Business of the House

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I say to the hon. Gentleman, “Welcome to my world.” We are trying to accommodate all parties. There was an additional Select Committee statement on tomorrow’s agenda, which we are talking to officials about to try accommodate tomorrow. I hope to update the House on that later.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Is it not a fact that, now this Government have the Assembly on the fishing hook, they really do not care one iota about scrutiny of the bait being used to get the Assembly back? Having introduced the Command Paper to the House today and having got a commitment to the Assembly, I suggest that this Government do not give two hoots about whether there is sufficient time to see whether the promises made will be fulfilled.

[Penny Mordaunt]

I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but I think he is wrong in that assertion. There will be many strong feelings on all sides of the House about various aspects of the position we have got to, but the comments made from all sides of the House during the Secretary of State’s statement indicate that this is an important step forward and is to be welcomed. Inevitably, it is a compromise; people have had to compromise to get here, and I applaud them for doing that. There will be future debate on these matters. My colleagues on the Front Bench will be very happy to answer any points that the right hon. Gentleman raises. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, is an example of conviction, passion and determination on the issues that the hon. Gentleman cares deeply about.

Members of Parliament: Risk-based Exclusion

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Monday 12th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I thank my hon. Friend for expressing it much better than I just did. The proposal is not a replacement for the criminal justice system and it is not a parallel system; it is about finding a way to take on board, when there is a criminal justice system investigation of a serious crime, how we mitigate the risks, in a limited and time-limited way, because we are not like any other workplace. Whether or not it goes on for one month or two years will be the responsibility of whether or not the criminal justice is operating as it should. As I said to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), I would like to get my hands on that system and help to institute some reforms. In the meantime, we are not a substitute for it and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for expressing that so well.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

It is easy to give an assurance that the panel is not there to decide innocence or guilt. However, the fact that it decides on the basis of information from the police, with a very low threshold, does convey in the public mind some suggestion of guilt. Otherwise, why would such stringent measures be taken against a Member?

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that, but the idea is for this not to be done in a public manner. We probably will face criticism for this, but the Commission has gone to some lengths to try to protect the anonymity and confidentiality in respect of a person against whom allegations of a serious crime have been made. We have built into this process as many opportunities as we can, and some Members are not happy about those. The point is that we should not be deciding guilt, as that would be quite wrong; the separation of powers is an important principle to every one of us in this Chamber. However, we must address the confines of the fact that our workplace is not like any other. It is a workplace for staff here, as well as for our own staff and for each other, and we have a duty at least to try to work out how we mitigate the risk to them, while protecting the confidentiality of the person against whom allegations are being made.

I wish to come to a conclusion because I know that many right hon. and hon. Members want to contribute. While taking those interventions, I have covered a few parts of the speech I was going to make. I started out by talking about three values, and democratic representation is vital. We owe a lot to those on the Procedure Committee and other colleagues who developed the proxy vote system, as a result of which we have a way whereby a Member can be added to the list of proxy votes without saying why and can continue to represent their constituents. Every Member will know what some of the criticisms were of the proxy vote system when it was first introduced. No Member is forced to use it and they can also use the option of pairing, which some will prefer. It is an important principle of democracy that Members’ voters, the people they represent, can continue to be represented.

Other Members have asked about constituency activities. We as a House have no way of legislating to stop Members undertaking those. There may be some who have concerns about that. The police can make bail conditions but we do not have that power. We are not in a position to restrict the constituency activities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Okay, the hon. Gentleman thinks we should change the Representation of the People Act. That is fine. Let somebody bring forward the proposal to do that. Let them do that expressly and overtly and say that there is a certain additional category of people who are ineligible to stand for election or to be elected to this place. What we have here is a back-door attempt to try to achieve that objective without changing the primary legislation.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the reverse of what the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) says is that a Member could be excluded from this House, the police process could go on for a year or two years, as she has said—and quite rightly; it does happen—no charge could be made at the end of that and, meantime, because we have set the threshold so low, the Member could find himself unable to do his duties?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman completely. That is my concern. Essentially, this proposal opens the floodgates to vexatious accusations that will deny the accused the right to make representations or appeal against any decision to exclude.

The specific proposal before the House is that somebody who is the subject of one of these vexatious accusations would not have the right to make representations to the panel or, if they did not like the outcome of that panel, to appeal against the decision. The Commission goes on to say that the system will depend

“upon the provision of concrete information from the police… In practice, this is very unlikely to happen prior to an arrest.”

