Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Mark Harper and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 14th December 2023 Commons Chamber

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

May I encourage my right hon. Friend to cut the money given to the West of England Combined Authority, as it spends it extraordinarily badly on vanity schemes for the Mayor, on cutting bus services for my constituents and on pillorying motorists with this dreadful scheme, which is hated in Saltford, for a bus lane on the A4?

[Mr Harper]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point about regional Mayors, which is that we have devolved powers and resources to them, but they are ultimately accountable to their constituents. I hope very much that if they are punishing the motorist, the motorist will punish them back at the appropriate time at the ballot box.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Mark Harper and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 13th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

All right. I think I know what the hon. Lady was driving at on that question. We said in response to the new report that we would continue to talk to the industry and, if required, consult on a mechanism—an industry-funded mechanism. That work is under way, but we continue to have the ambition to get those SAF plants developed in this country and I am glad that she supports that work.

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

What can the Government do about the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the police chasing drivers who have correctly sent in their forms after they have disposed of a vehicle and who then get notices of intended prosecution for a vehicle that they no longer own when they have done the right thing? It seems to turn on its head the principle of innocence.

Energy Prices: Support for Business

Debate between Mark Harper and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I agree with what he says. We are in discussions—my officials are in discussions—with Tata Steel. I should be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman at any time, and I make the same offer to all right hon. and hon. Members. I think it proper for Secretaries of State to make themselves available in response to all reasonable requests for meetings from Members on both sides of the House.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

May I press my right hon. Friend on the position of off-grid consumers? About 40% of my constituents are off the gas grid, as is the case for a similar number in the Prime Minister’s constituency, so this is very important. The factsheet updated yesterday suggested that only £100 was going to be provided to such consumers. That does not seem to provide a comparable level of support. Will he update us on when we will have more information? Secondly, do the electricity companies have an accurate database of exactly which customers are on the gas grid and which are not, so that they are able to make those payments?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

On the second point, people either have a gas meter or they do not, so that is relatively straightforward. As regards the first point, the price of heating oil has not risen as much as the price of gas. The aim of Government policy is to ensure equivalence, and therefore, inevitably, the support given for those on heating oil will be a lower actual amount than that for those connected to the gas grid—but that will give them equivalence.

Business of the House

Debate between Mark Harper and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Monday 29th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful for the shadow Leader of the House’s kind words. We gave a commitment to debate matters of national importance as soon as possible, and therefore we are delivering on that. Tomorrow’s debate will last for three hours, and there will be three hours of protected time for the debate in the name of the SNP. My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary did refer to the importance of education and protecting children, but I will pass on her request for more details to my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

First, I thank the Leader of the House for organising a debate for tomorrow and for it being three hours long, rather than the 90 minutes required by statute—that is welcome. May I press him a little on what the Secretary of State said in his statement? This relates to a point made by my hon. Friends the Members for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) and for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer). The Secretary of State said that the Government will be reviewing

“all the measures I have set out today after three weeks”.

That takes us to Monday 20 December, which is in the recess. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to allow these measures to lapse. However, may I have a commitment from the Leader of the House that if the Secretary of State feels he needs to renew them or, worse, to bring in stronger measures, the House will be recalled to debate and vote on such measures ahead of their coming into force? The Leader of the House will know that in the past couple of weeks, particularly due to the way the Government handled the standards measures, that there has been a diminution in the trust between Back Benchers and Ministers. Giving a clear commitment to treat Parliament seriously would help to heal that rift.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend is being a little unfair on the Government. He will recall, as he was part of these discussions, as was I and as was the former Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, that we assured the House that it would get to debate and vote upon important national measures. Bringing forward the debate tomorrow is a statement of how importantly I personally, and others in government, take that commitment that it is only right that this House should approve matters of that kind. There was of course a caveat in that agreement, which is that we needed sometimes to act during recesses. Mostly that has not in fact happened; we have been able to do this when the House has been sitting. However, I cannot give guarantees as to what will happen in three weeks, nor can I give them as to what the desire of the House will be—it was only Oliver Cromwell who made us sit on Christmas Day.

Business of the House

Debate between Mark Harper and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 22nd July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I begin by congratulating the hon. Lady on receiving an honorary doctorate from the University of Bolton? That is a well-deserved accolade for a most impressive constituency Member of Parliament and campaigner on the subject of Primodos. As she rightly says, I was a member of her all-party parliamentary group on oral hormone pregnancy tests when I was not in government, and the campaigning that she has done has been absolutely formidable. Working alongside her was, to me, one of the really important things that I have done as a Member of Parliament. There would never have been the Cumberlege report without the hon. Lady’s campaign, and there would never have been the written ministerial statement without the work that she has done. I will pass on what she has said to the Secretary of State for Health, and I will add a little note pointing out that the hon. Lady is a very effective campaigner.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

May I, through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, add my thanks to Mr Speaker and every member of staff of the House who has enabled us to continue to function through the pandemic? But of course, as we have now protected the vulnerable and, increasingly, every adult through vaccination, we can thankfully go back to something close to normal in September. I welcome the Leader of the House saying that it was every Member’s job to test Government Ministers, and I can confirm that I will continue to do so. I enjoyed being tested when I was the Minister, and good Ministers bringing forward good policies have nothing to fear from that.

The Leader of the House will be aware that I raised a point of order earlier this week because a definition in the statement from the Health Minister appeared at least to raise the possibility that Members would be required to show proof of vaccination before attending the House later this year. That would clearly be an outrage. It is our job to come here to represent our constituents, so can I ask the Leader to confirm, first, that the Government—the Executive—have no power to limit the right of Members to come here, and also that the Government will not attempt to legislate to put in place any restrictions on our ability to come to this place to serve and represent our constituents?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend touches on one of the key constitutional rights that we have as Members of Parliament, and it is of great antiquity. Unmolested entry to Parliament, whether Parliament is sitting or not, as long as it is not dissolved, has been our right since 1340, and the reason that it is our right is that we are here to hold the Government to account. There have been occasions when Governments have not wanted people turning up, and Pride’s purge obviously comes to mind, when force was used to keep Members out. That right is a very precious one, and it is not a right on our own account. It is not because of who we are or what we are; it is because of who we represent.

