Business of the House

Debate between Robert Neill and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 22nd July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]]

Parliament created the Greater London Authority deliberately with an elected Mayor and an elected London Assembly to act as a check and balance on the operations of the Mayor—a constitutional function. The current Mayor, for financial reasons of his own making, has arbitrarily decided to vacate the purpose-built City Hall, which is iconic in London, and move the Assembly’s scrutiny staff functions to a building in the east part of the capital—out of sight and perhaps out of mind—that has been described as “too small” and “unfit for purpose”, while he retains offices in central London for his own political appointees and staff. Can we have a debate on the governance of the Greater London Authority so that we can discover whether this behaviour by the Mayor is consistent with the intentions of the Greater London Authority Act 1999?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who was himself a distinguished member of the Greater London Authority. I cannot promise him a debate, because if we were to set out a debate on the failings of the Mayor of London, I fear I would have to announce business on that subject for Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. We would have even lost private Members’ Bills on the week that we are back.

We were lucky in our Mayor between 2008 and 2016. We had the greatest Mayor that London has ever seen, who knocked Dick Whittington into a cocked hat. Since 2016, things have gone sadly downhill. We have a socialist who is, as I said earlier, incapable of running a whelk stall—that stall that is so famously run by many competent people who are good at running things, but he cannot. He has failed in so many ways. He has failed in terms of planning and getting the number of homes built in London. He has failed in terms of Transport for London. He has failed in terms of bridges, so that part of Putney is disrupted by excess traffic. I am afraid that it is only a Mayor with that sort of record who would try to get rid of his scrutinisers. I note he has one rule for himself and one rule for his scrutinisers. There is a word for that, but it might be unparliamentary.

Business of the House

Debate between Robert Neill and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 4th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I agree, as I do on many matters actually, with the hon. Gentleman. He is much missed in this Chamber and we hope to see him back physically in the not-too-distant future. It is a duller and quieter place without his regular sedentary interventions. He may have forgotten, but there was a referendum in 2014 in Scotland, which settled the issue. It seems to me that, in the midst of sorting out a pandemic, getting the economy back on its feet and resolving some little local difficulties going on with the leadership of the Scottish National party, it would be reckless to be proposing a referendum at this point.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]]

There are 1.2 million stroke survivors in the United Kingdom. It is the largest cause of adult disability in this country. Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House make time for a proper debate on the progress of the national stroke programme, because, two years on, the quality and availability of after-care and rehabilitation services, particularly specialist areas such as physio and speech therapy, remain very variable to the great concern of many families?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend raises a crucial point. The NHS long-term plan, published in January 2019, outlines commitments to improving stroke services, including better stroke rehabilitation services and increased access to specialist stroke units. Stroke services across England continue to provide rehabilitation and post-acute services to stroke survivors and their families and carers during the pandemic. In part, this has been helped by innovative methods of care delivery alongside face-to-face contact. Almost half of stroke survivors have had virtual care since covid began. More than 80% of them reported positive or very positive experiences. There are 20 integrated stroke delivery networks, giving full coverage across England. Integrated stroke delivery networks were established in shadow status in October 2020 and we expect them to be fully operational by spring 2021. Ninety per cent of stroke patients will receive care in a specialist stroke unit and more patients will have access to disability-reducing treatments of mechanical thrombectomy and thrombolysis. This combined with increased access to rehabilitation services will deliver improved long-term outcomes for stroke patients. I thank my hon. Friend for raising this very important issue.

Business Statement

Debate between Robert Neill and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 11th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I thank the right hon. Lady and the Opposition Front Bench for the support that they have given. I understand that they have worked with my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor to ensure that there is satisfaction throughout the Chamber in respect of this very important business.

Let me respond to the three questions that the right hon. Lady asked. The Bill will be presented today; the time will be protected, so it will not be affected by statements or anything else tomorrow; and the Treasury has approved an increase in resources to ensure that the cost of maintaining people in prison and the associated costs are affordable.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to ensure that this business has priority over all others, but can he give us the proposed timetable for the debates on the police grant and local government finance grant motions? Those also involve important and timeous issues—not as grave as this, but important to local authorities that are seeking to set their budgets.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is right: those matters are indeed important, and they are being delayed. The local government finance motion must come before the House by 1 March to help councils. It will be introduced as a matter of priority, and on Thursday I will announce when it will be introduced. The same applies to the police grant motion. Both are relatively time-sensitive, and they will be returned to the House as urgently as possible.