Surely, though, if the police have such concrete information, as it is put, there is nothing to stop them bringing a charge? If they bring a charge, the proposals that I have referred to will be triggered, but unless and until a charge is made, the provisions will not be triggered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Chris Bryant]

No, indeed. One of the things referred to in the Commission paper, and we refer to it in the Standards Committee report, is that it is all very well dealing with here, but there is also the constituency office. I think we should be able to include that in this issue. For instance, let us say that somebody has been charged with a violent or sexual crime. I think the House authorities should be able to say to that Member, “I’m sorry, but you should make it possible for all your staff in your constituency to work from home”—that, for instance, may be an appropriate measure—or, “You’re only ever going to able to be in your constituency office with your staff with another person,” or some such measure. It is all about minimising risk. Of course, we cannot have a system in which the House says, “Oh, and by the way, you’re not allowed to go to Tesco” and so on. However, that may be a legitimate process that the police have to go down if they felt there were further risks to other people or to the community.

[Sammy Wilson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Chris Bryant]

I am seeking to bring my thoughts to a close, but of course I give way.

[Sammy Wilson]

In his last remark, does the hon. Gentleman not see how we can get these measures creeping? Where is the consistency in saying, “This panel has decided you’re not safe, Mr MP or Mrs MP, to be in the House of Commons because you are a danger to staff” or whatever, but also saying, “At this point in time, you’re not a danger to your constituency staff and you can still go to your constituency office”? This is where the creeping comes in, because is not the logic of this that, if someone is excluded from here, they get excluded from everywhere else where their parliamentary duties take place?

[Sir Chris Bryant]

I have to apologise because my hearing is going a bit, so I did not catch all of that. There is always an argument about the slippery slope, the thin end of the wedge and all of that—floodgates were mentioned earlier—but my anxiety is that if we do nothing we will be in danger of doing permanent damage to the reputation of the House and creating further anxiety for members of staff who work in the building.

I have just a few small points to make. I think we do need to address what happens in the Lords. I know we have exclusive cognisance, and it is up to those in the Lords what they do, but the ICGS is bicameral—it applies to both Houses—and we ought to have something similar for the House of Lords. I do find it quite extraordinary that somebody who has committed a significant criminal offence and gone to prison can come out and go back to the House of Lords—and, yes, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) is right that I would like to change that law as well.

I think there is a significant issue here for the political parties. Members have talked about vexatious complaints, and the most dangerous space for this is potentially within political parties. The Whips often have to do a very complicated and difficult job, and I think the pressure we sometimes put them under in this field is inappropriate. I do not like the fact that, for many years, we always used to push these things under the carpet. I think it is right that we have proper processes, rather than saying, “Oh, it will all just be sorted out somewhere in the party.” However, I do worry about whether there is fairness for people, because the best way to prevent somebody being able to stand in the next general election is to make a complaint against them to their political party. They will then lose the Whip, the party will probably take even longer than any other authority would to deal with something, the person will not be able to stand and they will have lost their job.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I am glad that this is just a general debate, because I suspect that were there to be a vote at the end, many Members, even those who have grave doubts about these proposals, would feel almost compelled to go through the Aye Lobby, for the very reasons that have been given by some of those who have spoken this evening. We have heard that we must restore the image of Parliament, that we must respond to the concerns of our constituents, and that we must consider the reports in the press about this place. I suspect that many people would have thought to themselves, “Although I am not satisfied with all the proposed safeguards, rather than put my head over the parapet and go through the No Lobby, I will go through the Aye Lobby”, and I think that in the context of what we have before us, that would have been wrong.

Of course this should be a safe working environment, and of course a blind eye should not be turned to Members of Parliament who disgrace themselves, disgrace this place and disgrace their constituents through their behaviour. We have a moral duty—apart from our political duty—to ensure that that does not happen. Let me explain my main concern, which we have already heard expressed by others this evening. This started off as an exercise: what do we do if people are charged? I have looked at the evidence, and some, although not a majority, asked, “What about before charge?” I suspect that there was a bit of running for cover. If some people are saying, “You are covering up until the person is charged”, the goalposts have been moved. I do not know what was in the minds of the people who eventually wrote the report, but I suspect that behind their concerns was the question, “Are we being seen to be too lenient, or having a desire to cover up the offences of people who do wrong in the workplace?”