We represent 70,000 people—sometimes a few more, sometimes a few less—who have a right to have redress of grievance sought for them and a right to have the Government held to account on their behalf, and for no expenditure or taxation to be agreed without the agreement on their behalf by their representatives. No Government could get rid of this by any means other than primary legislation. Primary legislation can, of course, do anything, but it would require primary legislation to change any condition of membership. That is why, for example, the Valuing Everyone training could not be compulsory in this House: we cannot add new conditions of membership without legislation. Otherwise, the Government could decide that we needed, I don’t know, to have passed a maths exam before we come in or that we should have good handwriting, or heaven knows what obstruction that could be put in our way to come here to do our constitutional duty. We must protect that right—it is absolutely fundamental—and I cannot think that any Government, and certainly not this Government, would try to take away fundamental constitutional rights.

Business of the House

Debate between Mark Harper and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Monday 12th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend is coming on to some of the topics that will be discussed tomorrow. It is in effect a deponent motion: it is passive in form, but active in meaning.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, and following your strictures, I will limit my very specific question to what is in the emergency business statement. The Leader of the House will know that the motion to approve the draft Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2021 is also on a very important matter, effective compulsory vaccination for care home workers. What I am not clear about, even from his answer to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson)—and this would be of enormous interest to many outside this House—is whether the Leader of the House can give me an indication of when he would be expecting that debate to take place. In other words, when will the remaining stages of the Armed Forces Bill finish so that that debate can start? That will be of interest to many outside the House.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend is a former Chief Whip, and he will know that the progress of business is dependent upon the loquacity of hon. and right hon. Members, which is not something it is possible for me to predict.

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

Debate between Mark Harper and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Wednesday 13th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

This issue was briefly discussed when the House was recalled last week, and we talked about the option of keeping Westminster Hall functioning virtually and broadcasting it. The Leader of the House said that there would be a cost involved, but would the Government support that? I know that many Members would prefer that option to shutting down Westminster Hall completely.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my right hon Friend, and he makes an important point. There are questions of cost, of the resources of the broadcasting team, which is working across both Houses and is a very small team, and of cost-effectiveness, because we do not know how long this restriction will last for. It is my hope that it will not last enormously long. The Government are certainly open to maintaining conversations with the House authorities about that practicality, and considering it if it would be practical.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think my hon. Friend is saying, “Not my will but thy will be done”—essentially, that is his point—but I think the commitment is a sensible one. There is limited time, and therefore we should bring back something when we can actually do it rather than going through the motions again and again. That is why we have not reset dates for private Members’ Bills on Fridays, because we have reset dates now several times, and we have found that we have had to re-reset dates because, when we got to the new dates, it has turned out not be practical to sit. Therefore, I think this is the most sensible way of doing it, but I reiterate my reluctance. This place is here to scrutinise, to hold to account and to ensure that our constituents are represented. Anything that reduces scrutiny is something that no Leader of the House should ever wish to do.

[Mr Harper]

Mr Speaker, I listened carefully to what you said. This is intended to be helpful. Given that the Leader of the House made a clear commitment to come back to the House at the earliest opportunity, and that, listening carefully to what you said from the Chair, you said that broadcasting proposals would be worked up and ready in approximately four weeks, those commitments certainly satisfy me. I trust your word and the word of the Leader of the House that we will be able have another look at this in four weeks’ time. I hope that you and the Leader of the House feel that that was a helpful point to make.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and I now commend my motions to the House.

Participation in Debates

Debate between Mark Harper and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Monday 16th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

What I have said is that those who are clinically extremely vulnerable will be able to have remote participation, I hope, subject to a motion before this House. There is no question of accusing those people of shirking; that would be quite wrong and I have never done so.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

I welcome what the Leader of the House has brought forward, but I have listened carefully to what has been said and I really do not understand why we cannot extend participation in debates. It might have to be limited; I accept that interventions might be difficult. My concern is this: I do not think he said whether those who have family members who are clinically extremely vulnerable would be covered by this provision, and that is essential. I have a real problem, but, frankly, I am not convinced that making all of this public is a very good idea. I do not think that compelling people to disclose quite private medical information widely is something that we should be in the business of doing. I would prefer it if it were left to Members. Those who are able to participate in interrogative proceedings virtually ought to be able to do so in debates, and I urge him to reflect on that further before he brings the motions before the House.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The advice of the Government broadly, not specifically to this House, is that it is extremely clinically vulnerable people who should not be going into work, not members of families where a member of that family is extremely clinically vulnerable. It is important that we follow the same advice that we are giving to our constituents. I said earlier that last week I had to write to a constituent saying exactly that, and that I do not feel it is right for this House to take a different approach from the one that we are expecting our constituents to take.

As regards people revealing their medical details, nobody will be expected to go into any detail as to what their illness is. They will merely need to be extremely clinically vulnerable, and it will be a choice for those people. I think the difficulty with allowing anybody who can participate remotely to participate in all aspects remotely is that we would then not have debates; we would have a series of monologues and we would have the risk of the system going down. We have already had a couple of people on calls this afternoon whose words were muffled or distorted. The technology is not perfect. The efforts of the broadcasting team are absolutely admirable, but the technology does not work perfectly and people being here physically is important for proper democratic accountability.

Business of the House

Debate between Mark Harper and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Monday 2nd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The right hon. Lady is aware that, just before the recess, the House took the decision to extend the current arrangements for virtual participation to March 2021, to ensure that people who cannot be here for a range of reasons can vote by proxy and participate in interrogative proceedings. I therefore think it is inaccurate to say that there are Members who cannot vote, because proxy arrangements have been put in place that allow them to do so. Those arrangements were agreed without either debate or Division, so they had consensus across the House. If there were to be any changes to our voting system, they should be introduced through consensus. As the right hon. Lady knows, I am looking at the option of expanding proxy voting to make it available to all Members of the House, regardless of whether or not they need to be away from the parliamentary estate. I hope to bring forward a motion to that effect soon, which the House will have an opportunity to agree.

It is important that Members are here and that the business of the House carries on. Why is that? We have to ensure that these new coronavirus regulations—some of the tightest restrictions on the freedoms of the people of this country ever introduced—are properly debated and that the Government are held to account. We have to ensure that constituency issues can be raised freely, fairly and clearly by hon. and right hon. Members. We have to ensure that the transition period legislation is introduced and passed into law by 31 December. It is crucial that we are able to do those things.

