Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Report stage
Monday 20th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am talking about the banking system generally, and I am saying that it is important that people should have banking facilities regardless of their political views. It is important that Russian oligarchs may be sanctioned—that is a legitimate thing for Governments to do—but that requires the rule of law.

I want to touch briefly on some of the other amendments to which I have attached my name. I once again agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) on new clauses 24 and—particularly—25. Putting the consumer first must be the essence of what we are trying to do. To my absolute horror, I have discovered that I agree with him on turning some of these measures into secondary legislation.

Skeleton Bills are a dreadful thing. We get awful legislation coming into the House on which there is no detail at all because it will all be decided by Ministers later. Such Bills should be deprecated. The House of Lords is good at pushing back on them; this House less so. Skeleton Bills are bad idea—except, there is a place for secondary legislation, and that is it. For some utterly random reason, a Government who have brought forward extraordinary skeleton Bills, some of which I could mention and have mentioned in the Chamber on occasions, have brought forward every last detail on something that, in its essence, will need revision and updating and to meet different standards as time goes by. It is a modest eccentricity to have put that in the Bill. I suggest that, in the other place, the Government look at whether that detail could be easily turned into secondary instruments, with such instruments ready to come into force at the same time as the Bill, so there would be no delay. That structurally would make for a better Bill. I am embarrassed to be speaking in favour of secondary legislation, because normally I want to see things in the Bill. If we could have a promise of fewer skeleton Bills in future, I would be delighted.

Against that, I could not disagree more with new clauses 29 and 30. Those make a real mistake—dare I say it, they are typical socialist amendments—because they do not trust people. It seems to me that people are sensible: they know what they are doing, they volunteer to do it, and they are free to undo it. Yes, of course, it is important that they should be free to undo it, but there is a cost to over-regulation. If we make companies write all the time to say, “Are you sure you want to do this?” that puts up the price. The profit margin for the business will not change, but the price that they charge consumers will. If they are constantly saying, “Do you want to leave us?” that will put the price up, because there will be an administrative and bureaucratic cost to that, and a loss of business that will put up the overall cost for everybody. It is legislating for inefficiency based on the idea that consumers are stupid. Well, in North East Somerset, consumers are very clever, highly intelligent, and know what they have agreed to and what they have not agreed to.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare. His new clause 31 is genius because it gets to the heart of an incredibly complicated and difficult matter that no other piece of legislation that we have tried has really worked with. Even the one in, one out that we had from 2010 to 2015 did not really work. I seem to remember reading that the Crown’s ownership of sturgeon was cancelled during this period because it counted as a “one out”, allowing some regulation to come in, no doubt costing millions, as we got rid of something trivial. One in, one out was not really there, but this new clause does it on a proper cost audit and looks ultimately to cover everything. That is absolutely the right way to go. My hon. Friend made the superb point that whenever any type of Government expenditure is involved, it is looked at, reviewed and referred to a Committee, yet when regulations worth billions are involved, they pass through without so much as by your leave. This is a really important new clause and I encourage the Government to do whatever they can to implement it.

A final thought before I conclude is on petrol stations. This is very good news. Why is it that the Tesco’s in Paulton is more expensive than the local service station in Ubley? I use the local service station in Ubley because it is better value for money, but Tesco’s in Paulton is more expensive than the Tesco’s on the outskirts of Bristol. That is very unfair on my constituents and I want it to bring its price down.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Every little helps.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Committee stage
Monday 30th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I remind Members that if they were here for the openings of both speeches, then yes they can make a speech in Committee, but if they were not they cannot. If they have been here for what I would say is a decent time, then they are by all means able to make interventions.

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

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner). I am a supporter of the Bill. I think it is a good and proportionate Bill, but it is badly written. What the right hon. Lady said about Henry VIII clauses is absolutely spot on. Indeed, should the socialists ever be in government in the future I hope they will remember what she said, because skeleton Bills and Henry VIII clauses are bad parliamentary and constitutional practice.

It seems to me that it is hard to describe the right hon. Lady as having been wrong for tabling amendment 101— I will not vote for her, but I say none the less that she is far from being described as wrong. Clause 3 suggests:

“Regulations under this section may amend, repeal or revoke provision made by or under primary legislation passed…later in the same session of Parliament as this Act.”

On what basis can any Government claim to have the power to amend legislation that has not yet been passed? The only argument for doing so, which no Government would wish to advance, is incompetence. The only way to pass a subsequent Act without amending it before it is passed is if we have not noticed what it was saying in the first place, and I cannot understand why a Government would wish to put such a measure in a Bill. Indeed, I am puzzled as to how clause 3 managed to get through the intergovernmental procedures that take place before legislation is presented to the House. I do not understand how the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee managed to approve a Bill with such a wide-ranging Henry VIII clause and which fails to set out in detail what powers the Government actually want.

I will support the Bill because its aim is worthy, but the means of achieving that aim are not properly constitutional. Henry VIII powers, it has been established, should be used exceptionally or when there is no other alternative. During the passage of the Coronavirus Act 2020 it was perfectly reasonable to have Henry VIII powers. Why? Because the Act was brought forward extremely quickly, there was little time to revise it and there was not an enormous amount of time to work out precisely what revisions to existing statute law may be needed. Emergency legislation falls into that category. But this is not emergency legislation; this is a Bill that we in the Conservative party have been cogitating about since at least our last manifesto, if not back to about 2016. I have supported it all the way through. I wanted the Bill to come forward. I think it is the right thing to be doing, but there is no excuse for failing to do it properly.

Business of the House

Debate between Nigel Evans and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 13th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am delighted that the Environmental Audit Committee has come forward with that report. I believe it has an absolutely brilliant Chairman who ensures that its reports are always well worth reading, and I am glad that he has a debate about this one in Westminster Hall later. The Osmotherly rules set out how responses will be made to Select Committee reports, and those will of course be borne in mind for the response coming from the Department and the Minister, but I will pass on my right hon. Friend’s request for a statement.

The issue with statements, as my right hon. Friend knows only too well, is the pressure on parliamentary business and the other matters that we have to decide. We have had a demand to receive information and for more time for House of Lords amendments, and we have pressures on Back-Bench business, but I hear his request, and a request from him is always taken seriously.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Leader of the House for making his business statement and for responding to questions for over an hour.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the Leader of the House.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The councillor concerned is still making those allegations and does not believe the processes have been satisfactorily carried out, so I would point to what he has said.

Business of the House

Debate between Nigel Evans and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 9th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think that naming and shaming is effective, particularly as I think—although I have only seen brief press reports—that the list includes some very large companies that have not been paying the national living wage, which will go up to £9.50 next year. It is a legal requirement; companies must obey the law. Once companies are named and appear on these lists, I hope that the relevant authorities will scan the list and see who they ought to focus on investigating, because it is a serious matter.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Leader of the House for his statement and for responding to questions for a smidgen over an hour.

Business of the House

Debate between Nigel Evans and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 9th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

There will, to some extent, be an opportunity for that as the Health and Care Bill passes through Parliament, but the optimal placement of ambulance stations is an operational matter for NHS trusts to decide; that decision has been delegated to them. West Midlands ambulance service says that it has carefully considered the matter and has set out that the closure would not affect the number of ambulances in the area available immediately to respond to 999 calls as they arise, but one always understands the concerns of people living locally when they feel that a service is being removed from them.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Richard Thomson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It seems to me to be completely obvious that scrutiny is much better, much tighter and much more spontaneous in this House when we are all present. If Members are in the Chamber, they will know what the business is.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Wera Hobhouse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

A Somerset MP, even one from the Liberal Democrats, could certainly never be least. In my view, those from Somerset always take a primary place in the nation’s affairs, and so they should.

The hon. Lady raises an important and interesting issue. The technology is developing and evolving. It seems to me that one of the fundamental things we should say in the argument about getting to net zero is that we want to improve people’s living standards—we want people to have a better standard of living, with economic growth—and we can do that by technological innovation. Hydrogen is such an exciting part of that, because if we have cars running on hydrogen, we no longer need to be so mean to the motorist, to make it so difficult for them and to put in all those roadblocks and tiresome things that some local councils are doing—the hon. Lady will know of a local council that is currently doing just that. We will be able to get back to allowing people to do more of what they want and in a green and friendly way. Technology will be the solution to that.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I thank the Leader of the House for his statement and for answering questions for one hour.

