Risk-based Exclusion

Nigel Mills Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant). I think that I agree with most of what he said.

There is an old joke about asking directions where the answer is, “Don’t start from here.” Given a fair choice, I would not start with the motion in front of us, but I do support the idea that the House should be able to exclude somebody who has been accused of or charged with a serious offence. That is in the interests of the safety of the people who work here and visit here and of the reputation of the House, so I think I support the principle.

However, there are various issues with the actual motion we have in front of us. It appears to have been written for a process that should have applied when someone has been accused of something or arrested for something, but has ended up being applied when someone has actually been charged with something. If we were starting from scratch and saying, “What should we do if a Member is charged with a violent or sexual offence?” I am not sure we would come up with the process that we have here.

That was the logic of the amendments that I have tabled, which seek to say that if somebody has actually been charged in that situation, they should just be excluded until that process has been resolved either by the charges being dropped, or by them being acquitted or convicted. It is hard to see, based on the experience we have had of people choosing to self-exclude, that the panel would ever meet and choose not to exclude somebody who had been charged—that seems extraordinarily unlikely. So what is the advantage of having the panel in that situation? It would only add in some level of discretion and some risk that what is reported in public is that the House thinks this person has been charged with something so serious they have to be excluded, but that somehow we do not think this person is really guilty so they have not been excluded. That would taint the process to no advantage.

My suggestion is that, if the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) is not carried, and this process continues to apply solely on charge, we just scrap the panel completely and the person is excluded until the whole process is resolved. That is fairer, neater and more clearly understood and it would be a better situation to have. I wish this process could be a lot quicker and that getting from accusation through to arrest, to charge and to conviction or acquittal did not take a year or two years, because if it did not, this would not be such a significant process. Somebody would be out of Parliament for a few months at most, not a few years. However, that is not the world we appear to live in, and so having clarity, where everybody knows the position, would be better than having the panel.

I have a few other points. This House appoints Members to the Standards Committee and elects the Chair; what we have here is a more serious process where somebody can be excluded for a very long period, effectively by Members who have not been elected by the House for that purpose. We can argue that when the House selects Deputy Speakers to a very serious position, that is a reasonable part of their role, but I am not sure that the choice to have the third member—possibly the casting vote—be a member of the Commission is a sensible one.

The Commission is formed of a member of the Cabinet, a member of the shadow Cabinet, an SNP-appointed person and then three others appointed by the Government or the Opposition. We have generally tried to steer clear of having the Government exclude Members from Parliament—I think my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg) would strongly agree—so that was a terrible choice for who the casting vote might be. It should have been the Liaison Committee, or a member of the Panel of Chairs, or somebody who is senior in the House and has had some kind of endorsement from the House, but is not tainted by being a Government appointee.

I think that in evidence to the Procedure Committee both the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House said they would not want to be on the panel in that situation, so now we are down to four members who could do that work. What if one of those members was accused? What if one of them was the victim? How would we form the panel? Perhaps, when we come to review this question in future we could find a better way of doing that.

My final point is on the proxy vote. It would have been fair enough, if we were applying this process at accusation or arrest, to say, “Well, somebody may not be guilty or even be charged with this, so to exclude them completely would be the wrong thing to do. Let’s at least give them their vote.” We have had a Parliament in recent memory with a very small majority, and an exclusion in such a situation could have changed the result of some votes, so I can see a logic for a proxy vote in that situation. But can anybody really see the logic of a proxy vote for somebody who has been charged?

We do not give proxy votes for people who are representing this House on other assemblies around the world; we do not give them to people who are on official House Select Committee visits or other official business. That we would give a proxy vote to someone who was in a courtroom, in the dock, on trial for rape, is ridiculous. If we believe acting at the point of charge is right, the Member should be excluded and have effectively no role until their name is cleared. If the hon. Member for North East Fife’s amendment is not carried, I urge Members to scrap the panel, which adds nothing and makes the situation worse, and not have a proxy vote. I think that would be a terrible tainting of the House’s reputation.