We found during the fully hybrid proceedings that we were not able to carry on with the full range of activities. I am glad to say that Westminster Hall has returned. We are operating a full schedule of business, so that democracy is allowed to flourish. I think the right hon. Lady underestimates the need for democratic accountability. Being present in this House is as important as any other essential service.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

May I ask the Leader of the House to confirm—forgive me if I missed this—that the debate on the second lockdown on Wednesday will be a full day’s debate? I do not think that 90 minutes would really do it justice. In his statement earlier—in answer, I think, to the question from the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones)—the Prime Minister said that all the scientific information that underpins the decisions that the House is being asked to take would be published. May I ask the Leader of the House: by when will that information be published so that we can make a proper decision on Wednesday?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The motion on Wednesday will be a motion under an Act and it will be a 90-minute debate. I understand my right hon. Friend’s pressing for further time for debate and I would normally be very sympathetic to it, but immediately after I have finished, there is a day’s debate on the situation relating to covid, the Prime Minister has just answered questions for two hours, and on the Thursday before we went into recess there was a full day’s debate on the coronavirus. I therefore think that the time for debate has been as ample as it can be considering the pressures of business. One of the problems is that there is never enough time to debate all that one would wish to debate, but under the circumstances it is right to follow the normal proceedings of this House. I am sure that if a commitment has been given to publish information, it will be published in a timely way.

Proxy Voting

Debate between Mark Harper and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Wednesday 23rd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Members with a proxy vote may only appear remotely. They may not appear in the Chamber. Mr Speaker has been absolutely clear on that. I would not expect Members who have a proxy vote to be in the precincts of the Palace, because if they can be here, they ought to be voting in person. Any Member who had behaved in that way would not be behaving within the spirit of the temporary Standing Order.

This system has allowed many Members to have their votes recorded, and in the current circumstances, I think it is right that we make the continuing provision for proxy voting. The broad eligibility criteria provide appropriate flexibility in the circumstances. Any Member who has any concerns related to the coronavirus must feel entitled to apply for a proxy vote, and I hope that this motion will be agreed by the House today. It will allow for the current temporary arrangements to be in place until 3 November 2020, in line with the arrangements for remote participation in the Chamber and other measures that facilitate social distancing.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

Forgive me for referring to a matter that was dealt with a few moments ago. I knew I had read this and I just wanted to make sure that I was accurately quoting it, just to help my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). In the report of the Procedure Committee on proxy voting, the Clerk of the House noted in his evidence that there had been a small number of issues with colleagues not understanding the rules on whether they should be here if they had a proxy vote. He said that there were a very small number of cases where he had had to intervene, and that number was diminishing as colleagues properly understood the rules. I hope it is helpful to put that on the record.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. It is indeed helpful and useful to put on the record the evidence given to the Select Committee.

The Government, working with the House authorities, will continue to keep these matters under review following broader public health guidance, as we have since the outset. We are fortunate in the robust measures put in place under the leadership of Mr Speaker, which have allowed this Parliament to conduct its essential business in a covid-secure way. It is worth noting—this is, I think, significant—that because we did not apply the relaxation of the rules that came in over the summer, we are able to continue as we are now because we always remained in line with the tighter rules that allowed us to come back on 2 June. That is why this week’s announcements do not necessitate any sudden reversion. It is, however, worth reminding all Members of their obligation to observe social distancing, especially when queueing for Divisions. That is important and we have an obligation to show we are doing the same as other British subjects.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I doubt that in the whole history of Parliament any constituent has ever complained about an excess of legislative scrutiny. I think a surfeit of lampreys is more dangerous than an excess of legislative scrutiny.

[Mr Harper]

I am only intervening on my right hon. Friend because he mentioned the subsequent motion on Westminster Hall. I was not going to bring it into scope myself. I do not know whether this is a matter for him or for the Chair on a future occasion, but I note that that motion states:

“the Chair in Westminster Hall may limit the number of Members”.

My question—it may not be for today—is whether we will have call lists and, effectively, the same processes for Westminster Hall that we have for the Chamber to enable that limitation to take place, and whether that could be furnished to Members in due course.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

By your leave, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will try to answer that question. Mr Speaker or the Chairman of Ways and Means will set out the proposals, but, yes, there will have to be limits and, yes, therefore call lists, except that many Westminster Hall debates do not have so many people involved that we would face getting up to the limit.

Business of the House

Debate between Mark Harper and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Monday 23rd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful for the support of the right hon. Lady. Our hearts continue to go out to the family of PC Keith Palmer. It was a great sadness that afflicted them and the whole House three years ago.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

Mr Speaker, I welcome your statement and the steps you have set out to enable this House to continue to fulfil its democratic role, but in a way that is safe and consistent with the advice that the Government have set out and expect our constituents to follow. In that spirit, if the Leader of the House is not able to update us today, will he think about what further steps can be agreed between Mr Speaker and the usual channels to enable the House to properly hold the Government to account over what might be a considerable period, as we deal with this virus, in a way consistent with the firm, important advice that we are giving to the rest of the general public?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend raises a point that is being considered by the Government and which will be discussed with the official Opposition and other opposition parties. We will need to legislate and to ensure that the Government are held to account, but we may well have to do that in ways that are different from those we have used previously.

It is very encouraging to see that right hon. and hon. Members seem to be sitting at least 6 feet away from each other in the Chamber, and I would encourage that even on my own Front Bench. Government Front Benchers seem to be observing the suitable gaps at this moment, as do Opposition Front Benchers.

Business of the House

Debate between Mark Harper and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 9th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Congratulations, Dame Rosie, on your unanimous re-election yesterday as Deputy Speaker, having been elected by acclaim.

The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) raises an important point, as have other hon. and right hon. Members. There is a £500 million pot to reopen lines that were closed under Beeching, and there will potentially be an opportunity to discuss it on Monday 20 January in the debate on the economy and jobs. Rail is an important part of the economy, and that debate will be the first occasion to raise it.

I reassure the House that I am not the deaf adder. I have heard very clearly the widespread concern about rail, and it will have been heard by the Government and the responsible Ministers, too.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

May I add my congratulations on your welcome return to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker?

The Leader of the House will be aware that Monday is the statutory deadline for getting the Stormont Executive back up and running. The talks are under way, and we all hope they are successful over the coming days. They will reach a conclusion, one way or the other, this weekend, so can he confirm that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be making a statement to this House on Monday, either to announce that the Executive is back in operation so that Northern Ireland is properly governed or else to set out what steps the Government will take to ensure that the very serious issues for the operation of Northern Ireland’s public services can be properly dealt with?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is working extremely hard, and worked hard over the Christmas break, with all the parties in Northern Ireland to try to ensure that the Assembly is up and running on 13 January. Progress has been made, but it is not possible for me to say where that will conclude or what statements there will be on Monday. It is important that this work proceeds and that the Assembly is reassembled. [Interruption.] I see nods from Northern Ireland Members, and I think there is a widespread feeling that the lack of an Assembly has gone on for much too long.