Business of the House

Debate between Nigel Evans and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 22nd July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this, because it has been raised with us all as constituency MPs. The DVLA’s service is currently not good enough and it has been hindered, unfortunately, by industrial inaction by members of the Public and Commercial Services Union, which has made the problems of the pandemic worse, by the Welsh Government’s additional social distancing requirements, which have reduced the number of staff on site, and by an increased demand for its services, which has led to delays in dealing with paper applications. Her Majesty’s Government are working to put that right and the DVLA has, for example, leased an additional building to accommodate additional staff. Driving licence applications made on paper are likely to take six to 10 weeks to process, although there may be additional delays in processing more complex transactions, for example if medical investigations are needed. I will obviously pass on my hon. Friend’s concerns to the Secretary of State and there will be the end of term Adjournment debate to raise any further issues of this kind later today.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We now go to Pete Wishart via video link.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

You are a wonderful man.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that Mr Speaker has been the pilot who weathered the storm, and we should raise a toast to him in that capacity. I am delighted to see that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) has started his holiday early, and clearly seems to be enjoying it already from his fastness in Perthshire. I thought he might be in mourning today, because it is of course the anniversary of the battle of Falkirk in 1298, which was not one of the most glorious events in Scottish history. The victory of Edward I on that occasion is one of which we are all aware.

On the hon. Gentleman’s points on this House, let me say that this House works better when people are here; we do a better job of representing our constituents and of holding Ministers to account. Speaking as a Minister from the Dispatch Box, I can honestly say that remote participation is a doddle. It is so much easier than having that immediacy and spontaneity that we get from someone in the Chamber coming up and aiming to catch us out. Having the call lists makes life much easier for Ministers. We are here—I say this as a Minister, from the Dispatch Box—to make Ministers’ lives testing, so that we hold them to account to seek redress of grievance for our constituents, and to check that Government policy is as well thought through as it should be. That leads to better government, because policy is then better thought through, better known and better argued for. We have a duty to be back for the good of democracy. I am sorry to tease the hon. Gentleman for going on holiday a day early, but actually that is the effect of virtual participation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I reiterate the sympathy that everyone in this House feels for people whose homes are flooded? Even a year later, people are probably still suffering from the effects of that, and it is the disruption, the loss of treasured possessions and all that goes with flooding that makes it so difficult for people and their families. The Government take climate change more seriously than I think any predecessor Government—we are the first major economy to commit to net zero and have continued ambitious climate change targets. We also recognise that the way to deal with this is through technology that will improve people’s standards of living, and to ensure that the technology is there so that people can do more, but cleaner.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

And we will use such technology now.

Point of Order

Debate between Nigel Evans and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 22nd July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I think that every Member needs to redouble their efforts as far as that is concerned. I do not know a single racist Member of this House, to be honest. I think the Leader of the House is indicating that he may wish to directly respond to the issue at hand.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. If I have used a term that is offensive, I apologise profoundly. I had absolutely no intention of using any term that was offensive. I do not actually know what term I used that was offensive, so if out of ignorance I have, I apologise.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Thank you very much for that statement. May I say as well that I will pass on all the thanks to the Speaker’s Office that I have heard today during business questions? I, too, would like to add my thanks to all the staff who have worked tirelessly and beyond the call of duty during what must be the most difficult time in the 29 years that I have been a Member of Parliament, and particularly to the broadcasting team, who have been quite simply beyond amazing in ensuring that the democracy that we all cherish has not been tarnished and has been allowed to carry on during the covid pandemic. I thank each and every one of them.

I suspend the House for the sanitisation of the Dispatch Boxes.

Business of the House

Debate between Nigel Evans and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 17th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Flattery may get you everywhere, but not on this occasion, because I think the question misunderstands the role of the Leader of the House. Up until Lloyd George, who handed the post over to Bonar Law, the Leader of the House was the leader of the governing party in the House of Commons—the Prime Minister when the Prime Minister was in the House of Commons and somebody like Stafford Northcote when Disraeli was in the House of Lords. The role of the Leader of the House is to ensure that Government business passes through the House, and that cannot be done by somebody who is not an integral part of Her Majesty’s Government. It could not be done in the way that a Chairman of a Select Committee does their job and has a mandate from the House of Commons, or indeed the Speaker does his job and has a mandate from the House of Commons.

So I fear that constitutionally my hon. Friend’s proposal does not work, although I can reassure him that the Leader of the House has a dual-facing role and also has to make representations to Government on behalf of the House of Commons. Members may have noticed that when it comes to issues relating to written questions not getting a reply or correspondence not being replied to in an efficient way, I do my best to ensure that the Commons’ views are represented.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Leader of the House for his business statement and responding to questions for over one hour. We will now suspend for a few minutes for covid protection measures.

Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster

Debate between Nigel Evans and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 20th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am absolutely at one with the hon. Lady, and I am grateful for that helpful intervention. That is why the outline business case is being worked on now. We hope to have some preliminary idea about it early next year, with the vote on it in 2023.

Let me return to some of the individual contributions. My neighbour and right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) emphasised the symbolism, the need to get on with things and the stonework. It is important that, under the Act, the Commission—I can assure the House that the Commission is very aware of this—is allowed to carry out repairs before the R and R body takes over. We have scaffolding up, so it seems sensible to try to do repairs where we can. There is no point in having scaffolding, as it currently is, just acting like the slips, waiting to see what catches come its way, although of stonework rather than cricket balls. So I agree with what my right hon. Friend said.

The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) seemed to want to become Old Father Thames, which was a rather charming way of suggesting how we should rebuild the Palace. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) emphasised the limits on public money, as did the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). He also encouraged, as did many others, UK-wide working and opportunities, and pressed for answers on timescales, which we will get in the outline business case.

I find myself in a very high level of agreement with my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), who pointed out that this is a place of work. Although it is nice that tourists come to see it, that must not interfere with its work as a legislature, and if we need to do building work in August, it cannot be open to the public in that time. Getting that priority right is very important.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) said, “Get on with it!” I hope that I have persuaded him that we are getting on with it, and that is what everybody wants to do. As I have set out, the preliminary works are very much already happening.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West wanted a date for the Elizabeth Tower, and I will give him a date. I am told that the bells will ring in early 2022. Now, “early”, when used by the civil service, is one of those things that I have learned about in my brief time in Government, and early 2022 could mean some time in December, but it would be early December. However, there is a better promise, which is that the scaffolding will be down by summer 2022—“summer”, of course, is an equally elastic term. What particular point in summer, I do not know, but we are almost there. The bells were being tested this morning, and it was really rather wonderful to hear them—it was uplifting. My hon. Friend made the crucial point, which was so helpful to the argument, that the Richmond House planning would have delayed us until 2027, which would have been an added complication and problem with the whole programme.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) brought his own experience to bear in a very interesting way, and talked about how we look after customers. He said that we do not inconvenience them, but that we sometimes have to recognise the need to keep going regardless.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) made an inspiring and sparkling speech. She was against gold-plating, as am I, and did not want a blank cheque in these economic circumstances. She reminded us of Churchill’s view of how buildings shaped our democracy. She also talked about what it would look like to our constituents if we decided to do things in a sort of Liberace way—I am not very keen on doing things in a Liberace way. [Interruption.] I am being mobbed out from the Front Bench by the Deputy Chief Whip. As he has 330 votes in his pocket, I must not ever dare to disagree with him; otherwise, Government business might become problematic.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey) mentioned opportunities and the need for there to be a plan for jobs. I think his basic plea was for every member of his constituency to be employed on the parliamentary estate. He referred to apprenticeships. Apprenticeships will be important and will have a long-running benefit for the heritage of this country because the stonemasons who are trained here will then be stonemasons who work on our great cathedrals and other heritage buildings.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe) mentioned the symbolism of this place and told us very clearly—I think this is the right way to put it—that we cannot duck the question. If we duck the question, we will end up grousing, to carry the bird thought through. But that is what we are doing now: we are not ducking the question.

I was delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) spoke. I fear that even now, nearly 18 months after the general election, one’s heart still leaps at the thought that Sedgefield is a Conservative seat. Leaving that little point aside, he mentioned what an iconic institution this is with its 1 million visitors. Follow the cash, as his old boss used to say to him, is what we must definitely be doing. The important point is that it is very hard to future-proof in terms of technology, because we think we are future-proofing but the technology goes off in some other direction that we did not think about. So we have to be open to a variety of opportunities.

This is a long-term project and it will come at very considerable cost to the taxpayer. The solutions we arrive at must therefore be the best option for the preservation of the Palace of Westminster and in the public interest, prioritising value for money. This is fundamentally a parliamentary project. I cannot remember who said that actually it is a fundamentally House of Commons project, because the symbolism of this House as the democratic House is what people think about when they look at the Palace of Westminster. I have the greatest admiration and respect for their lordships, but when people look at this palace, they think of the home of the world’s oldest democracy. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset made that fundamentally important point. It is a parliamentary project. It is a House of Commons project. We are the ones who are accountable to taxpayers.

I have set out my Government’s views and other hon. and right hon. Members have set out theirs. I am confident that the restoration and renewal programme team will listen to those carefully, and in the coming months the Sponsor Body will engage with MPs and peers to seek their views on how the proposals should develop. It is vital that parliamentarians give their time, energy and expertise to this process so that collectively we shape a programme that safeguards both the Palace of Westminster and taxpayers’ money, and will make St Peter proud.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

If there is a Liberace candelabra going spare, I can think of no more fitting place than the Leader of the House’s modest office.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster.