Proxy Voting

Nigel Mills Excerpts

Wednesday 28th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

I thank the Leader of the House for moving the motion and for accepting the recommendations of the Procedure Committee, of which I am pleased to be a member.

The idea of extending proxy voting further was not entirely without controversy. Some people were very concerned about it—understandably, given that we are meant to be a Parliament where people gather and exchange views, and our voting system is designed to ensure that Members vote in person rather than via a proxy. Our task was to consider whether we should allow a proxy vote for Members who were suffering from a long-term illness or a serious injury; it was not to take into account those who had a short-term illness or were travelling on parliamentary business, or who felt that this was an adaptation they needed in the long term for career reasons.

I think it fair to say that the trial was a success, but I also think there was evidence that some people were securing proxies in circumstances that were not envisaged in the creation of a scheme for those with serious long-term illnesses. We had always intended this to be a temporary measure allowing those who could not attend Parliament because they were too ill to have their voices heard at least in the voting Lobbies. The expectation was that at some point, they would come back and vote in the normal way. Personally, I would be sympathetic to allowing a proxy vote as a long-term adaptation for someone who was not fit to be here for the whole day, which I think is reasonable, but that is not what the Committee was tasked to do, and it would have to be the subject of further work if the House so wished.

There are some tweaks in the report. The requirement to produce a letter from any medical professional has been changed to a requirement to produce a letter from a consultant, to emphasise our expectation that a proxy vote would be used in the event of a serious illness probably involving hospital care. There is now the expectation of a seven-month time limit, intended to be in line with the arrangements for statutory sick pay, so we are not trying to make arrangements for Members that are different from those in the real world. This is meant to be a temporary situation from which Members will eventually emerge. The insertion of the reference to an occupational health review was an attempt to help Mr Speaker, with his discretion, to work out whether an application was actually related to a serious long-term illness.

If Members want the scheme to be a success and to be a permanent feature, I urge them not to apply for it on the grounds of a short-term illness or to extend maternity leave. They should not be speaking regularly in the Chamber and voting by proxy unless there is a very exceptional circumstance. They should not be at drinks dos on the parliamentary estate and voting by proxy. That is not what the scheme is intended for. It is intended for Members who are too ill to be here.

We considered whether there could be a very prescriptive scheme, with a list of conditions that were serious enough to be covered, but we worked out pretty quickly that we would probably be coming back here every few weeks to add a new condition that we had missed, which would leave Mr Speaker far too fettered in his discretion. We also accepted the persuasive evidence we heard that a Member in the final stages of recovery from an illness might be able to come back to work part time but might not be able to be here for a long night of voting into the early hours, and that there was clearly merit in the Speaker’s having discretion to enable the Member to speak in the Chamber without having to be here for hours when they were not fit to be.

The shadow Leader of the House talked about the principle of a proxy vote being available only to those who are generally not on the parliamentary estate, but, as she noted, we did not include that as an absolute rule. If there is an emergency in a Member’s constituency, the Member may want to break their leave and speak about it, but generally Members will be absent and will not be here for the whole day, or the whole week, or the whole month. That is the balance we were trying to strike. We were trying to find a way to enable Mr Speaker to use his discretion to ensure that the scheme was not being abused, and to ensure that, generally, Members who are fit to be here should be voting in person, while those who are not fit to be here can vote by proxy. That is what we were trying to achieve, and I urge Members who make applications to stick to the spirit of it. I suspect we will have another review by the end of the Parliament so that we can see whether proxy voting should become a permanent fixture after the next election. I certainly hope that when we get the next review, we will see that the people who are using proxy voting have been sticking to the spirit and the intention of it, and that that will enable it to become a permanent feature.

Strengthening Standards in Public Life

Nigel Mills Excerpts

Wednesday 17th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner). I think I agree with most of what he said.