Business of the House

Debate between Mark Harper and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 24th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Government are gravely concerned by reports of church closures in Algeria, including the recent closures to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The Government have been active in raising cases with the Algerian authorities, including at senior levels, underlining the importance of freedom of religion or belief, as set out in Algeria’s own constitution, and the need for Algeria to ensure that its laws and practices are consistent with the constitution. The promotion and protection of religious freedom is a high priority for the UK in all its international engagement.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

The Leader of the House has set out his wish that the deal we have secured does not get bogged down for weeks and months. The Prime Minister has also said that—and I agree. If, as a result of the European Union’s decision, when it arrives, about the length of an extension, an opportunity presents itself to get that excellent deal ratified more swiftly, will the Leader of the House ensure that a Minister, if not the Prime Minister, can come to the House at an early opportunity to update the House about the Government’s plans?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Government will, of course, keep the House updated on any developments, measures or happenings that take place at any time in relation to the European Union. The Prime Minister has spent almost 15 hours at the Dispatch Box, and he has therefore been most assiduous in answering right hon. and hon. Members’ questions.

Business of the House

Debate between Mark Harper and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 22nd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think the original understanding of limbo—one that is no longer widely accepted—is that it was a place for the souls of the unbaptised and for those who died before salvation was brought to us at the point of the Resurrection, but I think the understanding now is that that is rather a narrow interpretation.

The issue of what motivates people to vote in this House is one that is always very difficult to settle. I have always accepted that right hon. and hon. Members in this House want what is best for the country, but think that there are different ways to do it. But we must draw conclusions from people’s actions, and I do not think it is unreasonable to conclude that people who voted against the Second Reading of this Bill and against the programme motion are not the greatest admirers of the proposals towards Brexit.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

In the exchange that the Leader of the House and I had yesterday, I said, and he agreed with me, that if people voted against the programme motion they would have blocked Brexit. They have indeed done that for a period, and that is a fact. The question in front of us all is whether they have blocked Brexit permanently, and that is something I think we should deal with. I am grateful to those Members who have taken the difficult personal decisions on behalf of their constituents to vote for Second Reading, and I urge my right hon. Friend and others on the Treasury Bench to think about ways in which we can deliver Brexit on 31 October—to get it done—while allowing the House more time to debate it, to see whether those two things can be reconciled. I note in conclusion that the Opposition Chief Whip did make an offer along those lines this afternoon, and that is something I think worthy of at least some consideration.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is hard to see how the time could have been divided up otherwise. My right hon. Friend mentions the commitment to leave on 31 October and says that people may have voted to obstruct Brexit; they may find that all they voted for is for us to leave without a deal.

Business of the House

Debate between Mark Harper and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Monday 21st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think the point is extremely obvious. If Parliament is legislating for something it is voting on it; under CRAG there is no need to have a vote on a treaty that is laid in front of this House.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

I listened carefully to what the Leader said. He set out in his business statement the Government’s intentions for how long the Bill should take to pass through the House. That will happen only if the House agrees by voting for the programme motion. On Saturday, when the House failed to take a decision in principle following the amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) being successfully carried, many who voted for his amendment were clear that they wanted the House to be able to vote on this deal and get it through. I think even the shadow Chancellor suggested that it could get through by 31 October. It is only going to do so if that programme motion is carried. Can my right hon. Friend confirm to the House that if any Member votes against that programme motion, it will be fairly clear that what they were doing on Saturday and what they will be doing tomorrow is not trying to give the House more opportunity to consider this matter, but trying to frustrate the decision being taken?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend’s grasp of detail is so great that it explains why Baroness Hale thought he was the Chief Whip; he is clearly completely on top of the subject, and that was an entirely understandable error to have made. He is of course absolutely right, and there is a very serious point in this: people who do not vote for the programme motion will be voting not to have Brexit on 31 October. They will need to understand that clearly, and they will not be able to persuade one set of people that they voted for Second Reading and therefore were in favour and another set that they voted against the timetable and were against; that won’t work.

Business of the House

Debate between Mark Harper and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 17th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The right hon. Gentleman has not asked for a debate, an Adjournment debate or a statement. His question is therefore irrelevant.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

If the House does indeed sit on Saturday, and if it does indeed approve the deal that the Prime Minister has secured, does it remain the Government’s intention to bring forward the legislation necessary to implement that deal so that we can leave by 31 October? Will the Leader of the House therefore be returning to the House on Monday to make a further business statement?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that important question. If the motion tabled for Saturday is passed, legislation will have to follow, so I fear that I may be troubling the House with further statements next week.

Business Statement

Debate between Mark Harper and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 15th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The report was meant to have been laid on 14 October, so I can only apologise if it is not in the Vote Office. That will be looked into immediately after I have sat down. With regard to Saturday, the issue there is that a Saturday sitting is an extremely unusual process dependent upon events, but the events that may require a Saturday sitting have not yet reached their fruition. It is only after that point has been reached that it would be sensible to confirm what exactly will be happening on Saturday, but of course it will be my aim to bring an announcement to the House as soon as possible in that regard.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

I did not intend to intervene on the Leader of the House until the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) asked his question about Saturday. It might just be worth drawing this point to his attention, because he does raise some perfectly understandable diary uncertainty. The challenge around the Saturday sitting was really put in train by all those Members of the House who voted for the surrender Act. It is the deadline in that Act, Saturday 19 October, which would potentially necessitate the sitting of this House on that day, so if he has diary concerns, he should really look in the mirror.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend makes an absolutely valid point. It was of course the surrender Act that set the date of 19 October for its coming into force and that is why events may have to take place on Saturday. I hope that Members of the House will be reassured that the House has met on a Saturday in 1956 and 1982. We are Members of Parliament. It is our duty to attend to the serious business of the state, as we had set out to us by Her Majesty only yesterday, and to meet twice or three times on a Saturday in 70 years is not too inconvenient, even for those with the most pressing diary concerns.