Amendments to the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme

Debate between Nigel Evans and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend raises a question of considerable importance and one that I have been very careful to avoid in all these discussions. It seems to me that it would be quite wrong to be making this decision, in relation either to what I have said about the rules at the time or to the new rules, with reference to any specific cases. That is fundamental to having a just and fair system. On the question he asks me, I know of gossip, but I have no confirmed knowledge of reports of who may or may not be facing an investigation. In all the deliberations I have done, whether on the Commission, in preparing my speech or in discussions I have had privately with the shadow Leader of the House, I have done it on the basis of general principles rather than trying to consider specific names. I think that is very important.

I thank the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) for his support and for the contribution of his hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who is a member of the Commission, is always fully engaged with our discussions and makes a serious contribution to our deliberations.

I am concerned about the issue raised by the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) about a complaint that has taken three years. That is one of the reasons that we had the Alison Stanley review. It is one of the issues that has come up up most commonly from people who have been involved with or have an interest in the ICGS—a feeling that things are taking too long. It is absolutely the aim of the Commission and the ICGS itself to ensure that things happen in a timely manner.

I thoroughly agree that every Member of this House and everybody who works for or in the House should be treated with respect and decency, regardless of their ethnic background or any other background issues. That is fundamental to the House, to our democracy and, dare I say, to the constitution of this nation. I think we can go back—although I will not in this speech—to Magna Carta and the idea that we have equality under the law and that we all should have; that is a fundamental position of the British constitution.

I am, of course—I reiterate this—acting for the Commission, but in acting for the Commission. I commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House endorses the report of the House of Commons Commission entitled Amendments to the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme, HC 1384, laid on Thursday 22 April; and approves the revised bullying and harassment policy and outline procedure, and sexual misconduct policy and outline procedure, set out in Annexes 1 to 4 of that report.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before we move on to the other motions, I too would like to send my thanks and congratulations to Ray Mortimer, who I can see is hovering at the back. Ray, I have been a Member for 29 years and you have therefore been a part of my life for the past 18 years, as you will have been for many people sitting around the Chamber. You have heard the accolades. You will be able to get Hansard tomorrow, take it home with you and, in your future life, I hope you will flip through the pages and read the warm wishes that you have received from so many people here. I hope it brings you and your family great joy. You have been very much front of house during the past 18 years; irrespective of what you are going to do with the Marlowe theatre, I hope you will take it in the right spirit—as I know you will—when I say, in the future, break a leg. Good luck.

This may also be the appropriate time to thank everybody who has made the past parliamentary Session work for us, under the most strenuous of conditions. I do not think that any of us thought, as we went into this covid situation, that we would be able to get democracy working in the way that we have. It was a bit clunky to begin with, but—my goodness me—we have learnt lessons and it has worked incredibly well. We thank the technicians and the broadcasting unit; we told Ray to break a leg, but they have been breaking their backs to ensure that the democracy here has worked.

We thank everybody: the Doorkeepers, the catering staff, the security, the cleaners and everybody who has made this democracy work. Thank you very much. We hope that there is light at the end of the tunnel, that the stress that they have faced will be eased somewhat with the relaxations in the coming weeks and months, and that we can get our democracy back working as normal. I know that is what everybody in this place wants. Thank you everybody.

I remind the House that, in accordance with the order of the House today and Standing Order No. 41A(3), any Divisions on the next two motions will not be deferred.

House Standards System: Confidentiality and Sanctions

Debate between Nigel Evans and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Wednesday 21st April 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move motion 6,

That–

(1) 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 works for or with Parliament; reasserts the importance of confidentiality within the ICGS in order to protect the vulnerable and encourage victims to come forward; notes the concerns expressed by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, as set out in the Appendix to the Sixth Report of the Committee on Standards, Confidentiality in the House’s standards system (HC 474), about the operation of certain aspects of the confidentiality regime set up by the House in its decisions of 19 July 2018; agrees to the recommendations specified in paragraph 22 of the Committee’s Twelfth Report, Sanctions and confidentiality in the House’s standards system: revised proposals (HC 1340); and notes that nothing in these recommendations undermines the key ICGS principle of confidentiality;

(2) Standing Order No. 150 is amended as follows:

in paragraph 12, line 8, to leave out “statistical” before “information” and to add “and matters under investigation” after “received”.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

With this we will consider the following:

Motion 7—Sanctions in Respect of the Conduct of Members—

That–

(1) this House notes the Seventh Report of the Committee on Standards, Sanctions in respect of the conduct of Members (HC 241) and the Committee’s Twelfth Report, Sanctions and confidentiality in the House’s standards system: revised proposals (HC 1340); endorses the Committee’s approach to creating a revised regime of sanctions for breaches of the Code of Conduct in relation both to Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme (ICGS) cases and non-ICGS cases; notes that the two reports propose which sanctions will be available to be imposed by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, by the Independent Expert Panel (IEP) in ICGS cases, by the Committee on Standards in non-ICGS cases, and by the House itself, with tables showing ICGS and non-ICGS sanctions as an Annex to the Twelfth Report; notes that the Committee has set out aggravating and mitigating factors in non-ICGS cases that it will keep under review, and that the IEP has published a separate set of aggravating and mitigating factors that will apply in ICGS cases; notes that the new range of sanctions includes the withdrawal of facilities or services from Members, but that, where such a sanction would interfere with the core functions of a Member, the decision on imposing it will lie with the House; notes that the Committee is currently considering options for possible appeal procedures in non-ICGS cases and intends to report to the House separately on these; and approves the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee’s Seventh Report, as modified by its Twelfth Report;

(2) Standing Order No. 150 (Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards) is amended as follows:

after paragraph (4) insert –

“( ) The Commissioner shall have power to:

(a) instigate informal discussions with a Member to indicate concern about the Member’s reported attitude, behaviour or conduct; and

(b) require a Member to attend a formal meeting at which the Commissioner may indicate concern about or give words of advice on the Member’s reported attitude, behaviour or conduct.”;

(3) The Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament (HC (2017–19) 1882) is amended as follows:

in paragraph 21, at end add: “Failure to comply with a sanction imposed by the Committee or the House relating to withdrawal of services or facilities from a Member shall also be treated as a breach of the Code.”; and

(4) The Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members (HC (2017–19) 1882) is amended as follows:

(a) in Chapter 4, after paragraph 15 insert –

“( ) The Commissioner has the right to instigate informal discussions with a Member to indicate concern about the Member’s reported attitude, behaviour or conduct; and to require a Member to attend a formal meeting at which the Commissioner may indicate concern about or give words of advice on the Member’s reported attitude, behaviour or conduct.”

(b) in Chapter 4, paragraph 19, line 5, leave out from “may” to the end and add:

“impose the following sanctions on its own authority:

(a) an apology in writing, or on the floor of the House by means of a point of order or a personal statement;

(b) requiring a Member to attend training, or to repay money;

(c) withdrawal of services and facilities from a Member, and imposing other personal restrictions including on travel, where this will not affect the core functions of a Member[footnote to be inserted here: “The core functions of a Member are defined as (a) participation in the formal proceedings of the House or its committees, and (b) their ability to communicate with and make representations on behalf of their constituents. If the Committee is in any doubt as to whether a sanction would interfere with core functions, they are expected to seek the views of the House authorities where appropriate, and to err in their decision on the side of caution, i.e. to recommend that imposition of a sanction should be decided by the House itself if there is any reasonable doubt in the matter.”];

(d) for non-Members, subject to the approval of the Speaker, withdrawal of Parliamentary passes, either indefinitely or for a fixed period.

The Committee may recommend the following sanctions for decision by the House:

(e) withdrawal of services and facilities from a Member, and imposing other personal restrictions including on travel, where this will affect the core functions of a Member, and where the sanction reflects the nature of the offence[footnote to be inserted here: “See previous footnote.”];

(f) dismissal from a select committee;

(g) suspension from the service of the House for a specified period (during which time the Member receives no salary and must withdraw from the precincts of the House);

(h) withholding of a Member’s salary or allowances even if he or she has not been suspended;

(i) in the most serious cases, expulsion from the House.

While it is for the House itself to decide on the matters set out in the list above, its practice has been to accept the Committee’s recommendations on sanctions.”