I rise to speak in this debate because I recognise that we need to change. I have thought for a long while that we need to change, and in some ways it is welcome that the events of the past fortnight have brought the need upon us. I broadly support the recommendations in the report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life from three years ago. It is probably a cause for regret that we are dealing with them now, rather than at that time.

However, I urge the House to be careful that we get this right. The public expect us to change these rules with due consideration, to ensure that rules are put in place that are fair, consistent and enforceable and do not just leave crazy loopholes. I am slightly nervous about the wording in the Labour motion about banning

“any paid work to provide services as a Parliamentary strategist, adviser or consultant”.

Does that mean that somebody could change their job to being a political strategist, adviser or consultant, or a local government strategist, adviser or consultant, and somehow get around that? I think we all know what we are trying to ban, which is Members earning money by selling access to this place or selling the access that this place provides, but we should be careful to make sure we get the wording right.

[Chris Bryant]

The House of Lords already has a similar provision in its code of conduct. One thing the Committee on Standards might suggest—I do not want to prejudge, as I see the other members of the Committee staring at me in a grim-faced way—is that Members must have a contract specifying certain things that they can and cannot do, which would be fairly simple. Owen Paterson never had a contract.

[Nigel Mills]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. If Members are taking jobs, they should have clearly defined roles and responsibilities that can be cleared or scrutinised.

We should be careful when we draw up the new rules that they are clear, consistent and enforceable so that we do not end up with Members sneaking around them because we were in a rush and a panic to try to calm a political storm or to keep it going. We should not rush into new rules that we come to regret when they do not work.

Where I agree with the Opposition motion is that we need to keep up the momentum. Although I absolutely trust the Leader of the House and the Government that we will not have further delays and backsliding, I am not convinced after the past two weeks that I can convince my constituents that I cannot vote for the motion because it forces a timetable. I will vote for the Opposition motion tonight.

I agree that we need to restrict second jobs, but I would be nervous about trying to work out a good list and a bad list of second jobs, as that becomes very hard. For example, my wife works as a pharmacist. That sounds like a health professional, but she works for a large supermarket chain. Do we allow pharmacists to work in the NHS but not in large supermarket chains because one is public sector and the other is private sector?

It becomes difficult to know what is a professional job which we would all accept a new MP coming here for a short career should keep up in practice and qualifications so that they have a chance of a job afterwards. We would not want to put off people with such qualifications from coming here at all for fear they would be locked out of their old career.

We could end up with a rather long list of good jobs that Members are allowed to do. It would be hard for such a list to be consistent, and it would be hard to apply. Such a list would inevitably have gaps that some Members fall through, so we would have to change the list all the time.

I would not go down the line of an absolute ban, and the Government’s amendment is right that we should have some sort of restriction or indication about what constitutes a Member not prioritising their role as an MP. I would be cautious about having no guidance or rules and leaving it to a commissioner to decide retrospectively whether what a Member did is within the rules.

We need a process in which we agree on the guidance, such as on whether there should be a maximum amount that Members can earn. I have some sympathy with the comment that a man cannot have two paymasters. If a Member has a lifestyle that depends on an outside income far greater than their MP’s income, there will always be a perception, or a risk, that they have to please that paymaster and that at some point there will be a vote, a debate or an issue where they are conflicted between doing what they think is right and keeping the income they desperately need. I would think carefully about an income cap at some proportion of an MP’s salary.

That does not solve my constituents’ anger that Members are spending too much time on non-parliamentary work. It is the loss of time in Parliament and in the constituency that is the problem, not just how much a Member earns. Perhaps there should be a cap on hours.

As the Committee on Standards in Public Life report said, those two things are quite hard to define. They are controversial and we might end up creating different problems, but if the House truly wants to make it clear that MPs are MPs first and foremost, and that what we do outside may have some benefits, may be fair to our future careers and may bring out some information, but it should clearly be secondary to our parliamentary role, we should ask the Committee on Standards, or whatever body we think best, to come up with a definition of how much Members can earn and how long they can spend earning it. That would be the right way forward.

