant that it is more difficult for women to access contraception advice. May we have a debate about the report of the all-party parliamentary group on sexual and reproductive health in the UK, which made clear recommendations on proper funding and accessibility for women’s contraceptive health services?

[Mr Speaker]

Before the Leader of the House answers, may I just say that we are finishing at 11.30? If we want to get people in, we are really going to have to speed up both questions and answers.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The right hon. Lady cannot expect me to speak in favour of abortifacients.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 27th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I thank my hon. Friend both for her question and for her campaigning on children’s mental health issues, which are of great importance and, I think, recognised as such across the House.

The Government have announced that £17 million of extra spending to build on the existing mental health support will be available in education settings, including £7 million for the wellbeing for education recovery programme and £9.5 million to fund training for mental health leaders in about a third of all state schools and colleges. That is on top of the £79 million to boost mental health support for children and young people that was announced in March. NHS England has consulted on the potential to introduce five new waiting time standards, and a response will be published in due course. I think it is accepted that there is a problem, and steps are being taken to tackle it.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Scottish National party spokesman, Pete Wishart.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend because I agree with him. I think that freeports are going to be one of the real advantages and benefits of having left the European Union. The National Insurance Contributions Bill, which is passing through Parliament at the moment, is the main Act of Parliament that will facilitate an ambitious programme of freeports, so I am glad to say that it is going ahead and legislative action is taking place.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, Ian Mearns.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jason McCartney]

It is the rugby league world cup this autumn, and the new Super League season kicks off in a fortnight, with some of the games for the first time on free-to-air television—they will be on Channel 4—which will be great for widening the notoriety of the sport. Such a debate would also give me an opportunity to express my deep disappointment that Labour-run Kirklees has reneged on an agreement to host the National Rugby League Museum in the birthplace of rugby league, the George Hotel in Huddersfield.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think we should have a special debate every week on the failures of socialist councils, to which Conservative Members would massively subscribed. Labour Members would probably decide to work from home that day, which is something they enjoy. I cannot claim to be an expert on rugby league. The only sport I know anything much about is cricket, which may be rather embarrassing, under current circumstances, to confess to. But I thought I heard—whether the stenographers of Hansard did, I do not know—a modest “Hear, hear” emanate from the Chair during my hon. Friend’s question. Assuming that it did not come from the Clerks, who tend not to comment on our business, I think that an application for an Adjournment debate may be very favourably looked upon.

[Mr Speaker]

That is good news. It is Stefan Ratchford’s testimonial on Saturday, when Warrington play Wigan, and I will be there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

First of all, I thank my hon. Friend for the very novel approach of actually asking a question about the business of the House during business questions; it is the first time that has happened in a long time.

My view is that every sitting day is a proper sitting day; there are not greater or lesser days of business in this House. The House of Commons sitting is an important constitutional activity and statements made on a Friday are as valid as those made on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday. I do not know when the report will be published or when it will be possible to announce a statement, but I am certainly of the view—and I know that you share this view, Mr Speaker—that this House has the right to know first. We should certainly know before our friend Brendan Carlin at the Mail on Sunday gets the information.

[Mr Speaker]

I should add that I expect all Members to know about the statement with very good time in hand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am delighted that the hon. Lady is asking a Unionist question, because it is important that all parts of the Union learn from what is going on in other parts of the Union, so that we provide the best services to individuals. Having a hyperbaric chamber in a pharmacy sounds prima facie to be a very good idea and I hope it will be something that other people look into. I am grateful to her for raising it.

[Mr Speaker]

The one and only, Jim Shannon.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 20th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful, as always, to the hon. Lady, particularly for her offer that I should join them on the other side of the House. My welcome would be even warmer than that given to the hon. Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford), who has not received the warmest welcome from the young socialists, who are not so keen, or from the Corbynistas, who are not in raptures at somebody who used language about the socialists on online chat groups that is not of the type I would use ever. I fear I would make our friends the stenographers of Hansard blush if I were to repeat such language in this House. Mr Speaker, I think you would swoon if the words he used to refer to his now socialist friends were poured forth. One has to say, “With friends like that”—I will leave others to conclude the rest of the sentence.

We then come on to what the hon. Lady and other socialists have been saying about the Prime Minister. He has rightly apologised to the House for mistakes that have been made. He has apologised to the country for mistakes that have been made, and Sue Gray is carrying out an investigation, but the socialists never want due process to take place. They always want to make the decision before they have the facts. They do not want to do it properly. This Government are doing it properly, and while we were doing it properly, we set up, under this Prime Minister’s leadership, the furlough programme that saved 14 million jobs and that kept the economy going, which means that the economy is now back above its pre-pandemic levels and that youth unemployment is at a record low.

Every statistic on the economy is going in the right direction in terms of economic growth and employment. Getting back to pre-pandemic levels is a real achievement and something of which the Prime Minister can be proud. The Prime Minister got the vaccine roll-out right. Just think what howls we would have now—what they would be saying every week—if, in the end, the vaccine had not worked. It was that bold decision to buy billions of pounds-worth of vaccines early on that has meant that we are the first country to reopen. Have the socialists ever wanted us to reopen? No, of course not, because when the socialists take charge of our lives, they never want to give it up. They objected to our opening in the summer. They wanted a lockdown in the winter. They have grudgingly come round to the fact that we are now able to reopen earlier than other comparable countries. This is the success of the Prime Minister.

That does not mean that every problem is removed. Everyone accepts that inflation is a problem, but, of course, monetary policy is the independent responsibility of the Bank of England—an independent responsibility given to it by one Mr Gordon Brown, who I seem to remember was a socialist Chancellor of the Exchequer who therefore delegated the primary responsibility for inflation to the Bank of England.

On Bills, the Government are looking carefully at the recommendations of the Joint Committee on the draft Online Safety Bill, which were extremely helpful. I expect that that Bill will be brought forward at the appropriate time—when it is ready. We like to do things at the proper pace. As a general rule, we like to put carts behind horses rather than in front of them. That is better than having carts and horses misaligned.

Then we get to the socialists’ desire for superglue. Mr Speaker, did you know that they want sales of superglue to go up. They are the advertisers for superglue, or Araldite. They want people gluing themselves to motorways to block up our major arteries, because they got their socialist peers in their fine ermine-trimmed robes to vote to obstruct the highways. That is what you get from socialism, Mr Speaker: control; interference; bossiness; and failure. With Conservatives, you get a growing economy.

[Mr Speaker]

Some might have said that Gordon Brown was a Labour Chancellor with socialist principles.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am genuinely grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue of those tragic cases that have upset the nation at large and that require great work to be done to protect children in future. The cruelty, abuse and pain that those children suffered is unimaginable. It is important that policies are brought forward and adopted to protect children. Obviously, during lockdown, the supervision of children who were thought to be at risk was not what it ought to be and what it usually is when the country is fully at work. That is something that needs to be looked at. We need to be aware of what went wrong, so that we can ensure that those sorts of things do not go wrong in the future.

I cannot promise a specific debate in Government time on this matter, but I encourage my hon. Friend to keep on on the subject and to seek the guidance of the Backbench Business Committee, because it is a subject that many in this House would like to discuss.

[Mr Speaker]

Talking of which, I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, Ian Mearns.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Don’t count your chickens before they hatch.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point about the democratic mandate and what mandate we have, because most of us know that we are elected because of the party that we support. All the studies have shown that the personal vote that Members of Parliament have is remarkably small. People are aware that however much independents may be brilliant individuals, they very rarely get elected to this House; it is the party ticket that gets people elected. I know that Bills have been introduced to this House, supported by hon. Members from across the House—particularly ones, I believe, from Bury—on having a by-election if people were to decide to change party. I think that is worth discussing and debating because the mandate goes with the party, but also, if I may say so, with the individual. Members of the Conservative party know that we were elected because of the leadership of our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. He has the mandate; he has the commission from the Queen; he had the support of the British people in 2019. It is our responsibility to ensure that the Government he leads is a success.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Talking about early railway journeys always makes me nervous because we all remember that Huskisson, who was President of the Board of Trade at the time, unfortunately stepped the wrong way on the track and was run down by an early railway experiment.

However, my hon. Friend is right to ask me of all people to celebrate our Victorian forebears. I share a birthday with Her Majesty Queen Victoria, 24 May, which used to be a public holiday as Empire Day. Talking of birthdays, I have not yet wished the Chief Whip a happy birthday. Mr Speaker, did you know it is the anniversary of that distinguished gentleman’s birth?

[Mr Speaker]

I did, and I have already congratulated him.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

We wish the Chief Whip many happy returns.

The spirit of Barry, Brunel and Bazalgette should be the guiding inspiration behind the Prime Minister’s levelling-up agenda. The Government are embarking on the biggest investment in our railway infrastructure, with £96 billion of taxpayers’ money being spent through the integrated rail plan. There will be £105 million spent on Darlington station thanks, at least in part, to the excellent campaigning work of my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson).

The Great British Railways transition team is running a competition to identify where the national headquarters will be. Unfortunately I am not allowed to have favourites, otherwise I might suggest it goes to Midsomer Norton, which is mentioned in Flanders and Swann’s song “On the Slow Train.” As I am not allowed to be partial, may I wish Darlington and my hon. Friend every success?

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 13th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I am very concerned, as I know you will be, Mr Speaker, about the issue that he raised on the security of his office and the risk taken by his staff. I can reassure him that the review of MPs’ security with the Home Office and the Metropolitan police is going ahead well, that an updated letter went to you, Mr Speaker, and the Home Secretary at the end of December, and that you have both approved work to continue. It is so important for the sake of democracy that Members are safe in their offices and I am sure that the police will take this attack extremely seriously. It is difficult for me to promise a debate because we do not debate security matters publicly, for very obvious reasons in relation to security itself.

[Mr Speaker]

May I just reaffirm that all Members’ security and safety is taken very seriously? I have quickly made a note of what the Member has just said, but I would not expect a debate on Members’ security on the Floor of the House because, as the Leader of the House said, it is something that we do not discuss.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 6th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I thought genuinely that the needle had got stuck on the last bit of the question. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not like doing his job, that he wishes to enjoy himself sitting at home and that he does not want to do what Members of Parliament are expected to do, and turn up in the House of Commons to be here—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Can we just calm it down? We had enough yesterday—[Interruption.] No, you had your chance, Mr Wishart. That is the reply. Sometimes we have to accept the reply, even if we do not like it.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I remind the House that the SNP Government have decided to take a different route. They do not believe in trusting people to make decisions for themselves. They believe in constant perpetual lockdown which, as I understand it, the leader of the SNP has accepted did not go as well as anticipated, which sounds slightly like the comments of the Japanese Emperor at the end of the last war. What they have done in Scotland has not been a success. What we have done in the rest of the United Kingdom, in England, has worked better by trusting people. We should trust people and we should continue to trust people. People such as the hon. Gentleman should not be afraid to do the work that they have to do.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 16th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

First, I note my right hon. Friend’s helpful advice. Of course, whipping is not a matter for me as Leader of the House, but I would argue that the Government are given leadership by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who is one of the most civil libertarian leaders that the country has had in well over 100 years. He really believes in the liberties of the people of the United Kingdom and that people make better choices for themselves than the state makes for them. It is this leader who has felt obliged, in the face of a health crisis, to make the decisions that he has. How pleased we should be about that. Just think: we could have had a socialist leader joyfully taking away our liberties and loving locking us down. The Opposition would have kept us in complete lockdown forever and ever—in saecula saeculorum, as my right hon. Friend will quote regularly. This leader—our Prime Minister—has always restored freedoms as quickly as possible and taken them away with reluctance. We should be pleased about that.

As regards recall, Parliament is always recalled when there is a really serious matter to discuss. Sometimes, when we go away on a Thursday, the matter that leads us to be recalled is not what we were discussing when we went away but events that overtake what we were discussing at the moment of our departure. The Government will always listen to calls for recall if the issue is serious enough.

[Mr Speaker]

Before I bring in the SNP spokesperson, may I also wish everybody all the best for Christmas and a peaceful new year? I thank all the staff of the House for the tremendous job that they have done. Without them, the House would not work, so it really is appreciated. I must also put on record a big thank you to my team in Speaker’s House. I hope that the Speaker’s secretary is soon fit and well and back at my side, but I have certainly got good cover at the moment. Just to gently tease the Leader of the House—I have a very good working relationship with him—he is absolutely right that this House matters, so let us make sure that Ministers come here to be held to account.

Business of the House (Today)

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Wednesday 8th December 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That the Order of 7 December 2021 (Business of the House (8 December)) be varied as follows:

After “three hours” insert—

“; such business may be interrupted by any statement made by a Minister of the Crown, and in calculating the three hours no account shall be taken of the time taken by any such statement.”

The motion amends the business motion agreed yesterday to allow the Opposition day debate to continue for three hours, with time in lieu for the time taken for the Government statement.

[Mr Speaker]

In this unusual situation, and to facilitate this important statement, I accept the need to have the motion without notice.

Question put and agreed to.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 25th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I endorse what the hon. Lady said at the end of her remarks and will highlight some of the things that the Government are doing to tackle violence against women and girls, which is obviously a top priority for the whole Government. The tackling violence against women and girls strategy is being refreshed, building on the £100 million already spent on tackling this issue since 2016. It includes establishing new police leads for violence against women and girls reporting to the Home Secretary, spending £30 million through the safer streets and women at night funds, a multimillion-pound communications campaign targeting perpetrators and misogynistic attitudes, and plans to commission a new 24/7 rape and sexual assault helpline and online support. The hon. Lady is right to raise the issue and I think the whole House agrees that everything possible should be done to stop violence against women and girls, and men must recognise that they have an important responsibility within that.

I am delighted that the hon. Lady will now be able to find bargain holidays for herself for next year and that this pressing issue has now been answered. It has to be said that our dutiful staff so enjoy being in the House of Commons that they never come up to me and ask for the recess dates, but hon. Members do from time to time as they wait to book their flights on easyJet or their private jets, depending on their predilection. But I am delighted to have cheered up the hon. Lady.

The hon. Lady rightly mentioned the terrible situation in the channel yesterday, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be at the Dispatch Box later. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that the Government’s priority must be to take every step possible to prevent deaths. The main way of achieving that is to stop the boats setting off; that must be the priority and it is why the Government have offered to help the French in any way that we can to try to stop those boats launching. Under the Nationality and Borders Bill, which the Opposition opposed, we are trying to make it easier for people to make legal claims for asylum, and harder for people who come into the country illegally to make claims. That must be right, because the evil of what happens is the people traffickers and smugglers who are entirely unconcerned about human life and take large amounts of money to put people on unsafe boats and push them out to sea at the risk of their lives. We must deal with them and make their business model fail, and that way we will save lives. I announced that the borders Bill will be coming back, and I hope that the Opposition will seriously consider supporting those many measures and supporting the Bill’s Third Reading, which will help us to ensure safer borders.

On Windrush, the Government are committed to ensuring that those compensation payments are paid. Everyone recognises that that was a great injustice and that the hostile environment policy did not succeed. Ensuring that those who are now quite elderly of the Windrush generation are properly compensated is the priority of the Government. I think changing the structure now would probably delay things more rather than speeding them up, but they have been sped up in the last few months and over the course of the last year, and that will continue.

As regards BA149, that happened some time before I was Leader of the House. Of course, Governments over many decades learn from the failings of previous Governments, but I do not think what happened in 1991 is immediately topical today.

On the issue of Government expenditure, I have warned the hon. Lady before about people in glass houses throwing stones, and I remind her about the £13 billion spent by the last socialist Government on the NHS supercomputer and the incredible failures with working tax credits, which led to masses of waste of taxpayers’ money. The whole approach to money when the socialists are in power is to be irresponsible and loose with other people’s money. As somebody once said, the problem with being socialist is that eventually you run out of other people’s money. The Government are committed to tackling fraud—to dealing with it and reducing it. That is a major priority, as it is for all sensible Governments.

As regards the purchase of personal protective equipment, this was an emergency. The Opposition cannot have it both ways. The vaccine programme, which was an absolute triumph, was based on shortening purchase arrangements, getting things done quickly, moving ahead swiftly, and spending the money that was necessary then, rather than waiting three to six months and finding that we were as behind as some other places have ended up being. The same was true with PPE, but of course the Humble Address, an important constitutional process, will be dealt with properly.

Finally, the hon. Lady mentioned the Standards Committee report. I think she is being a little previous in asking for something to be debated before it has been published.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mark Jenkinson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am delighted to wish Worksop’s Got Talent every success and every good fortune for tomorrow, and I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will tune in to find out what happens. I hope that everyone involved experiences an enjoyable as well as a successful event. £40,000 is a great deal of money to raise for an extraordinarily worthy cause. I note from what my hon. Friend said that James Clarke, who is organising the event, is affected by retinitis pigmentosa, and therefore has a strong interest in ensuring its success. I think I understand, Mr Speaker: people have to reach for the stars.

[Mr Speaker]

Talking of stars, I call Chi Onwurah.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 4th November 2021 Commons Chamber

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

Before I begin, I congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on this day of legend and song, because it is the second anniversary of your being dragged to the Chair with notable reluctance. The business for next week is as follows:

Monday 8 November—Consideration of Lords message relating to the Environment Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Telecommunications (Security) Bill, followed by Opposition day (7th allotted day—second part). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced, followed by motion to approve the draft Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021 and the draft Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2021.

Tuesday 9 November—General debate on giving every baby the best start in life, followed by general debate on the provision of school-based counselling services. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

At the conclusion of business on Tuesday 9 November, the House will rise for the November recess and return on Monday 15 November.

The business for the week commencing 15 November will include:

Monday 15 November—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Social Security (Up-Rating of Benefits) Bill, followed by Second Reading of the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [Lords].

Tuesday 16 November—Second Reading of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.

Wednesday 17 November—Opposition day (8th allotted day). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 18 November—Consideration of a business of the House motion, followed by all stages of the Critical Benchmarks (References and Administrators' Liability) Bill [Lords].

Friday 19 November—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 22 November will include:

Monday 22 November—Remaining Stages of the Health and Care Bill (Day 1).

Tuesday 23 November—Remaining Stages of the Health and Care Bill (Day 2).

I would like to mark the retirement of Crispin Poyser, who has served the House as a Clerk for more than 40 years. A good understanding of “Erskine May” is essential for the functioning of Parliament, and Crispin is a great proceduralist. In the House and in his secondment to the Cabinet Office as parliamentary adviser to the Government, his work has underpinned the principle of accountability to Parliament. We should all be grateful. I know that his colleagues will miss his expertise nearly as much as they will miss him. I thank him for his terrific public service.

I am aware that last night’s vote has created a certain amount of controversy. It is important that standards in this House are done on a cross-party basis. The House voted very clearly yesterday to show that it is worried about the process of handling complaints, and that we would like an appeals system; but the change would need to be supported on a cross-party basis, and that is clearly not the case.

While there is a very strong feeling on both sides of the House that there is a need for an appeals process, there is equally a strong feeling that this should not be based on a single case, or applied retrospectively. I fear last night’s debate conflated the individual case with the general concern. This link needs to be broken. Therefore, I and others will look to work on a cross-party basis to achieve improvements in our system for future cases. We will bring forward more detailed proposals once there have been cross-party discussions.

[Mr Speaker]

I would also like to express the thanks of the whole House to Crispin Poyser for his 43 years of service to the House. We wish him and his wife Krissie well, and send our best wishes for the many things that they will do next. Crispin is known among colleagues for his keen procedural mind, curiosity and kindness. He will be missed by the House, and I thank him for the loyal service that he has given.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady raises a matter that is of concern across the country: how we have a planning system that provides the number of houses that we need and ensures that the right number of permissions are granted every year to achieve the targets and to allow people to own their own home, which is the fundamental aim of planning reform. It was announced in the Queen’s Speech that there would be a planning Bill, and it is the intention of Her Majesty’s Government to deliver a planning Bill.

[Mr Speaker]

Finally, the voice of Bradford: Judith Cummins.

Committee on Standards

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I would like to hear what the hon. Gentleman has got to say before we make a judgment.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman can intervene on me, but he cannot intervene on a point made by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant)—

[Mr Speaker]

Let me help. It is not going to be direct; I think it is direct to the point that was made to you, Leader of the House. I think we can dance around on the head of a pin, but that is not going to be helpful in a very important debate today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I think the Leader of the House has just said that he is coming to his conclusion.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Thank you for your ruling, Mr Speaker. It is always a balance in this House as to whether one tries to answer as many questions as possible, which is, I think, the better way of conducting the debate.

A letter was sent to me yesterday by union representatives about the importance of maintaining independent and impartial investigations into misconduct. The standards system stands in contrast to the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme, which has an appeal panel, chaired by a High Court judge. That is for the very reason that all parties referred to the scheme must have total faith in it. It has been absolutely essential in achieving positive cultural change in this House precisely because of its rigorous, judicial processes, transparency of operation and evident commitment to natural justice and the right to appeal. The House should be proud of the ICGS system, and it owes a debt to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire for its establishment. It is clear that we can learn many lessons from its operation, and I would encourage the Select Committee to look to the ICGS system, with its benefits of judicial experience, as an example of how a process of independent adjudication can be set up effectively.

In summary—I was expecting a “Hear, hear” for that, Mr Speaker, as I am coming to my conclusion—there are numerous problems with the operation of the standards system, a fact that has been highlighted by the concerns of Members across this House in this particular case and others. Given these concerns, I think that it is only right that consideration of this report be paused until our standards system can be reviewed. Therefore, I will support the amendment so that the new Committee can consider whether Members should have

“the same or similar rights as apply to those subject to investigations of alleged misconduct in other workplaces and professions, including the right of representation, examination of witnesses and appeal”,

and whether this case itself should continue through any reformed system recommended by the new Committee.

Members must act when we see a situation arise that we do not believe to be compatible with the principles of natural justice. This is about the process and not the individual case, but when considering this report how can one not consider the great sorrow that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire has suffered? The suicide of his wife is a greater punishment than any House of Commons Committee could inflict. As we all know:

“The quality of mercy is not strained.

It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven

Upon the place beneath. It is twice blessed:

It blesseth him that gives and him that takes”.

It is in this way that the House should consider this case and standards more widely. The system must provide justice tempered by mercy, for mercy is essential to justice.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the House appears to have spent this whole time supporting the amendment and has not actually moved the motion that he was meant to be moving.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 28th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am delighted to wish Wales luck against New Zealand. I am looking forward to an heroic victory of our fellow countrymen that will inspire many across the country.

I also wish my hon. Friend every success in her campaign for funding for her rugby club, which I know is an important community facility. There are opportunities to apply for money, and she is very good at working out which ones to pursue. I cannot commit Her Majesty’s Treasury, but I encourage my hon. Friend to keep on pushing. Perhaps, Mr Speaker, in your benignity, you might grant an Adjournment debate so that the issue may be discussed further.

[Mr Speaker]

Especially if they play rugby league as well.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 23rd September 2021 Commons Chamber

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

The business for the week commencing Monday 18 October will include:

Monday 18 October—Second Reading of the Judicial Review and Courts Bill.

Tuesday 19 October—Motion under the Coronavirus Act 2020 relating to the renewal of temporary provisions, followed by Opposition day (7th allotted day—first part). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.

Wednesday 20 October—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Environment Bill.

Thursday 21 October—General debate on COP26 and limiting global temperature rises to 1.5° C, followed by a general debate on World Menopause Month. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 22 October—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 25 October will include: Monday 25 October—Second Reading of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill.

Mr Speaker, I wonder whether I might add a tribute to Mark Kelly. I am sure the House will want to join me in paying tribute to Mark for his 37-year service to the Government, which saw him spend 23 of those years providing outstanding service to the Government and this House as senior private secretary to the Government Chief Whip. He was really the man who made things happen in this place. Mark will shortly be moving away from London with his family. During his time in post he has been an exemplary provider of support and advice to successive Chief Whips, Leaders of the House, and countless Members from all parts of the House. As a loyal and skilful deputy to Sir Roy Stone, Mark’s parliamentary expertise and calm and friendly style has been an essential fixture of the parliamentary landscape. He will be greatly missed.

Mark has always been very proud of his Welsh heritage. He is a staunch Wrexham supporter and has been a mentor and guide to many civil servants, and others, who have had the privilege of working with him and learning from him. As he leaves his post we wish him and his family well, and send him the combined thanks of the House for his essential contribution to our constitution. I have a particular reason for regretting his departure, because he is being replaced by my outgoing private secretary and head of office, Robert Foot, who has been a terrific and steadfast worker and supporter of the business managers going back to 2007. We are very lucky to be surrounded by dedicated individuals such as Mark and Robert, who have dedicated their careers to supporting the work of this House in so many different ways. We are grateful to them all.

[Mr Speaker]

I would like to reiterate the loyal service that Mark Kelly has given to this House. I have to say that he will be missed. We thank him, we wish him well, and of course we wish Rob Foot well in his new place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

There was a Speakers conference: an enormously successful conference of the G7, which was held in your constituency of Chorley, Mr Speaker, and included very significant Speakers, including Nancy Pelosi from the United States. I think that the hon. Gentleman was intending to congratulate you on a successful conference there. Otherwise I am slightly puzzled by his geography, because I was unaware that Manchester was a seaside resort, but perhaps he knows something that I do not.

As is now becoming traditional, I thought that I would give the hon. Gentleman a date that I discovered from The Times this morning: it is the anniversary of the battle of Salamis in 480 BC, when the Athenians beat the Persians and Xerxes was defeated. I am sure that that will be of interest to the hon. Gentleman, although it is quite hard to see how it relates to Scottish independence.

As regards the question of wearing masks, I do not know whether you are a reader of tabloid newspapers, Mr Speaker, but a certain very senior figure in the socialist party was photographed travelling on a train without a face mask. I do wonder whether there is one rule when the cameras are on and everybody is under vision, and another when people are on railway trains not expecting to be snapped.

[Mr Speaker]

I presume the Leader of the House meant the Labour party. That aside, before I call Rehman Chishti, I want to thank all the staff who have worked hard and made this House safe. They are due to have a break and, as much as the SNP spokesperson might like to cut it, they deserve it and need it. I also offer a big thank you to my team, the security team and all those who came up to help ensure that we had a great Speakers’ G7 in Chorley. It involved solid business, with real resolutions coming out of it.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 9th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend raises a point that should concern us all; democratic accountability to this House is fundamental. I am glad to say that the Health and Care Bill, which is working its way through Parliament, will restore some elements of direction that may be given, because it seems to me that he who pays the piper should call the tune.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, Ian Mearns.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Thank you so much—Austin was not quite that old. He was a man of absolute, firm principle, enormous charm and great humour. His ability to entertain in this House and elsewhere was second to none. Like all of us aim to do, he fundamentally stood up for his constituency. He was a model of a constituency MP. Regardless of party politics, he put his constituents’ interests first, even to the point of changing his name—was it to Mr Haddock?

[Mr Speaker]

Austin Haddock.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Austin Haddock, yes. So he is remembered with great affection. Perhaps, Mr Speaker, we should have an Adjournment debate—that is in your bailiwick, not mine—to celebrate a great man.

Business of the House (Today)

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Wednesday 18th August 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I wish to inform the House that I have selected a manuscript amendment to the motion in the name of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), which is as follows: at line 3, delete “2.30 pm” and insert “5 pm”. I call the Leader of the House to move the motion.

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

I beg to move,

That, at this day’s sitting, the Speaker shall put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to the situation in Afghanistan not later than 2.30 pm.

I am delighted to move the motion and to inform the House that Her Majesty’s Government are willing to accept the manuscript amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone).

[Mr Speaker]

Then we are completely in line with a Thursday sitting; I thank the Leader of the House for that.

Amendment made: (a), at line 3, delete “2.30 pm” and insert “5 pm”.—(Mr. Davis.)