Motion 8—Sanctions in Respect of the Conduct of Members (ICGS Cases)—

That this House approves the following arrangements for sanctions in cases of bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct by Members following an investigation under the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme:

(1) The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards shall have power to instigate informal discussions with a Member to indicate concern about the Member’s reported attitude, behaviour or conduct; to require a Member to attend a formal meeting at which the Commissioner may indicate concern about or give words of advice on the Member’s reported attitude, behaviour or conduct; and require an apology in writing, or on the floor of the House by means of a point of order or a personal statement;

(2) The Independent Expert Panel shall have power to impose the following sanctions on its own authority:

(a) requiring a Member to attend training or enter into a behaviour agreement;

(b) withdrawal of services and facilities from a Member, and imposing other personal restrictions including on travel, where this will not affect the core functions of a Member [footnote to be inserted here: “The core functions of a Member are defined as (a) participation in the formal proceedings of the House or its committees, and (b) their ability to communicate with and make representations on behalf of their constituents. If the Panel is in any doubt as to whether a sanction would interfere with core functions, they are expected to seek the views of the House authorities where appropriate, and to err in their decision on the side of caution, i.e. to recommend that imposition of a sanction should be decided by the House itself if there is any reasonable doubt in the matter.”];

(c) for non-Members, subject to the approval of the Speaker, withdrawal of Parliamentary passes, either indefinitely or for a fixed period.

The Panel may determine the following sanctions for decision by the House:

(d) withdrawal of services and facilities from a Member, and imposing other personal restrictions including on travel, where this will affect the core functions of a Member, and where the sanction reflects the nature of the offence [footnote to be inserted here: “See previous footnote.”];

(e) dismissal from a select committee;

(f) suspension from the service of the House for a specified period (during which time the Member receives no salary and must withdraw from the precincts of the House);

(g) withholding of a Member’s salary or allowances even if he or she has not been suspended;

(h) in the most serious cases, expulsion from the House.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As the Leader of the House, I am happy to bring forward these motions to facilitate the House’s decision on these matters following inquiries by the Standards Committee. They will implement the Standards Committee’s recommendations, as set out in its sixth and seventh reports and revised by its 12th report. I am grateful to the Committee and its Chairman, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), for the collaborative way in which the motions have been brought forward and welcome the Committee’s engagement ahead of finalising its recommendations. This is the latest step in our continuing efforts to improve our ways of working so that the United Kingdom Parliament becomes more effective in its core task of serving voters. Thorough culture change comes from setting expectations as much as new rules, but as the proposals do both, I hope that they will meet the House’s approval.

It may help if I briefly explain the motions on the Order Paper. Motion 6 relates to the Committee’s recommendations on confidentiality, which are based on proposals from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards for some fine-tuning of the confidentiality regime in relation to non-independent complaints and grievance scheme cases. In particular, the motion will give the commissioner the authority to publish a list of continuing non-ICGS investigations and to confirm or deny whether a non-ICGS matter is being looked into, as she did prior to 19 July 2018. In addition, following my discussions with the Committee, in circumstances in which significantly incorrect information about allegations has been made public, it will now be possible for the injured party to apply to the commissioner for a public rebuttal to be issued, either by the commissioner herself or by the injured party, with her express prior approval of the text.

I understand that there has been some concern that the effect of the changes that we are making today could be to limit the ability of Members to speak to others about allegations made against them in order to seek support. I reassure right hon. and hon. Members that the position on unauthorised disclosure would of course be without prejudice to the right to access confidential advice and support from others. When it comes to ICGS cases, that right is clearly set out in the independent expert panel’s recently published guidance, which says that Members may

“seek support from a family member, friend or colleague”,

with whom they may share information “in confidence.”

Motions 7 and 8 relate to the Committee’s recommendations on the sanctions available in both ICGS and non-ICGS cases. The Committee has recommended a rationalised set of sanctions, as envisaged in the ICGS delivery report and supported in the reports by Dame Laura Cox and Gemma White on bullying and harassment in Parliament. Motion 7 relates to sanctions in non-ICGS cases and motion 8 relates to sanctions in ICGS cases, reflecting the role of the independent expert panel in determining sanctions in those cases.

Motion 7 asks the House to note that the Committee has set out aggravating and mitigating factors in non-ICGS cases that it will keep under review, and that the IEP has published a separate set of aggravating and mitigating factors that will apply in ICGS cases. As I said to the Committee in the Government’s response to its seventh report, while these factors can provide helpful context to specific cases, they may on occasion be based on subjective judgments and will therefore be secondary to the facts established in the investigations. I think that is a key principle, and it is also important that these factors are properly communicated to Members.

The motion sets out a range of sanctions, from formal discussions at the lower end through to expulsion from the House, at the agreement of the House, as the most severe sanction. Importantly, where a sanction is to be imposed that affects the withdrawal of services, a distinction is drawn between the withdrawal of services that affect the core functions of a Member and those that do not. The withdrawal of services affecting the key functions of a Member may be implemented only with the agreement of the House itself.

I am sure that the Chairman of the Standards Committee will want to provide further details on the approach taken in his Committee’s reports. For my part, I bring forward these motions as part of a shared endeavour to improve the way this House functions, and to demonstrate our firm commitment to improving our working culture further. Our constituents send us here with the full expectation that we will do all in our power to represent them properly, and every day, across the House, I find hon. and right hon. Members doing their absolute best to live up to that. But on the occasions when a Member’s conduct is found wanting, we must demonstrate the firmness of our collective commitment by ensuring, to paraphrase Plato, to every Member their due. On that basis, I commend these motions to the House.

Business of the House

Debate between Nigel Evans and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 15th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the needs of the personal care sector, which is a very significant employer and provides great joy to many customers. I have never been more relieved to have a haircut than I was on Tuesday night, when finally the barber’s clippers went snip, snip, snip and a degree of respectability was restored. This week, shops, hairdressers, nail salons—I am a less regular visitor to nail salons, I must confess—outdoor attractions and pubs and restaurants outdoors can open once again, which is good news for those operating in those sectors.

At the Budget, the Chancellor announced new restart grants worth up to £18,000, which will help more than 680,000 eligible businesses, including those in the personal care sector, to get going again. On top of the grants that closed businesses have received since January, businesses could receive up to £36,000 in grants this year. To support those that are not eligible for these grants, taxpayers are giving councils in England an additional £425 million of discretionary business grant funding, on top of the £1.6 billion they have already received. Nobody could say that this amount of money is a snip.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I cannot tell you how relieved I was to get to the hairdresser’s on Monday morning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful, as always, to my hon. Friend. I am pleased to hear the good news from Wakefield on the return to a degree of normality, but I am sorry to hear that the pubs are only at 43.9% of pre-pandemic levels—my hon. Friend clearly has a lot of drinking to do to help get Wakefield back up to average.

There has been a good deal of Government support—taxpayer support: £5 billion for the new restart grants, which include pubs, and the business rates holiday, which includes pubs, and there is a total cost of cash grants to the taxpayer of £25 billion. Ultimately, though, this is up to all of us. If we want to save our pubs, we have to go into them. That does not mean that we have to drink yards of ale, though some may choose to, but we want to go in and have something to eat—I believe scotch eggs are popular in certain quarters—and to buy our children a Coca-cola or a lemonade.

We need to support our own pub industry if it is to survive, and we should lead by example. Perhaps, when times allow, we should have political functions in pub rooms—[Interruption.] The shadow Leader of the House wants to go on a pub crawl. Mr Deputy Speaker, I can think of no finer companion for her than you—you could take her round the finest pubs of both your constituencies and get Britain’s pubs back into liquidity.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I have been accused of many things over the past 29 years as a Member of Parliament, but not doing my bit to help the pub has not been one of them. I look forward to joining the right hon. Lady on visits to whatever hostelries she might wish to go to.

I thank the Leader of the House for making his statement and responding to 30 questions in over one hour.

Business of the House

Debate between Nigel Evans and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 12th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I would like to reiterate the points made in the letter sent by my right hon. Friend the Culture Secretary to museums recently that they are not political campaigning institutions and they should not be intruding into today’s politics. But

“Some talk of Alexander, and some of Hercules,

Of Hector and Lysander, and such great men as these

But of all the world’s brave heroes, there’s none that can compare

With”—

Boadicea, Alfred the Great, Richard the Lionheart, the Black Prince, Henry V, Francis Drake, Prince Rupert, Marlborough, Wolfe, Nelson, Moore, Wellington, Gordon and Montgomery, among others. These are great heroes and we should celebrate them, and I have not even mentioned—but I will now—Caractacus. Caractacus so impressed the Romans that, when they took him to Rome in chains, they freed him because they thought he was a fine and noble warrior. We should be proud of our history, and proud of Caractacus.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Sir John, you were on personal terms with a lot of those people, weren’t you? [Laughter.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is always dangerous for any Leader of the House to trespass on matters relating to decisions that will be made by the Treasury. The Treasury will make its decisions and announce them in the fullness of time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I should like to thank the Leader of the House for his statement. Before the next ministerial statement, on Her Majesty the Queen’s platinum jubilee, we will have a three-minute suspension to enable the safe departure and arrival of Members of Parliament.