Business of the House

Nigel Mills Excerpts

Thursday 24th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As I said earlier, I am not interested in eating less meat; I want to eat more meat and I want my constituents to be able to as well. The Government’s record since 2010 is formidable. They have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 26% between 2010 and 2019. Renewable electricity generation has more than quadrupled since 2010. The year 2019 was the cleanest on record with more than half of UK electricity coming from low-carbon technologies. As I said earlier, we have cut emissions by 43% since 1990, with 75% economic growth. We are targeting a reduction in emissions by 78% by 2035 compared with 1990 levels. We are on the right path to net zero by 2050, but we have to do this with economic growth. We are not fanatics; we are sensible and proportionate in what we are trying to do and we have been doing it with considerable success since 2010.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) [V]]

Some us have noticed that the English votes for English laws provisions have been suspended and we regret that they still are, but will the Leader of the House at least commit to keeping his promise that the changes introduced to respond to the pandemic will be temporary and will be reversed, and, if he wishes to change the EVEL rules, that there will be a vote in this Parliament to do so?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Any change to EVEL Standing Orders—and it is worth bearing in mind that the EVEL Standing Orders take up slightly over 10% of all our Standing Orders. They are particularly impenetrable. The learned Clerks never struggle, but if it were not for the fact that the learned Clerks never struggle, even they might struggle with the intricacies of EVEL. But my hon. Friend is absolutely spot on: these changes could not take place without the support of the House.

Business of the House

Nigel Mills Excerpts

Thursday 4th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am afraid to say that was a completely absurd question. The pressure on the NHS is being reduced because of the work of Test and Trace. We have the capacity to process more than 800,000 tests a day, and so far more than 20 million people in this country have been tested at least once. This is an essential part of how we are tackling the pandemic and the hon. Gentleman, as always, pooh-poohs it. Typical socialist: he pooh-poohs the private sector. Without the private sector, we would not be rolling out the vaccines as fast as we are—that is another key part of our defence and action against the pandemic. Yes, the NHS is a fundamental part of our healthcare—of course it is—but the vaccines were produced by and are being produced and manufactured by private companies. We should recognise the enormous contribution that free markets have made in helping us and not pooh-pooh them.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) [V]]

Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on planning issues? In Amber Valley we have an application for a solar farm covering more than 300 acres, and although there is support for renewable energy there is not support for losing quite such a large area of countryside. It would be helpful to discuss the balance between the need for energy and the preservation of the open countryside in our constituencies.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Every Member of the House knows that we could spend every day of every week debating planning issues. They are fundamental to the representation that we provide to our constituents and are often the most contentious issues that arise. The Government set out a new White Paper on planning last year; the matter is being debated and very much thought about and will be an essential part of the Government’s programme.

Business of the House

Nigel Mills Excerpts

Wednesday 30th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is right to praise the operation in his constituency that supports people in Swaziland. It sounds a really noble and worthy effort. As regards a debate, I sometimes feel, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman knows more about how to get debates in this place than I do. I feel that telling him how to get a debate is teaching my grandmother to suck eggs.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) [V]]

Will the Leader of the House join me in commending the staff of the Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union for enabling us to publish a report overnight one working day after the deal was published? Will he use one of the five sitting days when we get back to give the Committee some more time to do a proper job of scrutinising the 1,200 pages of the agreement? That is, after all, the Committee’s main job and we have not had much time for parliamentary scrutiny today.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend once again highlights the amazing work done by the people who serve us in this House and their fantastic commitment to democracy to make sure that the wheels of democracy turn properly. I am in correspondence with the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), the Chairman of the relevant Select Committee. Of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) chairs the European Scrutiny Committee, which looks at similar matters. The two of them may wish to confer.