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That, at this day’s sitting, the Speaker shall put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to the situation in Afghanistan not later than 5 pm.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 22nd July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady makes a very important point about the number of deaths from covid. It is right that the House should pause briefly to pray for the repose of the souls of those who have died, and to think of those who have lost family members and friends:

Requiem aeternam dona eis, Domine, et lux perpetua luceat eis. Requiescant in pace. Amen.

On the hon. Lady’s political points, it really is the pushmi-pullyu Opposition. We have complaints about the Government’s immigration policy from an Opposition who opposed the Nationality and Borders Bill. We have complaints that we are not being tough enough on stopping people coming into this country, yet our efforts to make it tougher are opposed.

This country has a proud record on ensuring that there are routes for refugees. We have settled 25,000 refugees over the past five years, and a further 29,000 refugees through family reunion. We have to make our borders safe. We have to have safe routes for those who have a genuine fear of persecution, but we have to stop the people traffickers.

The Opposition have become the party of people traffickers. They do not want to do anything effective, and they cry crocodile tears while opposing the Government’s efforts to be effective in dealing with our borders. [Hon. Members: “Shame!”] They are the ones who should be ashamed. They chunter on the Opposition Benches, but they could not even find enough speakers to fill up the time available for debate. We ended up with only Members on this side of the House speaking because the Benches on the other side were empty, aside from the most distinguished hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who he is always in his place and always doing his duty, unlike some others I could think of.

As we come to the summer, we still have an ongoing pandemic. Yes, the restrictions have been reduced, and yes, we are able to make decisions for ourselves, which is quite right, but it is also right that people who are pinged should isolate. That is the Government’s strong advice. If you are rung up by Test and Trace, Mr Speaker, which I hope you are not, it is the law that you must isolate. If you are pinged by the app, it is the strong advice of the Government that you should isolate. Advice and law are different, but the Government are right to give a very clear indication of what ought to happen.

On the wearing of masks, I have one in my pocket, along with a handkerchief. It is here in case the Chamber is full, but it is not. There is a good deal of space—an amazing amount of space—on the Opposition Benches, as some Opposition Members may have gone on recess early, but on the Government Benches even my hard-working, enthusiastic fellow Conservatives are not squeezed in, and nor were we at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday. At a normal PMQs, we are squeezed in with hardly an inch between us, but yesterday there was space. It was therefore a reasonable decision for individual Members to take for themselves, in accordance with Mr Speaker’s guidance.

The hon. Lady asked for debates and, as she has an Opposition day coming up in the first week back, she will be able to choose the topics of debate as she wishes. She mentioned that the Australians and New Zealanders have pulled out of the rugby league world cup because they think they will lose. I must confess that it is rather sad. I always thought the Australians, of all people—one of the countries that we in this House love most—would never be ones to pull out of a competition. But they think they are going to lose, so they are staying at home. That is a pity, and I am sure the rugby league will run the competition with enormous effectiveness, ensuring that covid security is followed.

Finally, regarding gossip on social care, the Government have consistently said that it will be announced by the end of the year. Therefore, reading tittle-tattle and coming up with bits and pieces of gossip is not necessarily particularly helpful to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I will just say that I am meeting the chief executive of the rugby league in about 10 minutes, and I just want to reassure the Leader of the House that the competition does need Australia and New Zealand so that we can beat them.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 15th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As always, my hon. Friend not only gets in a plug for Southend’s request to become a city but raises an important point. We are of course concerned about the origins of coronavirus and links to the trade in wildlife. Mankind and the animal kingdom have had a long and close relationship since the very beginning of our creation, and it is incumbent upon us to ensure that we remain responsible stewards of the Earth. I remember as a child hoping to be given a parrot—Mr Speaker, I believe that you keep a parrot—but my father warned me that there was a danger of psittacosis. Then, I fear, it would have been Polly gone.

[Mr Speaker]

And, of course, my parrot is called Boris.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 8th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I would just say that nobody has said we are not having a vote yet.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Mr Speaker, it is even better than that. We had an opportunity for a vote, which my right hon. Friend passed up. He is a very experienced parliamentarian. He has been here much longer than I have. He is well aware that estimates are in fact the foundation of the power of the House of Commons to approve the expenditure of the Government. Estimates are votable. The failure to pass an estimate would have been a major problem for the Government, who would have had to bring back a new estimate. The fact that my right hon. Friend has not studied Erskine May carefully enough, and has therefore missed his opportunity, is not my problem but his.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is always a pleasure to hear from the hon. Gentleman when he is not feeling churlish. I hate to think what he would sound like when he is feeling churlish.

As regards plans for this House, such plans can always be made swiftly if necessary. On EVEL, I am delighted to suggest it is a victory for the SNP, but is also a victory for people of my way of thinking about our constitution. This is important—within this House, we are the Parliament of the whole of the United Kingdom. That is why on occasions, though not as a general practice of course, laws will be passed without legislative consent motions, as with powers that came back from the European Union—in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, for example—where the Scottish Parliament was not willing to agree legislative consent motions. That is part of an overall package of the restoration of powers to the United Kingdom Parliament from the European Union, and we are the nation’s Parliament. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman recognises that.

As regards the 0.7%, I point out that we remain one of the world’s largest donors at 0.5%. That is an impost on British taxpayers, and it is Her Majesty’s Government being charitable on behalf of British taxpayers. I will go back to my constitutional lecture, because I think people are simply failing to understand the importance of estimates, which are fundamental to the powers of this House. The ability to approve expenditure is what historically gave this House its power over the Executive, and the ability to vote down an estimate is one that is rarely used because of its very profound consequence. What I ask the House and those who support the hon. Gentleman is, if they feel as strongly about the issue as they say, why did they not use the tool available to them?

Let me go into this in a little more detail. Had the estimate been voted down, the Foreign Office and overseas aid would have run out of money after the initial estimate, which was done earlier in the year, had expired. A proportionate amount of money is agreed before the beginning of the financial year and would then run out if the final estimate were not to be approved. In that event, the Government have to come forward with a new estimate and it would have to be an estimate that they thought they could get through the House. As a matter of simple constitutional fact, had the House chosen to vote on the estimates, it would have left the Government in a position where they would have had bring forward a new motion for overseas aid expenditure in the Foreign Office. Otherwise, all our embassies would have run out of money. They would not have been able to pay their water bills. It is a failure of those who stand up and chunter about this not to use the tools to hand. It is really not my fault if they have not studied “Erskine May” carefully enough.

[Mr Speaker]

I think we might just get a passage from “Erskine May” now—I call David Davis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I seem to remember that the late Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Hume, was a supporter of Newcastle as well, so I imagine there is some heavenly support for the hon. Gentleman’s team currently.

I hear the hon. Gentleman’s appeal for Backbench Business time. We always do our best, on behalf of the Government, to facilitate that. As regards the HGV driver shortage, the Government are aware of it and steps have been taken to implement several long-term solutions across Government, including the development of a large goods vehicle driver apprenticeship programme by the Department for Transport and the Department for Education aimed at addressing long-term driver skills shortages and improved labour supply. There is consideration of extending delivery hours, but the food industry is very well versed in dealing with delivery requirements and necessities. There is a statement from the Secretary of State for Transport coming up, but I think, Mr Speaker, you may get a bit worried if goes from overseas travel on to—

[Mr Speaker]

indicated assent.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I thought you would, yes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am going to answer this question slightly tentatively, because I am calling on memory of what I think the law says about giving information to Members. My understanding and memory are that businesses are not obliged to give information to Members, but there is an exemption in the data protection rules that allows them to give information if they choose to do so. So my understanding is that this is a refusal of the organisation to give information under its own procedures, not one by law. Therefore, I would encourage and support the hon. Lady in continuing to put pressure on the organisation not to be obstructive of Members of Parliament doing their job.

I did come across this once on behalf of a constituent of mine, where a particular bank refused to give information, even with the support of the constituent, erroneously quoting data protection rules. If that is the case, I think the hon. Lady is in a strong position with the Pensions Regulator. I think it is their rules, rather than our laws, but I will check this and if I am not correct I will write and put the letter in the Library.

[Mr Speaker]

I now suspend the House for two minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.

11.31 am

Sitting suspended.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

2nd reading & 3rd reading
Thursday 1st July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Let’s be on the level on this one then.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Ah, Mr Speaker, your puns are getting almost as bad as mine.

What I would say to my hon. Friend is that he is tempting me in the right direction to have a debate on the great advantages of the county of Somerset and the fact that Alfred’s coming out of the Levels and defeating Guthrum is the foundation not only of England, but actually the United States and Australia. All that flows from that comes from Alfred defeating the Danes, otherwise it would have been a different kettle of fish. So I sympathise with his desire for a debate, but I think the specific issue is more suited to an Adjournment debate. The Government will of course take into account the responses that have come in to the discussion on how the county of Somerset should be administered, but what I would say is of fundamental importance is that actually bureaucratic boundaries are not what people in Somerset mind about. They care about their whole historic united county. That is what matters to my constituents and to his, and bureaucratic boundaries are comparatively trifling.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The £4.8 billion levelling-up fund will spend taxpayers’ money to improve everyday life across the country, from transport projects to high streets. My hon. Friend does not have long to wait for a decision on the scheme; the decisions will be announced in the autumn. There is so much to do.

Even in our own Parliament, we have to level this place back up. I want to say how marvellously you have done, Mr Speaker, in saving 95% of the cost of doing up the Speaker’s House. People may not know this, but there was a proposal for a very lavish temporary home for the Speaker, and Mr Speaker, as a model defender of taxpayers’ money, has saved 95% of that cost. I hope that other people, when spending taxpayers’ money, will do the same.

[Mr Speaker]

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

Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Bill

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 56), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Question put forthwith, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 24th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Very much so. I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Belinda Richardson on the work she does for tourism in Wiltshire. Dare I say it, but my general view of Wiltshire is that it is a very nice place to pass through before one gets to Somerset, but I would recommend that people take the opportunity to ask their charabancs to stop, and get out and use the tea rooms in Marlborough. It is of course on the old A4—the old coaching route through to Bath—and they can then go on to Bath, passing through my constituency into the constituency of the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), who I can see is in her usual place. The city she represents is one of the most beautiful in the world.

[Mr Speaker]

The Perthshire One has been released. Let us go to the SNP spokesperson, Pete Wishart.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I agree with my hon. Friend that freeports are very important; the programme will be of great value to the whole UK. I am sorry that the Welsh Government, of course a socialist Government, are dragging their feet on the issue. One would have thought that they would want to encourage innovation, free trade, competition and the prosperity of the whole nation. As highlighted in our “Plan for Wales”, published in May, the Government remain committed to establishing at least one freeport in Wales as soon as possible, to attract new businesses and investment, and create jobs and opportunity in areas that need them the most. I recall that she has raised this matter with me before and I will take up her concerns with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Wales and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

[Mr Speaker]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the fact that it is Children’s Hospice Week. The work that people do in children’s hospices is truly remarkable. It must be such hard work for the carers to do.

To come to my hon. Friend’s question, NHS England and NHS Improvement have regularly issued guidance on the importance of continuing to offer face-to-face appointments. All practices should offer face-to-face consultations where appropriate—I reiterate, all practices. There will be a role for telephone calls and virtual consultations, but face to face, if needed, must happen. The figures are more encouraging. In March 2021, an estimated 28.6 million appointments were booked in general practice in England, of which 15.8 million were face to face, so 55.7% of all appointments.

[Mr Speaker]

I will just put on the record Derian House Children’s Hospice in Chorley, which provides a high-quality service to support families.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Can I just say it is business questions and it might be helpful to have a question? I think you did have one asking the Leader of the House to come and visit, so I am sure that will do fine.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is an offer too good to refuse, Mr Speaker. I very much hope that I shall be able to visit the hon. Lady’s constituency. The work undertaken on attitudes to the Union was a reasonable thing to poll on. It is really important when developing a communication strategy to work out how it will land most effectively. There was a great deal of work to be done to communicate the messages about staying at home, working from home, wearing facemasks, and so on and so forth. I think this was completely proper and justifiable and I imagine that other Governments in similar circumstances would have done much the same.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think the knowledge that my hon. Friend will be in Bolsover high street will have the crowds flocking there for selfies and autographs, and to deliver some election literature in due course. The high streets taskforce has meant that 70 local authorities will receive targeted, in-person support as they battle against changing consumer habits, and I am delighted that Bolsover is benefiting from this. In addition, 57 local areas have been confirmed as recipients of our £830 million future high streets fund, which will support local areas to prepare long-term strategies for their high streets and town centres. Generally speaking, if MPs are in their high streets, that does encourage people to visit them, and they can do little constituency surgeries there, Mr Speaker—I am sure that happens in Chorley all the time.

[Mr Speaker]

Of course it does.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 17th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I’m not sure about the last bit.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I may be willing to go further than the House would expect, because the corridor of the Chairman of Ways and Means has a sweepstake and in this sweepstake I have been fortunate enough to draw Scotland, so I shall have very divided loyalties tomorrow. But I am glad to say that it is very encouraging for the Union. I was pleased to see Wales do well yesterday—the Rees side of me was coming to the fore. I am looking forward to supporting whichever side does best, because I have an interest in all three of them doing well.

I am delighted to hear that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) will be returning to his place, but it has been very enjoyable crossing swords with the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson), who brings a great tone to these exchanges.

Loneliness Awareness Week is important. It is something that is very hard for Government to take control of, although we have a very distinguished Minister for loneliness. We have to try to work with civic society, with people such as the Red Cross and the Samaritans, to help people as we begin to get back to normal. As we do get life back to normal, that will help to reduce loneliness.

As we are on what is happening during the week, it is worth bearing in mind that 18 June is Waterloo Day, a day always of celebration in this country. We can celebrate it all together, which will make us less lonely. It is also a wonderfully Unionist day. I do not know if you know this, Mr Speaker, but there were Scottish, Welsh and Irish regiments there: the Black Watch, the Gordon Highlanders, the Royal Scots, the Royal Welch Fusiliers, the Welsh Regiment, the Inniskilling Fusiliers and the Inniskilling Dragoons. I think Sharpe was there with the Prince of Wales’ Own, but I am not sure that that was a real regiment or whether it was invented for the purpose of fiction. No doubt other wise people will be able to tell us. So that date is happening, too.

Finally, on digital imprints and so on, the Second Reading of the electoral integrity Bill will be an opportunity to debate what may go into it. I can confirm that when it comes forward there will be an opportunity to do that, but I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support. I would say that it is always open to the Government to learn from what the devolved authorities do. We want to work collaboratively with the devolved authorities, even if we have an ultimately different vision for our nation.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 15th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. He raises a fair point. I think the answer must be—as the Prime Minister and, I think, Professor Whitty, have said—that ultimately we are going to have to live with covid, and we cannot have this semi-functioning Parliament indefinitely. We ultimately have to get back to normal. We have to have the bustle and energy that Parliament requires to hold the Government to account. Dare I confess that it is much easier for the Minister at the Dispatch Box when there are about 20 people in the Chamber than when there are about 400? As somebody who believes in the benefits of parliamentary scrutiny, I actually think it is quite a good thing when Ministers face some fast bowling at the Dispatch Box, rather than my lumbering, slow balls which are the best that I can achieve on the cricket field.

On the extension of support, as I mentioned, a lot of support does continue. That gives me the opportunity to mention the wonderful support that the United Kingdom has been able to give: £14.5 billion of extra money has been spent in Scotland thanks to UK taxpayers across our whole country, supporting over 900,000 jobs in the furlough scheme and over 535,000 claims for the self-employment scheme. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is beginning to see the virtues of a United Kingdom.

[Mr Speaker]

I am not quite sure he agrees, but there we are.

I am now suspending the House for one minute to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 20th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend raises an important point, and he is of course absolutely right; we want as many people as possible to be inoculated—to come forward for their jab—as this provides the best possible protection against the virus. My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary has been absolutely assiduous in attending this House and keeping it updated, and I am sure he will continue to do that. With 36 million people having had their first dose and 20 million people having had both, the percentage take-up rate is really encouraging. Some 90% of people say that they want to have the jab—obviously, that includes those who have already had it. There is enthusiasm for it, it is working extraordinarily well and it is helping us to get back to normal. So people must roll up their sleeves and expose their upper arm, as His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge did yesterday, and get jabbed.

[Mr Speaker]

Let us go to Ian Mearns. Congratulations on returning unopposed as the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I pass on my congratulations, and to Bolton Wanderers on getting promoted.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I pass on my congratulations, too, to Warrington Rylands football club. I must say, I think the Cheshire Cheese football club is the best name for a football club that I have heard recently—it is an absolutely splendid name—although if the Cheshire Cheeses were to play the Cheddar Cheeses, I would be on the side of the Cheddar Cheeses for obvious Somerset-related reasons. The point that the hon. Lady makes is right: it has been a tough time for grassroots football. Obviously, the higher levels of the game have carried on getting money in and various schemes have been proposed to help ensure that the grassroots game prospers. In the initial instance, this is absolutely a Backbench Business debate, but one that I think would be very well supported.

[Mr Speaker]

And it used to be Lancashire cheese before they renamed it with the boundary change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I get into terrible difficulties with these areas, because it is very much do as I say, not as I do—I am afraid I am not running three miles for all the tea in China. Talking of running shoes, I did actually discover, in an unopened cupboard, my old cricket boots from when I was a schoolboy. I am not even going to put those on. They are splendidly old-fashioned in the way of cricket boots of the late 1980s now are.

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. It is helpful for health reasons, and for fun, for people to get involved in sport as a collaborative and collective activity. He raises issues relating to the regulations that are making that difficult. I will take that up and get him a proper answer, rather than telling people to do things that I do not want to do.

[Mr Speaker]

Would it be easier for the Leader of the House if we called it the 5K?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend raises a deeply troubling case. The sadness for Mr Day’s family and the burden that they will carry all their lives is one of unimaginable distress. It is hard in these circumstances to go through the reassurances about the Government taking tackling crime seriously, which of course they do. This is where general national policy meets the individual circumstance, and it is so important that, in the individual circumstance, the right, appropriate and just sentence is passed. Parliament gives the power to the courts to do this, and the maximum penalty for manslaughter is a life sentence. We have independent courts, but it would be wrong to pretend that our courts always get the individual judgments right. It is therefore quite proper for people such as my hon. Friend to seek redress for the grievances of their constituents and to raise these matters in the House so that the judiciary may know what concern there is when light sentences are passed on people who, by a violent murder, have destroyed the happiness of a family.

[Mr Speaker]

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

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 13th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I welcome the hon. Lady to her new position. We have been neighbours or near neighbours in Somerset and Bristol for some years. I think we started debating together on “Points West”, and now we face each other across the Dispatch Box, and I am sure it will continue to be as friendly but as forceful a debate as we had all those years ago. The hon. Lady is known across the House for her good nature and kindliness but also her clarity of thinking and forcefulness, so I look forward to these sessions as a source of a bit of heat but also some light too.

I want to pay particular tribute to the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), who was an absolute pleasure to work with. Mr Speaker, I am sure that you found the same on the Commission, where she was committed to making things work for the whole House in a bipartisan spirit. She raised every week at the Dispatch Box important issues, particularly relating to Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and the other people held improperly by a regime that does not respect the rights of individuals. Her campaigning was forceful, her questions were usually quite tricky and she was a delight to be a counterparty to.

I feel that the poor old right hon. Lady has become the Admiral Byng of the socialist party. As you may remember, Mr Speaker, Admiral Byng was ultimately disposed of because he was sent out with ships that were not good enough. HQ failed and blundered, but it had to look around and find some scapegoat, and the most senior scapegoat of Hartlepool seems to be the right hon. Lady, which seems a little bit harsh. She is the Admiral Byng memorial former shadow Leader of the House of Commons.

I turn to the important questions that the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) asked. Absolutely, trying to restore a peace process is important, and the Government have called on both sides to show restraint; that is of fundamental sense. We hope that peace will be re-established, and we are working with our allies.

Of course I congratulate Dan Norris on being elected as the Mayor of WECA—the West of England Combined Authority—much though I do not think WECA should exist, because I think it is a means of taking money out of North East Somerset and giving it to Bristol, which is not something I have ever been much in favour of, but I wish him well in his new role.

It is important that elections are fair and proper. The hon. Lady mentioned that we do not have to prove who we are when voting in the Division Lobby in normal circumstances, but she is forgetting that we are not allowed to wear overcoats in the Division Lobby, just in case we send somebody through to vote in our place.

[Mr Speaker]

Or hats.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Or, indeed, as Mr Speaker helpfully says, hats. Therefore, there are requirements in this place to prevent personation, and surely what is good enough for the House of Commons to prevent personation is right. [Interruption.] Although that was a wonderful heckle, at the moment we are using our identity cards to vote, so the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is not right on this occasion; that is a most unusual lapse in his normal attention to the detail of the procedures of the House.

Having photographic identification ensures that a problem does not arise. This country has an electoral system of which people can be proud and in which people have confidence. We must not allow that confidence to slip. We do not want hanging chads and then to deal with it afterwards. We want to stop hanging chads happening before that becomes an issue and personation becomes at risk. It is only reasonable to ask people to turn up with their photographic identification or get it from their local council, so that they can vote. I fear that it is absolutely classic of the socialists—they do not have any confidence in their own voters. We have confidence in our voters, because we think our voters will not find it unduly onerous or taxing to turn up with an identity document of some kind.

As regards the ambition of the Queen’s Speech, it actually delivers on all the things that the hon. Lady seemed to be asking for—there is major planning reform, there are freeports to help boost the economy and COP26 is coming this year. I thought her comments were rather more in favour of the Queen’s Speech than hostile to it. I am grateful for that; I will take what I can in these circumstances.

Social care has been a long-standing issue. The last Labour Government—happily, a long time ago now—had two Green Papers and one royal commission, and still could not come up with any solution, but this Government are committed to coming forward with our solution by the end of this year. That is absolutely clear, and it was mentioned in the Queen’s Speech—the Gracious Speech. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has been the most assiduous attender in this House, updating this House on every aspect of his responsibility. He is very good at doing that, and he does it more often than almost any other Secretary of State.

As regards cladding, and of course we come to the anniversary of Grenfell in June, that is a serious issue, and the building safety Bill will deal with it. It is proper to deal with these things in the appropriate legislation. That is what Her Majesty’s Government said as the Fire Safety Bill was going through, and it will be dealt with in the building safety Bill, which will be coming forward shortly. The hon. Lady should wait for the exciting announcements that come from this Dispatch Box.

Finally, as regards the inquiry, it is surely better to do it when the pandemic has come to an end. It is still being dealt with. The vaccine roll-out is an enormous achievement, but it is still being rolled out. An enormous administrative effort is still required to make sure that it is taking place effectively. I think that to distract from the good work that is being done with an inquiry now would be a mistake, but the time will come and it will come relatively soon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I hope the Brit awards are listening.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am sure they are. My hon. Friend’s words are heard across the nation. They reverberate around the land. They go out from this great hall to be heard in every corner of the United Kingdom.

I am glad to say that this week, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister confirmed a further easing of restrictions from 17 May, as the latest data confirm the four tests have been met. That includes weddings, receptions and other life events taking place with up to 30 people and, I think importantly—I think this was the right priority—increasing the cap on the numbers attending funerals in line with how many people can be safely accommodated in venues. It is crucial that we push on with our vaccination programme, and that people follow the rules and take advantage of lateral flow tests, so that we can make this road map to freedom a one-way road.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady may shake her head, but the reality is that if she waits till Monday she may well be happy and surprised, and I am sure that is what we would all wish for her.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

These are really matters for the Commission and its spokesman to answer. The issues that affect the Leader of the House are the bringing forward of motions, and I can assure my hon. Friend that the motions fall away on 21 June, at which point we will be back to normal. But I would say to her what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone)—that there are seats here, and that if people want to lead by example, the example is on the seats here.

[Mr Speaker]

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

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I thought that my hon. Friend was about to make an application to become the Home Secretary, rather than move the Home Secretary. The Government are committed to ensuring that the administration of government is less London-centric and to locating more civil service roles and public bodies outside London and into the regions and nations of the United Kingdom. The places for growth programme is working with Departments on their relocation plans and a number of announcements have been made. That includes the Cabinet Office establishing a second headquarters in Glasgow; a joint headquarters for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office in East Kilbride; the Department for Transport building on its presence in Leeds and Birmingham; and a new economic campus in Darlington. My hon. Friend should keep on campaigning, and I will pass his message on to fellow Ministers, particularly to the Home Secretary.

[Mr Speaker]

Let us go to the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Careful, Leader.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Between now and 21 July, there will be discussions as to what can be done in line with the changes taking place across the rest of the country and whether, when places of entertainment are allowed to have every other place full, this House will be able to do that. However, Mr Speaker will rely on the advice of Public Health England for that. All the restrictions fall by the motions we have in front of us around 21 June, at which point we will be back to normal. However, I would say to Members that they are entitled to come into the Chamber. There is a limit on seating, but that limit is not used on most occasions, and I would no longer discourage anybody from coming into this House. I think this House is better when it is physical. It is more immediate, and the quality of our debate is significantly improved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Of course, I will do whatever I can—63 weeks seems too long.

[Mr Speaker]

Let’s have the love-in with Ian Liddell-Grainger.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My right hon. Friend and I are both committed democrats who believe that the voice of the people always deserves to be heard. In the Somerset County Council area, there will soon be a referendum to test public opinion about the rival plans for local government reform. I think my right hon. Friend and I would prefer that it were the whole of Somerset, but that is beyond the power of the council. The Secretary of State, by letter, said that this is a distraction, but I believe he is quite wrong. Elections to the county council have been shelved, and I am afraid the Government’s consultation was cheap, unfair and totally indifferent to the views of the residents. The chance to vote is now vital, and the Government ought to listen very carefully to the result before making any decision. Lawyers are spoiling for a fight about this, but democracy is an issue that cries out to be debated as soon as it can in this House first.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Vox populi, vox dei, but I refer my hon. Friend to what I said last week: it does not include the whole county of Somerset, and I think that is a great mistake. Somerset’s history goes back into the mists of time. It is one of the oldest counties in the country. As a whole, it is a complete, entire, perfect county that was cut up by Ted Heath in the 1970s to the disadvantage of people across the whole county. I would like to see the whole thing put back together. If only we could have the expertise of Humpty Dumpty.

[Mr Speaker]

You can take Lancashire on at the same time.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 18th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s questions, which are particularly thoughtful. I think I can wish him a happy birthday for earlier this week. It seems that there is a flood of birthdays on the SNP Benches, with the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) being a birthday celebrant the week before.

On the corruption issue, my previous career was in emerging markets investment, and it was quite clear that the countries that do best and prosper most are those that are the least corrupt. Rooting out corruption is in the interests of all countries. It should always be at the forefront of their minds if they want to succeed and raise the standard of living of their people. This country has a proud record of avoiding corruption. It is absolutely fascinating how, in the 18th century, we were still quite a corrupt country, but by the middle of the 19th century we had set a standard for honesty that has remained ever since. We should be proud of that. I think it is very easy to defend the procurement that has gone on because it was urgent and it was fairly done. Contracts were awarded, broadly, so that we went from 1% of PPE being produced domestically to 70%, as well as the phenomenal success of the vaccine roll-out. Governments have to be fleet of foot, and bureaucracy is not always the antidote to corruption. Indeed, bureaucracy itself can sometimes be the cause of corruption.

I share the hon. Gentleman’s pleasure that Spotify is recognising the Scots language. In terms of what is orderly in this Chamber, I would be very diffident about treading on your distinguished toes, Mr Speaker, except to remind people, which I do not think is treading on your toes, that modest quotation in foreign languages is permissible. I know that some hon. and right hon. Members occasionally use Latin quips, and that is perfectly allowable, as are Welsh quips and Scots quotations, but not full speeches. I think that is reasonable, because we do not have the facilities for simultaneous translation in this House, and their cost would probably be disproportionate. It is very welcome when people give a joyful message in Scots, in Welsh or in Irish, but it would be difficult for the House to have full speeches.