Business of the House

Debate between Nigel Evans and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Monday 2nd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have to have a fully functioning legislature. We have to be here to do that. Without being here, business simply was not getting through. We have the important date of 31 December by which time legislation to end the transition period has to be through. We have the very important coronavirus regulations to pass as well, and they need to be discussed and debated on the Floor of the House. The idea that this can be done properly in an absentee landlord way is absurd.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We have a comms issue with Debbie Abrahams that we hope to rectify before the end of the business question, so we go straight on to Marco Longhi.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comments. I think the question really is that we are dealing with a changing situation and changing facts, and therefore government has to be flexible in its response. He may be suggesting rather inflexible ways of managing the response to the crisis, which, of necessity, needs to have flexibility and adaptability at its heart.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Let us hope this works—by video link, Debbie Abrahams.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend said that he listened to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I think that is the greatest reassurance that any of us on the Conservative Benches can have. There has not been a more freedom-loving Prime Minister of this nation in decades, if not in over a century. The most freedom-loving Prime Minister we could think of having has come to this very difficult decision. Against the Opposition’s siren calls to close us down ages ago, he did it when he was convinced that that was what had to happen. He did not want to take away our liberties and our freedoms, and he did so after proper deliberation and consultation and, as he said in his statement, with a heavy heart. That should give my freedom-loving friends on the Government side of the House and across the House the confidence that the Prime Minister has made the right decision on the best information, which I am sure will be published according to the schedule that he will set out.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Leader of the House for his statement.

Business of the House

Debate between Nigel Evans and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Monday 12th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We now have a business statement on which I will call only the shadow Leader of the House and the SNP spokesman to ask questions.

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

With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement.

Further to the earlier statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, tomorrow’s business will now be:

Consideration of a business of the House motion after which the House will be asked to approve the following regulations: The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Local Covid-19 Alert Level) (Medium) (England) Regulations 2020; The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Local Covid-19 Alert Level) (High) (England) Regulations 2020; The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Local Covid-19 Alert Level) (Very High) (England) Regulations 2020; The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Collection of Contact Details etc and Related Requirements) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1005); The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Obligations of Hospitality Undertakings) (England) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1008); The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Obligations of Undertakings) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1046); and The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1029).

At the conclusion of proceedings on these regulations, the House will proceed to remaining stages of the Fisheries Bill [Lords]. The business for Wednesday and Thursday remains unchanged from that previously announced. I shall make a further statement announcing future business on Thursday.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The devolved authorities and Her Majesty’s Government are working closely together, and I think that is important. It is right that EVEL has been suspended during the time of this pandemic, in the way that we are currently sitting, to ensure that things are passed through this House without requiring the extra complication of the EVEL Standing Orders. I would say with regard to remote voting that the hon. Gentleman has 36 votes his back pocket, and I think he might have had 37 had it not been for a rather unfortunate resignation—least said, soonest mended.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Thank you for the business statement. As Members know, normally, the call list or the ability to get on the call list for tomorrow would have already closed. That would be pretty useless for Members, seeing as they did not know what the business for tomorrow was going to be, so the Speaker’s Office has announced that the call list will remain open today until 9 pm in order for Members to be able to get on the call list for tomorrow.

Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 4 June)

Business of the House

Debate between Nigel Evans and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 1st October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I have a nasty feeling that when my hon. Friend says “incompetent Lib Dem-run council”, he is guilty of a tautology. I have not yet come across a competently run Lib Dem council. Supporting local authorities to create sufficient school places is one of the Government’s absolute priorities. [Interruption.] I am sorry. I hope I have not upset the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). We share a local authority and I do not want to be too mean about it.

I sympathise with my hon. Friend. I am sure many Conservative MPs share his pain in dealing with Lib Dem-run local authorities and their flawed approach to planning in education. We provide funding for all the places that are needed based on local authorities’ own data on pupil forecasts. This is why we have announced nearly £750 million to provide places needed for 2022. The Government’s pupil places planning advisers will work alongside councils to provide support for any local authority that fails to provide sufficient school places. We announced that Sutton local authority will receive £16.2 million to provide new school places for 2022, taking its total funding between 2011 and 2022 to £141.8 million.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

By video link, my former university lecturer, Barry Sheerman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are offering huge support for rural broadband, including £5 billion of taxpayers’ money committed to fund gigabyte-capable broadband in the UK’s hardest-to-reach areas, on top of £1.9 billion spent on the Building Digital UK superfast programme to ensure that more than 96% of premises have access to superfast broadband. She is absolutely right that reliable broadband is a necessity for households and businesses; representing a rural constituency myself, I know what a difference it makes to the opportunities for businesses.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We are now going to the place where I was educated by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman)—Swansea West.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

We should take, as I have said before, pride in:

“This royal throne of Kings, this sceptred island,

This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,

This other Eden, demi-paradise,

This fortress built by Nature for herself

Against infection and the hand of war,

This happy breed of men, this little world,

This precious stone set in the silver sea,

Which serves it in the office of a wall,

Or as a moat defensive to a house,

Against the envy of less happier lands,

This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.”

Had William Shakespeare lived in a later day, he would have said, “this United Kingdom”, because that is what we should take pride in, and, no, we should most certainly not be overwhelmed by wokeism. Members may wonder why I read that quotation today. Well, it is National Poetry Day, so I thought it only appropriate that we have a proper quotation and that we stand up for our great nation.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I hope this is going out on Sky Arts. Wonderful, isn’t it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

This is an example, is it not, of what goes wrong when the hard left are in charge? [Interruption.] I would not accuse the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) of being from the hard left—not today, at any rate. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter. The homelessness legislation guidance sets out that in the first instance local authorities should try to place homeless households within their own area, and when this is not possible they should place them as near as possible to the original local authority area. We are clear that local authorities should, as far as possible, avoid placing households outside their borough. We are aware that, on occasion, in some areas where there is a limited supply of suitable accommodation, it is necessary to place households in temporary accommodation outside the local area, but this should be a last resort. If a local authority places a household in accommodation in another local authority area, it is required to notify that local authority of any placement. My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue and to put pressure on the relevant local council to do better.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Leader of the House for his statement and all those who have participated today. In order that we can have a safe exit and the safe arrival of Members for the next statement, I am suspending the sitting for three minutes.

Proxy Voting

Debate between Nigel Evans and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Wednesday 23rd September 2020 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

(1) That:

(a) the Resolution of 28 January 2019 (Proxy Voting (Implementation)), as amended on 16 January and 20 July 2020,

(b) the Resolution of 4 June 2020 (Proxy Voting (Extension)), as amended on 10 June 2020, be rescinded.

(2) That the following Standing Order be made:

VOTING BY PROXY

(1) A Member eligible under paragraph (2) may arrange for their vote to be cast by one other Member acting as a proxy (a proxy vote) under a scheme drawn up by the Speaker in accordance with this order and published by him.

(2) A Member is eligible for a proxy vote by reason of absence from the precincts of the House for childbirth or care of an infant or newly adopted child, subject to the conditions set out in the scheme published under paragraph (1) of this order.

(3) A proxy vote may be cast:

(a) in any division, including a deferred division, in the House, in Committee of the whole House, or in any legislative grand committee, save as provided in paragraph (4) below; and

(b) in a ballot cast in an election under Standing Order No. 1B (Election of Speaker by secret ballot), Standing Order No. 2A (Election of the Deputy Speakers), Standing Order No. 122B (Election of select committee chairs) and Standing Order No. 122D (Election of Chair of the Backbench Business Committee).

(4) No proxy vote shall be reckoned in the numbers participating in a division for the purposes of (a) Standing Order No. 41(1) (Quorum), and (b) Standing Order No. 37 (Majority for closure or for proposal of question).

(5) (a) A proxy vote may be cast only if the Speaker has certified that the Member for whom the vote is to be cast is eligible under the terms of this order.

(b) The Speaker shall cause that certificate, including the name of the Member nominated as a proxy, to be entered in the Votes and Proceedings no later than the sitting day on which it takes effect.

(6) A vote cast by a proxy shall be clearly indicated as such in the division lists published under the authority of the House.

(7) A Member is also eligible for a proxy vote by reason of absence from the precincts of the House in circumstances where there have been complications relating to childbirth; and the Speaker may make appropriate provision for the exercise of a proxy vote in such circumstances in the scheme drawn up under paragraph (1) above.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to consider motion No. 7, on proxy voting during the pandemic:

That the following amendments be made to the Standing Order (Voting by Proxy) and have effect until 3 November 2020:

(1) In paragraph (2) after “child” insert “, or for medical or public health reasons related to the pandemic”.

(2) After paragraph (5) insert –

(5A) The Speaker may certify that a Member’s eligibility for a proxy vote for medical or public health reasons related to the pandemic should take effect before the certificate is published in the Votes and Proceedings, or that a certificate already granted should be varied, if satisfied there are urgent and unforeseeable circumstances to justify this.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

At the outset, may I put on the record my gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) and the Procedure Committee for the Committee’s review of the pilot arrangements for proxy voting and their recommendations, which have formed the basis for the motions before us today? I am pleased that we have been now able to bring forward proposals to implement a permanent scheme for parental proxy voting. This is an important step in ensuring that we do all we can to support new parents in the House, in a measure that more broadly reflects the approaches to maternity and paternity leave seen across the country.