Business of the House

Debate between Mark Harper and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady says from a sedentary position that it is general knowledge. Just because something has been in the newspapers, it does not make it general knowledge. It was attributed to me in a Cabinet meeting. Cabinet meetings are confidential. The files will be released under the 30-year rule in the normal way. I reiterate the Government’s position, as expressed by the Prime Minister:

“I have the highest respect, of course, for the judiciary and the independence of our courts, but I must say I strongly disagree with the judgment, and we in the UK will not be deterred from getting on and delivering on the will of the people to come out of the EU on 31 October, because that is what we were mandated to do.”

That is the Government’s position and that is my position.

The hon. Member for Walsall South said that we had been “spinning” our disagreement with the judgment. No, we had not. It was not spin; it was a straightforward statement by the Prime Minister, but with the highest respect for the judiciary. It is reasonable to disagree with somebody whom you respect. Dare I say it, Mr Speaker, sometimes I have disagreed with you, but that has never reduced my respect.

The hon. Lady raised the cost of Prorogation. If we remain in the European Union after 31 October, which the Opposition want, it would cost us £250 million a week. Any cost of Prorogation pales into insignificance compared with the extravagance wished upon the hard-pressed taxpayer by those on the Opposition Benches in their proposals.

Then we have the extraordinary view from the Opposition that our actions are not in support of parliamentary democracy. Government Members want a general election. What is more democratic than that? What sort of tyrants are we that we are willing to go to the British people and say, “Ladies and gentlemen, you choose: do you want my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) or the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn)?” We know why the Opposition are running away from a general election and are so scared of it. They do not back their leader, let alone think that the country will. We know that people think our leader is a great, inspirational, charismatic figure. We trust the people and the Opposition do not.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

I have a question about tomorrow’s business, but if you will allow me a small indulgence, Mr Speaker, I would like to refer to a matter that the shadow Leader of the House mentioned. She said that she would be grateful if you allowed the full judgment of the Supreme Court to be read into the record. I second that because the summary judgment contains an inadvertent error. I was listening to the esteemed President of the Supreme Court yesterday while I was eating my toast and marmalade, and I almost dropped said toast and marmalade when I discovered that, according to Lady Hale:

“Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg, Leader of the House of Commons and Lord President of the Privy Council, Mr Mark Harper, chief whip… attended a meeting of the Privy Council held by the Queen at Balmoral Castle.”

I must say, I could not recollect having done so. I would be grateful if the Lord President of the Privy Council confirmed that it was indeed my right hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer), who is the most excellent current Government Chief Whip, who attended the meeting. It would save me a lot of grief from those constituents who have written to me, wondering why I was attending upon Her Majesty at Balmoral castle.

The serious point about the business of the House tomorrow is on the motion to approve the conference Adjournment. If the Opposition are churlish enough not to be generous and support that motion, and the House sits next week, perhaps my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House could find time for a debate on the Labour conference’s extraordinary decision today to have a policy of no immigration controls, which would allow literally anyone from anywhere in the world to come to Britain, use our national health service, have unlimited benefits and vote in our elections. That policy deserves wide promulgation. I feel sure it will see us well in any forthcoming general election.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and it seems that there was some confusion over forests. He is of course the Member for the Forest of Dean, and my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip is the Member for Sherwood forest, where, I seem to remember, Robin Hood spent his formative years. My right hon. Friend’s point about the Labour party policy is why we want a general election; it would be wonderful to put that fantasy world to the British people and I am confident about what they would choose.

Transparency in UK Company Supply Chains (Eradication of Slavery) Bill

Debate between Mark Harper and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Friday 19th October 2012 Commons Chamber

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

The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) has brought forward a noble Bill that, in its intention and motivation, is of the highest standards this House ever reaches. As he said, it continues in the tradition of Wilberforce’s campaign to eradicate the slave trade and then slavery throughout the British empire. I believe that the Act of Parliament that finally eradicated slavery throughout the empire was passed three days before Wilberforce’s death, so he was able to see that moment.

I hope that it will not take quite so long for this Bill to be passed and that the hon. Gentleman will see very many years go by after his aim of getting slavery taken out of the practices of multinational companies has been achieved.

As a general rule, I am not in favour of imposing extra regulations on business. We need to have a competitive and free market with companies that can trade. I am very suspicious of fair trade as against free trade. Fair trade often means protectionism by another name—choosing one’s preferred people as opposed to those who are most competitive—and cutting out the poorest in favour of those who are good at filling out bureaucratic forms. We should always be careful when we consider doing anything that might encumber free trade or put burdens on business. We must remember that when burdens are put on business, it is not the profits of the multinationals that suffer but the electorate—often the poorest of our electorate—who find that their prices go up.

Within any advocation of free trade there must be some limits. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the proud Christian tradition of opposing slavery in all its forms. Going back to my O-levels, I remember studying the letter of St Paul to Philemon, which sets out the Christian case for opposition to slavery. In the Roman empire, slavery was perfectly legal and legitimate. There was no reason to oppose it; it was part of the status quo. The young, burgeoning Christian community lived within that—they had to. They were persecuted enough already without taking on one of the foundations of the Roman empire. St Paul, writing in prison to Philemon, who is a Christian, about his slave who may have escaped, tells him to treat Onesimus as a Christian brother, not as a slave—not as a piece of property but as somebody of worth and value equal even to a Roman citizen. That has set the path, followed by Wilberforce and others, to ensuring that as a nation we have done whatever we can for the past 200 years—after a pretty shameful history beforehand, it has to be admitted—to ensure that slavery is not part of the system of global trade and not something from which British companies profit.

So what is the right level of burden to put on companies—multinationals—that are facing this problem? First, there is the question of their own consciences. Before legislating, we should always see whether companies already take the view that something is fundamentally wrong and has no place in their supply chains. That is a good starting point. With the growth of international trade, many big companies will have major intermediary suppliers. They will not deal with thousands and thousands of small suppliers across the globe but have intermediaries they are able to go to. Those intermediaries should be able to assure the companies that they themselves do not use any improper forms of labour—slaves or children—in the production of the goods that are sold.

We then need to go to the next stage and look at the companies that are supplying to the intermediaries. There may be many thousands of companies, some of which are very small or in very remote parts. My professional background has been in investing in emerging markets. While I have been doing this, the number of emerging markets that have come into the investable framework has been growing. Countries of extreme poverty are now beginning to come into the global system, and auditing them efficiently and properly would be a pretty onerous task to put on to businesses. However, in relation to slavery, it is almost certainly a right and moral one for us to adopt.