I echo the hon. Gentleman’s congratulations to voluntary groups that help to change and improve attitudes, whether that is against everyday racism or against behaviour towards women that is damaging and unhelpful to society. I so agree with what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said—that we need cultural change. That is what we are doing in this place with the work of the independent complaints and grievance scheme. But ultimately it is not going to be about enforcement or rules, although they have their place, but about getting people to understand that the right form of behaviour may be different from what they have grown up to believe. It is about changing attitudes much more than punishing people.

[Mr Speaker]

I did feel my toes a little stood on, I must admit; I felt the trampling of the Leader of the House. A quip is one thing, but starting off in one language and switching to another language in a question, not knowing when it will end, does give the Chair a problem. If the Chair had been notified, it would not have been a difficulty; it was the fact that we had two languages before we knew how the full question was going to continue. So I think there is a difference between a quip and a question being asked.

[Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con) [V]]

If it is acceptable, I shall ask my question in English. May I ask the Leader of the House where he has got to on my recent request for a debate in Parliament on the disastrous Operation Midland? And I do know that he will be disappointed that I am not asking him about when the city status competition will be launched and Southend can at last become a city. Perhaps we will leave that to another occasion.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think it should be policy in this House that every question makes a reference to Southend being made a city, so that the report that is sent daily to the Palace can include this for Her Majesty’s consideration, should our sovereign wish to issue the relevant letters patent.

As regards Operation Midland, as I said to my hon. Friend before, I think an Adjournment debate or a Backbench business debate would be a sensible thing to apply for, akthough we all recoil at the treatment of Lord Brittan and of his widow later on—of a dying man and of a grieving widow. This treatment was appalling and we do expect that people are held to account when they behave badly. This House is here to receive redress of grievance when things go wrong.

[Mr Speaker]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Mr Speaker, you have given me a very clear steer on how I should answer the question. Just in case our eagle-eared friends from Hansard did not pick it up, Mr Speaker said, “Nothing more important.” Having trodden on his toes earlier, I now need to untread on his toes by saying that Mr Speaker is absolutely right, as is the hon. Lady. I cannot promise a debate in Government time, but a great event is going to be taking place, she is right to highlight the disability angle as well and we should do everything we can to promote it. As I have said before, I follow cricket more closely, but she has even encouraged me to make sure that I watch some rugby when this world cup is taking place.

[Mr Speaker]

Rugby league.

Point of Order

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 18th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Obviously, the point has been raised, but it is not for me to judge on it. However, the Leader of the House is here, and I look to see whether he wishes to respond and clear the matter up.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The Foreign Office has made it clear, and has said:

“We regret that this audio has been deliberately and selectively clipped to distort the Foreign Secretary’s comments. As he made crystal clear in his full answer, the UK always stands up for and speaks out on human rights. In his full answer, in an internal meeting, he highlighted examples where the UK has applied Magnitsky sanctions and raised issues at the UN regardless of trade interests, and that this was a responsible, targeted and carefully calibrated approach to bilateral relations.”

I repeat:

“We regret that this audio has been deliberately and selectively clipped”.

If the journalist did not clip it himself, he ought to have known it was clipped. He is either a knave or a fool.

[Mr Speaker]

I think we will have to leave it there. I am now suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 11th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I hope this is a yes.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I congratulate Leigh Centurions on their fantastic achievement. I do not really know how fantastic their achievement is, but it sounds extremely good, and I hope that my hon. Friend will explain it to me in more detail at some point.

Hosting the rugby league world cup later this year will provide a fantastic opportunity to recover, grow, and bring people together. It is the start of our efforts to unite and level up outcomes for people in communities across the UK as we seek to build back better. If I have not confessed it already, I think my knowledge of cricket is a little bit greater than my knowledge of rugby league, but I am looking forward to being educated by my hon. Friend—and, by the looks of it, by Mr Speaker as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That’s a date, then, although I am certainly not a member; perhaps my hon. Friend is.

The vaccination programme has been a huge success and is a key part of the road map to get back to normal. The Government’s aim is to offer a vaccination to everyone in the first nine priority groups, including everybody over the age of 50, by 15 April, and to all adults by the end of July. The road map that has been set out has been set out clearly so that we can stick to it and the goalposts do not get changed. I think she and Government policy are at one on this.

[Mr Speaker]

I want to see the first dance!

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 4th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I begin by joining the right hon. Lady in sending the House’s best wishes to the Duke of Edinburgh while he is in hospital recovering from his operation, and hope that he is restored to full health.

On World Book Day, my children are apparently dressed up today. I think one is dressed as Sherlock Holmes, one is a character from the “Jill and the pony” books, two are dressing up as James Bond, and the third and youngest are dressing up as Harry Potter and wandering round with a wand casting spells on one and all. So World Book Day is being celebrated. Even better, I will be re-showing my podcast of my reading from “Erskine May”, because can you think of anything more joyful to do on World Book Day, or anything more designed to help one enter into happy slumbers, than listening to my somnolent tones reciting from that great work?

To come to the important questions that the right hon. Lady asked, the Foreign Secretary has updated the House on Nazanin. The Government take very seriously the issues of dual nationals held overseas. It is something that I take up with the Foreign Office every week after business questions. The Foreign Secretary is actually going to be here later today with a statement, so there will be the opportunity to ensure that he is reminded of it, if not formally on the Floor of the House, at least in the corridors. But Her Majesty’s Government take it very seriously and have been working on it for a long time.

As regards my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for International Trade, a written statement is a perfectly proper way of updating the House. There is a constant pressure on time in this House; we will no doubt hear later from the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee about how his time sometimes gets squeezed. We simply have to try to ensure that time is used effectively in Opposition days, Back-Bench days, legislation and Budget days, and written statements are a proper way of updating the House.

With regard to the Budget appearing in newspapers beforehand, the main details of the Budget were released to the House yesterday, as is entirely proper, as were the Red Book and the report from the Office for Budget Responsibility. There were general discussions beforehand when things were raised in broad terms, but I do not think that breaks the spirit or the letter of the ministerial code, or indeed of “Erskine May”—although of course as Leader of the House it is my responsibility to remind Ministers that important announcements should be made to the House first.

[Mr Speaker]

Hear, hear.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Did I hear “Hear, hear” from Mr Speaker?

[Mr Speaker]

You did indeed.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Mr Speaker—heckling from the Chair I always take as a great compliment.

[Mr Speaker]

I always say it’s in agreement with the Leader.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.



The right hon. Lady talked about pay increases. It is worth bearing in mind that the majority of public sector workers will receive pay increases. The lowest paid will all get a £250 pay increase, and NHS staff will also get a pay increase, so those who have done the most and who are the least well-off will benefit, even as we try to claw back the huge amount of debt that has been built up in dealing with the pandemic. Some £407 billion of support has been given to the UK economy, spread across the whole of the United Kingdom. I think there is a weakness in the Labour party’s argument—it can only slightly carp at the edges—because the scale of the support is so great that there is no opposition to it.

The NHS reorganisation is a fundamentally important thing to do. We have been through a pandemic and people will have noticed that there are things that could be done better. When something happens, it is human nature to think what we would do better if we were to do it again, and to have a reform Bill—the White Paper has already been issued—is an exceptionally sensible thing to do. It will build on the success of the NHS over the past year in the face of a huge challenge, in which, it is worth bearing in mind, there has been a huge private sector contribution. The right hon. Lady carps about some private sector activity, but the vaccination has been done with and through the help of the private sector. The pharmaceutical industry, which is a profit-making industry, is the thing that has meant that we are leading the world and delivering the vaccine to the British people.

Finally, on the issue of end-of-life benefits, the right hon. Lady raises a point that is extremely complex. That is why the Department for Work and Pensions is continuing to look at it. I have raised it with the DWP recently, in response to questions in the Chamber. There are no easy answers. Everyone wants to ensure that people are looked after at the end of life, but it is not always clear exactly how long people will live for. Again, that is part of the human condition.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the issue of potholes. Apparently there is a fantastic new machine from JCB—a remarkable, successful British company—that fills potholes remarkably quickly. I am particularly pleased to hear how good, sound Conservative councils are fixing roads up and down the country. The people of Lancashire clearly made the right choice in the 2017 local elections. They are good at making the right choice for who to represent them.

[Mr Speaker]

I think the hon. Member for Burnley (Antony Higginbotham) should have asked for a debate as well, at the end of his question.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Well, in a manner of speaking, we are having one now, are we not, Mr Speaker, about the enormous success of Conservative councils? That is something to which I always like to devote as much time as possible in this House. We want more pothole-free areas under more Conservative councils after the first Thursday in May.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

If we are going to swap P. G. Wodehouse quotes, a glorious one comes to mind: “The Right Hon.” Gentleman

“was a tubby little chap who looked like he had been poured into his clothes and had forgotten to say ‘When.’”

That has always been one of my favourites—[Interruption.] No, my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) is my hon. Friend, so it is perfectly safe, and I said the right hon. Gentleman anyway, so any connoisseur of procedure—as my hon. Friend is—would know that I was not referring to him.

We need to get back to normal. We need to get back to the Chamber being full and bustling and Ministers being held to account. Debates with full interventions are much better than debates that are a series of monologues read out that pay no attention to what has been said beforehand, with people just filling the airwaves for three minutes. We want to get back to being a proper Chamber and I hope that we can do so in line with the general road map.

[Mr Speaker]

I would just add, to reassure the House, that on the agenda for Monday at the Commission is the road map to take us forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting question—indeed, a complicated question—because who runs this House is something that I am not sure anybody has ever yet worked out, but perhaps one day we will. It is divided up between various bodies. The House of Commons Commission—very much led by you, Mr Speaker—will have the authority to decide when members of staff can come back, but the House itself determines the procedures within the Chamber. The current procedures continue until 31 March and then there will be an opportunity to decide to renew them, but they cannot be renewed indefinitely without the desire of the House to do it. I would certainly hope that we get back to normal in accordance with the road map, but that will be a decision for Members themselves.

[Mr Speaker]

As I did point out earlier, there is a road map going through to the Commission on Monday. Also, the Leader of the House does have a duty of care to the staff, as I do, to ensure that we try to keep in line with Public Health England.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that point. Since 1340, Members have had a right of unobstructed access to this House and to this Chamber. They are entitled to come, and that is a fundamental constitutional point. As the restrictions are lifted, Members may feel entitled—may desire; may want—to exercise that right. I also agree that we should go no slower than the country at large. It seems to me that, if nightclubs are opening on 21 June, which I think are perhaps more her scene than mine—[Interruption.] Perhaps we should go together. We will take the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) with us too. If they are open, for heaven’s sake, the House of Commons should be open properly. We cannot be behind nightclubs, can we, Mr Speaker?

[Mr Speaker]

The question keeps being posed, and I want to reassure the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) that nobody is stopping MPs coming. What we are saying is, “Let’s do the right thing by each other”—nothing else. I understand that she may have thought that I want to reopen only in September. I reassure her that that is definitely not the case, hence why I have become involved with the road map to the commission on Wednesday, to make things happen absolutely in line with what is going on there. Of course, I think she and the Leader of the House may enjoy Annabel’s together, but let us move on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I’ve got to say that questions have to be much shorter and not statements. This is business questions.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think I see a portrait of William of Orange behind the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley). It is always worth reminding the House that the then pope ordered a Te Deum to be sung in St Peter’s in celebration of William of Orange’s victory; Catholics therefore have an interest in a United Kingdom, too.

With regard to the protocol, I have to some extent already answered the question. What my noble Friend Lord Frost has done is really very important and indicates the Government’s commitment to making sure that the protocol works, and that the problems that have arisen are taken very seriously by the Government, which is important. We must get to a situation wherein the whole of the United Kingdom is able to trade freely, as required under the Act of Union 1801.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

First, I convey my sincere sympathies to any women who have suffered as a result of endometriosis and encourage them to seek clinical advice as to what support is available.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines are there to help health and care professionals to deliver the best possible care to all women, based on the best available evidence. Health and care commissioners are expected to take them fully into account, and I urge all clinicians to follow the NICE guidelines on endometriosis and to do all they can to support the mental and physical health of those suffering from this extremely difficult condition.

Plans to develop a women’s health strategy were temporarily paused in the initial phase of the pandemic; however, the Department of Health and Social Care has recently restarted work in this policy area and will be setting out plans shortly. Endometriosis will be considered as part of the upcoming work on the women’s health strategy.

My hon. Friend may wish to apply for a Westminster Hall debate or an Adjournment debate to cover this subject—Mr Speaker is looking his normal benignant self as I suggest an Adjournment debate, so I think my hon. Friend may been in luck.

[Mr Speaker]

Let’s hope he is.

I will now suspend the House for a few minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 25th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[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 ---

[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.

Point of Order

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 25th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[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

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

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.

--- 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.

--- 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 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

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 4th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[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.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

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.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

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.

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

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Wednesday 13th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[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.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

--- 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.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 15th December 2020 Commons Chamber

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

I should like to make a short business statement.

Wednesday 16 December—Consideration of a business of the House motion, followed by all stages of the Trade (Disclosure of Information) Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords message, followed by a motion relating to the appointment of board members to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.

The business for Thursday remains unchanged and as previously announced. I shall provide a further update to the House regarding future business on Thursday. For hon. Members wishing to participate in tomorrow’s debate on the Trade (Disclosure of Information) Bill, Mr Speaker has made arrangements for the call list to remain open until 3 o’clock today.

[Mr Speaker]

I will be calling only the shadow Leader of the House and the SNP Chief Whip to ask a question on the statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

May I just say that we are meant to stick to the business statement? The hon. Gentleman drew a line, and that railway went a long way.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

One of the most remarkable things about this House is that the most charming Members on the SNP Benches are always the most furious whenever they appear before the House. I must say, as we get near to the spirit of Christmas, I begin to think that the fury is somewhat confected.

In terms of the legislative programme, we are ensuring that the legislation is brought through. I warned hon. Members last Thursday, as I thought it only fair to do, that we might have to act flexibly in response to developments in what was going on. These clauses could have been introduced in the Trade Bill that we might need if we get a deal with the European Union, but the late stage of that means that it is necessary to bring that forward early. This is exactly what one would expect, given the deadline of 31 December for the negotiations with the European Union, of a trade Bill.

Regarding remote participation, we have discussed that at length in the House. We provided more than two hours of Government time to debate people’s ability to appear remotely, but regrettably the measure was talked out by Opposition Members, making it impossible for the extremely clinically vulnerable to appear remotely. I think that is a great shame.

[Mr Speaker]

That concludes the business statement.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 10th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I join the right hon. Lady in wishing members of the Jewish community a happy Hanukkah? Lighting candles is something done very often in the Catholic Church as well, as she will know. Lighting candles is a very good religious symbol.

May I also thank Eric Hepburn for his service to the House, which has been very impressive and has led to a professionalisation of security in this House? I wish his successor well.

I absolutely agree with the right hon. Lady that British citizens detained abroad unfairly and illegally ought to be released. The Government are doing what they can, and I can reassure her that every week I write to the Foreign Secretary reminding him that this issue has been raised in the House.

Now let me come to the other issues that the right hon. Lady raised. I would dispute very strongly that the usual courtesies are not being observed, but we are in a time when we are waiting for the end of a very important negotiation that may have legislative consequences. It would be absolutely disgraceful if this House were not able to facilitate any ratification of any deal that may or may not come. We have a duty to the country to ensure that the House of Commons is not an obstacle to ratification. If that means a degree of uncertainty about business, that is simply the political reality. It is an important political reality, which we should embrace rather than complain about, and I am surprised at the right hon. Lady that she would complain about it in that way.

There will be change on 1 January. That is absolutely clear. The reason the Bill was changed mid-week was the success of the Joint Committee—the success of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who managed to get a deal so that 98% of goods going from GB to Northern Ireland will not need to have any tariffs paid on them and all goods coming from Northern Ireland to GB will not need export declarations. It has been a real achievement to ensure that what we legislated for was actually going to happen. We should be proud of that and actually commend the wisdom of Her Majesty’s Government in bringing forward the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill in all its glory, which helped the negotiations to succeed.

There will be a debate on covid on Monday, when the roll-out of the vaccine can be raised. I am always asked for debates, but when I provide them, the hon. Lady ignores them, but we have got one. She can raise those questions, and other hon. and right hon. Members can do so too.

The right hon. Lady also referred to the Procedure Committee and its plethora of recommendations, which the Government will of course reply to, in accordance with the Osmotherly principles, although I would say that injury time encourages interventions, and interventions are an essential part of debate. I would therefore be nervous about taking away something that adds to the flow of debate.

I am delighted that the right hon. Lady is pleased about the International Development Committee being retained. It has been going, as she said, since 1969, which is a vintage year because it happens to be the year of my birth, so I have a certain prejudice in favour of that date. I think we have come to a good solution to ensure proper scrutiny, and it reiterates the Government’s commitment to scrutiny.

Let me come to Human Rights Day. In our island story, which the right hon. Lady referred to, we should be so proud of the fact that we have led to the world in having proper protection of the subject in relation to the state. Bear in mind that in 1215 at Runnymede what they did was confirm ancient rights, which they thought—almost certainly incorrectly, as it happens—had been drawn up by Edward the Confessor. However, the principle was that they were confirming ancient rights, not inventing ones. Exactly the same happened when habeas corpus was passed into law in the reign of Charles II: they were confirming rights of antiquity, so that we would not have the illegal detention of people without the prospect of a trial or the process of a court. It is worth bearing in mind that at that point in France it was still possible to hold people on the word of the King. There were letters of cachet that meant that people could be locked up simply on the word of the King.

Then, in the 18th century, we had the Mansfield judgment, one of the judgments we should be proudest of in this House, with the understanding that in the United Kingdom there is no such thing as a person who is not free. We then led the world democratically in 1832 with the Reform Bill. We are model to the world of rights, which are our rights—United Kingdom rights—and other countries have followed behind. We should recognise that we know how to do it and we have done it extraordinarily well, to the prosperity of the British people and the solidity of our constitution.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Andrea Leadsom. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am glad to see that there is something on which I agree with the Scottish National party.

Reducing obesity levels is a key priority of this Government—and rightly so, bearing in mind the effects of obesity on covid—and our ambition is to halve childhood obesity by 2020. However, I understand that the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport are currently running a consultation on how to proceed with their proposed policies on food advertising, and I would urge all hon. and right hon. Members, and indeed members of the public, to respond. My hon Friend might like to write in and remind people that

“A Mars a day helps you work, rest and play”.

[Mr Speaker]

I think we need more work at the moment.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) [V]]

Mr Speaker, I would like to pay tribute this morning to a valued member of staff of the House, my former Clerk of the International Trade Committee, Lydia Menzies, who sadly passed away last week at the age of just 38. Lydia was a fantastic Clerk—knowledgeable, helpful to Committee members, and a friend and mentor to her colleagues as well. Lydia’s wonderful sense of humour and wit made working with her enjoyable for everyone. In fact, the tie I am wearing this morning was a present from Lydia, of her own tartan, when she left the Committee. Such was her nature: she gave presents at moments like that. It was indeed a privilege to work with Lydia, and I understand that the Leader of the House worked with her, too. Doubtless he will join this morning in paying tribute to Lydia. My thoughts and those of the tremendous ITC staff and colleagues from across this House are with her husband, Greg, her 18-month-old daughter, Orla, and her wider family.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for paying tribute to Lydia Menzies, who was a very valued member of the House staff and a distinguished Clerk. She served on several Committees, including his, and was in the Table Office for a period, and many Members will have come across her there. I have always found that the Table Office provides a wonderful service in helping Members to avoid mistakes and to enable them to craft their questions in a way that will be orderly, and she was very helpful to me when I was visiting the Table Office. She was seconded for a period to the Department for International Trade, so also had some experience of Government, and she was also a great teacher and source of inspiration to colleagues. Her early death is a great loss to the House service, and I pass on my condolences to her husband, Greg, and to her daughter, Orla.

Eternal rest grant unto her, O Lord. May her soul and the souls of all the faithful departed, by the mercy of God, rest in peace.

[Mr Speaker]

May I, too, add my comments and say that I have sent a letter to the family? Lydia’s death was a shock to all of us. She has been robbed from this House far too soon and from her family. She had a great career ahead of her. It is a sad time, but, as the Leader of the House says, all our thoughts and prayers go to the family.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 26th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Indeed, may he and all the souls of the faithful departed—especially in November, of course, the month of the holy souls—rest in peace.

I share her agreement that we should congratulate David Clark on what he has done for Parliament Week. May I say that the thanks being given to the British Parliament for Kylie’s release should fall particularly to the right hon. Lady? It is not usual for the Leader of the House to say that his shadow is the person who has really highlighted a cause, fought for it and raised it week after week, but I think the thanks should go much more to her than to me. I hope she will continue to raise these issues, because I think it is an area in which the whole House is in agreement.

However, I am sorry to tell you, Mr Speaker, that we do not agree about everything. The end of the Session will of course come in accordance with the process of successive Government business, in the normal way, and will be announced in the normal way. We will have Opposition days in accordance with the requirements of Standing Orders—I know that everyone waits with bated breath for future Opposition days.

As regards EU talks and when statements will come, I think we will see from what comes after me how good and strong the Government have been in keeping this House up to date, with two important statements coming. I can reassure the House that statements will come when there is something to say, but it is not beneficial for the House to have statements until that time.

The right hon. Lady asked about DFID and the processes with the Select Committee. This is under discussion between the Chairman of the Select Committee and other interested parties, and the Government are looking upon suggestions about it with benignity.

On virtual participation, the right hon. Lady puts herself forward as Gladstone. Mr Gladstone used to think that speaking for four hours was a mere bagatelle; he had hardly cleared his throat in the first four hours. The right hon. Lady spoke for over an hour on Tuesday—with great distinction and panache, it has to be said, and a great deal of support from her right hon. and hon. Friends. I fail to see how sufficient time was not provided when another hon. Member managed to talk out his own amendment, which is Gladstonian in a different way; a way that Disraeli might have noted and commented upon.

It is a great shame that that debate was not allowed to come to a conclusion. The reason it did not was that Opposition Members—the Labour party and the Scottish National party—decided that it should not. It is unusual for an hon. Member to talk out his own amendment. Some may even consider it eccentric, and it is a pity because we had hoped that we could ensure participation for the extremely clinically vulnerable. There was an amendment tabled that would have broadened it, but the House was not allowed the opportunity to express its will by the actions of Opposition Members. That was a choice that they made, rather than allowing a vote in this House that would have settled the issue. It is to my mind a great shame that that is the situation we find ourselves in.

As regards the levelling-up fund, I would have thought that the right hon. Lady would welcome £4 billion to help places that have been left behind to improve, to increase opportunity and prosperity across the country, and to ensure that the House is properly involved so that it is a national programme helping locally. It is a really admirable programme and has widespread support, as does the towns fund. It is really important to understand that Ministers should neither be advantaged nor disadvantaged by the fact that they are Ministers, so the fund was completely properly allocated, and it is right that that should happen to help town centres do better in what are extremely difficult circumstances.

As regards the hostile environment, I was, I am glad to say, on the Back Benches when that was Government policy: it is not Government policy and the hostile environment is not something I have ever been comfortable with. I think someone is either a British citizen or they are not, and if someone is a British citizen they have exact equality and parity with all other British citizens and should not be asked, even in this House, to prove their identity.

[Mr Speaker]

We might disagree on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I indeed wish them well in the work they are doing to raise funds for the Royal Marines benevolent fund? I think it is a terrific effort. Do we not all admire the Royal Marines this country, I perhaps most particularly, because my campaign manager in every election since 2010 has been a former Royal Marine? I know what fine members of the community they remain, even when they have left military service.

Veterans’ mental health is of great importance and the Veterans’ Mental Health Transition, Intervention and Liaison Service is for serving personnel approaching discharge from the military, reservists and veterans with mental health difficulties. The veterans’ mental health complex treatment service provides intensive care and treatment that may include support for drug and alcohol misuse, physical health, employment, housing, relationships and finances, as well as occupational and trauma focus therapies. It is very important that this is supported. It had £16 million of spending last year and over 10,000 referrals up to the end of 2019, but my hon. Friend is right to raise this important issue.

[Mr Speaker]

It is important that the whole House supports the Royal Marines and their endeavours to raise money, not least for one of the most courageous events of the second world war, the Cockleshell heroes.

Virtual Participation in Debate

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 24th November 2020 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Tomorrow’s business will now include a motion to approve a money resolution relating to the Prisons (Substance Testing) Bill, followed by a motion relating to the appointment of members to the Independent Expert Panel, followed by a motion relating to the Committee on Standards’ 11th report of Session 2019-21. These were the motions that were not brought forward today to allow two hours for the very important debate that has sadly just expired.

[Mr Speaker]

Would the shadow Leader of the House like to respond?

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 19th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

May I just say that knighthoods are not a matter for the Leader of the House? He has many duties, but that is not one of them.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

One of my children thinks that Mr Ben Stokes ought to have a knighthood, too, and I point out to him that this is also not a matter for me.

The right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) also wanted to congratulate Lewis Hamilton. What a fantastic performer he has proved to be, and what a model for the nation. He is, statistically, the most successful Formula 1 driver in history and it puts him among the greatest sportsmen that this nation has ever had. I must confess: is there not a little bit of all of us, when we are driving, who rather wish that we were Lewis Hamilton? When we are stuck at a red traffic light and the M4 stretches out for miles in front of us, we think, “If only we could put our foot down a little and go a bit faster.” So I admire him, I congratulate him and I am even a little bit jealous of him.

[Mr Speaker]

He might have to convert to electric as well. Let us go to the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is right to say that Wiltshire is a great county, because in 878 it was on the right side of the battle of Edington, where Alfred defeated the Danes and where the good people of Somerset, Wiltshire and Hampshire came together for that historic victory on which this country is essentially founded. He is wrong, however, to highlight the ancient monuments of Wiltshire, because there is a much better one in Stanton Drew. It is of greater antiquity, greater beauty and greater interest, and I would suggest that people go to Stanton Drew rather than to Stonehenge so that they do not have to worry about the A303. However, the Great West Way is a fantastic route—you can make a detour off it to go and visit Edington, where the battle may have taken place. The Government are supporting it via the £45 million Discover England fund, so let Somerset, Wiltshire and Hampshire rejoice in our shared and distinguished history.

[Mr Speaker]

Just for the record, the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) might want to know that the Leader of the House last week said how important it was to see Stonehenge, as he travels past in on the A303.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that important point. It is the job of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to raise the right amount of tax—neither too much nor too little—and therefore it has a duty to help people to claim any reliefs that are available to them. The lack of people claiming pensioner credits was raised with me the week before last, and the hon. Gentleman’s point about people claiming their entitlements to tax relief is also important and deserves wider publicity.

[Mr Speaker]

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

Participation in Debates

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Monday 16th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Leader of the House, just one second. I did not know that was going to be raised. I think I need to put clarity around what I did say. If people are vulnerable, I did say that I do not want vulnerable people to be put at risk. Let us clear that up. This is a covid-secure workplace.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. That clarification is extremely helpful because the Clerk of the House, I think, would be extremely nervous if it were being said that this were not a covid-secure workplace. The work that has been done to ensure that has been absolutely extraordinary, and we ought to thank once again the House authorities, but also the Doorkeepers who have stewarded our Divisions, the security staff and the cleaning people who have worked incredibly hard and who have been here even when we have not been. The hon. Gentleman has expressed his view very clearly. It is not one I share.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend was momentarily interrupted, and that is one of the problems with remote participation; the quality of the audio is not invariably perfect. Although that works during Question Time, it is not a good enough way of having a debate, nor did we find when we had the hybrid Parliament that debates of legislation worked effectively. I would also point out that when we had the hybrid Parliament, we were meeting for only three days a week, and we were very short on Opposition days and had no Backbench Business days, both of which have now been restored. The act of holding the Government to account and, indeed, of getting legislation through was less easy, and that is why it was decided, by a vote of the House, to return to a more physically present Parliament, especially for debates and therefore particularly for legislation.