We should look at the threshold that is being set here. When the police have credible evidence, it is reported to the panel. We know what happens, especially in high-profile cases. Let us put ourselves in the place of a senior police officer. An allegation is made, and is passed upwards. “Do you know what has happened in Westminster? An allegation has been made against such-and-such a well-known person.” It would be a very brave police officer who said, “Let us just leave this for a moment, see what further evidence there is, and investigate this case.” The danger is that if the allegation is correct, and if something even worse happens and that gets into the press, the first thing journalists will ask—and, I suspect, the first thing that some Members will ask—is “Why did the police not tell us?” There will be what is almost a default position at the very first line of defence. Should we take the precautionary attitude, even though we have not investigated the matter fully, rather than take the risk that this could be a bad individual who could repeat the offence and hurt someone else? Let us report it to the panel. I suspect that once the panel gets credible information, as it is described, from the police, there will not be too much willingness on the panel’s part to sit back and say, “Let’s look at these allegations a bit more closely”, especially if the individual concerned does not even have the opportunity to argue the case to the panel that the allegations are totally spurious.

Of course the allegations might be genuine, but we know that there are a number of people out there who do not like our politics, who do not like MPs full stop or who think we are all a bunch of wasters, and there are also some disturbed individuals, and they will make allegations. We have evidence of the police being given allegations—the Carl Beech case and Operation Midland are good examples—and of individuals being dragged through the dirt, with no charges ever being made but reputations being ruined. We cannot ignore the fact that if we take a cautionary approach because people are afraid of what might happen if we do not act immediately, individuals in this House could find their reputations damaged.

Let us look at what the impact will be. We have heard tonight that this is not about exclusion and that this process might never be used, but the very title of this debate, “risk-based exclusion”, indicates where this is going. An individual is going to find themselves unable to do their duties in this House, on the basis of credible information that has not even reached the point of the police thinking it serious enough to arrest them, question them and charge them. They cannot do their job. They can proxy vote, but that is not the main job of an MP. The main job of an MP is to listen to constituents here, to take part in debates, to express views, to go into Committees and to try and shape legislation, but they will be excluded from doing all that.

The report indicates that

“the Commission is not proposing any changes to what Members can and cannot do while absent from the estate”,

but the logic is that we cannot stop there. If we think that someone is a risk to individuals here, they will be a risk to individuals elsewhere as well.

[Charlotte Nichols]

I agree in principle that some safeguarding measures should be taken outside the House, but the right hon. Gentleman is failing to recognise that this is about our duties as a House. What would it mean, in a context where we had chosen not to act to put some sort of safeguarding policies and procedures in place, if someone who we chose not to exclude—were that proportionate and reasonable—went on to reoffend? This is about what our responsibilities and duties would be as employers and as a House, if we allowed that to happen.

[Sammy Wilson]

I agree with the hon. Lady on this one. If we go down the route of saying that an individual should not be in this House because they are a danger to staff, they are not going to be any less of a danger to the staff in their constituency office. That is why the very next paragraph in the report, paragraph 31, states:

“The Commission noted the strength of feeling in relation to the management of risk in constituency offices and agreed to write formally to the Speaker’s Conference”.

So we are going to find, on the basis of a credible allegation—which, by the way, has not led to the police arresting or charging anyone—that an individual could be excluded from this House and eventually excluded from their constituency duties in their own locality. All this will be done on the basis of allegations that have not been tested. It has been glibly dismissed, “Oh, it is not the panel’s role to take over the role of the judicial system. The panel’s job is not to find somebody guilty or not guilty.” All I have to say is that, if the panel makes a decision that someone is not safe to be in this place and should therefore be excluded, even though the panel might try to keep it secret, it will not be too long before that individual is known. That Member will have a proxy vote and will not be seen about the place, and we know how rumours go around.

People might say, “No, no, the panel is not there to find anybody guilty,” but by default that person will be regarded as guilty because very severe action has been taken against them—action so important and so severe that they have been excluded from doing their job—even though they have not been arrested or charged.

It is not just vexatious claims; it could also apply to cases where a person has made a complaint, genuinely believing, “That MP’s behaviour was inappropriate, so I’m making a complaint.” They might be convinced in their own mind—it is not that they are trying to do somebody down—even though the legal test has not been met to justify the allegation.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I refer to my earlier comments about needing clarity on what that credible evidence aspect means, because I believe it is likely to come at a point where a suspect has been arrested on suspicion and put under interview. The credible evidence required for a person to lose their liberty in order to be interviewed would be there.