The situation that companies will face is one that I have faced as an investment manager in looking at the companies that we invest in for our clients—that is, going to visit them to ensure that their practices are proper. I confess that in one of my company visits I was suspicious that the company did indeed use child labour. The business was a very attractive one, but I thought that my clients, and the pension fundholders they represented and the charities they served, would be appalled to be making money on the backs of children. The individual conscience of company managers and investment managers is an important starting place, which I think helps to achieve the objective behind the Bill.

The question then remains, what are we to do about people who do not have any conscience? Is legislation appropriate, right and proper? There may come circumstances in which that is the case. Perhaps this is more a point for a Committee speech than for a Second Reading speech, but I believe the Bill needs some adjustment to achieve what it is intended to. That is partly because it is trying to do a bit too much. I would prefer it to concentrate purely on the issues of slavery and child labour, which are specific and clear. Other issues can be harder to define and can therefore place a more difficult burden on companies. I hope that the Government will consider the matter seriously and see whether there is something they can do to ensure that the required standards are met.

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend may not be aware that just yesterday, colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills laid draft regulations that will ensure that as part of their narrative reporting, quoted companies will have to report on any human rights issues necessary to understand their business. Perhaps we can achieve the necessary reporting standard through that avenue without the burden of the Bill.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the Minister, and I take this opportunity to welcome him to his new post. He is the most civilised of Ministers in the Government, and I am glad that he has moved, because when he was in his last post I opposed practically everything that he did. I sincerely hope that I will now be able to support him more often. In reference to the Board of Trade’s action, the term “human rights” does not necessarily have a very good name in the House. I am slightly cautious of it as a generic term when we have a pretty awful Human Rights Act and a European Court that often gets the wrong end of the stick. There are fundamental principles of humanity in the Bill that we are discussing, not just the woolly words “human rights”. So I am sort of grateful for what the Minister says—more grateful than for a lot of what he said about the constitution when he was the Minister responsible for it—but perhaps not fully grateful.

The Government need to take up the running and take the matter out of the hands of a private Member’s Bill, which cannot necessarily be given the time and resources it needs so that we can get the phraseology as tight as it ought to be. They should find the parliamentary time to introduce a detailed Bill, which could be used to ensure the correct balance between burdens on business and benefits for people at risk.

There is also a twofold economic argument for such a Bill. The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk alluded to the first part of it, which is that companies that fail to follow the basics of humanity will be embarrassed in their marketing. They will be brought to shame in front of the nation if it is discovered that they are using child labour or slave labour in the production of their goods. That will bring the crack of the economic whip on their profits, which is a very good means of ensuring that companies behave better.

The other point that is worth making is that companies that treat their employees well tend to be more profitable and successful. Sometimes they are very large employers. I have spoken to Hon Hai, which employs more than 1 million people and is one of the biggest suppliers to Apple. It finds itself employing so many people that it provides an almost governmental style of welfare for them, because it is in its own interests to do so. If it is to employ such large numbers of people in an environment in which there will inevitably be difficulties and disputes, it needs to take care of its employees in the round rather than simply getting the maximum out of the cheapest individual employee.

There is also the argument that if companies move away from child and slave labour, they will be able to mechanise more easily and therefore be more productive and efficient. There is a good argument, which has long been known, about the inefficiency of slave labour. The financial incentive that we talk about when discussing tax rates applies to people in routine jobs in poor countries just as much as to bankers in the United Kingdom. I have no doubt that there are robust economic reasons for wanting to avoid slave labour, and robust moral reasons as well. It is important—the mood of the House is almost certainly along these lines—that the Government should take the matter up.

Individual Voter Registration

Debate between Mark Harper and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Monday 16th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

That point has been made, and I looked at it when I visited Northern Ireland, which, for historical reasons and for the reasons it introduced the system ahead of us, requires people to have a form of photo ID when they vote. When that was introduced, it meant that many people were not able to vote, but it is now working smoothly. It has been suggested to us that we should adopt that system. The Government have decided not to do so, but we will listen to the evidence, as it certainly happens in one part of the United Kingdom. As far as I understand—I stand to be corrected—it currently works pretty smoothly, and for those electors who do not have their own form of photo ID, such as a passport or driving licence, there is a specific and very simple electoral ID card, with no database behind it, which they can use to prove their identity—and their age, for all sorts of other interesting purposes that to young people are probably more attractive than being able to vote.

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

Does the Minister agree that the occasions of personation fraud are extremely rare, but that more fraud is thought to exist in postal voting and that, perhaps, more restrictions should be placed on that?

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and there was a certain amount of fraud in the early 2000s. That is why the previous Government, to be fair and to their credit, tightened up postal voting and introduced the system of requiring identifiers, whereby an individual has to have their date of birth and provide a signature. We can at least be sure that the person who requested the postal vote is the person casting it, but of course it does not give us any confidence in that person being the real, genuine person who lives in that house, as someone may have created a fictitious identity. We can be sure that the person who requested the postal vote is the person casting it, but they could do so on the basis of a completely fictitious identity. Postal voting has been tightened up, and that is good. It is something that we supported and which the previous Government did.

Another reason for speeding up the system is that running parallel systems—the current system and the new system—was likely to be rather confusing and was, I have to say, going to cost a significant amount. We are investing a significant sum in getting this right—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) just lets me finish, we are going to spend £108 million on moving to the system of registration, so we are fully funding the move, and by not trying to run it in parallel with the current system we have saved £74 million, which, given the state of the economy and the public finances that we inherited, a point that I will not labour, is not an insubstantial factor to bear in mind. But it is not at the expense of ensuring that we have a secure and accurate register.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Mark Harper and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend is simply not right. We have had this debate before. It is important because it relates to the revised clause 2, brought about by one of the Lords amendments, which refers to a 14-day period. I know that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) supported it strongly when we debated it in Committee and on Report. Indeed, the Opposition supported our proposition when we voted against an amendment that I believe my hon. Friends had tabled.

Two alternatives can take place. I know this 1924 example goes back a bit, but it is one of the scenarios that can happen. Of course, that did not happen in 1979, but that was because we were at the tail-end of a Parliament, so the general election took place. If a vote of confidence were lost early in a Parliament, the situation I described could occur.