I would say to my right hon. Friend that we are ensuring that Parliament is working effectively, and we are going to make, I hope, with the agreement of the House, an exception for those who are clinically extremely vulnerable. He does, though, ask a question that is something of a conundrum, because we cannot change the rules until we have voted to change the rules, so the vote to change the rules will be of fundamental importance for allowing those who are clinically extremely vulnerable to attend and speak in debates.

[Mr Speaker]

We have a lot to get through, so I ask for speedy questions and answers. That will help us all.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 12th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman perhaps does not see the irony of what he has just said. There was an election in 2014 and I am afraid that it is the hon. Gentleman who is the Trump of Scotland, because he is denying that result. He is trying to pretend that it did not happen and that the people of Scotland, in their wisdom, did not vote to remain in the United Kingdom. May I beg to remind him that the people of Scotland voted to remain and that at that time the Scottish National party leadership said it was generational? That is why my right hon. Friend the Scottish Secretary is right to say that it must be for a generation. The hon. Gentleman cannot say that he does not like the result and therefore he is going to sulk and, in a state of high dudgeon, complain and moan and object, because the people of Scotland have spoken, and in their wisdom they wanted to remain in the United Kingdom.

Is that any surprise when £8.2 billion of UK taxpayers’ money has gone to the benefit of the people of Scotland? In addition, 779,500 jobs have been saved or supported by the furlough scheme, and £806 million has been paid out to help 157,000 people in the self-employed scheme. This is the success of the United Kingdom.

The hon. Gentleman says that he gets redacted statements. The good news will be boasted about later—such as the £8.2 billion and the 779,500 jobs—but it is routine for a Chancellor’s statements to have market-sensitive information not provided at the time. That is an obvious thing to do.

Opposition days are provided—I am well aware of the Standing Orders requirements—and, on the shared prosperity fund, Scotland shares in the prosperity of the United Kingdom.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the Father of the House, Sir Peter Bottomley.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

In the 45 years I have been here, I have worked for tenants and leaseholders in tower blocks. For the last 15 years, I have been trying to get Government Ministers to accept the need for changes and leasehold reforms so that at least tenants are not exploited. There are 6 million of them, with 1 million affected by cladding-type issues and many more affected by the apparent increased cost of lease extensions. The Government have got the Law Commission to produce some very good reports, and Ministers sometimes say that something is going to happen.  When will the Government make a statement about implementing the needed reforms and when will we have a Government debate so that we can support the Government when they take the necessary action? At the moment, the praise and plaudits cannot come in full because the Government have not supported lease tenants the way that they should.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

On the issue of cladding, which my hon. Friend raises, we are providing £1.6 billion of taxpayers’ money to speed up the removal of unsafe cladding. That will be of help to some leaseholders in buildings that have cladding that has not yet been removed. The issue of compounding ground rates has been raised in the House before and is clearly a problem. I shall ensure that the Secretary of State gives a full answer to my hon. Friend.

[Mr Speaker]

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

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 10th November 2020 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Lords amendment 2, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 3 to 5.

Lords amendment 6, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 7, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 8, and Government motion to disagree.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Government’s commitment to ensure that the House has updated and equal parliamentary constituencies has been reflected in the tenacity of my hon. Friend the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution. I apologise to the House that I am a mere stand-in for her today, because her efforts to legislate to that effect have been unstinting throughout this Parliament.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 5th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The relationship between Church and state is one that sometimes proves rather difficult. Who can forget 29 December 1170, when Thomas à Becket was murdered in his own cathedral by the agents of the state sent by Henry II? The relationship between Church and state has not always been smooth. It was a great matter for discussion by medieval scholars, who concentrated on Luke 22:38: “there are two swords”. The question is which sword is superior—the spiritual sword or the temporal sword. The temporal authorities often think that the temporal sword is the superior sword. The ecclesiastical authorities were very happy to argue with that, and Pope Boniface VIII put it at its highest level in his 1302 papal bull “Unam Sanctam”, which claimed that all secular authorities were secondary to the spiritual authorities. We have seen this argument rage over the centuries, with greater powers taken by the state and then freedom of religion reasserting itself. My hon. Friend raises a point of fundamental importance, but the hope that we may all take—the reassurance that those of us who have faith may be certain of—is that the highest authority is unquestionably immortal, invisible and only wise, and even outside the control of the House of Commons.

[Mr Speaker]

And I always thought that the Templars were too powerful, and that is why their power was taken away.

[Mr Speaker]

I do apologise that no picture was put up of the SNP spokesperson when the line went down—the sound quality was good, although the screen is just a blank at the moment—but I will ask the Leader of the House to respond.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is a great pity that we could not see the hon. Gentleman’s cheerful countenance, cheering us all up and bringing sweetness and light to this Chamber, as he does on a weekly basis.

The point the hon. Gentleman raises on the furlough scheme has been responded to by the Prime Minister any number of times with considerable clarity—that it is a UK-wide scheme. That is how it is operating and has operated. It continued until 31 October, and was then renewed. It remains a UK-wide scheme, and that is as it should be. I have pointed out to the hon. Gentleman before, but it bears repetition, that the UK taxpayer has provided £7.2 billion of funding to Scotland and saved 779,500 jobs under the furlough scheme, in addition to the £770 million for the self-employment scheme. The United Kingdom, as a single entity, has protected the interests of Scotland, and will continue to do so.

On communication, I think the hon. Gentleman is advocating a counsel of perfection. Of course it is important to try to give notice, but it is also important to try to ensure that briefings are provided quickly, and getting that balance right is something the Government strive to do. I think, by and large, that right hon. and hon. Members appreciate the opportunity to have briefings, and that we should not delay briefings because of the risk of some people missing the relevant notification.

As regards voting in person, people need to be here—they need to be here to speak in debates, they need to be here for legislative procedures—and people are still free to go through the Division Lobbies. They have the opportunity to use a proxy if that is what they choose to do. We are a party that believes in choice, liberty and freedom.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Yes, I had indeed heard that sad news. It is a real problem, and high streets are facing enormous challenges, mainly from developments that were taking place before the coronavirus, but exacerbated and made faster because of the coronavirus. The Government have of course got the £3.6 billion towns fund that is helping high streets, and I think there is more work to be done on that. As regards a debate, I think that is a question for the Backbench Business Committee.

[Mr Speaker]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend should tell his local authority that it can organise a remembrance service, provided that it is outside and that social distancing can be maintained. I would encourage him to have a word with Warrington Borough Council and ask it to crack on with it, because there is not a lot of time left.

Poppy sellers are such a wonderful part of the fabric of our nation—they are such a varied group of people, who have such commitment to remembering those who gave their life to ensure that we could live in freedom. Therefore my hon. Friend is right to say that people should go to the website and donate that way, if they cannot do what they would usually do and allow some coins, or preferably notes, to clink—although notes obviously do not clink—into a poppy collector’s tin; it is not a tin but a plastic container, but I think everyone in the House knows what I mean.

[Mr Speaker]

Well recovered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

This is a leak inquiry that wants to find out what happened, and I know that the Prime Minister was far from gruntled over what happened last week. He had intended that the announcement should be made in the House first, and it needs to be looked into thoroughly. I would say there is something deeply distasteful about this culture of leaking. We want the House to hear first, we want a proper process and that is what was intended. It then came to the House and we had a vote yesterday, I would say that is also important: the commitment to have votes on important issues of national significance has been maintained and the rights of the House are therefore being protected.

[Mr Speaker]

I did ask for the House to be updated as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Yes. The issue of cladding and its effect on people trying to sell properties has been problematic. The Government have been spending a great deal of taxpayers’ money to remove unsafe cladding on bigger buildings, but I accept that for buildings of a lower height the problem may not always have been addressed, or they may not be in a programme to be addressed. I think it will be best if I take this up with the relevant Secretary of State and get a fuller answer for the hon. Gentleman.

[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.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend raises a really important point, and I am sure that many Members across the House understand the challenges facing some of our constituents in today’s digital age, especially in the covid-19 era, which is replete with essential smartphone apps and fast-moving data. I assure him that the Government are driving forward access to the digital world, with £5 billion of spending to ensure that the whole UK benefits from world-class broadband infrastructure. Mobile coverage is improving, and 91% of the UK is covered by a 4G signal from at least one operator. Although 91% sounds quite good, I must confess that when I am at home in Somerset and I have no mobile signal, 91% is not good enough, so it needs to get better. As we become more digital, this becomes more pressing.

[Mr Speaker]

Let us head to the SNP spokesperson in Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am in so much sympathy with my hon. Friend. In normal summers I spend a lot of time at fairgrounds. That is one of the things about having six children; what else is there to do on a Saturday afternoon but try to find a fairground? This year I missed the opportunity to do that or to open the Clutton flower show, which has lots of amusements attached.

My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue. The Chancellor announced in the 2020 Budget that the Government will remove the entitlement to use red diesel from April 2022, except in agriculture, fish farming, rail and non-commercial heating. The policy is designed to ensure that the tax system incentivises users of diesel to improve the energy efficiency of their vehicles and machinery, invest in cleaner alternatives or use less fuel. That is the argument for it, but let us hope that fairgrounds flourish.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

This is a brilliant idea, and who cannot recall the episode of “Peppa Pig” where Peppa decides to go and jump in a muddy puddle, that being her favourite activity? She is joined by her brother, George, by her father and her mother, and I have a feeling even the grandparents join in, and they all get covered in mud. I cannot promise my hon. Friend that that will be what the Rees-Mogg household are doing on world puddle jumping day, but certainly a number of my children will enjoy doing it very much, and he is to be commended for ensuring that world puddle jumping day has a wider audience.

[Mr Speaker]

And we mustn’t forget the Vicar of Dibley.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on what she is doing on mentoring. It is a way of giving young people a real chance to get ahead in their lives and make their mark. I am delighted to hear that 100 MPs are supporting her initiative. I will ensure that a message goes after this to No. 10 Downing Street so that the Prime Minister is aware of her request, although I cannot promise what the answer will be. I would really thank her for what she is doing. It is so important and such an important initiative.

[Mr Speaker]

We now go to Harrow airways and, with permission to land, Bob Blackman.

[Mr Speaker]

I think that is a bit too long a question.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend raises a point that is deeply concerning and he raises a very serious charge. Politically motivated interference in matters such as planning is improper, and I will ensure that the Housing Secretary is made aware of this. It is, of course, a matter for Harrow Council, but once the internal process has been exhausted, it may be possible to involve the local government ombudsman. Local authorities have to abide by a code of conduct, and to make planning decisions for electoral gain is thoroughly improper.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 15th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is disappointed with me, and that is a yoke I shall have to bear. It is, I fear, his default position to be disappointed with me, and I am afraid that in my answers today, his disappointment will only grow. I am sorry about that; none the less, I must proceed.

The House made a decision to be back in physical form and voted to return to physical voting—a system that is working effectively and ensures that our business can be done. It is essential for debates that we are here. The whole point of a debate is to challenge, to question, to intervene. That is not possible remotely. For Ministers, when we had that brief period of legislation going through remotely, it could not have been easier: all the Minister had to do was read out the prepared blurb. Nothing could be intervened upon; nothing could be questioned. [Interruption.] When we are here, as I am heckled by the Labour Chief Whip, interventions can come from a sedentary position, which may get the pith and moment of the debate, as the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) is so good at doing. That leads to proper, informed debate. [Interruption.] Even Mr Speaker is intervening now.

[Mr Speaker]

I was just saying that we would not have interventions in business questions.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very reassured that you are sticking to the rules, Mr Speaker. It is essential that we have debates in person, otherwise the Government are not held to account.

Then we come on to the question of the United Kingdom. The vote was held in 2014, and it was won by the Unionists. The Scottish National party said at the time that it was for a generation. I know that the SNP is now a bit embarrassed about Alex Salmond, its former leader and almost the creator of its success. Its Members are cautious about the text messages they have sent and forgetful about some of the meetings that the current leader held with him. It is amusing that, as I understand it, the current leader of the Scottish National party, Mrs Sturgeon, was so busy preparing to answer questions in the Scottish Parliament that she forgot what she had been discussing at other times of the day. I do not find that these memory lapses occur when I prepare for business questions, but never mind that particular point.

It was said that the vote would last for a generation, and a generation is not seven years. What will we campaign on? The success of the Union. Some £7.2 billion has gone to Scotland, and 779,500 jobs in Scotland have been protected in the furlough scheme. The United Kingdom taxpayer is able to afford that because it is the taxpayers of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland coming together for the greater good of our wonderful nation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The distress that sewer flooding can cause is very considerable, and water companies have a duty to drain their areas effectively. I can assure my hon. Friend that the regulator takes this issue seriously. Water companies are expected to reduce the amount of sewage flooding that their customers experience, and they face penalties if they fail to achieve this. We do expect companies to improve their planning in co-operation with others responsible for drainage, so they can take a more strategic approach to reducing sewer flooding as part of the new drainage and wastewater management plans. In the first instance, I cannot promise a debate in Government time, but it may be another Adjournment debate under your auspices, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

You’re all heart.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

When the hon. Lady said we must remember it is 15 October, I had a nasty moment because it is, of course, my wife’s birthday. Fortunately, I had not forgotten. It would have left me in a good deal of trouble if I had. The hon. Lady’s question is a very important one. It is important that the House is updated in reasonable time about what the situation is. Currently, there is nothing to update, otherwise the House would be updated.

[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.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 8th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I have a big list to get through. We are really going to have to speed up questions and answers.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I would like to commend the Football League clubs to which my hon. Friend refers, which have shown that they can manage the return of fans to watch live sport in a safe and effective fashion. The Government know that the decision not to reopen stadiums to spectators on 1 October will have major consequences for sports and clubs across the country that relied on those grounds for income. That is why the Government are working urgently with clubs and their representatives to ensure that as many as possible are not adversely affected by that. I would add that the football authorities are giving a lot of support to smaller football clubs. Nine football clubs in my constituency have benefited, and the Government are certainly grateful for the support that football is finding for itself.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

We have got the message—I call the Leader of the House.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I did not much like the beginning of the message, about Essex and Somerset. The match was pretty much rained off and it was not a proper County Championship this year anyway, but Somerset still have not won—it is my lifetime’s hope that Somerset will one day win the County Championship, but there we go.

In relation to stadiums and visitors, I reiterate what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton). The decision not to reopen stadiums to spectators will have major consequences for sport and clubs across the country, and the Government are working hard with sport organisations to mitigate the economic consequences. Sport England has provided £195 million to support community sport throughout the crisis and has recently added a further £15 million to its community emergency fund to help grassroots sport further. I absolutely accept that this is a problem, and it is one of the consequences of the coronavirus.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend reminds me of a 1979 Conservative election sticker that said, “If Labour’s the answer, it must have been a silly question.” The lockdown measures have been implemented to try to stop the spread of the disease. A disease that is communicated by people meeting is bound to be reduced in its circulation if people meet less. We saw that with the first lockdown—it stopped people meeting, and therefore the numbers affected by the disease declined. On his main point about whether he will get good answers from Ministers, I can assure him that he will get brilliant answers from them.

[Mr Speaker]

May I congratulate the next Member, who ran a virtual marathon and raised over £1,000 for charity?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is too early to say, I think, how the various schemes have been allocated, but the Government had to provide urgent resources to businesses to keep them in business. The £26 billion that the hon. Gentleman refers to was a necessary step to take to keep jobs open and to keep the structures of the economy in place. Any fraud is wrong, and any fraud must be investigated and, I hope, prosecuted, but urgency was the priority.

[Mr Speaker]

We can now unite Somerset—I call Ian Liddell-Grainger.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

You are absolutely correct. From out of my window I look at Darwen tower and Winter hill in the constituency of Chorley.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I can think of no better way of spending £250,000 of taxpayers’ money than improving the view of Mr Speaker. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the importance of local landmarks to Britain’s communities. It is great to hear that the towns fund has supported the imposing octagonal Darwen tower, which has stood over Lancashire for 122 years commemorating Queen Victoria’s diamond jubilee. Let us hope, as we approach the 70th anniversary of Her Majesty’s own accession, that we may think of similar grand schemes for celebrating that. I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in welcoming the Government’s spending of taxpayers’ money in town centres and high streets from the towns fund. This is essential to our efforts to level up our regions and create places across the country where people want to live and thrive. Our local history, as noted in the exchange between me and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger), is incredibly valuable, and the Government are committed to preserving and enriching our heritage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Yes, of course, I will send my best wishes. I think the whole House would also wish to send their best wishes to the police officer who has been injured. The right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) nods as does the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard). Attacks on the police are always very worrying, and we should be so grateful to our brave police who stand on duty courageously, never knowing quite what might hit them. My hon. Friend is right to be asking for a debate on this. Obviously, there will be opportunities as legislation comes forward to debate it in Government time. None the less, the Backbench Business Committee is the main source for debates of this kind along with Adjournment debates, but, as he knows, this is an issue that the Government take very seriously.

Before I conclude, I forgot one thing earlier, which is my congratulations to the right hon. Member for Walsall South on notching up an important milestone this week—four years as shadow Leader of the House. In the United States, when somebody has achieved four years, often the cry goes up, “Four more years!” I have a feeling that the whole House will be joining me in saying “Four more years” to the right hon. Lady.

[Mr Speaker]

Four more years.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 24th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. We should be so proud of our great heroes in this nation, like Winston Churchill. An organisation like the National Trust should be honoured that it has Chartwell among its portfolio of properties, and it should remember that its properties were given to it by people who expected it to be a custodian of our history, to be proud of our history and to think well of our great nation, not to shamefacedly, quietly hide away, pretending that it is abashed about the greatness that this country has enjoyed over so many centuries. It is sad that a once great organisation—a membership organisation that owes a duty to its members, many of whom I hear are now resigning in protest—cannot realise how wonderful a man like Churchill was. He is not alone; I could give a list of the great figures of our past, but, Mr Speaker, you want me to be brief.

[Mr Speaker]

And sometimes it was in lieu of taxes that we got them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is indeed an important allowance. The Government have offered pension credit since 2003, when it was introduced by our predecessor Government. Along with our increases to the state pension, it has been of vital assistance to many poorer pensioners. We want to make sure that all eligible pensioners claim the pension credit to which they are entitled, and the Government work with a range of organisations to make sure that those who are eligible know how to claim. If anybody who is watching the Parliament channel is entitled to claim, I hope they will put in a claim. My hon. Friend can help in this effort by supporting the nationwide campaign to raise awareness that has been running in GP surgeries, post offices and on social media to encourage those who are over state pension age to discover whether they are eligible.

[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 a few minutes.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 17th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May 878, the Battle of Edington: it is from that battle and the defeat of Guthrum that the British nation, the United Kingdom, was founded. Without that, we would probably all be speaking Danish. It is thanks to King Alfred, who of course laid his plans on the Somerset levels. We should always remember that our great nation comes from Somerset, and Somerset should always be at the centre of our nation’s thinking. It is one great united country. Ted Heath’s chopping it up in 1974 caused me dyspepsia as a five-year-old and continues to cause me dyspepsia now. Somerset is a great county, and the more united it is the better.

[Mr Speaker]

Just to say, we do like virtual from Somerset.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As a public service broadcaster funded by the licence fee—i.e. taxpayers—the BBC has a responsibility to lead the way in promoting equality in the workplace, ensuring overall pay restraint and value for money. That is why the Government requested that the names of all BBC staff and talent paid more than £150,000 be published. But there was one thing that horrified, appalled and shocked me about the list that came out: the name of Jonathan Agnew did not appear higher up the list. I could not believe that there were people being paid more than £1 million and that one of them was not our leading cricket commentator, Aggers himself. This is a great injustice, and I hope that somebody will request a Backbench Business debate to try to put this right. Fairness for Aggers!

[Mr Speaker]

Where do I go from there?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this deeply troubling issue. It is important that safeguards that used to be in place are put back in place as soon as possible. Of course, anything to do with abortion is not a matter where the Government have a policy; it is a matter for one’s private conscience, but she knows that her conscience and my conscience align on this matter.

[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 suspend the House for a few minutes.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 3rd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Leader of the House, who should answer it—me or you?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That is a very good point, Mr Speaker; I was about to say that it is more your responsibility than mine, and I am always cautious of treading on your toes. There was a bit of a double act with your predecessor, who sometimes used to interfere in Question Time and answer questions that were directed to the Leader of the House, but it has been slightly more normal under your period of office, Mr Speaker.

I am really keen that this Chamber should be as full as it possibly and safely can be. I am sure, Mr Speaker, that you saw the comments made in the debate last night, when people asked whether we could use the Galleries, have microphones at the Cross Benches at the back and do things to get more people in. I am very keen that we should, and I think I can speak for you, Mr Speaker, in saying that you are keen that we should, but we slightly run up against the official advice from Public Health England. It is difficult for this House, of all places, to ignore the advice that has been given by an official body. That is where we are slightly stymied, but perhaps PHE will be more flexible, and I know that Mr Speaker will then encourage more people to come in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Mr Speaker, I wonder—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Leader of the House should know better. The man supposed to uphold the values of this House has just broken them. How dare he?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Mr Speaker, I of course apologise for any offence that I may have given to the House, but

“When Britain first, at Heaven’s command,

Arose from out the azure main,

This was the charter of the land,

And guardian angels sang this strain:

‘Rule, Britannia! Britannia rule the waves!

Britons never, never, never will be slaves.’”

Let us hope that the BBC will recognise the virtues of Britannia in this land of hope and glory.

[Mr Speaker]

Has he any more handout questions we have to be aware of?

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 16th July 2020 Commons Chamber

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

The business for the week commencing 20 July will include:

Monday 20 July—Remaining stages of the Trade Bill.

Tuesday 21 July—Remaining stages of the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.

Wednesday 22 July—Matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.

At the conclusion of business, the House will rise for the summer recess and return on Tuesday 1 September.

The business for the week commencing 31 August will include:

Monday 31 August—The House will not be sitting.

Tuesday 1 September—Second Reading of the Fisheries Bill [Lords].

Wednesday 2 September—Second reading of the Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Bill [Lords].

Thursday 3 September—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill.

Friday 4 September—The House will not be sitting.

For the convenience of the House—[Laughter.]—I can confirm that, following correspondence from the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, I will be tabling motions on Monday’s Order Paper to give the House the opportunity to agree an extension to the current proxy voting arrangements until 28 September.

In addition, I am aware of the understandable desire for Members from all parties to see the return of business to Westminster Hall. It may help if I update the House by saying that discussions are already taking place with the House authorities with a view to Westminster Hall debates resuming as soon as practicable. I understand from the House authorities that the aim is for business to resume from 5 October, if possible.

[Mr Speaker]

Now that we have flushed that through, we will go back to Valerie Vaz.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you, Tommy.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As always, the hon. Gentleman brings a little ray of sunshine into the Chamber, and we are grateful for that. A light shineth in the darkness. To come to his point, there is a difference between a question not being answered and being given an answer that he does not like. That does not mean the question has not been answered.

I will therefore remind the hon. Gentleman that some £4.6 billion has gone to Scotland under Barnett consequentials from the UK taxpayer. Without the UK taxpayer, the Scottish Government would find it very hard to make ends meet. That has provided support for 146,000 self-employed people, and 628,000 people have joined the furlough scheme, so a very large number of people —more than 750,000 Scottish people—have been helped because they belong to the United Kingdom, and that is something of which we should all be proud.

The hon. Gentleman mentions the devolution settlement, and it has to be said here that the position of the Scottish Government and Scottish nationalists is bizarre. They want the powers to be with Brussels. There are no powers being taken away from the devolved authorities. What is happening is power is returning to the United Kingdom. We will have the authority to decide for ourselves these issues with regard to things that affect trade. Subsidies will be a matter for the UK Parliament rather than unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. We have the separatists in Scotland and we have their leader who wishes to build a metaphorical wall against England and who wishes to do all sorts of things that are not in the interests of the people of United Kingdom or the people of Scotland and wishes to kowtow to Brussels. We wish to make a strong United Kingdom, which has £4.6 billion to help the Scottish economy with.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Leader of the House.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Government are still in negotiations with the European Union about how things will work out after 1 January, but businesses should naturally prepare themselves for a variety of eventualities.

[Mr Speaker]

I want to get through the list. If we speed up, we will get through it.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 9th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I have not yet received the hon. Gentleman’s letter, although I look forward to doing so with bated breath—the excitement that awaits me at the end of this session is almost overwhelming. However, this House made its decision. It made its decision in a legitimate vote. We have exclusive cognisance of our affairs. We made the right decision. We are back to work. We are legislating effectively. The Government are being held to account. It was absolutely the right thing to do, and the hon. Gentleman, when he feels that he is well enough to come back, will be enormously welcome. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

I do not think that is quite acceptable from the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) and I hope he will be sending an apology to the Leader of the House.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 2nd July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She represents a particularly beautiful constituency, which, through its beauty, suffers from the difficulties that rural economies have. Many other Members with rural constituencies appreciate that and the great contribution that rural areas make to our national life. They are home to a quarter of the country’s businesses. The Government are committed to helping them get back on their feet as a matter of priority. Some of the measures already taken have benefited rural businesses, such as furloughing, the small business grant fund and the retail, hospitality and leisure grant fund. Some 244,000 grants, with a value of £2.8 billion, have been delivered to vulnerable rural businesses, and £5 billion of public funding has been announced to support the roll-out of gigabit broadband in the hardest-to-reach 20% of the country. That will be fundamental to rural economies, because it brings them into not just the national but the global economy.

[Mr Speaker]

Let us head to Gateshead and a very happy Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, following last night’s result.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

May I help a little? It will be a minimum 20 minutes from the Chancellor, and it will be run long, with many more questions than normal.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Mr Speaker, you have answered the hon. Gentleman’s question. I am not sure there is much I can add.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

It is usually afternoon when the House sits. Carry on!

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Gussie Fink-Nottle is indeed fictional, and he was not really arrested in the fountains in Trafalgar Square when he thought that there were newts there after boat race night. It is important both that we protect the environment and ensure that building takes place. What my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was saying was that it is a question of doing this in a timely manner and not allowing research on newts to be a delay to projects. That does not mean that research does not need to take place. It merely means that it must not be an excuse for delay and preventing things that ought to happen from happening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I refer the hon. Lady to the answer that I gave earlier on the cultural sector, which is of great importance. I welcome her good cheer about the pubs opening on Saturday. Last week, I suggested that people use a yard of ale to measure their social distancing, and I am glad to say that I have had a yard glass delivered. I am looking forward to visiting the Crown in West Harptree on Saturday to see whether I can get in the two and a half pints that I believe a yard of ale contains. Whether I then drink the same is another question.

[Mr Speaker]

You will be timed!

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The import of the virus is an issue that the Government have tackled with the quarantine, which has been an important step in trying to deal with that. Certain powers are available, but most of what is being done is relying on people to use their good sense. The British people should be very proud of the way they have coped with the crisis. They have not needed to be harried and arrested as they went about their business— they had the sense to decide to stay at home and follow guidance, which is a much better way to proceed in a free country.

[Mr Speaker]

We have the runway cleared for Bob Blackman to land his final question.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]]

I warmly welcome the comments from the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary on offering support to the citizens of Hong Kong, but the existential threat from China still exists. It threatens Taiwan. It has military involvement in Sri Lanka. It attacked Indian soldiers in Ladakh—in Indian territory—and it is setting up atolls across the ocean and then claiming territorial waters. Can my right hon Friend arrange for a statement from the Foreign Secretary on what further work we will do to combat this threat from China and what we can do in the UK to ensure that the citizens of Hong Kong are protected?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Foreign Secretary made a statement on that issue yesterday, but my hon. Friend is right: we must stand up for British citizens. As always, we should quote Palmerston, who said:

“as the Roman, in days of old, held himself free from indignity, when he could say Civis Romanus sum; so also a British subject, in whatever land he may be, shall feel confident that the watchful eye and the strong arm of England will protect him against injustice and wrong.”

British nationals overseas are British nationals. The Government are right to protect Her Majesty’s subjects wherever they happen to be, and not, in the Foreign Secretary’s words, to “kowtow” to foreign powers, however powerful they think they are.