As well as being an important step, it is an historic one for the way that the House operates. Together we take decisions on vital matters of state, sometimes affecting questions of life and death. The results of Divisions in this House change people’s lives across the country. So the legitimacy of the system by which Members vote must be above reproach. Any reform of voting procedure is something that we need to get right in order to ensure that we maintain the full confidence of our constituents. That is why it was important to pilot these measures properly, as well as to review their operation.

I wish to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) who, when Leader of the House, introduced the pilot scheme. The Procedure Committee, both in the last Parliament and in this, has played a key role to get us to this point. The pilot proxy voting arrangements for parental leave have now been in place for nearly 20 months. As the Committee has reported, proxy voting has worked well for Members who are new mothers and fathers, allowing them to continue to serve their constituents while also dealing with their familial obligations.

We are therefore in the happy position of being able to make such a fundamental change to our voting procedures. We are confident that it will work, and work well. I hope that the whole House will support the Procedure Committee’s recommendations to make a permanent change to Standing Orders to reflect the success of this scheme.

Let me now turn to arrangements for proxy voting that have been put in place during the pandemic. Early in June 2020, the Government brought forward a motion to extend the scope of proxy voting to allow Members unable to attend Westminster for medical or public health reasons related to the coronavirus pandemic to vote by proxy.

Business of the House

Debate between Nigel Evans and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 16th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Things are reopening in a staged way to try to ensure that it can be done in a way that does not take any unnecessary risks. We see that across the country. My hon. Friend is right to say that there is more to be done, but I am sure that announcements will be made in the normal way as more things open up.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Leader of the House. The House is suspended.

Business of the House

Debate between Nigel Evans and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 9th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I cannot understand why the Adonis of Cleethorpes could possibly need to visit a beauty salon. Indeed, the people of Cleethorpes are renowned for their beauty across the nation. [Interruption.] Of course, except Somerset. The beauty sector is an important one, and it holds a key to our communities’ economic recovery. I understand the anxiety of those who own or work in such establishments and commend their keenness to return to work. My hon. Friend will be aware that non-essential retail can open, provided that they have been made covid-secure. Pubs, restaurants and hairdressers, as well as museums and places of worship, are now able to reopen, provided they are covid-secure. Our hope is to reopen gyms and leisure facilities in mid-July. Other close-contact services and tattoo and nail parlours will follow as soon as possible. The Government have been clear that they want to reopen the economy carefully and gradually, which is why some businesses that involve less sustained contact between people have opened before others.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I shall be heading to the gym next week, by the sounds of it, rather than the beauty salon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Freedom of speech is fundamental to how our society operates. Democracy, the rule of law, freedom of speech and the rights of property are the four pillars on which our constitution is built—a constitution that has thrived through the centuries. If we take away freedom of speech, we undermine all the other pillars that have supported our constitution.

It is a requirement in state-funded schools to teach a broad and balanced curriculum that promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils at schools, and that must be done in a way that encourages freedom of speech. The key to that is that we all have to accept the right of people to express views not only that we do not like but that, on occasions, we even find offensive. If we accept only views that we like and find unchallenging, there is no freedom of speech.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

There are 16 Members still trying to catch my eye. I would like to get you all in, but succinct questions and answers, please.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend makes an extremely good and important point. As a motorist, there is nothing more frustrating than when one sees a bus lane that is meant to be in operation and one has not seen a bus go down it for weeks, let alone that day. It is important that bus lanes are put in the right places and that the interests of motorists and communities are not overlooked.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Leader of the House for his statement. Before we move on, the House is suspended for three minutes.

House Business during the Pandemic

Debate between Nigel Evans and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Monday 8th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I reiterate the point that a debate is about interventions. It is how we test the argument of the Government.

Members of Parliament are no different from others who are unable to perform their jobs fully from home and are now returning to their workplaces. I understand that many Members will feel concerned about their particular circumstances, but they can be reassured by the significant changes made to make the parliamentary estate covid-19-secure. It is clear to anyone in Westminster that, while we have emerged from the initial stage of lockdown, we are by no means back to normal. That is why I made it clear before the Whitsun recess that I would work with the House authorities to explore ways in which those unable to come here can continue to contribute.

I have every sympathy with Members who feel that the constraints of the pandemic prevent them from being able to attend in Westminster. The work of scrutiny is so important that it is right that we have brought forward a motion to allow those affected to have their say during scrutiny proceedings, but I remain conscious of how important it is that Members who participate in the decision-making process of the House ought and need to do so in person. As we saw last week, the decision on whether to vote Aye or No is a public one, for which individual Members can often find themselves held to account. It is a decision that should only ever be taken after the kind of serious consideration and engagement which is only possible when all those concerned are in Westminster. By the time Members are asked to vote, Ministers want to have had the chance to talk through fully any specific concerns of individuals or groups. That remains my strong view.

I am grateful to the Procedure Committee for its willingness to support the Government’s desire to extend proxy voting. Last week, the House unanimously agreed to make this available to Members who are unable to attend at Westminster because they are at high risk from coronavirus because they are either clinically extremely vulnerable or clinically vulnerable. In making judgments of this kind, I have sought to balance the competing priorities of this place in a way that looks at Parliament as a whole. As I have maintained throughout, the Government are listening to Members across the House. I am—I hope this will please the hon. Member for Rhondda and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland—giving thought to bringing forward a motion that extends proxy voting beyond what has already been agreed by the House, to include Members who are more widely affected by the pandemic.

Parliament must send a clear message to the country: we are getting on with our work as best we can during a period of great challenge, just like everyone else. That is the spirit in which I encourage all Members to view our proceedings during the pandemic. We recognise that there are difficulties, but we are showing leadership to the nation in persisting in our purpose. We are doing our duty in leading the way. Our constituents will not entertain the notion that we should ask parents to send their children back to school while we choose to remain at home.

Fortunately, that is not our approach. Rather than suffering the depredations of the muted hybrid Parliament, we are once again talking to each other in ways that were impossible when we were scattered to the four winds. Rather than wading through the treacle of the hybrid proceedings, which even the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said were far from perfect, we are once again fleet of foot and dancing a legislative quickstep.

I have enjoyed the formalised interventions in this speech just as much as I enjoy the informal interventions of Members putting their socially distanced heads around my door. Rather like the school swot secretly delighted by extra homework, I must confess that my appetite for the opportunity of today’s debate is very great, even though some may think—and some of my hon. Friends have indicated that they do think—that talking about ourselves under the current circumstances is a little self-indulgent. For there is more to our democracy than general elections. Between polling days, it is in Parliament where the interplay between Ministers and MPs comes alive. I am delighted that that interplay, as we see today, is being restored, allowing our Parliament to scrutinise legislation properly and to get on with its core business of delivering for the British people.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before I call Valerie Vaz, may I say that there are a lot of people who wish to participate in this debate? I ask people to perhaps temper interventions and take some of the heat out of the debate.

Business of the House

Debate between Nigel Evans and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 4th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Of course nanny is part of the household. What a daft question. But I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that the Government are working with industry representatives to develop safe ways for some industries, such as hairdressers, to reopen at the earliest point. I think many of us will feel there is a burden lifted from our shoulders when the hairdressers are reopened.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Sadly, Leader of the House, not all of us have a nanny.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady so overstates that she undervalues. What she has said is so overcooked and exaggerated: we poor Members, we could not queue for a little time to do our public duty. How hard was it? It was very amusing reading in The Times how some Members were quite incapable of walking in the right direction, though I think that more their problem than mine.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I inform the House that I intend to move on to the next business immediately, and then we will have a five-minute break before the following business.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 16th April 2013 Commons Chamber

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This group of amendments also includes the first statutory regulation of the press since the late 17th century. For the House of Commons to be unable to vote specifically on such a major constitutional issue seems to me to deny our constituents their right to maintain freedom of speech in the country at large, and I hope that you will find some procedure—and the Clerks, in their wisdom, will find some precedent from the early days of Parliament—so that we may vote on this motion.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the hon. Members for the point of order, but if you do not know of a precedent, Mr Rees-Mogg, it is probably not worth knowing. I am a servant of the House and I am directed by Standing Order No. 83F(6) to put a single question on all remaining Lords amendments once those to which a Minister has indicated an intention to disagree have been disposed of. Hon. Members may of course vote against that question, which will be to agree to several Lords amendments, including those to which they have drawn attention this evening.

Lords amendments 1 to 34, 39 and 41 to 120 agreed to, with Queen’s Consent signified to amendment 71 and Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 64 to 66 and 104.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments ;

That Stephen Crabb, Ian Murray, Jo Swinson, Mr Iain Wright and Paul Uppal be members of the Committee;

That Jo Swinson be the Chair of the Committee;

That three be the quorum of the Committee.

That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Mr Swayne.)

Question agreed to.

Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Defamation Bill (Programme) (No.2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Defamation Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 12 June 2012 (Defamation Bill (Programme)):

Consideration of Lords Amendments

1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement at today’s sitting.