Another important issue came up here and in the other place when the rationale for clause 2 was debated. The 14-day period is not mandatory; it is the maximum period that can apply. If the Government had lost a vote of confidence and there were a general consensus that the country should move immediately to a general election, there would be nothing to stop the Government putting down a motion for an early Dissolution. A vote on it could happen and the general election could be triggered immediately. I am not sure that that argument came out strongly in the other place; that is why it is worth putting it on the record.

We listened carefully to the concerns expressed in the other place about clause 2. We also conducted meetings with the two former Speakers, as I mentioned. We listened and made the amendment. Opposition Members will be pleased that the amendment has been made. The hon. Member for Rhondda said that as we were abolishing the Prime Minister’s right to dissolve Parliament, and placing that right in the hands of Parliament, it would be better to state in the Bill, in clear language, what constitutes a motion of no confidence, so that there can be no doubt.

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

Will the Minister explain a couple of things? First, is there another example in legislation of a motion being laid down for Parliament to follow, or is it an innovation? Secondly, who will determine whether the motion has been passed in the correct form? Will it be a matter for the courts?

[Mr Harper]

Let me develop my argument, and I will cover the points raised by my hon. Friend. The concern in the other place about the original drafting of clause 2 was raised particularly by the two former Speakers, who felt that not having specific motions laid down, and requiring the Speaker to certify that votes of no confidence had been lost, would draw the Speaker into controversy. This House and the other place were happy that there was no issue about privilege and the courts trespassing into decisions of the House, but it was felt that there was a risk of the Speaker being drawn into controversy. The Government accepted the other place’s view that the language of the motion should be set out clearly.

United Kingdom Parliamentary Sovereignty Bill

Debate between Mark Harper and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Friday 18th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

The flaw in that argument is that to put into an Act of Parliament the language in clause 1 would invite exactly the problem that my hon. Friend is concerned about. Because it would be in a statute that judges would have to interpret, it would invite them to start defining “sovereignty” and interpreting what Parliament meant by the words in the Bill. I do not think that is very helpful.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Harper]

I will give way once more on this point, then I will make some progress.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because this point is tremendously important and may, if he is correct, point to a fatal flaw in the Bill. I hope that he will deal with it carefully and precisely. I do not understand the idea that things that are in statute are justiciable but things that are not in statute are not. It seems to me that the judges can interpret the law of the land in the round, not just statutes. Will he focus on that point?

[Mr Harper]

The reason that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone gave for having the Bill and for reaffirming the sovereignty of Parliament was the risk that judges might erode the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty by setting out some new, autonomous legal order in which EU law had authority in the UK regardless of whether Parliament continued to give it that authority. We had that debate on the European Union Bill, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe made it quite clear that so far our judges have done nothing of the sort. In fact, they have had arguments put before them inviting them to take that stance and have specifically rejected them. That was why, in that Bill, which my hon. Friend and a number of other Members have talked about, we specifically set out that EU law had effect in this country only because it was given that effect by Acts passed by this Parliament. We did not think it was helpful—quite the reverse—to have a general sovereignty clause, which is what this Bill would introduce.

It is worth discussing one or two wider issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West was right when he drew attention to the fact that under clause 3(b), the Bill covers not just the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights but any rule of international law at all. It provides that no Minister of the Crown is to

“make or implement any legal instrument which…is inconsistent with this Act”,

in other words which affects the sovereignty of this Parliament. That seems a very wide term, including both domestic legal instruments and instruments that are binding in international law.

The Bill also appears to extend to any instrument, including any treaty, that the UK will make or implement, or has ever made or implemented. It appears that it would act with retrospective effect. It seems to me that that is quite deliberate given the words in clause 3 stating that it

“shall have effect and shall be construed as having effect and deemed at all times to have had effect”.

I shall come back to that in a moment.

I do not believe the Bill takes any notice of the changes that were made to the rules for ratifying treaties that were introduced in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which provides a number of tests and procedures for ratification that improve parliamentary involvement in the process. For example, when a Minister signs a treaty that does not come into force upon signature and to which domestic procedures concerning EU law do not apply, it may not be ratified unless it is laid before Parliament for a period of 21 days and neither House of Parliament passes a resolution objecting to it. If the House passes such a resolution, a Minister must lay a further explanation before the House, which may vote again within a further 21 days.

Only in exceptional circumstances may a treaty be ratified without the agreement of this House, and a Minister cannot override a decision of the House that it should not be ratified. If the Bill became law, what would happen if Parliament did not object to the ratification of a treaty but it was subsequently concluded that it was inconsistent with the Bill? What effect would that have on the sovereignty of Parliament?

I argue that the Bill is rather dangerous because of the effect that it would have on how we conduct international relations. It would make it impossible for us to participate in a number of organisations—for example, we belong to the United Nations and have signed a range of treaties connected with it. I listened closely to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said this morning about the Security Council resolution. He pointed out the wide authorisation that it gives us and other members of the international community to act but he also explained that it places clear limits on what we can do. If the Bill were in force, it would not allow us to enter into agreements that limit what Parliament can do unless we held a referendum. We could not sign up to any international treaty with which we had engaged that somehow constrained our behaviour, as most do, unless we held a referendum.

My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West highlighted the Bill that we discussed earlier, which encountered no opposition, on the wreck removal convention. If we accepted the measure that we are discussing, we would pass primary legislation to hold a referendum on whether the British people should support the wreck removal convention. That would not be welcome.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend may have found a fatal flaw in the Bill, and I therefore ask him to consider it further. However, an EU rule has effect in this country above UK legislation, subject to the 1972 Act. That is not the case with agreements made in the United Nations or under other treaty conventions, which Her Majesty’s Government can abrogate at their own will.

[Mr Harper]

My point, which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe made when we debated the European Union Bill, is that EU law has primacy in this country only because Parliament has passed legislation to say so. The Government will not do it, but it is open to Parliament to change or repeal the Act so that EU law does not have primacy. It is possible, although we are not going to do it. That is the flaw in the argument.