Business of the House

Nigel Mills Excerpts

Thursday 17th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Obviously all spending of Government money has to be scrutinised extremely carefully. The ports fund is there to help ports across the country to improve their capacity and flow. It will be allocated in a way that is fair to all the ports involved. I know the hon. Gentleman is a great campaigner for his local port, and if he wanted to raise the matter in an Adjournment debate, I think that would be a suitable next step.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) [V]]

It is apparent from the Leader of the House’s announcement of the business that if we do get a deal with the EU, there will be very little time for this House to consider it. Will he at least ensure that the Select Committee established to scrutinise the future relationship with the EU can scrutinise that deal and report to the House?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I know what the question was, because my hon. Friend spoke to me about it yesterday, which is an advantage, given the weakness of the connection just then. I am aware of his concerns about the Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union winding up in early January, but there is of course also the European Scrutiny Committee. It might be a very good step if the two Chairmen discussed with each other the issues that came out of any agreement that may be made. As there is a Committee, it may well be able to learn from the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). The Chairman of the future relationship Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) may have a lot of shared interests that they can exchange with each other.

Business of the House

Nigel Mills Excerpts

Thursday 26th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I know this is a matter of concern to many hon. and right hon. Members, as we all value the pubs in our own constituencies, and in these very difficult times, the closures have fallen very heavily upon them. There is support available of £3,000 a month for pubs that are forced to close or only to do takeaway, and there is other support for pubs in the different tiers. The £3,000 has been set at the median level of rent that they would have to pay, so the figure is based on an assessment. There will be time to discuss this because there will be a whole day’s debate on the covid regulations next week, and I encourage the hon. Lady to raise her point again then.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) [V]]

The Leader of the House may have seen that the European Parliament is planning to sit between Christmas and new year to approve, hopefully, any Brexit deal. Can he update the House on what plans the Government have for this House to scrutinise the potential deal and how long Select Committees will have before the House votes to consider the full details if we do get a deal?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The House last sat on Christmas day, I understand, in 1656 and it is not the intention of Her Majesty’s Government, or my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip, to ask us to sit on Christmas day, or indeed the feast of St Stephen, this year. I will give updates on Government business and plans for recesses in the normal way, but at the moment have no further information to give.

Participation in Debates

Nigel Mills Excerpts

Monday 16th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his typically reasonable and helpful question. Obviously, if there were to be an agreement with the European Union and votes and debates on it, that would be a matter of interest to the whole House. I feel that what is being proposed and will come forward in a motion will allow that to happen. All Members are currently able to have a proxy vote, and therefore their vote will be recorded. It is very important to note that, although the proxy vote may be in the hands of Whips, individual Members are absolutely entitled either to give it to somebody else or to ask the Whip to vote in a different way from the way the Whip wants them to vote. It is not a vote that is handed over for good, and that is fundamental. The individual right of a Member to direct his or her vote is maintained, and these proposals will allow those who are clinically extremely vulnerable to participate in debates remotely. I hope that there will be an outbreak of union between the Conservative party and Plaid Cymru, though we may disagree about the status of our nation.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

Does the Leader of the House accept that he has probably not commanded the support of the entire House for the Government’s approach? Will he therefore allow the House to amend any motion he tables, so that we can take the full view of the House on how its proceedings should be governed during this crisis?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I mistakenly looked at the screen and thought it had gone blank, but may I say how nice it is to see my hon. Friend here physically? He and I were great troopers together on the Back Benches for many years, and I am glad to see that he continues to hold the Government to account. The Government will bring forward a motion. I will announce the schedule of business on Thursday, although if I keep going at this rate, I may still be speaking on Thursday morning.

Business of the House

Nigel Mills Excerpts

Thursday 5th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

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

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

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

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

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) [V]]

The Leader of the House may have seen the sad news this morning that hundreds of Argos stores will close, including the one in Alfreton in my constituency, which is a terrible blow for the employees and for the high street. Could he find time for a debate on how we can reinvigorate our high streets once this covid crisis is over?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

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