Subsequent stages

2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

3. The 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. —(Mr Swayne.)

Question agreed to.

Immigration Rules: Sponsors

Debate between Nigel Evans and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 14th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Some people may interpret what is going on now as being a waste of time, but certainly not the Chair. I am absolutely certain that clarifications on the rules of procedure will be made. The Question could have been put before the moment of interruption, for instance at 5.29, which, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, has happened in the past. I think that the last time it happened was in the 1970s. On this occasion, we have clearly gone past the moment of interruption and, therefore, the Question will not be posed.

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. If the Question that this House do now adjourn cannot be put, how can we decide whether the House is to adjourn or not? Surely if we have missed the opportunity for putting that Question, we need to carry on sitting.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Thank you, Mr Rees-Mogg, for that point of order. We are past the moment of interruption. Had the Minister carried on speaking until half past 5, I would have just stood up and not put the Question.

Succession to the Crown Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Monday 28th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

If my amendments were not within the scope, Mr Speaker would surely not have selected them.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

That is absolutely correct. That clarification was right; the amendments are within the scope of the Bill.

Bank of England (Appointment of Governor) Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Friday 6th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I do not think I really need to comment on the hon. Gentleman’s statement.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is completely proper parliamentary procedure. Otherwise, you and your predecessors in the Chair would have ruled it out of order. It is absolutely proper that things are debated and it is up to Members to decide whether to be here or in their constituencies on any day of the week. It is quite wrong to criticise Members for debating things fully; that is what we are here for.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to you, Mr Rees-Mogg, for doing my job and responding to the point of order that I had decided not to respond to.

Business without Debate

Debate between Nigel Evans and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 21st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

There may be Divisions, but they would be deferred.

Estimates

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 145),

That this House agrees with the Report [8 February] of the Liaison Committee.—(Mr Heath.)

Question agreed to.

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would be grateful if you would help the House with the Speaker’s ruling relating to the question of whether this next private Bill affects a public Bill and whether, in accordance with the precedents of the Bill dealing with the Piece Hall in Halifax in 1983-84, because of that clash with a public Bill it ought to be ruled invalid, as Speakers have previously ruled in former times.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Mr Rees-Mogg, you have a copy of a letter from the Speaker dated 17 February 2012, which goes into detail in response to the question that you have raised. You are an intelligent chap, and I am sure that you fully understand it.

London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]

Debate between Nigel Evans and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 21st February 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, amendment 22, to leave out clause 9.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this we are taking amendments 23, 24, 61, 41, 63, 25 to 27, 64, 28, 42, P1, 29, 30, 43, 66, 67, 44, 45, 69 to 74, 31, 75, 46, 47, 32, 48, 49, P2, 33, 60, 51, 76, 52 to 54, 77 to 82, 55, 34, 56 to 58 and P40.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Clause 9 makes further provision about street trading in relation to the sale of vehicles over the internet. Under the existing street trading legislation in London, street trading is defined, broadly speaking, as the selling, or the exposure or offer for sale, of any article, and the supplying of, or offering to supply, any service in a street for gain or reward, whether or not the gain or reward accrues to the person actually carrying out the trade. It is unclear whether the sale of motor vehicles on the internet when the vehicle is kept on the highway is covered by that definition, but clause 9 will ensure that it is. That is my answer to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer).

It was an important and relevant intervention, because my concern has been about the criminalising of people who put their car outside their front door with a little label on it saying “For sale”, and of those who do not even put a little label on it but just list it on the internet and say that it is for sale and that it can be found outside No. 22 Acacia avenue. Some bossy bureaucrat may come round and say, “This is absolutely outrageous. You are not allowed to sell your car outside No. 22 Acacia avenue because that is a residential street, so we are fining you and we are going to put all sorts of fierce penalties on you.” That is why I added my name to amendment 22, which proposes to abolish the whole of clause 9—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. One moment, Mr Rees-Mogg. As Mr Chope is still in his place, may I say, in response to his point of order a few minutes ago, that I have looked again at motions 11 and 12, and I wish to make it absolutely clear that if either of those motions is objected to after 10 pm, it could not be taken—there would be no deferred Division. I would like to clarify that for the record.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

As I was saying, I added my name to amendment 22, which seeks to remove clause 9, because that clause is a rather vicious clause. It is an unattractive and cruel clause, which attacks people who may simply be making an honest effort to earn their living. Broadly speaking, Conservatives are in favour of people earning their living; we think it is a good thing that people should earn an honest crust. We are not in favour of the something-for-nothing society—we think that that is a bad idea—and we believe in the historic liberties of the British subject. We believe in the freedom to have all sorts of things, not only trial by jury but that great historic freedom, which has built up over 100 years, to sell one’s car outside one’s front door by putting a little notice on it.

The marvellous technology that we have and the incredible electronics at our fingertips allow us to use little things in our pockets to sell our motor cars outside our front door, whether we live at No. 22 Acacia avenue or, for that matter, at No. 23, No. 24 or No. 25 Acacia avenue. Wherever we live in Acacia avenue or in other similarly named streets—Laburnum drive comes to find, as one of these very good addresses—if we want to sell our car via the internet we clearly ought to be allowed to do so. It seems to me to be tremendously important that amendment 22 should be carried by this House to remove a pernicious little clause.

London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]

Debate between Nigel Evans and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Wednesday 25th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I beg to move amendment 22, to leave out clause 9.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to take amendments 23, 24, 41, 25 to 28, 42, P1, 29, 30, 43 to 45, 31, 46, 47, 32, 48, 49, P2, 33, 60, 51 to 55, 34, 56 to 58 and P40.

Daylight Saving Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Friday 20th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will you rule on whether the word—if I may utter it myself—“flipping” is parliamentary?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Do you know, I think that that word is on the cusp—a bit. It offended me, a little, but I must say that in the heat of the moment I have heard a lot worse in this place.

Sovereign Grant Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 14th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

On a point of order, Mr Evans. I wonder whether you would rule on the correct way of referring to Their Royal Highnesses the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I think that respect for members of the royal family is warranted and it would therefore be appropriate to show proper respect in referring to them in the House.

Sustainable Livestock Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Friday 12th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I will bring the hon. Lady’s comments to the attention of Mr Speaker on Monday morning. I know how frustrating a private Members’ day can be when you have the second, third or fourth Bill to be presented; I am a veteran of Friday mornings and I have been fortunate enough to have had several private Members’ Bills, one of which had fair wind from the Government and sailed through. The others did not, so I know how frustrated she might be. The procedures we are following are set down in Standing Orders and, as I say, I will bring her comments to the attention of Mr Speaker on Monday morning. Before Mr Rees-Mogg resumes his speech, may I say that I hope he will confine his comments to the Bill and there will be no further repetitions of the poetry, as interesting as it was?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would not, of course, wish to repeat the poem, but I think it reminds us of the importance of supporting farmers. As I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), who made a quite brilliant speech, our countryside was made by God and the farmer; it was not made by bureaucrats in Westminster or in Whitehall. It would be sad to see in this Bill the final triumph of bureaucracy—of the view that the man in Whitehall really knows best—with a range of things covering farming and agriculture to be decided by one person in Whitehall, rather than by the multifarious decisions of farmers across the world and, in particular, in our own country.

Let us examine every detail, clause and part of this Bill to see what it really means. When we do that, we find that it divides neatly into two parts; there are two clear options for us to examine. The Bill could be re-titled “Sustainable Livestock (Motherhood and Apple Pie) Bill”, a Bill that everybody agrees with and thinks is wonderful. However, that raises a question of parliamentary procedure. Is it right for us to pass laws that do not actually do anything specific, but just talk vaguely about how nice the world could and should be, if only we all clubbed together, rallied round and jollied along?

I have great doubts about the seriousness of the Bill as a proposition. We could go back to motherhood and apple pie: I imagine that apple pie would be the responsibility of DEFRA, because it is food, and that motherhood would be covered by the Secretary of State with responsibility for welfare, but this is not how laws ought to be made. They should deal with specifics and detail and should have causes and consequences; otherwise we get the vagueness, vagary and randomness of our laws being decided in the courts. If the Bill is merely aspirational, we should not be debating it at all and the issue should come before the House not in this format but in a general debate.

Of course, I want the rainforests to flourish, of course I want farming to be sustainable and of course I want people to eat British meat. If they have any sense they will buy their meat from Somerset, which is well-known for providing the best and most glorious cuts of meat in the world. Some people like Kobe beef, but I think it rather fatty and that one can get better beef from Somerset. That is the answer to most of our food problems. I want my eggs from Somerset too. There is an egg factory, or poultry plant, near Keynsham in Burnett—a wonderful place that I have visited. It is a small family operation that is committed to the highest standards of food production, but does that mean there should be a law that my friend from Ulster, the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), should eat only Somerset eggs? He might think that a great imposition on him and his fellow Ulstermen, and we know what Ulster says when it does not want to do something—usually, no.