Clause 4 is another good reason for objecting to the Bill because it purports to bind future Parliaments. It states that a Bill passed in this Parliament cannot be amended without the consent of the people in a referendum. An important aspect of parliamentary sovereignty is that Parliament may enact or repeal any legislation it pleases, and it cannot bind its successors. Clause 4 undermines that. It also states:

“No Bill shall be presented to Her Majesty the Queen for her Royal Assent which contravenes this Act”,

but is not clear who would determine whether a Bill contravenes “this Act”. It would clearly have to be the courts, which would then be engaged in assessing whether Parliament had properly passed Bills and whether Bills should have received Royal Assent before a referendum had taken place. That invites courts to have much more power.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Mark Harper and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 15th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend is quite right, but it is important for the Boundary Commission to be certain about the matter at the beginning, so that it can then undertake the rest of the boundary process. If the decision were up to the commission and it were to make a certain assumption in its initial proposals, and then come to a different conclusion as a result of the extensive written consultation process and public hearings that we have laid in place, it would have to make a radical change to the proposals. As my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest, who is now back in her place, said in a previous debate, certainty and clarity are very important to ensure that the boundary review is carried out properly.

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

I support the amendments fully, but once the Isle of Wight has been given two seats, the argument for absolute uniformity has fallen, which it did not in the case of Na h-Eileanan an Iar, the Shetland Islands and so on. If the Isle of Wight can have special treatment, why not Cornwall and, as far as I am concerned, why not Somerset? Every county now has a special case to make that ought to be considered. In largely accepting the Lords amendment, the Government have given the game away.

[Mr Harper]

I think that my hon. Friend helps my argument. As I said, this is part of the parliamentary process. The Government introduced a Bill, which did not include an exception for the Isle of Wight. When Lord Fowler tabled his amendment, the Government strongly resisted it—indeed, we were criticised for doing that—but the House of Lords took a different view. My hon. Friend mentioned Cornwall, but the House of Lords debated Cornwall, voted on it, and decided, by a considerable margin, that the case for Cornwall had not been made. I appreciate that some hon. Members disagree, but that was the view that the House of Lords reached. It did not reach the same view about the Isle of Wight. There was a majority of 74 in the other place for making an exception for the Isle of Wight. That was not the Government’s position, but a strong message from the other place.

Inspiration has now struck me, and I can answer the question that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) asked. Based on 2009 figures, one seat would be 34,366 away from the UK quota and the two seats would be 20,748 away from the quota. That is a significant narrowing of the difference.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Although the Lords are wonderful guardians of our constitution, the debate has seen any number of perfectly sensible amendments rejected, and the Government have not lost a single vote in the House. I therefore do not see the logic of saying, “We must give in to the Lords on this, but on everything else we’ll tell them they’re wrong and send the Bill back.”

[Mr Harper]

I think the difference is the strength of view in the other place on the matter. [Interruption.] That view was also consistent and cross party. The Labour Lords who voted in the Division in the other place all supported Lord Fowler’s amendment. It is therefore extraordinary that Labour Members are making so much noise now. The Government have acknowledged the debate at the other end of the corridor. Given my hon. Friend’s previous comments about their lordships, I would have thought that he saw more strength in the case. On the basis of the arguments that I have set out, I hope that that case will be supported.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Mark Harper and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

No; the Government’s intention is to change the system so that there are fixed-term Parliaments, apart from in the two possible cases set out in the Bill. We think that that is a desirable change. If the public and future politicians agree that it is desirable, it will stand the test of time. That is what we hope for and what we have argued for.

My hon. Friends the Members for Stone and for Harwich and North Essex raised concerns about the two procedures in clause 2—motions of no confidence and motions on early elections—that allow for early elections. However, the House of Lords Constitution Committee was fairly supportive of those measures.

The Committee said that it was

“sensible for the Bill to contain some form of safety valve which would allow for an early election in circumstances such as the government losing the confidence of the Commons or where a political or economic crisis has affected the country”,

and concluded that the safety valves that we had included were appropriate. The Committee also looked at the risk of the courts intervening, which my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex mentioned, and concluded:

“The risk that the courts may intervene in any early dissolution of Parliament by questioning the Speaker’s certificate is very small”,

adding:

“we do not consider the risk to be sufficient to warrant a rejection of clause 2 of the Bill.”

Based on what the House of Lords Constitution Committee has said, I, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, am confident that when this House approves the Bill, as I hope it will, and it is debated in their lordships’ House, they will give it proper scrutiny, but in the end give it a fair wind and pass it. However, if my hon. Friend presses his new clause 5 to a vote, I will urge all hon. Members to reject it and to keep clause 2 as it stands.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Mark Harper and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Wednesday 1st December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

Yes, it is.

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

I cannot think of an example of such a position since the reign of Queen Victoria, who refused to accept Robert Peel as Prime Minister, and I think it inconceivable that it would arise in a modern constitution.

[Mr Harper]

I did say that there would have to be an extraordinary set of circumstances for the Prime Minister to behave in such a constitutionally outrageous way. They would be circumstances in which a Prime Minister was abusing and stretching the constitution in order to stay in office and avoid the consequences of losing a vote of confidence in Parliament.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I think that that is extraordinarily unlikely. It is theoretically possible that the Queen could refuse assent to a Bill, but that has not happened since the reign of Queen Anne. Such constitutional anomalies remain theoretical, but so theoretical that it is inconceivable that they would arise whatever the emergency. I really feel that to rely on that for the passage of the Bill is most unsatisfactory.

[Mr Harper]

I am not relying on it for the passage of the Bill. I was referring to the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest, who last week, on behalf of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, raised some potential scenarios with which she was uncomfortable. I believe, and the Government believe, that those scenarios are indeed, as my hon. Friend says, theoretical, and extremely unlikely to happen. My point is that if a Prime Minister behaved unconstitutionally in such a theoretical and extremely unlikely way, a mechanism that already exists would be invoked. However, the Government contend—and I agree with my hon. Friend on this—that both sets of circumstances are highly unlikely. It is our contention that the eventuality to which my hon. Friend has referred would not be necessary, because a Prime Minister would not behave in a way that stretched constitutional convention to breaking point.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Mark Harper and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 27th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

Clearly, the hon. Lady has not read the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, which we published last week. We are actually extending the consultation period for local people from one month to three months, to give local people, local organisations and political parties more opportunity to comment on the boundary commission proposals, not less.

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

In considering this matter, will the Minister bear in mind the fact that people have historic loyalties to the traditional counties of England, not to administrative regions? In particular, will the people of Somerset be allowed their historic county, not some monstrous, vague, administrative nonsense?

[Mr Harper]

If he has looked at the Bill, my hon. Friend will know that the boundary commissions are able to take into account local ties, but only to the extent that we can still have equal-sized constituencies. They are able to look at those things, but we think that the principle of equal-sized seats is most important and should take priority.