[Mr Speaker]

In order to allow the safe exit of 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.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 25th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My immediate plans for a tattoo or for tanning are on hold, but a kind gentleman did have tattooed on him “Moggmentum” a year or so ago, though this has not taken off as a trend.

I very much understand the issue that my hon. Friend raises. It is an important one, because it is difficult for businesses that are closed by compulsion, but the road map was set out on 11 May and many lockdown measures have already been released. We are at step 3 on 4 July and, following the review, we are coming down to three-and-a-quarter-feet distancing rather than six-and-a-half-feet distancing to ensure that people can get out and about more. Close contact services are the most risky, but the Government hope that tattoo and nail parlours will be able to open up as soon after 4 July as is safe and practicable.

[Mr Speaker]

We head to the north-east with the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, Ian Mearns.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The House authorities have done magnificent work—dare I say, led by you, Mr Speaker—in ensuring the safety of House staff, which is of the greatest importance. We are very lucky in the staff we have in this place, who have a wonderful pride in the Parliament in which they work. They know that this is one of the greatest, most ancient, most historic forums of democratic debate in the world, and most of them are proud to be here. However, those who are not well enough to come or who have to shield are being looked after, which is absolutely right and proper. We have gone away from a fully hybrid system and come back to physical working to ensure that business takes place, but we have ensured that people who cannot be here for a range of reasons can vote by proxy and that they can participate in interrogative proceedings. I think that is a very fair balance.

[Mr Speaker]

We go over to Bob Blackman, who is clear to land his question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think very few right hon. and hon. Members miss cricket as much as I do. All my tickets to watch various test matches over the course of the year and my visits to Taunton have had to be cancelled and, worse still, there was a chance that Somerset might win the county championship for the first time in its history—[Interruption.] Not Lancashire, Mr Speaker—it could not possibly be Lancashire. Somerset was so close, other than the points that were meanly taken off us by some unfair people.

Leaving that to one side, it is a real loss for this country that cricket is not coming back, but we have to be as safe as we possibly can be. People can play with their families, so they can get some practice in. But there is some good news: my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) pointed out to me this morning that the MCC, the Marylebone cricket club, has its first female president in its history, in the form of Clare Connor. As I think, second only to being sovereign, being president of the MCC is the highest post in the land—even, Mr Speaker, above the Speakership or the Lord presidency of the Council —may I congratulate Clare Connor warmly on behalf of the House?

[Mr Speaker]

And Lancashire will still win.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think the debate later on will cover this subject, but I would point out how much the Government have done: 9.1 million people are in the furloughing scheme; 2.6 million self-employed people are receiving help; 2.3 million people have got on to universal credit since 12 March; 49,000—nearly 50,000—loans to the value of £10 billion have been made to small and medium-sized enterprises; 279 loans, with a value of nearly £2 billion, have been given to larger businesses; and there have been 860,000 bounce-back loans to the value of £26.3 billion. These are enormous sums that have been provided by taxpayers to support businesses through these difficult times. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point that some people have not benefited from all or any of these schemes, but what has been done is the most enormous package produced by any British Government at any point in our history, and it will ensure that the chances of an economic bounce-back are as high as possible.

[Mr Speaker]

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

Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 4 June)

Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 23rd June 2020 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House reaffirms its commitment to the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme (ICGS) and to tackling bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct on the part of anyone who is or was a member of the parliamentary community; accepts the recommendation in the report by Dame Laura Cox QC on The Bullying and Harassment of House of Commons Staff that complaints against Members should be determined by an independent body; agrees with the proposal brought forward by the House of Commons Commission to implement this recommendation; accordingly agrees to the establishment of an independent panel of experts which shall operate in accordance with the principles of fairness, transparency and natural justice; and expects all Members of this House to cooperate with the Panel’s work and comply with its decisions.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this we shall consider the following:

Motion 5—Independent Expert Panel—

That the following Standing Orders, amendments to standing orders and amendments to the Code of Conduct be made:

A. Independent Expert Panel

(1) There shall be a Panel, to be known as the Independent Expert Panel for the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme (the “ICGS”), whose members shall be appointed by the House in accordance with Standing Order (Appointment of Independent Expert Panel Members).

(2) The Panel shall consist of eight members, of whom a quorum shall be four.

(3) The functions of the Panel shall be:

(a) to determine the appropriate sanction in ICGS cases referred to it by the Parliamentary Commissioner on Standards;

(b) to hear appeals against the decisions of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards in respect of ICGS cases involving Members of this House;

(c) to hear appeals against a sanction imposed under paragraph (a);

(d) to report from time to time, through the Clerk of the House, on the operation of the ICGS as it relates to Members of this House

(4) The Panel may elect its own Chair.

(5) The responsibilities of the Chair shall include:

(a) ensuring that the Panel and its sub-panels comply with the provisions of the relevant resolutions and standing orders of this House;

(b) the appointment of sub-panels to consider individual cases;

(c) co-ordinating the work of the Panel with that of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards;

(d) referring any report from a sub-panel which determines a sanction that can only be imposed by the House to the Clerk of the House who shall lay it upon the Table of the House;

(e) informing the parties concerned of the outcome of any other case reported to the Chair by a sub-panel and ensuring compliance as appropriate with its recommendations;

(f) establishing the procedure for an appeal against the findings or determination of a sub-panel in cases referred under (3)(a) above;

(g) reporting to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards any case of noncompliance under sub-paragraph (e) above by a Member of this House;

(h) ensuring publication of an Annual Report on the functioning of the Panel and its sub-panels by referring the report to the Clerk of the House for laying on the Table.

(6) The Panel and any sub-panel shall have power

(a) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;

(b) to order the attendance of any Member before it and to require that specific documents or records in the possession of a Member relating to its inquiries, or to the inquiries of the Commissioner, be laid before it;

(c) to appoint legal advisers, and to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Panel’s order of reference.

B. Independent Expert Panel: Sub-panels

(1) Cases referred to the Independent Expert Panel under Standing Order (Independent Expert Panel) shall be considered by a sub-panel appointed under paragraph (5)(b) of that order.

(2) A sub-panel shall consist of three members of the Panel and shall have a quorum of three.

(3) Sub-panels shall sit in private.

(4) A sub-panel may request the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to conduct further investigations in respect of a case referred to it and may specify the matters to be covered in that investigation.

(5) In respect of each case referred to it, a sub-panel shall make a report of its findings to the Chair of the Panel.

(6) Where an appeal is made against a finding or determination of a sanction by a sub-panel, a new sub-panel shall be established to hear that appeal. No member shall be eligible to hear an appeal against the decision of a sub-panel on which they have served.

C. Appointment of Independent Expert Panel Members

(1) Members of the Independent Expert Panel shall be appointed by a resolution of the House on a motion made under the provisions of this order and shall remain as members in accordance with the provisions of this order.

(2) The period of appointment of each member shall be specified in the resolution of the House for appointment and shall not exceed six years. The appointment of a member is not terminated by any dissolution of Parliament.

(3) No person who has once been a member may be appointed for a further term.

(4) No person may be appointed as a member if that person is or has been a Member of this House or a Member of the House of Lords; and any person so appointed shall cease to be a member upon becoming a Member of this House or of the House of Lords.

(5) No person may be appointed as a member unless that person has been selected on the basis of a fair and open competition.

(6) A person appointed as a member may resign as a member by giving notice to the House of Commons Commission.

(7) A person appointed as a member shall be dismissed from that position only following a resolution of the House, after the House of Commons Commission has reported that it is satisfied that the person should cease to be a member; and any such report shall include a statement of the Commission’s reasons for its conclusion.

(8) No motion may be made under the provisions of this order unless—

(a) notice of the motion has been given at least two sitting days previously, and

(b) the motion is made on behalf of the House of Commons Commission by a Member of the Commission.

(9) The Speaker shall put the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on motions made under the provisions of this order not later than one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.

(10) Business to which this order applies may be proceeded with at any hour, though opposed.

D. Motions consequent on the ICGS

(1) A motion may be moved by a member of the House of Commons Commission to implement a sanction in respect of an individual ICGS case determined by a sub-panel of the Independent Expert Panel.

(2) The Speaker shall put the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on a motion under paragraph (1) of this order not later than one hour after the commencement of such proceedings.

(3) Business under this order may be proceeded with until any hour, though opposed.

Amendments to other Standing orders

(1) Standing Order No 149 (Committee on Standards)

Paragraph (1)(a): after “Standards”, insert “except in relation to the conduct of individual cases under the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme”.

(2) Standing Order No 150 (Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards)

Leave out paragraph (2)(f) and insert:

“(2) (f) to oversee investigations and make findings in cases against Members under the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme; to refer such cases to the Independent Panel of Experts where a sanction beyond her powers is contemplated; and to assist the Panel and its sub-panels in its work.”.

Delete paragraph (4)(c).

(3) Standing Order No 41A (Deferred divisions) Paragraph (2)(d): at end of sub-paragraph 5, delete “and” and insert:

“(vi) paragraph 1 of Standing Order (Motions consequent on the ICGS); and”.

Amendments to the Code of Conduct

In the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament (HC (2017–19) 1882):

(1) in paragraph 19, at end add “and for the Independent Expert Panel acting in accordance with Standing Order (Independent Expert Panel) in relation to the determination of cases under the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme.”.

(2) in paragraph 21; at end add “Failure to comply with a sanction imposed by a sub-panel of the Independent Expert Panel shall be treated as a breach of the Code.”.

Motion 6—Matters Raised on Motions Consequent on the ICGS—

That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, the House shall apply the following rules in proceedings on matters raised by the Independent Expert Panel or its sub-panels:

(a) The name of any complainant may not be referred to in any motion, debate or question.

(b) Details of any investigation or specific matters considered by a sub-panel of the Independent Expert Panel shall not be referred to in any motion, debate or question.

(c) The findings and determination of sanctions of a sub-panel of the Independent Expert Panel may not be called into question.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 18th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I agree with the right hon. Lady that the whole House sends its condolences to Dame Vera Lynn’s family. She sang uplifting tunes that ensured the nation’s morale was good at a time of desperation. It is noticeable that when we had a difficult time recently, it is once again her words that our sovereign reached for. We look forward to “bluebirds over the white cliffs of Dover” as we get blue passports back, so as people come in they will be looking for bluebirds waving their blue passports. We commemorate and remember her for the great contribution she made to boosting the nation’s resolve and morale.

I appreciate the right hon. Lady’s gratitude for Opposition days. I always do my best to ensure that there is contentment on the Opposition Benches. In that spirit, may I add to the celebratory comments about the Opposition Chief Whip’s birthday and his service to Parliament, for which I think he has a genuine commitment and love? I think that has been good news for how this place has operated in some, although not necessarily in all, ways, because he is also a very effective party politician. [Interruption.] I am in favour of effective party politicians. I think it is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. There is no criticism in that; it is part of making a democracy work.

Recess dates are always subject to the progress of parliamentary business and that remains the case. As soon as I can bring an update to the House, I will do so. The Environment Bill is an important Bill. Obviously, because there were no Public Bill Committees during the period when we were entirely hybrid, there have been delays. It would be very unlikely for it to be out of Committee at the date currently proposed.

I am very glad the right hon. Lady welcomes the Government policy on free school meals. The Government are a Government who listen, and that is quite right. It is very odd that the Labour party should come late to a party asking for something, and then when the Government give it, complain that the Government have given it. I do not really see the logic in that. I think the Government have done absolutely the right thing.

As regards the merger of DFID and the Foreign Office, this is an absolutely brilliant policy. It is one that commands support across the country, because it is putting British interests first. It was not from this Dispatch Box, but from a Dispatch Box in a very similar place—it had to be replaced after the damage caused by the bomb—that Lord Palmerston pointed out that we have eternal interests. Our nation’s interests must be served by the structures of government, and that is what is being done. We must ensure that taxpayers’ money is well spent, and taxpayers have a right to demand that their money is used carefully.

The Prime Minister has been here to make a statement to the House. You, Mr Speaker, rightly keep Her Majesty’s Government on their toes when announcements are not made to this House, and sometimes they creep out at press briefings, which is something you deprecate, but when the Prime Minister comes and makes the statement to this House, does he get the laurels that he deserves—the paeans of praise that should come to him? No, not at all; we get grumbling, moaning and complaining that it is not enough. It has to be said that some people can never be satisfied.

The right hon. Lady called for a uniform for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; I can tell her that as Lord President of the Council, I am entitled to a uniform but, as I understand it, the uniform has not been worn by any Lord President since the coronation of George V. I therefore do not intend to resurrect that ancient tradition. [Interruption.] I do not have the uniform and nor will I be seeking to get the uniform. I do believe that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is entitled to have a flag on his official car, but I understand that that practice has also fallen into disuse.

The right hon. Lady referred to the Government’s commitment to racial equality, which is a very important subject. It was clear in our manifesto that we will ensure that Britain is a fairer society and tackle racial and ethnic inequalities where they exist. The new commission has been set up to have a fresh and positive approach to try to ensure that we have as fair a society as we possibly can. The seriousness with which the Government take the issue is shown by the seniority of the person put in charge of the commission, working from Downing Street.

Finally, the right hon. Lady questioned whether the BBC was being brought into politics. It is noticeable that it is the left that likes to see much higher funding for the BBC; I wonder why that is.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the Leader of the House for confirming that the Prime Minister will make that statement here first.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising an important point that will be of concern to others in the House. There are Transport questions on 2 July, but I suggest that she applies to you, Mr Speaker, for an Adjournment debate to begin the process of the matter being discussed more fully.

[Mr Speaker]

We are heading up to the north-east with Ian Mearns, the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Indeed,

“All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players”.

My hon. Friend makes her point extremely well. As we have heard previously, these are matters of concern across the House. As I said earlier, the Government are taking steps to help the artistic community, as they are helping the whole of the economy. The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has acknowledged that social distancing makes staging performances exceptionally difficult for theatres, and that the industry will need a different approach form other sectors. We might end up with different ways of going to the theatre and with more live streaming and so on. Over the next few weeks my right hon. Friend will be convening experts in a targeted way and bringing together our leading performers from theatres, choirs and orchestras with medical experts and advisers in the hope that a solution can be found that will preserve our heritage in the way that my hon. Friend suggests.

[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 now suspending the House for three minutes.

Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 4 June).

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 11th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

With regard to the final part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, I agree absolutely. I view it as one of the roles of the Leader of the House to take it up with Departments when answers are not felt to be satisfactory by Members, and I will unquestionably take up what he has said with the Treasury. Answers ought to be specific to the question raised by a Member of Parliament. That is one of our rights as a Member of Parliament, and if that is not happening, that is a lacuna in the service the Government are providing, so I assure him that I will take that up.

The hon. Gentleman started by saying that he was not satisfied. I so look forward to the day when an SNP Member stands up and says he is satisfied about anything of any kind whatever. He conjured up this fascinating image of my being dragged kicking and screaming. I have to confess that since my earliest infant years I have not been one of the greatest kickers or screamers in any circumstances. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) says I am now, but no, no kicking, no screaming; just listening and seeing how things can be done and working out a system that ensures we have a physical Parliament that can get through the Government’s busy legislative programme. We now have three Public Bill Committees up and running, and we will have four. That is very important and it is why we had to come back physically, while recognising that circumstances require some Members to be absent from this House.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) sort of made my point for me, because he asked for an overarching debate on the coronavirus. He has clearly forgotten that we had one lasting two days when we had a virtual Parliament. Clearly, what went on in the virtual Parliament was so unsatisfactory that it has passed from people’s memory.

[Mr Speaker]

Just to help, I ask Members to speed up questions and answers, because we are going to run this until about midday.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been quite clear about these criminal acts, which are entirely unjustifiable. We are lucky in our police who, according to Sir Robert Peel’s principles of policing, police with consent. It is absolutely right that peaceful protest should be allowed. That is part of a democratic system, but people have to obey the law. That is incumbent upon all of us, but my hon. Friend will know that to ensure access to Parliament, discretion is given to constables by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis under section 52 of the Metropolitan Police Act 1839 to

“disperse all assemblies and processions of persons causing or likely to cause obstructions or disorder on any day on which Parliament is sitting”.

In the past, both Houses passed Sessional Orders at the beginning of each Session, but the effectiveness of that is a matter of debate, and something where I think you and I do not necessarily share the same opinion, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

If we want to make a real difference, we should add it to a Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his noble efforts on behalf of charity. I am not going to follow his example, but people are doing wonderful things to raise money for charities across the country in these difficult, unprecedented circumstances. That is why the Government have provided a package of support, so that charities can help vulnerable people who need it most. We have spent up to £750 million of taxpayers’ money for frontline charities, including hospices and those supporting domestic abuse victims. On top of that, charities can benefit from the coronavirus job retention scheme and the coronavirus business interruption loan schemes, but he shows that charities actually do best because of individual effort by committed people of good will, and he is leading by example.

[Mr Speaker]

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

Conduct of Business After the Whitsun Recess

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Wednesday 20th May 2020 Commons Chamber

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

Mr Speaker, may I first recognise your commitment to ensuring that the House operates as fully as it can while adhering to guidance from Public Health England? Your dedication and that of the House Clerks and digital team has been instrumental in establishing the hybrid proceedings that allowed us to return after Easter but as you have always agreed, the present arrangements were only ever envisaged as temporary, because they fundamentally restrict the House’s ability to perform its functions fully. Complaints about our debates becoming stilted, scripted affairs are one thing, but the impact on legislative scrutiny is another.

Under the hybrid proceedings, the time this House is able to spend debating legislation faces being cut by around two thirds. I am sure all Members will agree that each and every one of the 36 Bills put forward by the Government in the Queen’s Speech deserves the proper level of scrutiny. We have to recognise that if we persist with the present arrangements, it will become harder to make progress in a timely fashion. That is why, in line with Government advice for those who cannot do their jobs from home, I am asking Members to return to their place of work after Whitsun.

We will not be returning to the crowded, bustling Chamber of old. We will be observing social distancing. As a member of the House of Commons Commission, I was reassured yesterday by the progress being made in making the parliamentary estate a covid-19 secure workplace. That work has been expertly led by Marianne Cwynarski, the head of governance and central services, and I particularly commend her for her efforts in ensuring that staff already coming in to work in the Palace have the support they need.

Only yesterday, Mr Speaker, you organised the test of a new system for Divisions that will ensure Members can vote while remaining 6 feet apart. We will minimise the number of other passholders on the estate, strongly encouraging MPs’ staff and others to continue working from home. We will continue to work closely together in consultation with Members across the House, not least the Select Committee on Procedure, on the appropriate next steps.

We will need to understand from the House authorities where adaptations can be implemented, as the Procedure Committee itself acknowledges is key, without prejudice to the House’s ability to carry out its business effectively. At the same time, we will want to ensure that any steps taken are in line with the Government’s advice to the country at large.

I will consider the Procedure Committee’s views very carefully and keep these issues under review, but I would finally like to reassure those Members with underlying health conditions who have been told to shield or are receiving specific Government advice about their health that we are working with the House authorities to see how they can continue to contribute to proceedings within the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I will now call Alistair Carmichael, who is asked to speak for no more than two minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

We are listening to the representations that people are making about the difficulties that they face with regard to attending the House. The Procedure Committee has looked at a number of these issues and written to you, Mr Speaker, about the return to physical proceedings, and I have had representations from a number of Members.

The reality is that Parliament is most effective when it meets physically. The hybrid parliamentary proceedings have allowed only a small proportion of Parliament’s functionality to take place. As we have seen in this sitting, with Members being cut off, the hybrid proceedings have limited Members’ ability to represent their constituencies across the country. What we will do is to return physically in a way that is advised, and properly orchestrated and organised, in accordance with the recommendations from the Government and, indeed, from the House of Commons authorities.

[Mr Speaker]

And Public Health England. I call Gavin Robinson.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)[V]]

I am grateful to be called in this urgent question. I am thankful to the Leader of the House, because I know that he recognises that we all have an equal duty to represent our constituents, but the travel to and from Westminster is not equal for us all. Indeed, taking a plane from Belfast is not as socially distant as we would like. I ask the Leader of the House to consider the issue that will be most vexatious and difficult to solve, which is voting. I ask him whether remote voting can continue, given that the ability to travel between Westminster and Northern Ireland is severely constrained, with less than two planes per day from Northern Ireland to London when ordinarily there would have been more than 20.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The issue with voting, as you have made clear, Mr Speaker, is that we can run one system or the other. The two systems are not compatible. We are looking to have a physical return of the House, and therefore to have physical voting. I think that is an important way of getting back to being a normal Parliament, with all the benefits that come from having physical voting.

[Mr Speaker]

We will now try to reconnect Karen Bradley, Chair of the Procedure Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I will continue, as will others across the House, to listen to and reflect on the views of hon. and right hon. Members from across the House. Yesterday afternoon, the Procedure Committee wrote to me and the Speaker to set out its views on how we should return to physical proceedings. I welcomed the opportunity for further discussions with the Committee on Monday, and I am grateful for its work. I have also had representations from many other Members. This is a work in progress to finalise the details. Any changes in our procedures will need to be made by a motion in this House, and those cannot be made until the House meets again, so the assumption must be that we continue as we usually continue until such time as, or if, anything changes.

[Mr Speaker]

We will have to be very quick. Steven Bonnar—last question.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Wednesday 20th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has written to the BBC asking for an explanation of that “Panorama” programme, which seemed to have Communists in the background giving advice on how the programme was structured. I did not realise there were any Communists left in this country, but the BBC managed to dredge them up. He is absolutely right to ask for a for a debate—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) heckles, Mr Speaker. It is so unlike her; she is normally so ladylike and does not heckle. I would say that yes, it is a free country, but the BBC is obliged to be impartial. It has charter obligations. The issue regarding debates is that when the House is back in real form, there will be more opportunity and more time for debates, which I hope will satisfy many hon. and right hon. Members.

[Mr Speaker]

We now go to the SNP spokesperson, who has up to two minutes.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Wednesday 13th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I said yesterday—carefully—that I did not expect to bring forward further virtual Parliament motions. It is important not to forget the word “expect”, because things could change. However, the current expectation is that we will be back physically after the Whitsun recess. I note my hon. Friend’s point on Government statements, which is, of course, in full accord with the ministerial code.

[Mr Speaker]

We now have the final question, from a virtual Jim Shannon.

Hybrid Proceedings (Extension of Temporary Orders)

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 12th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

No, I am not allowed to give way under the current arrangements.

Debates are inevitably stilted and time is restricted by the understandable limits of the technology—although the people operating the technology have done a truly fantastic job in getting us to where we are. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I know that the feeling is shared across the House. All these factors restrict our ability to conduct effective scrutiny and to pass the volume of legislation required by the Government. I therefore think it essential that we move back to physical ways of working as quickly as possible.

I understand that some Members have concerns about how long we keep these measures in place, and that is why it is so important that we agree only a short extension. It is essential that we move back to physical proceedings as soon as practicable in order that this House can do what it does best: the cut and thrust of debate and the flexibility to hold the Government to account and to legislate on behalf of the people of the United Kingdom.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Leader of the House, who is asked to speak for no more than 5 minutes.

Hybrid Proceedings (Extension of Temporary Orders)

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 12th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful for the support that this motion has and grateful to the shadow Leader of the House and the Chairman of the Procedure Committee for all they have done in helping us to ensure that this has worked. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) made slightly the wrong point, because he said that we should be entirely virtual, and it became harder and harder to hear him as he said so. That is one of the reasons we need to come back, because the last bit of private wire may be the bit that cuts people off in their prime, and therefore being back would be advantageous.

The hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) made some important points. I am always happy to speak to the Procedure Committee and have a discussion on how we look to do this. I will make one really important point, which is that there is a fundamental, absolute right of Members to attend this House. It dates back to 1340, and it is improper for anybody to molest any Member coming to this House. Regardless of any rules that there may be, the right to attend this House is a constitutional principle of which we should remind all Members. If we are back physically after the Whitsun recess, there should be no question of any Member being stopped from coming by any authority outside Parliament.

Our coming back will be based on advice from Public Health England and will maintain social distancing. Mr Speaker is working on how we will have Divisions under these circumstances, but I agree with those Members who have said that we have to lead by example. The rest of the country is being asked to go back to work where it cannot do so from home. That is clearly a position that we are in, and we must be alongside the whole of the rest of the country, as long as it is safe so to do.

[Mr Speaker]

I announced to the House earlier this afternoon my provisional determination that a remote Division would not take place on this motion. I am aware of some opposition to the motion, but I am not satisfied that the demand is sufficient to warrant a remote Division today. I say that bearing in mind that the House will return to this matter next week. My determination that the Question will be decided without a remote Division is final. I will collect voices in the usual way, but the voices will not and cannot trigger a remote Division. Reliance on the voices alone will not be considered with the principle of parity of participation. That is made clear in the new guidance issued to Members today, in which Members are asked to make submissions to my office in advance on whether it is necessary to hold a Division on the Question designated for remote Division.

Question put and agreed to.

Standards

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Monday 11th May 2020 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House–

(1) approves the Fourth Report of the Committee on Standards (HC 212);

(2) endorses the recommendations in paragraphs 36 and 37; and

(3) accordingly suspends Conor Burns from the service of the House for a period of seven days, beginning on Tuesday 12 May.

Today’s motion follows the publication of the Committee on Standards’ fourth report of this Session on the conduct of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns). The report was agreed by the Standards Committee following a comprehensive process of investigation and consideration, and was published on Monday 4 May. The Government have sought to schedule a debate as quickly as possible, as is the usual practice.

The matter before us today has been investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and now reported on by the Committee on Standards. I thank the commissioner, Kathryn Stone, for her work, and the members of the Committee for producing this report. In particular, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) for her service as Chairman of the Committee on Standards over nearly two years, which she has done with distinction. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on his appointment as the new Chairman. He is a great understander of Parliament and author of books on Parliament, and will, I think, do the job with considerable skill.

It is always regrettable when a motion such as this is before the House, and it is not a duty that I, as Leader of the House, take any pleasure in. However, the Committee has found against my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West. This motion approves the Committee’s report and proposes that my right hon. Friend be suspended from the service of the House for seven days and that he should apologise in writing to the House and to the complainant, as I understand he has already done.

I would like to record my thanks to my right hon. Friend for his service to Her Majesty’s Government and for the steps he has taken throughout his career to drive and maintain the UK’s interests overseas. I have no doubt that he will continue to add value to this Government and to his constituents in Bournemouth West from the Back Benches.

I conclude by reiterating my thanks to the Parliament Commissioner for Standards and to the Committee on Standards for their work. I commend this motion to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I now call the shadow Leader of the House, Valerie Vaz, who is asked to speak for no more than five minutes.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Wednesday 6th May 2020 Commons Chamber

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

The business for the week commencing 11 May will include:

Monday 11 May—Motion to approve the fourth report from the Committee on Standards, followed by a general debate on covid-19.

Tuesday 12 May—Motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Early Release on Licence) Order 2020, followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2020, followed by a motion relating to the renewal of the temporary Standing Orders on hybrid proceedings.

Wednesday 13 May—Remaining stages of the Agriculture Bill.

Thursday 14 May—The House will not be sitting.

Friday 15 May—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 18 May will include:

Monday 18 May—Second Reading of a Bill.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Leader of the House, Valerie Vaz, who has five minutes.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Wednesday 29th April 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am glad to bring pleasure to the hon. Gentleman, in that the motion on the Scottish Affairs Committee will be back on Monday. May I say that I am delighted that the Scottish National party is now removing its objections? There is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repenteth, etc.

As regards electronic voting, all that is being done is temporary, and it is worth emphasising that. We would not have achieved the consensus across the House to allow these procedures to be implemented if there were any thought that it were permanent. It is being done on a temporary basis, and implemented as quickly as possible. I hope that we will be able to experiment with electronic voting on 11 May, subject to the Procedure Committee considering the proposals and to testing with a large number of Members to ensure that it works.