We do not want this kind of legislation. We are talking about public procurement of livestock produce. Is that just an aspiration? If so, it is probably one that the Government have anyway. If clause 1(2)(a) is aspirational, it is pointless because that is already the Government’s hope and aim. Clause 1(2) would place a duty on the Secretary of State in relation to sustainable livestock and

“providing appropriate public information and food labelling”.

I do not see a connection between the sustainability of livestock and the suitability of labelling, as they are different things. We are all in favour of honest labelling. We have heard terrible scare stories about chickens being injected with water and salt, which sounds a pretty ghastly combination. I can tell hon. Members that that does not happen to Somerset chickens. Of course, such food should be labelled as chicken, salt and water rather than just as chicken, but that is a matter for the Government to deal with through other means and regulations, not through a vague responsibility for the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Clause 1(2) also addresses “sustainable livestock practices” research, but where will the money come from? We have sat in the House and listened to erudite speeches on both sides about how we should cut expenditure and raise taxes and how to afford the enormous Budget deficit that we have been left by our socialist friends. The deficit will not be magicked away, abracadabra-style, by passing more costs on to Secretaries of State. We must be responsible about what we wish for, how we go about getting it and the costs we wish to impose.

Food waste has been addressed in a wonderful discussion about pigs and what they might decide to eat. I had hoped that someone might mention the Empress of Blandings, the only pig in history to win the silver medal at the Shropshire show for three successive years. It ate a vast quantity of potatoes every day and was more than happy to eat waste food. If we are not careful, however, we will risk reintroducing problems such as foot and mouth disease, which cost the country, the taxpayer and Her Majesty’s Government billions of pounds to put right. There has to be a sensible balance when it comes to dealing with food waste.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Sustainable methods of dealing with food waste conjures up all sorts of nasty thoughts. In the 19th century, there were people who went round collecting what was politely described as night soil. It was then taken to farms and used as a fertiliser. Night soil was replaced by guano, which is the same thing, really, but from seagulls. It made a great deal of money for one particular family, who live in North Somerset, rather than North East Somerset. My hon. Friend is right to conjure up thoughts and horrors about what might be done in the recycling of food. We do not want to go back to the days of people collecting night soil. Mr Bazalgette and the sewage system that was installed in the 19th century are more capable of dealing with some waste products than the means perhaps suggested in the Bill are.

As for

“changing the subsidies available to and support for farmers”,

I come back to my question: is the Bill a sort of parliamentary wallpaper—a wish-list of what we want—or serious business? I doubt that there is an hon. Member, an hon. Friend, a right hon. Member, a right hon. Friend or an hon. and gallant Member who does not want some reform of the common agricultural policy and a change to the subsidy system that seems to make it cheap for the French to produce food but comes down on our farmers like a ton of bricks. There is a uniform view that that should happen, but there is one grand obstacle. There is entente cordiale, as long as it is not about agriculture. As soon as it is about agriculture, we are back to Agincourt and Crécy. I will not go on about Agincourt and Crécy because, although I know that those two battles are particular favourites of yours, Mr Deputy Speaker, I feel that they are not immediately pertinent to the Bill, but the behaviour of the French in matters of agriculture is. If we think of the French, we need only think of the riots that we had the other day; French students do that day in, day out.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. We are now going very wide of the Bill. Would the hon. Gentleman bring his comments back to the contents of the Bill?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I was talking about subsidies and how we cannot do what the Bill says because the French will not let us. They will take to the streets if we try to attack subsidies across the European spectrum. People in this country—Ministers and even Prime Ministers, with all the authority that Prime Ministers have—have not been able to wean the French off their subsidies. We may share a Navy with them, but we find it difficult to share subsidies so easily.

The Minister will also have a duty to look at

“the effectiveness of existing programmes”.

If he is not already looking at their effectiveness, he is an idler and should not be in his job. I know that the Minister is far from being an idler; he is well known for being one of the most assiduous Ministers in Her Majesty’s Government, and he is the friend of the farmers. He will, therefore, be doing that already, so we are back to a grand and jolly wish-list of nice-to-do things.

Let us review subsections (1) and (2) of clause 1, headed “Duties of the Secretary of State”, as if they were not a wish list, because that is the frightening alternative. If we are talking about measures that are grand and good and fine and dandy, this should not be a Bill, but if it is real and costed and expensive and a burden on farmers, we should oppose it as a Bill, because it would be ruinous for our agriculture.

Our farmers have had a terribly difficult time in recent years. The subsidy system has changed, and they have been hit by various disasters—none of them the fault of Governments, particularly, but disasters none the less. Tuberculosis in cattle has devastated dairy farming in North East Somerset. Where there used to be field after field of cattle, they have gone. The farmers have gone out of business. Where there were 10 dairy farmers, there is now one, or, if we are lucky, two. That is partly TB, partly foot and mouth, partly milk quotas and partly regulation.

Are we now to say to the few farmers who have continued—who have striven and worked hard—that all their effort is in vain because though they were scourged with whips before, now they will be scourged with scorpions? Perhaps the Bill should be renamed the Scorpions Bill for that purpose. If it is serious in its purpose and purport, it would be very bad for our farmers. It would place extra rules on them, and would make their practices subject to a higher standard of rules than applies to others.

I have already mentioned the chicken farmer in North East Somerset, in Burnett, and that fine family who attend to their chickens there. They are out-competed, day in, day out, by Thai production. Hon. Members may think that Thai eggs are not really what they want. They may feel that Thai chicken is not their cup of tea. It is not mine, certainly; it tends to be a bit spicy. We do not want to place further regulations on farmers in North East Somerset, Ulster, Scotland, Wales or the whole of the rest of England, or even Gloucestershire. We do not want to attach regulations to our farmers that will put them out of business. That would do nothing but help foreign farmers, particularly our European friends and sometimes allies.

Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 26th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. This is going rather wide of the mark and now may be an appropriate time to remind colleagues that we have the wind-ups at 9.40 pm. I would be grateful if Mr Rees-Mogg could show some restraint, as well as everybody else that follows.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I would have finished by now, but I have taken a number of interventions, which it is a privilege to do. [Interruption.] It is a privilege, because the interventions are very interesting and they allow us to get to the nub of this difficult matter. Of course it is not popular to take something away. Of course it is easy to stand up raging about £190 being taken away from women who are about to be pushing prams. Of course the decision to take £250 away from their children is a hard one, but it is right, because the country cannot afford this. If the economy is to grow, we must have sound public finances. If that happens and if people can keep their own money, rather than have it taken from one pocket by the Government to be put into another pocket by another Department of the same Government, we can get economic growth and we can see what we saw in the 1980s, when the economy boomed, individuals got increasingly prosperous and Britain was back among the top world nations. That is what I want to see, that is what the Government are doing and that is why I am thrilled to be supporting the Bill.

Lawful Industrial Action (Minor Errors) Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Friday 22nd October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. My education is furthered every time I listen to you, Mr Rees-Mogg. I am more of an expert now on Cromwell, Cicero and a lot of other great historical figures, but I was wondering whether there was any vague possibility of addressing the Bill before the House today.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Mr Deputy Speaker, I was referring to the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington and following up on those, as I now wish to follow up on the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall). His speech was in a fine tradition of the House. In the 19th century, speeches of two and a half hours were common. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) was here for the Don Pacifico debate—[Interruption.] I am pleased to hear it. The great Palmerston spoke for two and a half hours in that debate, and I feel that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North is becoming Palmerstonian in his approach to the House.

It is important that our procedures are respected and that they operate fairly and properly. Part of that procedure is that if 100 do not go through the Division Lobby to support a closure motion, there can be no closure. That is perfectly justifiable, and it ought not to be brushed away by some airy-fairy talk of new politics.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Monday 11th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Ms Eagle]

I was just about to do so, Mr Deputy Speaker, but suffice it to say that Kitchener’s Army became a tragic symbol of a lost generation, pointlessly sacrificed because of the idiocy of those in charge. Perhaps, whether he realises it or not, the Prime Minister was on to something with his choice of exhortation.

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

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way and add my congratulations on her elevation. It will be a great privilege to listen to more of her speeches, I hope often on Kitchener. I fear that she has maligned the late noble Lord Kitchener of Khartoum, the rescuer of what remained of Gordon’s body from Khartoum. Perhaps most relevantly, the death rates in the camps established in South Africa were exactly the same as—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. This would be a fascinating debate at another time and, perhaps, in another place.

Finance Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

It is very much up to hon. Members whether to take any interventions or a number of interventions, but what I have heard from the hon. Lady tells me that she is going to take no interventions during her speech.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady said that she was not taking any interventions because the debate had to finish in an hour. The Order Paper, however, says the debate may continue until any hour. Can you explain to a new Member which is correct, Mr Deputy Speaker?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Funnily enough, I was waiting for that point of order to be made earlier. The Order Paper is always correct, and this debate could indeed go on until any time.