London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]

Debate between Robert Neill and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 21st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I ought to clarify things. A lot of council officials are splendid fellows. They are good, honest, hard-working people who do a difficult job that I would not particularly like to do myself. I am very grateful that I can find a parking space when I want one, as a resident. Some traffic wardens really are noble fellows. However, notwithstanding that, there are some carrying out these particularly pernicious activities whom I think we should discourage. We should try to persuade them that their career opportunities lie elsewhere. To answer my hon. Friend’s specific questions about tatterdemalions, I have had very little response from councils. I thought that I might be bombarded with letters from councils. Perhaps these might have come from people from the City of London saying, “This is not how we dress in our borough.” Such letters might have come from that other great city of London, Westminster, but no—there was no correspondence from them. None came from Barking and Dagenham; there was not a jot from Barnet; nor from Bexley, Brent or Bromley.

Camden was silent and Croydon had nothing to say on the issue of whether council officers should be smart and tidy. Ealing, Enfield, Greenwich—they were all lie-abeds, not a word, not a peep, not an utterance came from them. Hackney, Hammersmith—and Fulham, we must not forget poor old Fulham—Haringey, Harrow, Havering, Hillingdon and Hounslow; all of them were horribly quiet on this important issue. Islington—one would have thought that somebody from Islington might have a word or two—

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Of course.

[Robert Neill]

I do not want to prolong matters, but may I respectfully say to my hon. Friend that as a freeman of the London borough of Havering, I feel it is always important to pronounce the name of that borough correctly?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am very grateful for the correction. I did think of saying in my best Eliza Doolittle tones, “’ackney, ’ammersmith, ’aringey, ’arrow, ’avering, ’illingdon and ’ounslow,” but I thought that I had better not phrase myself in that way because, realistically, I am probably more Professor Higgins than Eliza Doolittle in my normal pronunciation.

We have missed out Kensington and Chelsea. They had nothing to say—not a word, not an utterance—about how smart or otherwise their officers should be. Kingston upon Thames, Lambeth, Lewisham—Lewisham, for heaven’s sake. Would one not have thought that the burghers of Lewisham would be up in arms defending the honour of their council officials? Merton was mysteriously silent. From Newham, nothing. Redbridge? No, not an utterance. Richmond, Southwark, Sutton and Tower Hamlets: Tower Hamlets, a grand and noble borough on the edge of the City, with the great Tower of London nobly looking down upon it, had nothing to say. It has the Beefeaters to look at, so one would have thought it would be proud of having fine people who are well dressed. Then there is Waltham Forest—I am not particularly clear where Waltham Forest is, but it is clearly a London borough of the utmost importance. I apologise to anybody here from that distinguished borough. In Wandsworth, they are a very good lot. They are very Tory, so I expect that they are all splendidly and finely attired in gold braid and so on, so when you see them coming you know that they are from Wandsworth and that they are proper gentlemen and ladies of the borough rather than, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) so rightly reminds me, tatterdemalions.

On clause 9, which will make life so unpleasant for people, we made the basic, simple and clean proposition—that which is easiest and cleanest to absorb—that we scrap the whole thing altogether. Bingo—gone. “Goodnight Charlie,” as cricket commentators say. I am not a cricket commentator, so “Goodnight Charlie” is not usually one of my phrases, but I thought it was apposite on this occasion.

We tabled some other amendments in case the promoters of the Bill decided, through some eccentricity of their own, not to remove the clause. The aim is to ensure that what the clause does is watered down, that it is limited in its scope and that there is a proper burden of proof on the authorities so that they must show that it really is business trading activity and not just an individual. It might be an old lady, for example, who needs to supplement her pension and suddenly finds that she is not allowed to sell her car and is penalised for doing so. Some of the amendments—23, 24, 61 and so on—try to clarify and to ameliorate the harshness of clause 9 and to allow a little free enterprise to be encouraged through the boroughs and cities of London. I am glad to say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you now know the names of all the boroughs and cities of the noble Greater London area, so I do not think I need to repeat them, although I might do so later if I feel moved and if it is relevant to the issue under discussion.

I want to look at some of the other amendments. It is very disappointing that the city of Westminster, which has been for decades one of the best run cities not just in London but in the world—if they had cities on the moon, it would be one of the best run in our part of the solar system, but as far as I know they do not yet have cities on the moon, so I shall stick to the world—and is a fine, noble city run by great Conservative leaders who provided low council tax, low poll tax before that and low rates before that—