As regards the hybrid Parliament or all being virtual, I think the hybrid Parliament is actually working well. It is a good indication that those who need to come into work are right to come into work. That has always been the Government’s policy, and people coming in is something that they are entitled to do. It is of great antiquity that we have a right to attend Parliament; it goes back to 1340. I think the way you have run these proceedings, Mr Speaker, has made it quite clear that there is only one class of Member of Parliament and that every Member is given exactly the same treatment: there are no interventions, there is no extension on speaking time and there is no ability to intervene for those who are in the Chamber. I think there is only one class, and it is first class, because of the work done by the House of Commons authorities to get this system up and running as rapidly as possible.

Finally, on 11 May, it will be a general debate. It would be too early to pre-empt what may be said and whether the Government’s five tests have had any fulfilment by that stage—that is still quite a time off—but I was responding, as Leader of the House, to the many requests from Members to have a general debate.

[Mr Speaker]

We now go across to sunny Lancashire and David Morris.

Remote Voting

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Wednesday 22nd April 2020 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That the following orders be made and have effect until 12 May:

Remote divisions

(1) A remote division may be held only in respect of business taken in hybrid substantive proceedings.

(2) With the leave of the Speaker, the Member in charge of an item of business may designate it as subject to decision by a remote division and if so whether that divisions should be a deferred remote division.

(3) The Speaker shall determine whether a remote division is required and may announce that determination before putting the question.

(4) Standing Orders Nos 38, 40 and 41A (save as provided in temporary standing order (Conduct of remote divisions)) shall not apply to proceedings relating to remote divisions.

(5) If, when the question is put on an item of business which has not been designated to be decided by a remote division, the Speaker’s opinion as to the decision on the question is challenged, the question shall not be decided and the House shall move to the next business.

Conduct of remote divisions

(1) Members shall participate in a remote division or a remote deferred division through arrangements authorised by the Speaker.

(2) A remote division shall be initiated when the Speaker puts the question and announces that it will be decided by a remote division.

(3) No tellers shall be appointed for a remote division.

(4) Members may record their vote in a remote division for a period of fifteen minutes from its initiation.

(5) The Speaker may interrupt and suspend a remote division if notified of a technical problem.

(6) The result of a remote division shall be declared from the Chair.

(7) The House may proceed to its next business before the result of a remote division is declared and the Speaker may interrupt subsequent proceedings in order to announce the result.

(8) A remote deferred division shall be held in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (5) of Standing Order No 41A and this order. If, after the result of a remote division or a remote deferred division has been announced, it is reported to the Speaker that problems in the conduct of the division occurred which might have affected the result, the Speaker may declare the division to be null and void and may make arrangements for it to be re-run.

I think it is fair to say that I am surprised to be moving a motion to introduce remote voting in the House of Commons. In general, I am not an advocate of change to the House’s voting system or, to be perfectly honest, to many other things. Lord Palmerston’s words ring in my mind:

“Change, change, change: aren’t things bad enough already?”

I am strongly of the view that our current approach is the best one, but as I said yesterday, parliamentary procedure is not an end in itself but a means to allow the institution to function successfully. We are facing a particular set of circumstances that have required us to be innovative so that we can ensure that the House of Commons can both scrutinise the Government and continue to legislate. I am bringing forward this motion alongside the other one today because it makes sense for the House to consider it on the same day as it takes a view on extending hybrid proceedings.

It may help the House if I briefly talk through the motion. What was originally section K establishes the framework for a system of remote voting for hybrid substantive business. As we begin to bring forward Government motions, including on legislative proceedings for remote debate, we will be able to designate whether those motions are to be subject to a new remote voting process, or to a remote deferred division process. If we choose not to designate a motion in this way, under the terms of paragraph (5), the motion becomes subject to a decision on a “nod or nothing” basis. The House agreed yesterday, in the resolution on proceedings during the pandemic, that we must aim for equal treatment between those participating in proceedings in the Chamber and those participating remotely. In the absence of remote voting, any division called would be subject to physical division. In the current circumstances, we cannot create a situation that encourages Members physically to attend proceedings in Westminster.

The detailed arrangements for how remote voting will work will, under section L, be set out by you, Mr Speaker. Under the new system, remote divisions would become a process administered by the House, with the result delivered directly to the Speaker. Votes in a remote division would be expected to be cast in a 15-minute window, and in a deferred division during the usual 11.30 am to 2 pm slot on Wednesdays. I have tested the new arrangements, which operate via the Members’ Hub interface. I must confess that that was the first time I had ever used the Members’ Hub interface, but I understand that it is very widely used.

I am grateful to the House authorities, particularly staff in the Parliamentary Digital Service, for their work on developing the Division tool so quickly. I know that they are keen to facilitate further testing next week, including with Members, which will be crucial to build confidence in the new system. I am keen that the testing happens ahead of the Government designating any business for remote divisions. Let me be clear: we are not intending to designate any business for remote divisions next week. It will not happen that fast.

Amendment (a) was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), the Chair of the Procedure Committee. May I start by reiterating the sincere thanks to her and her Committee for their rapid work? I appreciated the opportunity to join the Committee in a private session last week and to be able to set out the Government’s thoughts. The Committee has produced a substantial and immensely helpful report, and I know that the Committee will continue to play a key role.

As I said yesterday, I am very much aware that the Committee has some specific concerns about moving to electronic voting. I think it is safe to say, and not unduly indiscreet of me, that I probably share a number of those concerns. I have listened carefully to the Committee and am grateful for the conversations that I have been able to have with its Chairman. I understand and accept the need for the Procedure Committee to be assured that the remote voting technology works, and for the Committee to have time to express its views on the matter. However, I would ask whether the Chairman would consider withdrawing her amendment in exchange for a formal commitment from the Government today. If this motion passes, I can confirm that we will not designate any Divisions subject to these new arrangements until the Committee has examined the proposed scheme and the Chairman has written to me to set out the Committee’s views on the scheme and whether it considers it to be workable. I would be most grateful if the Chairman in turn could commit to that work being carried out by the Committee as quickly as possible.

I fully understand that this motion is proposing a significant change in the way we do our business. I am grateful to the Procedure Committee for the key role that it will play, and I am committed to listening carefully to the views of Members across the House as we develop these new and temporary ways of working. Let me stress that again: this would be a temporary change, driven by the need for the House to continue to make progress on key legislation and to give Members the right to have their say. I therefore hope that the House can support the motion, which I commend to it.

[Mr Speaker]

It may be helpful to point out that it is only if the amendment is moved that we will need to worry. It may not be moved.

Proceedings during the Pandemic and Hybrid Scrutiny Proceedings

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 21st April 2020 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House is committed to taking all steps necessary to balance its responsibilities for continuing scrutiny of the executive, legislating and representation of the interests of constituents with adherence to the guidance issued by Public Health England and the restrictions placed upon all citizens of the United Kingdom, and is further committed, in pursuit of that aim, to allowing virtual participation in the House’s proceedings, to extending the digital capacity of those proceedings to ensure the participation of all Members, and to ensuring that its rules and procedures are adapted to permit as far as possible parity of treatment between Members participating virtually and Members participating in person.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following motion:

That the following orders be made and have effect until 12 May:

A. Scrutiny proceedings

1) The House shall meet at 2.30 pm on Mondays, and at 11.30 am on Tuesdays and Wednesdays and will first proceed with questions and statements under the orders [Hybrid scrutiny proceedings] of today.

2) Scrutiny proceedings shall conclude not later than two hours after their commencement, save that the Speaker shall have discretion to extend the proceedings for a short additional period if it seems to him appropriate to do so.

3) Following the conclusion of scrutiny proceedings, the House shall proceed with business set down to be taken at the commencement of public business and then with the main business.

4) Scrutiny proceedings comprise

a) questions to ministers;

b) urgent questions;

c) ministerial statements.

5) No question of which notice has been given under SO No. 22(5) shall be taken more than one hour after the House sits, and scrutiny proceedings shall otherwise be taken in the order determined by the Speaker who shall announce that order not later than the start of the sitting to which it relates.

6) Members may participate in scrutiny proceedings virtually, by electronic means approved by the Speaker, or by attending in the Chamber. The Speaker may limit the number of Members present in the Chamber at any one time.

7) For the purposes of proceedings under this order, Members shall give notice by electronic means designated by the Speaker.

8) Notice periods in respect of all scrutiny proceedings shall be set by the Speaker, provided that the latest date and time specified by the Speaker for questions to ministers shall be such as to enable notices to be circulated at least two days (excluding Friday, Saturday and Sunday) before the question is to be answered.

B. Urgent questions

1) In respect of any day to which order (A. Scrutiny proceedings) applies, a Member may apply to the Speaker for leave to ask an urgent question under this order.

2) An urgent question is one which, in the Speaker’s opinion, is of an urgent character and relates to a matter of public importance.

C. Supplementary provisions

1) No unopposed business, save motions for unopposed returns of which notice has been given, may be taken at the commencement of scrutiny proceedings.

2) Notices of private business may be set down to be taken at the commencement of public business after scrutiny proceedings, but, if opposed, shall not be proceeded with but shall be deferred to such time, other than a Friday, as the Chairman of Ways and Means shall appoint.

3) Standing Order Nos. 7, 8, and 21 shall not have effect and the Speaker shall be required under paragraph (5) of Standing Order No 22 to take account of the party balance while these orders are in force.

4) In any case where the Speaker has ordered the withdrawal of a Member, or of several Members, under Standing Order No 43 and is required to direct the Serjeant at Arms to give effect to the order, the Member or Members shall be suspended from the service of the House for the following sitting day.

5) No motion to sit in private may be made during scrutiny proceedings.

6) The Speaker may amend any provision of these orders, if he determines it is necessary to do so in order to ensure that the conduct of business is consistent with the Resolution of the House (Proceedings during the pandemic) of 21 April.

7) Before exercising his power under paragraph (6), the Speaker shall satisfy himself that he has the agreement of the Leader of the House.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I rise to speak to the motion on proceedings during the pandemic and, as you have explained, Mr Speaker, I will also speak to the motion on hybrid scrutiny proceedings.

Mr Speaker, may I start by thanking you and the House staff for the incredible work that has taken place during the Easter recess to allow me to move these motions today? It is worth noting that our Clerks and staff often work very long hours when the House is sitting and expect to be compensated for that in recess periods. On this occasion, we have asked them to work during the recess period too, placing a double burden upon them. I am also grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for allowing these motions to be moved without formal notice, and to House staff for arranging the publication yesterday of these motions and the accompanying explanatory note.

From tomorrow, if the House agrees these motions, we will resume oral questions, statements and urgent questions virtually. While the new digital Parliament may not be perfect—Members may launch forth into fine perorations only to be muted or snatched away altogether by an intermittent internet connection—we must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The parliamentary authorities have done a superb job to get this up and running at short notice. Should the House agree these motions today, I would expect to bring forward further motions shortly so that we can extend our virtual ways of working for a longer period and to more substantive business, including legislation.

Before turning to the motions, I want to set out my gratitude to the Procedure Committee for its rapid work. These are difficult and challenging times, and these necessary changes are happening at a pace that would not be ideal in more normal times. The Procedure Committee has an essential role in advising this House on reform. I am grateful to the Committee and to its Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), for its report published today, and I commit to continuing to work closely with it. We will all want to keep under review how the procedures work. I know that the Committee has particular concerns about moving to electronic voting, and I would certainly want to work closely with the Committee on the options for that. I hope it will reassure the Committee if I say that, once we have moved to considering substantive business as well, I will be looking to make certain that we initially schedule business that is unlikely to be divided on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that any system needs to work, to be robust and to ensure that votes are properly registered. On points of order, as raised by both the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) and the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith), I believe those can be sent to you, Mr Speaker, in written form, so it is not as if there will not be any ability to raise points; it simply will not be possible to interrupt a television screen, because that would not actually work.

I reiterate my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), Chairman of the Procedure Committee. Like her, I think all MPs have seen an enormous explosion in casework, and therefore the ability to hold Ministers to account and to get answers for one’s constituents is very important. My right hon. Friend, like other Members, including my right hon. Friends the Members for North Somerset (Dr Fox) and for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), emphasised the importance of this situation being temporary. I would not have put my name to these motions if it were not going to be temporary. I want Parliament to be back operating properly in its normal way.

However, as the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) pointed out, this is actually about people dying, and what we are doing is part of trying to save lives, along with the rest of the country. Yes, it is second best, and yes, it is imperfect that we should meet with these screens and with the Chamber losing its normal decoration, but we are doing our best in difficult circumstances to maintain as much as we can. The motion has effect until 12 May, and although it may have to be renewed at that point, it is temporary and will remain temporary.

I agree with the right hon. Friend the Member for Warley that this is much better than press conferences. Holding the Government to account makes for better government. This may not be a common view expressed at the Dispatch Box, but it was not that long ago that I was a Back Bencher, and Back Benchers see week in, week out, year in, year out, better decisions taken because the Government are held to account. Wise Governments—I inevitably think that this Government are wise—actually have the sense to recognise that.

My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) made the extraordinarily important, fundamental constitutional point that a Member who wishes to represent his or her constituents must be able to do so, and that is part of what we are trying to do. How that is managed, with a maximum of 50 Members in the Chamber, is a matter for Mr Speaker, but the purpose of that is to maintain safe social distancing. However, if a Member needs to get in and is on the list to be called to speak, if I am in the Chamber, I will leave to make way for that Member to come in and speak. I will go and watch it in my room on the television if I am answering the debate, so that the Member may come in and make the point.

We will have to work with each other to maintain our ancient constitutional rights. I should point out, Mr Speaker—you know it is one of my favourite points—that we have all had a right of uninterrupted, unhindered access to Parliament since 1340. It is one of our most ancient and precious rights. I assure my right hon. Friend that I would not want to be Leader of the House when that right is taken away, but it may operate differently, to ensure that it works with safeguarding.

I am grateful for the widespread support for these motions. We are all trying to do our best in difficult circumstances, which I think the House appreciates. I am very grateful, I ought to add, to the Opposition Chief Whip, who has worked closely with the Government Chief Whip and, indeed, representatives of the SNP to ensure that these proposals could be agreed.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That this House is committed to taking all steps necessary to balance its responsibilities for continuing scrutiny of the executive, legislating and representation of the interests of constituents with adherence to the guidance issued by Public Health England and the restrictions placed upon all citizens of the United Kingdom, and is further committed, in pursuit of that aim, to allowing virtual participation in the House’s proceedings, to extending the digital capacity of those proceedings to ensure the participation of all Members, and to ensuring that its rules and procedures are adapted to permit as far as possible parity of treatment between Members participating virtually and Members participating in person.

Hybrid Scrutiny Proceedings

Ordered,

That the following orders be made and have effect until 12 May:

A. Scrutiny proceedings

1) The House shall meet at 2.30 pm on Mondays, and at 11.30 am on Tuesdays and Wednesdays and will first proceed with questions and statements under the orders [Hybrid scrutiny proceedings] of today.

2) Scrutiny proceedings shall conclude not later than two hours after their commencement, save that the Speaker shall have discretion to extend the proceedings for a short additional period if it seems to him appropriate to do so.

3) Following the conclusion of scrutiny proceedings, the House shall proceed with business set down to be taken at the commencement of public business and then with the main business.

4) Scrutiny proceedings comprise

a) questions to ministers;

b) urgent questions;

c) ministerial statements.

5) No question of which notice has been given under SO No. 22(5) shall be taken more than one hour after the House sits, and scrutiny proceedings shall otherwise be taken in the order determined by the Speaker who shall announce that order not later than the start of the sitting to which it relates.

6) Members may participate in scrutiny proceedings virtually, by electronic means approved by the Speaker, or by attending in the Chamber. The Speaker may limit the number of Members present in the Chamber at any one time.

7) For the purposes of proceedings under this order, Members shall give notice by electronic means designated by the Speaker.

8) Notice periods in respect of all scrutiny proceedings shall be set by the Speaker, provided that the latest date and time specified by the Speaker for questions to ministers shall be such as to enable notices to be circulated at least two days (excluding Friday, Saturday and Sunday) before the question is to be answered.

B. Urgent questions

1) In respect of any day to which order (A. Scrutiny proceedings) applies, a Member may apply to the Speaker for leave to ask an urgent question under this order.

2) An urgent question is one which, in the Speaker’s opinion, is of an urgent character and relates to a matter of public importance.

C. Supplementary provisions

1) No unopposed business, save motions for unopposed returns of which notice has been given, may be taken at the commencement of scrutiny proceedings.

2) Notices of private business may be set down to be taken at the commencement of public business after scrutiny proceedings, but, if opposed, shall not be proceeded with but shall be deferred to such time, other than a Friday, as the Chairman of Ways and Means shall appoint.

3) Standing Order Nos. 7, 8, and 21 shall not have effect and the Speaker shall be required under paragraph (5) of Standing Order No 22 to take account of the party balance while these orders are in force.

4) In any case where the Speaker has ordered the withdrawal of a Member, or of several Members, under Standing Order No 43 and is required to direct the Serjeant at Arms to give effect to the order, the Member or Members shall be suspended from the service of the House for the following sitting day.

5) No motion to sit in private may be made during scrutiny proceedings.

6) The Speaker may amend any provision of these orders, if he determines it is necessary to do so in order to ensure that the conduct of business is consistent with the Resolution of the House (Proceedings during the pandemic) of 21 April.

7) Before exercising his power under paragraph (6), the Speaker shall satisfy himself that he has the agreement of the Leader of the House.—(Mr Rees-Mogg.)

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the House for the manner in which it has conducted this debate, to all those who have worked so hard to establish the arrangements, which will apply from tomorrow, and to the Procedure Committee for its high-speed report. Guidance for Members on the arrangements is now available online, and in hard copy from the Vote Office. I should also alert Members that the deadline for urgent questions to be taken on Tuesdays and Wednesdays will be 1 pm, not 2 pm as stated in the explanatory memorandum.

I have received a letter from the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), resigning as Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. I have also received a letter from the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) announcing her intention to resign as Chair of the Committee on Standards when her successor has been elected. I wish to pay tribute to the commitment and dedication with which both of them have chaired their respective Committees both in the present Parliament and in the last. I will make an announcement about the arrangements for elections tomorrow.

I understand that the ten-minute rule motion will not be moved.

Points of Order

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Wednesday 25th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I might be able to help. The Liaison Committee Chair is not a matter for today. The Leader of the House may wish to clarify it and clear up any mess.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. It is clear that in business put down for 22 April, there will be a debate on the formation of the Liaison Committee and the Scottish Affairs Committee, two very important Committees.

[Mr Speaker]

So we do not need to worry about it today.

Financial and Social Emergency Support Package

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Wednesday 25th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I suspect the answer will be that the Prime Minister is not ready to tell the House. I suspect that—I could be wrong. [Interruption.] The Leader of the House is indicating that he wishes to comment on these points of order, and it might be beneficial to listen to him. As I said, the House has got it upon itself to decide whether or not it wishes to accept the dates for the Easter recess. That is a course of action that the House may wish to take. I am not encouraging or saying it, but it is an option.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether I can be as helpful as possible to the House, and to the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford). During Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister committed to bring forward a package for the self-employed within 48 hours, and I reiterated that in the business statement that I gave shortly afterwards. It will now be brought forward within 24 hours, and that is in response to considerable pressure and interest from this House, which asked for it to be done urgently. I have been informed that it is a complicated package that is not in fact ready for announcement today. Had it been ready today, it would have been brought forward today. The Government are keen to get on with this announcement, which will provide support and comfort to a large number of the self-employed. There is no discourtesy to the House. That was what the Prime Minister told us during Prime Minister’s questions, and the announcement will now be made slightly faster than was promised.

On holding the Government to account, I recognise, as did the Prime Minister, the major contribution made by Opposition parties to the development of policy in relation to the coronavirus. The Government are committed to working on a cross-party basis in dealing with this matter and, if further measures need to come before the House, they will be carried out on a similar basis. That is an important part of how the Government operate.

On the key question of how the Government will be held to account during the recess, I said during business questions that I would make available to all right hon. and hon. Members the hotline numbers that people can use, and email addresses for contacting Departments, so that Members may continue to raise questions or—perhaps more importantly—to seek information and answers for constituents during the recess. To facilitate that and to make it easier for right hon. and hon. Members, a consolidated list will be circulated. The Government are ready to be scrutinised.

Finally, although some right hon. and hon. Members would like the session to continue, we brought forward the date of the recess, having received many representations from many Members of Parliament who felt that, once we had completed the urgent business, we should, like the rest of the country, not be here. That was something we took on board, and that message came from across the House.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. You made it very clear in your statement exactly how you wanted matters to proceed when announcements are made. I think the Chancellor did say that. I did say that he did not accept what you said or admit it, but he gave you an assurance that that is what he would do.

I say to the Leader of the House that this matter has been raised for three weeks now. The shadow Chancellor wrote to the Government—to the Chancellor—a week ago with a package. I appreciate that civil servants have a lot to take on, but if it has been announced to Robert Peston, surely it must have been signed off. Could the Leader of the House please say exactly when the package was signed off? If they are making a press announcement, it must have been signed off.

We have heard that condolences should be sent after Steve Dick, the deputy ambassador to Hungary, sadly died of the virus. We therefore understand how important this matter is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I will come back to the Leader of the House. I think it is quite clear that those channels should be opened by the leaders of the parties. Some good offers have been made and I hope that the Leader of the House can respond.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. If I may respond immediately to the point about what I knew earlier, I will be indiscreet and confess to this House that, after I said that the proposals would be brought forward in 48 hours, when I got back to my office, I was told that they thought I had said rather more than I was briefed to say, because at that stage it was not certain when the proposals would come through. It is being worked on as quickly as possible, but it is not yet ready. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary is not able to make a statement because the plans have not been completed. What has been announced, and what was announced by the Prime Minister at his press conference, is that the plans will be announced tomorrow and they will be completed in time for tomorrow’s press conference.

As I have been sitting here, my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has said that he—and this is typical of other Ministers—is always willing to brief his opposite number and to ensure that correspondence is going on so that people are kept informed. Ministers are indeed willing to do teleconferences, to keep Members up to date. It is important that we keep everybody informed and that we work on a cross-party basis. We are keen to do that, but we cannot bring announcements to the House before they are written.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I think the Leader of the House has a note that he might be able to share.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Inspiration has come to me. It is possible for verbal briefings to take place, but it has to be borne in mind that in some instances the plans are finalised only minutes before they are released. It is not like announcements to this House. This is a particular crisis. It is an unusual crisis and decisions are being made and taken as rapidly as possible, so I cannot undertake that advance copies will be given, but I can undertake that Ministers will be happy to speak to their opposite numbers.

[Mr Speaker]

On that basis, I am going to put some questions. Somebody has asked why we cannot suspend. We cannot go beyond 7 pm or the whole thing would collapse. There are some things that you may choose to support or not. That is up to the House.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 12th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I will deal with the second half of the hon. Gentleman’s question first, because this is an area where we want to have as much cross-party support as possible. It is of fundamental importance that we keep this place open, but it is also important that we are treated, and we treat ourselves, in the same way as the rest of the country, and that we go ahead at the same pace as the rest of the country. There should not be a difference in how Parliament is behaving from the advice that is being given to our constituents. That is important; we should not seek to be a special case for ourselves. After the Commission meeting yesterday, I went into the Division Lobby with the expert who had presented to us from Public Health England, and his view, which I am allowed to share with the House, is that the Division Lobby is not a high risk and the only step he would recommend is that we open the windows, because a flow of air would be beneficial. On the basis that the Division Lobby is not high-risk, making major changes to the way we operate would not be the right response, but we wait upon the medical and scientific advice being given to us by the Government and if that changes, we will of course consider whether any procedural changes need to be made. Currently, that is not the case. On those who self-isolate, it will be better to use the pairing system than to try to introduce other measures, partly so that people who are self-isolating or who have coronavirus may maintain patient confidentiality. Some people who may be affected may not want everybody to know, and if we introduce novel methods, that confidentiality may be harder to maintain.

I come to the hon. Gentleman’s point about the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. He was right to say that it would be wrong if he thought that I had implied that the Scottish National party Members had talked out the establishment of the Committee. I made it clear that I thought that they had talked it out. There is no question of my implying it; that was exactly what they did. They talked out the establishment of the Scottish Affairs Committee and the Government are now considering the way forward, including of course the amendments they have tabled. Deliberation will be given to these important matters.

[Mr Speaker]

May I suggest that we run these questions until about quarter-past?

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 5th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is a deeply troubling matter that the Union Jack should be flying upside down. [Hon. Members: “Union flag.”] Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. The pedants are wrong. It is the Union Jack, and it has been referred to as such for many centuries. There is a pedantic but erroneous view that it should be called the Union flag, and it is held by people who are more pedantic than they are wise.

I am sorry that this has happened, and I am glad it has been brought to the attention of the House authorities. I imagine that, as we speak, somebody is going to correct this. [Interruption.] I see that the Clerk of the House of Commons is taking action immediately. Things sometimes happen swiftly, and I assure my hon. Friend that Members of Parliament are not in distress.

[Mr Speaker]

Help is on its way.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 13th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his gracious welcome of my continuing presence. I am sure that if I am suddenly called away, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries), will be more than able to take over for the rest of the session.

The Government are bubbling over with brilliant ideas; I have never known a Government with more ideas coming through. Chairing the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee, I see these fantastic ideas. Parliamentary draftsmen are drafting away at the speed of light to prepare an exciting outpouring of Bills, which were announced in the Queen’s Speech and which will be coming through. To say that what we are offering up after the recess is “thin” is absurd. We are having a fundamental Environment Bill, which will legislate for the future of our environment and be a world-leading Bill. We also have the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill, which will ensure that we are at the forefront of medical technology. Those are two fundamentally important Bills. If necessary, we will also be dealing with the remaining parts relating to a terrorism Bill safeguarding the nation. Some Members really are hard to please! We then put in an Opposition day, and for the Opposition to complain about Opposition days is like turkeys complaining that Christmas has been cancelled—it seems to me to be an eccentricity. As regards the claim of right, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I have given several times before.

[Mr Speaker]

Let me help the House by saying that I am expecting to run business questions for 45 minutes or thereabouts.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 6th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think we may be getting into the London mayoral elections in that question, and not unreasonably so. It is quite right that all levels of government, local as well as national, are held to account via this Parliament. I am sure that the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee has heard my hon. Friend’s request, as I think it is more suitable to Back-Bench business time than to Government time.

[Mr Speaker]

Speaking of which, I call Ian Mearns.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I absolutely hear and understand what the hon. Lady says. Her last point—that witnesses should not be re-traumatised—is right and fundamental. Victims ought to be at the heart of our justice system and protected. I am very limited as to what I can say about individual judges. If I may give her a steer, it is perfectly legitimate for this House to debate the behaviour and conduct of judges according to a specific motion, but not, unfortunately, to do so in the back and forth of questions.

[Mr Speaker]

We should not name somebody in the House in asking for that debate, but a substantive motion may be a way forward, which I am sure is what the hon. Lady was hoping for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The House has always taken the safety and wellbeing of children very seriously, and obviously the Government do as well. Extra funds are being made available: £410 million is being invested this year and next in social care, including social care for children, along with £84 million over five years to enable more children to stay at home safely. When issues involving child safety arise, it is the responsibility of the House and the Government to look into them carefully, and to see what can be done to ensure that children are safe and proper measures are in place. The Government are certainly trying to do that, but this is one of those areas in which one can never do enough, and we must carry on doing more.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to Jim Shannon.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 23rd January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

He’s not a naughty boy now—Leader of the House.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the right hon. Lady for that last point; I think we should all look on the bright side of life. It is a positive thing to do and good for British politics.

The right hon. Lady mentions having a debate under CRAG on the Western Sahara. The Government will always listen to representations in relation to CRAG. The question is whether it is a suitable use of time. If the Opposition want to make a more formal representation, it will be listened to. However, Opposition days are coming thick and fast, and any such issues could be brought forward under those circumstances.

On machinery of government changes, the tradition of this House is that Select Committees follow what ministries there are, and I imagine that the House would want to follow that precedent, but it is ultimately a matter for the House. The right hon. Lady also mentioned the stories about their lordships going to York and what fun that might be for them. It occurs to me that when Royal Ascot moved to York, their lordships found it great fun to go up to York. If they could do it for pleasure, I am sure they might have a jolly time going there for business as well.

More seriously, the right hon. Lady mentions the amendment of the noble Lord Dubs. Lord Dubs is one of the most respected figures in British politics, and the campaign that he has continued to wage for vulnerable children is admired across the House and the country. I would just point out that the reason for not accepting the amendment is that it is not the right place for it. Government policy to look after vulnerable children from overseas remains absolutely in place. Some 41,000 children have come into this country since 2010, and 18,000 Syrian refugees—not necessarily children—have already come here, of the 20,000 that the Government promised. The Government are committed to protecting vulnerable children. This is really important. There is no change in policy; it is simply that the Bill was not the right place for it.

The right hon. Lady asks for a debate on HS2. I think we have to wait for the report to come out. I know we are getting leaks and titbits and excitement in the newspapers, but the House of Commons needs to debate once the facts and the papers are brought together rather than doing so prematurely.

On Davos, I am not sure whether the right hon. Lady wished to be there rather than here, if it is still continuing, but the Chancellor was indeed there. British people voted to leave the European Union. My right hon Friend the Chancellor the Exchequer is a democrat; he recognises the result. To hold people to lines they used when supporting remaining in the European Union before the referendum fails to recognise that democratic politicians tend to accept the results of referendums—certainly on the Government Benches. Our relationship with the US is one of our most important relationships, and therefore what agreements the US has signed up to, or not, does not change the importance of that relationship.

I can confirm that there is a plan for the Prime Minister to meet Mr Ratcliffe. I reiterate that I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for raising this every week. The behaviour of the Iranian Government is unforgivable, and we need to keep on pressing them to release people who are improperly held.

I am absolutely delighted that the right hon. Lady referred to the anniversary of 1265. It was, of course, a continuation of, not the creation of, Parliament. Prior to those times, the representatives of the shires came—people like me representing their counties—and from 1265, in our generosity, we allowed people from the boroughs to come in too, and so borough Members came in and the towns received their proper representation.

While we continue to look on the bright side of life, I think that answers all the questions for the time being.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

They don’t work.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Thank you, Mr Speaker—it is such a pleasure to be heckled from the Chair. I thought that that had stopped with the last Parliament, but never mind.

I completely understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I happen to think that the situation is much, much better in this new Parliament than it was in the last. I have noticed that coming and going is much less shouty, which is a very good thing. I have an historic affection for Sessional Orders, but noises off are right that their legal enforceability is, regrettably, questionable. We have to think about whether that could be given a legislative basis, but possibly Government time does not allow for that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Let me indeed congratulate the society on its 150th anniversary, and what a fantastic opportunity to celebrate it is. I wish all Scottish Members of the House, and other Members who participate, a very jolly Burns night—or a succession of jolly Burns nights, because it seems to be more than one particular night. I commend that vast quantities of haggis be eaten, because—you may be surprised to hear this, Mr Speaker—I have always thought it rather delicious.

[Mr Speaker]

I think so as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady is under a misapprehension—first of all that it is my Government. It is Her Majesty’s Government, and it is worth remembering that. I have not risen to such giddy heights. The fundamental point is that Government policy has not changed. Government policy is determined to look after child refugees. The point of not having this in the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill is that the Bill is about leaving the European Union, not about child refugees. We are going to continue with the policy, and as I have said, 40,000 child refugees have come to this country since 2010. This is a matter of high priority for the Government, and the commitment is absolutely there, so I am sorry to say that the misapprehension remains.

[Mr Speaker]

Last but certainly never least, Judith Cummins.

[Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Will the Leader of the House, and indeed the whole House, join me in paying tribute to the rugby league legend Rob Burrow, who was recently diagnosed with motor neurone disease? The moving testimonial at Headingley showed the true spirit of the sport. Continuing on the rugby league theme, and following on from the prestigious award to our very own Mr Speaker by the all-party parliamentary rugby league group for his outstanding service to the game, may we have a debate in Government time on the opportunities that the 2021 world cup being held in England will bring?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I join the hon. Lady in her tribute? Motor neurone disease is a terrible and frightening disease, and coping with it, and coping with it in public, must be a great burden. The debate that she has suggested would, to my mind, be a wise suggestion for the Backbench Business Committee.

[Mr Speaker]

I am absolutely with Rob Burrow, and I am sure that the whole House would like to send him their best wishes and support.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 16th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I will make a statement later and it will be my decision.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Thank you for that very helpful point, Mr Speaker.

The establishment of Select Committees is set out in Standing Orders. The motions will be put down tonight and, assuming they pass, the elections will take place in 14 days’ time for the Chairmen. After that, the Committees will be set up once the parties decide on their nominees for the positions. It will take place in the normal timeframe, but I am conscious of the need to get the Backbench Business Committee up and running. The Government are listening to requests for debates, hence the debate on Holocaust Memorial Day next week—although that was also desired by the Government.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 9th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Can I just advise Members that business questions will finish at 12.15 pm? If we can get through questions quickly, that would be excellent.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I think that bank holidays are one of the things that come under the Lord President of the Council, so this is the first question I have ever been asked while wearing my Lord President of the Council hat. However, there is a great cost to bank holidays and I think the chances of having another one, although we all like to have a day off, is relatively slim, so I would not like to build up my right hon. Friend’s hopes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As I understand it, apprentices have a chance at the age of 28 of earning significantly more than graduates do. I think it is 25% more. It is a really remarkable success for apprenticeships. They ought to be encouraged, and my right hon. Friend is absolutely brilliant at doing this. He was one of the most successful Ministers in advancing the cause of apprenticeships. His idea about apprenticeships within the Palace of Westminster is very well timed and, Mr Speaker, if you think it is agreeable, perhaps that is something we could discuss at the Commission on Monday.

[Mr Speaker]

Of course.

Business of the House (19 and 20 December)

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 19th December 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before calling a Minister to move the next motion, which relates to the presentation of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill and the sitting of the House tomorrow, I want to make a short statement. Substantive motions may be moved without notice only with the sanction of the Chair and with the concurrence of the House. I am, exceptionally, allowing this motion to be moved only for four reasons, which are unlikely to apply to other motions without notice. First, I am satisfied that there has been proper engagement through the usual channels with other parties about the contents of this motion. Secondly, informal notice of the motion has been given by means of its inclusion in the Chamber information note. Thirdly, it offers the House a choice between a sitting tomorrow and a sitting on Monday if the motion were not agreed to. Fourthly, the motion enables the House to see the contents of the Bill to be debated earlier than would otherwise be possible.

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

I beg to move,

That—

(1) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 57 and the practice of this House, at this day’s sitting a Minister of the Crown may, without notice, present the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill; and

(2) this House shall sit on Friday 20 December 2019.

Subject to the House agreeing this motion, I shall make a Business statement this evening following the debate on the Queen’s Speech.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 19th December 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am touched by the hon. Gentleman’s concern for my whereabouts during the election campaign. Had he paid attention to Twitter and other such things, he might have noticed that I was in Stanton Drew briefly. The Wurzels sang a wonderful song called “When the Common Market Comes to Stanton Drew”. I said that, at last, the common market would be leaving Stanton Drew, to the great pleasure of one and all. It is a particularly terrific song, Mr Speaker, because it mentions so many parts of my constituency, and my constituency and popular music may not necessarily be things that people put together in their minds instantly.

I share the hon. Gentleman’s desire not to return to daily business questions—much as I enjoy responding to them, I think that they were beginning to pall in the House—but the weekly sessions will, I hope, continue in the normal way. As for the briefings, I am delighted that members of the SNP have accepted my invitation to come to the roundtables that I am hoping to arrange with members of all parties to talk about the role of the Leader of the House and how, from the point of view of the Leader of the House, the Chamber operates. They are informal sessions to which people are very welcome. Let me add that any Member who wishes to come and see me is always welcome to do so. One of the roles of the Leader of the House is to serve as an interface between Parliament and the Government, and these sessions often lead to my telling Ministers that an hon. Member has not received a response to something and trying to chase it up. I am always willing to do that.

The hon. Gentleman then raised his favourite issue, the Scottish independence or separatist question. I think that the issue is that there was a referendum, and I seem to remember that Mr Cameron, Mr Salmond and Miss Sturgeon reached an agreement about how the referendum would be carried out, and that it would be a one-off event. Mr Salmond, the then leader of the Scottish National party—not to be mistakenly called the Scottish Nationalist party, which should only be done if one wishes to tease them, because they get quite upset by it—said that it was a generational thing. When I look at the Benches opposite and at the hon. Ladies and hon. Gentlemen who are sitting there, I see that they are not fruit flies, and that therefore the generation we are talking about is one of many years and not just a short period of months. So I think that there is no reasonable reason for a second referendum, and I think that we should stick to what people said before the referendum was held. I seem to remember that Miss Sturgeon spoke of the gold standard of referendums, and I do not think that gold has tarnished.

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure that the Leader of the House will be getting a combine harvester from The Wurzels.

I wish Members all the best for Christmas. Let us hope for a peaceful new year. I reiterate that I cannot thank the staff of the House––not only those who work for us, but those who keep us safe––enough. I really appreciate what they have done. I say to hon. Members: please, bear with the staff. Do not take it out on them if you have got frustrations. They are here to help, not hinder any of us. They also need a good Christmas, so let us all have a good break.

Legislating for the Withdrawal Agreement

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Monday 10th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That is very tempting—I would be delighted to talk about that proposition—but the title of our debate is “Legislating for the Withdrawal Agreement”, so I feel I have to stick to those terms because otherwise Mr Deputy Speaker, who I understand has had a very nice holiday in France, showing our continental cousins that we still send them our finest and best—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. For clarification, I was actually looking around a first world war battlefield, and I went to see the grave of a Victoria Cross recipient from Chorley. It was essentially not a holiday.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I do apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, although I understand there was a haircut while you were abroad that was reported in the national newspapers and should be brought to the attention of the House.

The third point is money. Money is really important. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) intervened earlier on my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham to say that we were the sort of country that pays its bills—that is absolutely true—but the question is: what do we owe under international law? On this point, the most authoritative report is “Brexit and the EU budget”, published in March 2017 by the House of Lords EU Committee.

One may say that an EU Committee will be stuffed full of Eurosceptics and would be bound to come out with a report unfavourable to the EU, and that could perhaps be true in the House of Commons. I used to serve on the European Scrutiny Committee, and it would only be fair to confess that most of us were followers of that great gentleman, my hon. Friend—not right honourable, sadly—the Member for Stone, but in the House of Lords that is simply not true. The Lords Committee is made up of former Law Lords, a former Cabinet Secretary and others who, by and large, were in favour of our membership of the EU.

The case explained in that very powerful document is that if we leave under the terms of article 50 without a withdrawal agreement, we will owe no money, and the reason is that our obligation to pay any money would in normal circumstances depend on the 1968 Vienna convention on the law of treaties. If we leave under those terms, without anything in the Lisbon treaty or other EU treaties, we would indeed be liable for our share of the liabilities, but that convention says that if the treaty of the organisation to which one belongs makes a different provision for leaving, that provision is authoritative. And then we go back to article 50, and the provision of article 50 is that if we leave after two years without a deal, that is it—there is no financial provision at all. In those circumstances, this £40 billion of our constituents’ money, which could be spent on other pressing needs—every Member could identify a pressing need in their own constituency, or for their own constituents or the nation at large—is not a legal obligation, but a charitable donation, unless it comes with a very clear quid pro quo.

The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), the Opposition spokesman, made an excellent point on this in his very considered speech. He said that the Opposition would be expecting a good deal of detail on the second stage. What are we moving to? A report last week said that we would have a 10-page document on a political agreement saying that motherhood and apple pie was all fine and dandy. That would be £4 billion a page for waffle. Well, Members may like waffles—they may prefer Belgium waffles—but £4 billion a page for waffle is not something that any responsible Member of Parliament could vote for. For what, after all, is the job of this House and its power? How do we control the Executive? It is has always been through the provision of money, and if the Executive wish to waste British taxpayers’ money, we must say no.

The answer, then, is that we are generous and say yes to people who are living here, but that we say no to being a vassal state, no to being tied down by Lilliputians, and no to squandering taxpayers’ money.

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Relief from Non-Domestic Rates) Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 10th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jayawardena]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Mr Deputy Speaker suggests that this is a filibuster. My hon. Friend has hardly cleared his throat.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

The worry is that I have heard too much already.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 3rd sitting: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 8th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The House agreed to a programme motion, and that is what has been adhered to. What I would say is that the point is on the record; you have certainly pointed out the last time this happened. There are other channels where I think that conversation ought to go and to be taken up, but I thank you for that.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This House has nobly represented the will of the British people in a referendum, and that is why the Bill has passed as it has.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

May I just say to the hon. Gentleman, who is a constitutional expert, that he will recognise that that is also definitely not a point of order?

National Minimum Wage (Workplace Internships) Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Friday 4th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am sorry to intervene on my hon. Friend’s speech at such an early stage, but last year we established a tradition of congratulating the Chairman of Ways and Means on the brilliant way in which he carried out the lottery to ensure that our hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) came third in the ballot and had this Bill to introduce. Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to say a few words on that subject.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Let us assume that he does not need to, and we will get the lottery done shortly.

European Affairs

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 25th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thought the Minister might begin with an apology for the absence of the Foreign Secretary. It is custom for senior Ministers who have opened debates to return for the end of them. On such an important matter, it is a rather surprising discourtesy to the House that the normal convention has not been observed.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. What I would say is that it is the choice of the Foreign Secretary, and who knows, we may hear something yet, as the Minister for Europe has so far only managed to get three words out.

Financial Conduct Authority

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Monday 1st February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because I think there is a difficulty with time. Reference has been made to the HBOS report, which took a long time to come forward. Again, it started under the FSA, and the failures were of the FSA, not of the FCA. For a body that has been going for only three years, such a timespan is perhaps not that unreasonable, given that for two of those years it was making a specific investigation.

We have made huge progress, thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy, in achieving redress of grievance. That is enormously important, and it is right to do that. However, a vote of no confidence is the nuclear weapon of Parliament. It is something that brings Governments down. If we pass the motion, it ought to lead to fundamental change at the FCA and resignations, but I fear that we are trying to fire this gun before we have loaded it with gunpowder, and that therefore it will misfire. In that respect, I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw the motion, because I think it has had its effect through the debate.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am sorry to say that we are now going down to five minutes, because of interventions. I call George Kerevan.

Iran: Nuclear Issues

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 24th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We do not want to get into a debate about when we should have the debate. I know that the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) wants to get back to the issue and is going to bring us back to it now.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I must finish my point on this crucial issue because it is appalling of the Government to take this high-handed line with scrutiny in the House of Commons. It may be that the Minister did not know that this debate was asked for, but if he cared to read, daily, the daily agenda and the requirements for debates, he would have seen that this debate appeared day in, day out. If the Minister has not heard that from his officials, or read it for himself or been told it by the Whips, that is not the fault of the European Scrutiny Committee; it is that the Government are deliberately obstructing debate in this House. They always have time.

I will finish on this point shortly, Mr Deputy Speaker, but it is so important because we need to have these debates scheduled properly and quickly. The time that we have now is outside the normal sitting hours, so the argument that there was no day previously when it could have been held is false. We could have an extra 90-minute debate on any day since the request was made by the European Scrutiny Committee two months ago. And that is not the worst of the Government’s treatment of debate in the House. It is quite wrong that the Government should shy away from democratic accountability. I shall say no more on that today, but it is a subject that I will come back to if the Government do not treat the Chamber of the House of Commons properly.

To come on to the documents, I am afraid that I am going to change tack because the Government find me in support of what they are trying to do and, indeed, accepting of the override of scrutiny. When it comes to sanctions on individuals and the lifting of those sanctions, they cannot necessarily go through the full scrutiny process prior to the decision being reported to the House because, particularly when sanctions are being imposed, people would have the opportunity to avoid them in advance. There is a natural understanding of the confidentiality in relation to imposing and lifting sanctions and of the sensitivity with which this was being discussed with Iran. That is completely reasonable.

The second point that is worth making is that most of this was agreed under article 29 of the treaties on the European Union, which operates under unanimity. That is relevant because it shows that the European Union can work on a unanimous basis without any sacrifice of sovereignty by the individual member states. That is a model for future European activity—that we should take action when everybody is agreed because it is then much more powerful.

That is the next point: what has been done has succeeded and what was being aimed for was of the greatest importance. Trying to ensure that Iran did not become a nuclear state in the broad perspective of global security must have been a pre-eminent interest. It is worth noting that the most rogue of rogue states, which I think is North Korea, is secure in its wrongdoing and its internal oppression and is cocking a snook at the rest of the world because Kim Jong-un has a nuclear weapon. Those of us who wish to see a sensible world order want a limit on the number of states with nuclear weapons, and want to try to stop states that are on the margins of the international order getting hold of nuclear weapons. This is a successful policy that has had great advantages for security, but in the process that the Government have undertaken with other states and with the United Nations an important step has been taken in bringing Iran back into the global community. I slightly disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) and, indeed, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I think it is a great advantage that Iran is back in the community of nations.

It has long been the case that the best way of achieving international security is dealing with nation states, but all nation states have an inherent interest in their own stability. They wish to maintain law and order within their own nation because it threatens their rule if they do not do so. That makes most nation states in most circumstances the enemy of the terrorist. The terrorist is a greater threat to the United Kingdom than the rogue nation state is likely to be. Equally, the rogue nation state is easier to deal with, because it has a structure that can be attacked from outside if fundamental national interests are offended. Terrorists cannot be attacked in that way, because they are harder to pin down.

We have come to the point in British foreign policy—and, perhaps more importantly, US foreign policy—at which Iran is being brought back into the family of nations. That could be a significant boost to our ability to ensure security in the middle east but also more broadly because it goes back to a fundamental principle that has generally been accepted by most countries since the peace treaty of Westphalia in 1648: the principle that it is the nation state that underpins that security. It is what went wrong from the late 1990s onwards, when it was thought better to interfere in the internal activities of nation states to make them better nation states. That policy turned out to be fundamentally wrong-headed.

We have gained three very good things from the suspension of sanctions. First, it has been shown that the EU can work on the basis of unanimity. Secondly, it has reduced the likelihood of Iran having a nuclear bomb, and, thirdly—this is overwhelmingly the most important—there has been a change of attitude back to treating the nation state as the building block of global security. I very much hope that the Government will apply that in other cases.

Hospital Parking Charges (Exemption for Carers) Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Friday 30th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

I am very grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I will turn to the example that the hon. Member for Burnley used in her remarks, which she encouraged me to reflect on. As she said, at the end of last year, Torbay and South Devon NHS Foundation Trust announced that it would offer free parking to registered carers at Torbay hospital. I should point out that that scheme, unlike the Bill, is offered specifically to unpaid carers, rather than people who receive carer’s allowance. That is not what the Bill proposes, despite the impression the hon. Lady wanted to give. The interim chief executive of Torbay hospital, Dr John Lowes, said in December 2014:

“Family members and friends who provide unpaid care to our patients at home are invaluable, so we wanted to do something to make their hospital visits a little less stressful, and to demonstrate that we really do value what they do.”

He explained that the system was being implemented with the involvement of the established local care providers and that

“if someone is registered with either Devon or Torbay Carers Services, they just need to display their Carers Card on the car dashboard whilst they are parked in the public pay and display areas, and they will not be charged for parking.”

There are two points to make about that. First, the hon. Lady argued that what happens in Torbay shows why we can happily roll out the scheme across the country, but my view is that it is a perfect illustration of why we do not need legislation. Torbay has managed to do it without any legislation in a way that suits its local requirements, which is what I want to see.

Secondly, I know from my own experience that there is a problem with having a card displayed on a dashboard in a pay and display area, which is effectively what happens with blue badges. Anybody who has been involved in that area knows that people hand their badge to someone else to use—a member of their family, or whoever. It is not right—it is a terrible thing—but it happens, and we cannot ignore the fact that it would happen under the system proposed in the Bill.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I just want to say that I am sure things like that do not happen in Somerset.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. And I am sure that it is not part of the debate for today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Can my hon. Friend explain whether under clauses 2 and 5 somebody can quality for this allowance but not be eligible, or be eligible but not qualify?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

If the Bill goes to Committee, such points can be teased out and straightened out there, rather than on the Floor of the House today.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 9th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the shadow Chancellor to say that he will give way to the Secretary of State and then not give way? [Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. As a constitutional expert in this House, the hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order.

House of Lords Reform (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Friday 28th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I call Jacob Rees-Mogg.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

North East Somerset, in the great county of Somerset, is always ready. We are on alert for whatever might come. I am fortunate in that my constituency is not under water, so it is perhaps easier for me to be alert than those in the rest of the county at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I know that the hon. Gentleman has great knowledge of these matters. He will know that he is allowed to mention such people as long as they are not Members of the House of Lords.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am extremely grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am also rather troubled, because that means that I can be rude about hereditaries who are not in the House of Lords. That would be deeply upsetting, however, and I would be shocked if I did such a thing. Anyway, the point about Nevada was that a judgment made there was not considered to be authoritative.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I think I can help the hon. Gentleman on that: we are not going to enter into a debate on the royal family. We are going to get back to the subject that Jacob Rees-Mogg has in hand.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is inconceivable that anyone would ever want to be rude about the royal family.

So, Nevada was not taken seriously and Earl Russell was found guilty of bigamy. My amendments distinguish between the jurisdictions of a variety of foreign countries, and with good reason. The reason for including Ireland along with the United Kingdom is that it matches the form used for exclusion from the House of Commons, and there seems to be a logic in maintaining that. It is also set down in statute that we recognise the unique relationship that the United Kingdom continues to have with Ireland. Irish citizens are the only ones other than Commonwealth citizens who are always allowed to vote in United Kingdom elections, and travel from the Republic of Ireland to the United Kingdom does not require a passport. Ireland is not viewed as a foreign country in the same way as other countries are.

The Commonwealth realms are either serious nations such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada that have a legal form based on ours and that follow the legal traditions of the United Kingdom which they inherited from us, or they are smaller nations, nine of which have the Privy Council as their court of appeal. We can therefore say that any conviction within the Commonwealth realms will be of such standing that we can recognise it because it has been made in a nation with which we have the friendliest relations and the tightest of historical links.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman visits Singapore; he will remember that people there drive on the correct side of the road. They know how to do things there. It is a wonderful country.

Breaking obscure laws that it is unreasonable to expect people to have knowledge of ought not to exclude people from the House of Lords. Uganda has been in the news recently for its stringent laws against homosexuality. Are we really to say that peers who end up in Uganda and get into trouble with the law there should be banned from the House of Lords? They could get a life sentence. Is that really a way of deciding who is in a legislature of the United Kingdom? What happens if a lord displays a flag in Kiribati? Someone who displays a flag in Kiribati or wears a uniform in connection with a political object can be sentenced to a year in prison. Lords would suddenly be excluded for doing all sorts of minor things that in this country would not be an offence.

Rather splendidly, in Swaziland it is illegal for any female under 19 to shake the hands of a man; I do not know what the punishment for that is. Under the Bill, a peer could be convicted, regardless of when the offence took place. A 90-year-old peeress, who as a 19-year-old girl had shaken hands with a gentleman in Swaziland, could suddenly be deported to Swaziland, put in jug for a year and excluded from the House of Lords.

There is a tremendously serious point in this. It is that around the world there are hundreds of countries. I have a list of them: Afghanistan; Albania; Algeria; American Samoa; Andorra; Angola; Anguilla; Antigua and Barbuda; Argentina; Armenia; Aruba; Australia; Austria; and Azerbaijan. That just gets us to—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I think we got the message after the first five. I do not want to hear the rest; I think we have a flavour, without a fully detailed world atlas.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Mr Deputy Speaker, I think you are a mind reader. I was going to read out only the As, so your intervention came at absolutely the right moment to help me to continue.

We know remarkably little about many of those countries. We have not carefully considered their legal systems. What is the law in American Samoa? What offences could lead to somebody being sentenced to a year in prison? If a peer went there on a parliamentary delegation, would they randomly find that they had committed some offence? What if somebody has a gin and tonic in Saudi Arabia? They may get lashed, but—

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I beg to move amendment 19, page 3, leave out line 29.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 21, page 3, line 44, at end insert—

‘(9) A person who ceases to be a member of the House of Lords in accordance with sections 1 and 2 of this Act may not be elected to the House of Commons during the course of the next two Parliaments.

(10) A person who ceases to be a member of the House of Lords in accordance with this Act remains entitled to all the other privileges state degree style title and honour of peerage.’.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Amendments 19 and 21 aim to deal with the issue of Members of the House of Lords going from the Lords to the Commons. As the Bill was initially drafted and as we debated it on Second Reading, it would have been possible to have a revolving door or ping-pong back and forth, depending which phrase is preferred. It would have been possible for someone to leave the Commons, go to the Lords, leave the Lords, come back to the Commons and go back to the Lords again. I am glad to say that that was amended in Committee, which has at least to some degree ameliorated the situation. But there is a problem with the House of Lords being changed into a place that can be used as a way of preparing people for political life before bringing them to the Commons. As more and more professional politicians come through—I know this is a matter of concern to the electorate—people can have the following career path: becoming special advisers, going to the Lords and then coming to the Commons, without any real pause in between. As the Bill stands, it would be possible to resign a seat in the Lords immediately before the close of nominations for the House of Commons at a general election—

Thomas Docherty: There is already some precedent for somebody leaving the House of Lords, going straight to the House of Commons and then back to the House of Lords. I think I am right in saying that Alec Douglas-Home did exactly that in 1963 and was elected in Scotland to a seat that he represented for a number years and then became a life peer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The devolved Parliaments are different, because the simple logistics of needing to be in Edinburgh or Cardiff and also in the House of Lords make it much harder to work on that basis than between these two Houses, where the role, the position, the place of activity are so very similar. It is perfectly reasonable to foresee someone who has just lost a seat spending five years as a Lord preparing to campaign for it again. As it becomes clearer, and parties are well aware of this, that to win seats we have all modelled ourselves on the Liberal Democrats—I say that with not a single one present in the House now—we have worked out that to win marginal constituencies—[Interruption.] I was not aware that there was anyone that I could see in the Galleries.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that we make no mention of the Galleries, only this Chamber.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

That is why I did not see anybody in them, Mr Deputy Speaker. Although, there is, as you know, the right to speak from the Gallery in the event that the House is full. Sadly, it is not full today.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I think that that is something of the past, not of the present.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

No, it is still in “Erskine May” and—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I can help the hon. Gentleman a little more. It is also up to the Chair to decide who speaks, and on this occasion I have decided to hear a little more from Jacob Rees-Mogg.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am very grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, although I will let you into a secret: one of my ambitions is to speak from the Galleries one day. I think that it was last done in the 1950s.

To return to my point, it has been established that the best way to win marginal seats is to select candidates early and have them working in the constituencies for a long time in the run-up to a general election. That presents difficulties, however, because candidates have to earn a living, need to find the resources to finance their campaign and have to put other parts of their life on hold. If they can do that from the House of Lords, that is an enormous advantage. It gives them an income of sorts and it gives them status, which they can use to intervene in constituency affairs—a local council or Government body will take a letter from a peer just as seriously as a letter from a Member of the House of Commons. There is the risk of setting up an MP and an unelected peer to fight for a constituency for five years, with the peer simply standing down before the election to put himself forward and conceivably take the seat and go back to being a Member of the House of Commons. That seems to me to be fundamentally undesirable.

Members may say that the risk is slim and that that will never happen, but we are becoming a more professional political class. There is certainly evidence that length of campaigning in constituencies helps. There is currently a very good proposal from “ConservativeHome” to provide candidates with funds to help them with that. How much easier it would be if there was a nice, cosy billet in the House of Lords from which it could be done. Admittedly, that could not be done again, because the peer would have burnt all his bridges in relation to returning to the House of Lords, but that is not too bad, because they would still have got 15 years out of the system: one Parliament as an MP, one as a peer and, if they are clever, another as an MP. It begins to look like a means of forming a political career.

If that system becomes a means of forming a political career, it also becomes—I return to what I said earlier—a means of the parties asserting more control over their lordships’ House. A key thing about being in their lordships’ House is that there really are no further baubles the Government can offer. There are very few carrots and no sticks. That encourages independence of mind. It encourages peers, once they get there, to be more rigorous in considering the merits of the issues before them and to act in the proper way of a revising Chamber. The more possible it is for Governments to encourage, coerce and persuade peers to stick tightly to the party line, the less use their lordships’ House will serve, because it will be unable to do its job as a revising Chamber effectively.

Even if the risk is relatively slim and the numbers involved will not necessarily be huge, it seems to me that some sort of stop ought to be placed on that and that people go to the Lords knowing that they have accepted it for life, as we have already discussed, and that it disbars them from the House of Commons. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that people should face the consequences of decisions they have freely made. That is where it is different from hereditary peers and disclaiming, because a hereditary peerage is not a decision freely made; it is an accident of birth. However, any life peer has received a letter from the Prime Minister saying, “Do you want to be a life peer?”, has had letters patent issued by the sovereign and has had to pay Garter King of Arms to draw up the paperwork. They have had to do something to get that noble status. They know, because they have been told, that it excludes them from the House of Commons, by their voluntary choice.

Some argue that that is against their human rights, which is an absolutely ridiculous understanding of human rights. I know that it has been argued that it is against their human rights to stop them coming back to the House of Commons, but they are the ones who chose to be ineligible for the House of Commons. Surely with rights go responsibilities, and surely people must face the consequences of their actions.

I think that the failure to include that exclusion in the Bill is a mistake. It is something that ought to be remedied, because it could lead to problems in future. It could damage the standing of the House of Lords. It could easily be misused by a powerful political party, because obviously the party in government is more able to decide who the working peers will be, and therefore to use it for its marginal seats, to the detriment of opposition parties. No party is in government for ever, so it is always worth all sides bearing those difficulties in mind. It also fundamentally takes away from someone the consequences of their actions, which I think is wrong. I think that people should bear those consequences, and once they have been elevated they should not be allowed to sink back down, at least for a period.

European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Monday 27th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I must admit, I did not catch the word that was said, so we will proceed.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) will find the word in the “Oxford English Dictionary” if he has a chance to look at it later.

The point is that the programme will absolutely destroy trust and we know that trust in politics is at a low. A recent survey showed that trust in the EU was at an all-time low since the survey was started in 2001. If politicians go around legislating in direct contradiction of what they have said, the British public will take them for untrustworthy.

European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Monday 13th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position, “What about the Catholic Church?”

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I do not think we are going to go down that route. We are going to stick with what is before us.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I will just say, briefly, that a previous Leader of the House stood godparent for me when I was baptised into the Catholic Church, so I think I consented through him.

I will turn to the text of the document, because we need to look at the detail of what the Government are signing us up to. My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry has mentioned paragraph 3 of the “Europe for Citizens” document, but I should like to construe it in some detail. It says:

“While there is objectively an added value in being a Union citizen with established rights, the Union does not always highlight in an effective way the link between the solution to a broad range of economic and social problems and the Union’s policies.”

But that is not true. The very fourth word of that paragraph is a falsehood. Objectively, there is no added value in being a European citizen—that is a subjective view of being a European citizen. The document is a dishonest document and we are only on the third paragraph.

The paragraph continues:

“Hence, the impressive achievements in terms of peace and stability in Europe”.

It occurs to me that the achievements in terms of peace may have had something to do with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the willingness of the United States of America to spend billions of dollars on putting a defensive shield around western Europe to protect us from the USSR, the evil empire. This is a document of ipsedixitrists: people who believe that, because they say it themselves, it must be true, but, by and large, it is not true.

The paragraph goes on to tell the great joke—I doubt you ever thought, Mr Deputy Speaker, there would be such humour in a European Union document—about long-term stable growth. Tell that to the Greeks, the Italians, the Cypriots, the Spanish, the Portuguese and the Irish. Are there any other offers from hon. Members? [Hon. Members: “The French!”] The French and Monsieur Hollande would like to hear about the stable growth provided by their kind brethren in the European Union.

The paragraph goes on to tell us about the “promotion of fundamental rights”. How splendid that is. I am all in favour of fundamental rights—we have had them in this country for quite a long time—but what is the one fundamental right that the European Union disapproves of? Why, it is democracy of course. They do not like that a bit, because we might vote against them. I am sorry to say that even our own Foreign Secretary does not much like democracy any more, because he thinks this Parliament may have the discourtesy to vote against rules and regulations and instructions sent down from on high by the European Union.

The paragraph notes that the situation has, sadly,

“not always led to a strong feeling among citizens of belonging to the Union.”

My infant children blow raspberries sometimes. In this House of Commons it may not be appropriate to blow a raspberry literally, but let me metaphorically blow a raspberry at the idea of having a strong feeling about belonging to the Union.

I will come back to the next page later, because it ties in with a comment made by the Prime Minister that, importantly, needs to be examined. The sixth paragraph looks at the

“interim evaluation report of the Europe for Citizens programme”,

which says that the last programme was a great success and worked very well. The European Commission has produced a report to say that what it has just done was enormously successful. That strikes me as, to coin a phrase, marking one’s own homework.

I will move on, if I may, to paragraph 7. Where are they going to do all this wonderful stuff? They are going to do it

“in the areas of education, vocational training and youth, sport, culture and the audiovisual sector, fundamental rights and freedoms, social inclusion, gender equality, combating discrimination, research and innovation, information society, enlargement and the external action of the Union.”

Not all of those are, in fact, competences of the European Union, so in this article 352 extension to the powers of the EU we see an attempt to push those powers even further by spending money in areas that are not actually competences of the EU. The Government are agreeing—in breach of the coalition agreement—to an extension of the power and competence of the European Union.

I quite like paragraph 8, because it wants to promote reflection on defining moments in European history. If we do have to have this Bill, I hope it will get through by 2015, because there are four defining moments in European history that I am looking forward to celebrating in 2015. It will, of course, be the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta; the 750th anniversary of the meeting of the House of Commons with Members from boroughs; the 600th anniversary of Agincourt; and the 200th anniversary of Waterloo. We can have a jolly time in 2015 celebrating the defining moments in European history, which I am glad to say mainly involve the success of the English and, more latterly, the British.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is spot on. He has discovered the secret of the Rees-Mogg household: we celebrate our anniversary by speaking about the European Union. I have a feeling that that is probably true of Members on both sides of the House. Could there be a nicer way to spend one’s seventh anniversary?

Reflecting on the history of Europe is important, because we as Britons can take some pride in the fact that we have on four occasions—arguably five—destroyed an attempt to have a single European superstate: Louis XIV was unquestionably one, followed by Bonaparte, the Kaiser and Hitler. It may be that the fifth attempt to create—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I do like the hon. Gentleman’s history lessons, but I am bothered because this is the Second Reading debate on a Bill that is quite tight and narrow. As much as the hon. Gentleman’s history may add up, I know that he wants to actually concentrate on the Bill before us.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am actually referring to the eighth paragraph of the document we are being asked to approve, which wishes us to define defining moments of history.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I think I might be able to help. As much as I welcome the history lesson, it is the length of the history lesson that I do not quite need. I am sure the hon. Gentleman wishes to shorten it.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was taking the Secretary of State for Education too literally with regard to the thought that a chronological history should be taught in all aspects of life.

We should be proud of our influence on European history. The document goes on to say that it wants to remember the existence of European identity. I am not too sure what European identity it is talking about. I think we have an identity as people belonging to the individual nations that make up the European Union, not as people belonging to a supranational state.

We must not forget that this is a European document and no European document would be complete without at least one sentence—probably many more—of complete gobbledegook, so I shall quote one. It may be that a cleverer hon. Member present will be able to translate it. It states:

“A horizontal dimension of the Programme should ensure the valorisation and transferability of results for enhanced impact and long-term sustainability.”

Ain’t that just fine and dandy?

I want to—[Interruption.] I am scattering my papers—this is how European documents should be treated: tossed in pieces around and about—but I want to address a point that has already been raised. The nub of this is that 60% of the money spent will be spent on giving preference to initiatives and projects with a link to the political agenda of the European Union. This is all about promoting what it thinks of as being the advantage of the EU. It is about advancing the superstate and using British taxpayers’ money to do so.

Deep Sea Mining Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Friday 6th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

If only that were true. I would hope that Bills would be repealed at any time, but sadly the House is much keener to pass new Bills than it is to repeal old and defunct ones. Every so often a Session will pass 20 repeals of ancient Bills. I think we had one earlier in this Session or at the end of the last Session, which repealed some Bill relating to the purchase of the Isle of Man from whoever previously owned it to make it part of the Crown territory. That does happen, but not often enough.

A sunset clause in this Bill would be particularly attractive, especially if the Americans are not part of this. I rather like the American approach to internationalism; that is to treat it with the deepest caution, and not to sign up to every international body that comes along. My hon. Friend mentioned what Sir Teddy Taylor said about the Foreign Office. It is interesting that in the United States the State Department almost always wants to sign up to any bit of internationalism that is going. But the sensible people in the Senate who have to ratify treaties almost never do, because they do not think it is in the interests of the American people. Because of our system, we seem to be rather too keen to sign up to international agreements, when, as I was saying earlier, we should do things by free enterprise, which will often ensure more success, riches and wealth for the nation at large.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr. Speaker has done a long stint and we are glad to have you standing in for him.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

This will be an even longer stint.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Then Mr Deputy Speaker will no doubt be pleased that I will try to entertain him for at least part of his stint in the Chair.

Following that preamble and my concerns about the nature of the Bill and internationalism, including the risks that that has for democracy and the problem of it being a dead hand on enterprise, if we are to have this type of regulation, the Bill is obviously sensible. It is obviously wise to extend it from purely metals to include gas and liquids, because there may be all sorts of exciting things at the depths of the sea. There may be endless supplies of gas. There may be oil spurting out as if Saudi Arabia was on the sea bed rather than in Arabia where it is more normally located, and therefore one would find that there is this enormous wealth that could reduce the price of oil to the enormous benefit of our constituents, particularly those in rural seats where the price of petrol is a serious problem. These resources, liquid and gas, could be sucked out of the earth and used to the benefit of our constituents.

To that extent, I am happy to support the Bill. I do not think that there will be much opposition to it. It is a sensible level of amendment to what already exists, bearing in mind my overarching concern that we are being too internationalist and that, in principle, we are not encouraging enough enterprise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister referred to placing papers that contain confidential information in the Library. You will be aware that Mr Speaker ruled in 2006 that any confidential papers that are referred to ought to be placed in the Library with the confidential information removed. Will that practice be followed today?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

That is obviously a matter for the Minister, but as the hon. Gentleman is going off a previous ruling, I am sure the Minister will take it on board.

Human Rights Act 1998 (Repeal and Substitution) Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Friday 1st March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

For the record, I think that the Deputy Speaker is so many leagues above me that I am not sure my hon. Friend is right. If one takes my hon. Friend’s point about the equality of humanity—the equality before God that I believe as a matter of faith—that does not mean that rights are always applied equally. Even in this Bill, the right to life—that most essential right—is qualified in the case of self-defence, so rights immediately become relative.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Just for the record, I think we are all equal unless there is a long intervention, when I might show a little more power.

Canterbury City Council Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Wednesday 6th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am troubled about this definition of “touting”, because it includes all forms of entertainment. If one were to give out a leaflet asking people to join the local Conservative party, which is always a source of the greatest entertainment, would that potentially count as touting and be illegal in Reading but legal in Canterbury?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I do not think that we need to go down that path; I do not think it would be illegal anywhere.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I am very grateful for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I fear I am being troubled by questions that I am unable to answer.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

In the interests of impartiality, may I inquire about the Liberal Democrats?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Just to show that I am impartial, absolutely not.

Succession to the Crown Bill (Allocation of Time)

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I shall now put the question on the amendment.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was going to ask whether, by leave of the House, I might withdraw the amendment. I have listened carefully to the debate. I am sorry to say that whenever Front Benchers on both sides agree one is likely to lose in a Division, although it usually indicates that the House is going to vote erroneously; there is nothing more dangerous than when Front Benchers on both sides agree.

I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, because had we come to my second amendment, you would have been able to put the question, “2(b) or not 2(b)?” Sadly, if I am granted leave to withdraw, you will not be able to put it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Succession to the Crown Bill—

Timetable

1.–(1) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee, any proceedings on consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed in two days in accordance with the following provisions of this Order.

(2) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee shall be completed at today’s sitting.

(3) Proceedings on Second Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

(4) Proceedings in Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

(5) Any proceedings on consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed on the second day.

(6) Any proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the second day.

(7) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the second day.

Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put

2. When the Bill has been read a second time—

(a) it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;

(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.

3. On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

4. For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1, the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others) in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply— (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

5. On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

6. If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph 4(c) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chairman or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.

7. If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph 4(d) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chairman shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions, except that the Question shall be put separately on any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill which a Minister of the Crown has signified an intention to leave out.

Consideration of Lords Amendments

8.–(1) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.

(2) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (1) shall thereupon be resumed.

9.–(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 8.

(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question already proposed from the Chair.

(3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment the Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) a single Question on any further Amendments to the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and

(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.

(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and

(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.

(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House disagrees to a Lords Amendment.

(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question that this House agrees to all the remaining Lords Amendments.

(7) As soon as the House has—

(a) agreed or disagreed to a Lords Amendment; or

(b) disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments that are moved by a Minister of the Crown and are relevant to the Lords Amendment.

Subsequent stages

10.–(1) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.

(2) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (1) shall thereupon be resumed.

11.–(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 10.

(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair.

(3) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.

(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message.

(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question that this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Reasons Committee

12.–(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chair.

(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

(3) Proceedings in the Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.

(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (3), the Chair shall—

(a) first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair, and

(b) then put forthwith successively Questions on motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.

(5) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.

Miscellaneous

13. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply so far as necessary for the purposes of this Order.

14.–(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.

15. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.

16.–(1) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to recommit the Bill.

(2) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

17.–(1) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.

(2) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

18. The Speaker may not arrange for a debate to be held in accordance with Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.

19.–(1) This paragraph applies if the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.

(2) No notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

20. Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

21.–(1) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at 7.00 pm, 4.00 pm or 2.00 pm (as the case may be) on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day.

(2) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before the moment of interruption, for a period equal to the time elapsing between 7.00 pm, 4.00 pm or 2.00 pm (as the case may be) and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Succession to the Crown Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

When looking at the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, we must bear in mind the particular concern of the people passing that law at that time to exclude James II’s newly born son. The wording is therefore quite all-encompassing in its aim to exclude a child from the first moment of Catholicism infecting it, so to speak, rather than thinking that a child could be brought up as a Catholic and decide at 21 not to be one any more. The terminology is

“reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome”—

[The Temporary Chairman (Mr Peter Bone)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is supposed to be making an intervention. This sounds rather like a speech.

European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 6th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I knew he would come into order. It was only a matter of time.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. How lucky it is that there is unlimited time for this particular debate.

The Irish have shown with their protocol that it can be done. In fact, this is an exciting opportunity for this country. The Bill will be taken, and will be amendable by, a Committee of the whole House, and there has been much rejoicing at the conversion of the Labour party to deep, true-blooded, thorough-going Euroscepticism.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. May I tell the hon. Gentleman that he does not need to respond to that intervention, because he need only address the Bill?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was merely going to say, “From Westminster to Brussels,” but never mind—that will be debated at a later point.

The crux of the matter is that this was an opportunity for Her Majesty’s Government to ensure that we improved matters with regard to the free movement of people, extended the time for which that could be implemented, and asked the right questions about whether Croatia is ready to join and then delayed that until the right time. We are taking a risk with home affairs and justice by allowing this to go through and by recognising the Croatian justice system when it may not yet be fit. We are not taking the opportunity that the Irish have taken. We should do what the Prime Minister said in 2009 and use every single treaty negotiation to reinforce the repatriation of powers and to ensure that the United Kingdom can govern herself.

This Bill is a great opportunity, because it is required to be passed unanimously by all member states of the European Union. We have an opportunity to tag on a budget-related concession to our ratification of the Bill, to ensure that article 312(4) of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union does not automatically kick in to force a rise in EU expenditure when the British people and many others want it to be cut. Let us give this Bill a Second Reading, but let us amend it in the Committee of the whole House to put British interests first.

Finance Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Monday 2nd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We do not need to worry about Take That and radios for today. I think that the circus has carried on long enough.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

It has to be said that I am not the world’s greatest expert on pop stars and footballers, but none the less I think they bring a richness to our national life that enlivens many people in my constituency, and even in Scotland. They want to watch the highest quality football being played.

This is relevant, Mr Deputy Speaker, in case you think I am going off on a tangent. I have thought that it would be a good idea to remove the limit on overseas players in cricket, because that limit has been removed in association football and it has led to our having in this country the highest quality league football, and in English cricket—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are drifting away from the topic under discussion—and as somebody who follows cricket and feels that it is to the benefit of the England team that there are not too many overseas players in the county game, I do not want to go any further into this debate.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but the reduction of tax is what encourages them to be here and why they do not decide to work in other countries instead.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I give way to my hon. Friend.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. It is worth answering that one first.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am getting so many interventions, and I am always happy to take them all; allcomers are welcome. I do not think that there is this anger; I think that people are very supportive of high earners who earn their money.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are in danger of moving off the topic. We are discussing personal allowances and we need to get back to them. We have had a good lesson in the Jurassic history from those on both sides of the Chamber.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. One always feels ashamed not to answer a question directly, so I apologise to the hon. Lady for the fact that I shall have to give a later answer on that knotty point of value added tax.

I will stick with the Laffer curve and its history of increased revenue. We heard from the Opposition that when rates went down, the economy boomed and so, therefore, did the revenues raised. There are two answers to that. One reason that the economy boomed was that there was lower tax, so people had more of their own money in their pockets to spend on goods and services, leading to overall economic growth. Secondly, the amount paid by top taxpayers grew much faster than the rate of the economy overall. We are now in a situation where 27% of income tax is now paid by the top 1% of income tax payers—

Points of Order

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Wednesday 27th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record. We are obviously not going to open up that point again.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I notice that in the presentation of Bills, the first Bill relates to their lordships’ House. I note that in some of the earlier editions of “Erskine May”, it is deemed proper that Bills relating to another place should be presented there first as a matter of courtesy. I wonder whether you would guide us as to why that courtesy is not being observed, when it was abandoned, and whether Her Majesty’s Government might wish to have better manners in future.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Obviously, we both have an interest in next door. However, the hon. Gentleman did state that he was referring to “earlier editions”. We have since moved on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is a matter of courtesy, and I would have thought that courtesy was timeless. The fact that it has been omitted from subsequent editions does not mean that it is no longer important.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Courtesy has been expressed, as we all know, but as we said earlier, “Erskine May” has moved on, and it is time for the House to move on.

Bills Presented

House of Lords Reform Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

The Deputy Prime Minister, supported by The Prime Minister, Mr Secretary Hague, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr Secretary Kenneth Clarke, Secretary Michael Moore, Danny Alexander, Sir George Young and Mr Mark Harper, presented a Bill to make provision about the membership of the House of Lords; to make provision about the disclaimer of life peerages; to abolish the jurisdiction of the House of Lords in relation to peerage claims; to make other provision relating to peerage; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 52) with explanatory notes (Bill 52-EN).

Recall of Elected Representatives Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Zac Goldsmith presented a Bill to permit voters to recall their elected representatives in specified circumstances; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 30 November 2012, and to be printed (Bill 50).

European Union Act 2011 (amendment) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mr William Cash, supported by Mr John Redwood, Mr Bernard Jenkin, Mr John Whittingdale, Mr Greg Knight, Mr Graham Stuart, Mr John Baron, Mr Richard Shepherd, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Mr Peter Bone, Chris Heaton-Harris and Zac Goldsmith, presented a Bill to apply the terms of the European Union Act 2011 such as to require approval by Act of Parliament and by referendum of provisions for creating a fiscal union or economic governance within the Eurozone.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 July, and to be printed (Bill 53).

Amendment of the Law

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 22nd March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am extremely grateful for that substantial promotion in my class standing. Will the hon. Gentleman explain why, when tax rates were cut in 1979 and again by Nigel Lawson, that led to more revenue coming in? This point has been ignored by the Labour party.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Just before the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) resumes his speech, I want to make sure that he meant North East Somerset.

Daylight Saving Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Friday 20th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

On that occasion I meant the majority party in the Scottish Parliament, but I see the hon. Gentleman’s point, so perhaps we should have two representatives from Scotland, which means we must also have two from Somerset, because Somerset would feel let down if the numbers were not maintained with the rest of the Union. [Interruption.] I did not quite catch the comment the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) made from a sedentary position but will happily give way if he wishes to intervene.

I want to move on to my amendment 3, which proposes a cost-cutting measure, and I know that some hon. Members think that taxpayers’ money should be spent willy-nilly and that part of our job here is to take money out of people’s pockets and waste it, but I thought that we would get rid of the whole of clause 2, which sets out the independent oversight group. The relevant Secretary of State and President of the Board of Trade, the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable), is known to be one of the wisest men in Parliament. Lenin’s brain after his untimely death was kept for scientific research to see how such a great brain could operate and why it was different from other brains, and I am sure that this will happen in the sad event of the death of the President of the Board of Trade—may that day long be put off.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I do not think that Lenin’s brain quite links with daylight hours in the UK.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The reason I brought it up to be linked is that if we get rid of clause 2 the President of the Board of Trade, which can meet with a quorum of one, would then be able to consider the issue by himself. Such a great brain—a brain that competes with Lenin’s and will be a matter of interest to scientific research—could consider this without the huge extra cost that might be incurred by paying the expenses of the members of the proposed oversight group, making facilities available to it and giving it written terms of reference.

UK Extradition Arrangements

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Monday 5th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. It is up to the hon. Gentleman who takes the intervention, but the Member had only just come in.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

But it is such a pleasure to hear from the hon. Gentleman, and the tone of the House is raised by his gracious presence, so I will respond. Yes, of course we should have a hierarchy of countries to which we feel comfortable extraditing people, and of course New Zealand, Australia and Canada would be very high up on those lists—and the United States would be pretty high up too.

However, I do not think that the ambassador to the Court of St James—the extraordinary plenipotentiary of the United States—behaves in a diplomatic way when he starts telling this House how we ought to consider our business. I like to think what the noise would be in Washington if our ambassador there decided to suggest to the Senate or to the House of Representatives how they ought to conduct their business. Sitting as he does in his grand fortress in Grosvenor square like some Persian satrap, he should not be telling the House of Commons how to conduct her business. Of course we should have friendly extradition arrangements with the United States, but crucially ones that protect the ancient rights of the British subject whereby they should be innocent until proved guilty and should remain within the jurisdiction of this country until evidence is produced against them.

If we are worried about the United States, how much more worried should we be about some European countries, which can, in effect, arrest people and have them removed from this country without so much as a by-your-leave? We are risking people’s freedom and liberty. This House exists to protect the freedoms and the liberties of the British subject. Yes, I know that some of them will be guilty and will deserve severe punishment for the crimes they have committed, but have we not set up our justice system on the basic principle that it is better for 100 guilty men to go free than for one innocent man or, indeed, woman, although women commit fewer crimes—[Interruption] It is true; they do—to be imprisoned when innocent? If that is the starting point of our justice system, then surely we ought to apply it when it comes to extradition, and therefore the Government ought to review the arrangements that they have with the United States.

Equality and Diversity (Reform) Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Friday 21st October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman starts tolerance in the 1960s, because surely John Locke did that in his essay on tolerance. The theme has run through Whiggish behaviour, of which he is symbolic, ever since.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I cannot see anything about tolerance in the Bill. I think we will stick with the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I believe it is true.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I do not think we are going to have an argument and a history lesson across the Chamber. I am sure the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) will either intervene or be slightly more quiet.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Mr Deputy Speaker, I was shocked at such a sedentary intervention. I have never known such things in this House before.

But things evolved and we let the borough Members in, and we now look upon them as equals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am not sure that that is—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think we are getting into too much detail about one’s relatives and we are also drifting, once again, away from the Bill. As much we are all enjoying it I think we had better come back to the Bill.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for bringing me back on track. I remember that there was a wonderful slogan of the Conservatives at one point, “Britain’s on the right track. Don’t turn back.” That is really what we want in speeches from this side—we want to stay on this right, Conservative track. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley is very much on the right Conservative track with his Bill about looking at opportunity, not outcome, and to place on public authorities a duty of fairness to behave properly and not to pick winners. We know that the state has tried picking winners in the past and it is not a good policy, because the state is not going to do that well. It wants to do things on merit.

I agree very much with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley on political candidates as well. They ought to be the ones the local parties want and not people sent down from on high. If the local parties want a man, that is up to them, and if they want a woman, that should equally be up to them. Of course we want to ensure that there is a very fine list of the best possible candidates that they can choose from, but they should have the ultimate choice and the ultimate authority. Those of us who believe in localism would like the law repealed so that it is unlawful to discriminate in that way. In safe seats, such as Rhondda, discrimination could give somebody a seat for life, with a significant income, which would be unfair to people who might have done the job equally well and may have been more wanted by the electorate to whom they were accountable. Parties need to be conscious of their power in safe seats.

There is, as always, a but. I was concerned about the point made by the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) who said that the Bill would outlaw nunneries because they could represent discrimination by a public authority in favour of women. I am not sure that point is right, because if Her Majesty’s Government or any other public authority—the Charity Commission, for example—were to support nunneries and monasteries equally, there would be a balance, and as there may be more monks than nuns in this country it might be positive discrimination in favour of men, if it were any discrimination at all. I do not think that criticism of the Bill actually holds. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Rhondda want to speak? It is very difficult to pick up all these sedentary interruptions, Mr Deputy Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman does not have to pick them up; he can choose to ignore them.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Your guidance is helpful to the nth degree. I am greatly appreciative of it and I shall now make sure that I imitate the deaf adder: charm the hon. Member for Rhondda ever so nicely, I shall not be able to hear. We remember the deaf adder from our scripture lessons; as the hon. Gentleman is a former vicar, he will no doubt be able to call it to mind.

I am slightly concerned that the succession to the Crown could be affected, but I think the Bill could be amended to make it absolutely clear that there will be no effect on the succession and that the discrimination that remains is germane until such time as it is settled on its own in a different way—if ever it is to be changed. As a Catholic, I do not think it is a good idea to open the succession to Catholics; it would make no sense to have a Catholic as the head of the Church of England and it would be a pity to disestablish the Church of England by accident.

I am broadly in support of the Bill. The real principle is that we must not be condescending to people who can do it for themselves. We must embrace freedom and liberty. We must let people have every conceivable opportunity and then let them strive, go forward and work to achieve what they can and what they will. We must not say that we have to make sure that the number fits the box. We must not take the broad principle, to quote a former Labour Cabinet Minister, that the man in Whitehall really does know best, because the man in Whitehall does not know best, and even if he becomes a woman she still does not know best. It should be left to individuals, and we should avoid this socialistic tendency to try to get equality of outcome, which we will in fact never achieve.

Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [Lords]

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Monday 14th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I entirely agree with the hon. Lady on the difficulty of forecasting, as even the best economic forecasters get it wrong, but I wonder whether she was as shocked as I was to read in the Financial Times about the bullying of the International Monetary Fund by the Treasury and the Financial Services Authority. Was that not a pretty disgraceful way to behave?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are in danger of going off into past subjects. The hon. Lady may be tempted to answer, but we have to deal with the Bill before us and not with speculation in a newspaper about bullying. I think that we will stick to the Bill.