The challenge is simply that the Commission does not have any power over MPs in their constituency. The Commission only has control over Members on the estate. I agree there is a gap, but does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Commission does not have that power? That is where the disconnect comes from.

[Sammy Wilson]

I accept that, but the report talks about referring this to the Speaker’s Conference to see what measures could be taken, because it is recognised that there is a logical step here. That is why it is so important to get this right, so that we know when it is safe to trigger some sanctions against an MP where allegations have been made. I think the threshold that has been set, of credible allegations being made to the police—who I believe will act in a precautionary way—is far too low a bar that will lead to situations in which Members could find themselves unjustly treated. The Chair of the Standards Committee, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant), talked about the principle of fairness, which will not be met.

[Charlotte Nichols]

I want to pick up the right hon. Gentleman on his use of the term “sanctions.” Again, when we talk about a risk-based approach and about mitigating some of those risks, exclusion is not a sanction. Exclusion is a safeguarding proposal that is done without prejudice, in the same way that, in any other workplace, people can be suspended while an investigation is carried out, for safeguarding purposes. We have 650 individual employers, as well as the House itself, so does he not think that we have the same duties and responsibilities around safeguarding as any other workplace?

[Sammy Wilson]

Where an individual is excluded from coming here, from meeting constituents here, from talking to lobbyists here and from taking part in debates here—eventually, that exclusion could stretch beyond this House—there is hardly any way to describe it other than as a sanction, because that individual would be prevented from doing certain things that are an integral part of their job.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the current system also fails those where credible allegations are made, as such allegations come to a Whip and a voluntary arrangement to be excluded or to stay away from the estate is made? Does he accept that this proposal is a clarification of the process that currently exists in a more—“underhand” is not the word—low-level way?

[Sammy Wilson]

I do not see it as that, because what individual parties decide to do to safeguard their own reputation is up to those parties, and MPs sign up to that as members of their party. This also shows that parties do take these issues seriously; suggesting that we have an absence of any control or safeguards at the moment is just not correct.

The last point I wish to make is about the length of time that this process can go on. Members have talked about how long a police investigation takes and how long it takes to get to a point where someone is arrested or charged—that process can be much longer. Where allegations are credible and it is clear that there is evidence, the police will act and can act quickly, so that we get to the point of charge. I find it incredible that Members should think that because the police process is long—it might take three years before they decide that there is not a case and they are not going to charge an individual—an individual should be excluded from doing their job for that time, with their reputation being ruined over that period. We must have safeguards and we cannot ignore the fact that some Members misbehave, but we must recognise that we have to be fair to those Members.

Let me go back to something a Member said about how we must put in place processes that safeguard the reputation of this House. It does not matter what processes we put in place—we can have whatever processes we want. If people behave wrongly, the reputation of this place is going to be tarnished in any case. The message we should be taking tonight is that all individual Members have a duty to maintain the reputation of this place.

Every day I walk through the doors of this place, I am honoured to think that many people who do not know me and probably will never see me, because they will never have any problems to come to my constituency office with, put their trust in me to be their representative. If we all took that view of life, perhaps we would not behave in a way that tarnishes the image of the place and we would not need to put these processes in place. I believe that what we have before us tonight is flawed.

Business of the House

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Thursday 25th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

First, I thank my hon. Friend’s constituent, Chloe, for all the work she is doing to raise awareness of this matter. I understand that the UK Health Security Agency has today published the first quarterly report of this year on common animal-associated infections, which summarises the numbers and cases of laboratory-confirmed cases of particular diseases, including Lyme disease. The UK Health Security Agency is also working on public awareness campaigns, and we are actively seeking opportunities to work with academic partners and research partners, both nationally and internationally. I think it would be an excellent topic for a debate, and he will know that the next Health questions, when he can raise this issue, is on 6 June. I thank him for his campaign.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I pass on our condolences from the DUP to the family of Karen Lumley on her death.

In October this year, according to the GB border model proposals, checks on goods from or passing through Northern Ireland will be implemented and border control posts will be set up at Cairnryan and Liverpool. This is despite the promise that there would of course be frictionless trade between Northern Ireland and GB. Traders are being kept in the dark. They do not know the nature of the checks, what paperwork will be required, whether Northern Ireland goods will be exempt and, if they are exempt, what the criteria for that exemption will be. Despite all that, no statement has been made in this House. Indeed, when I raised these issues with the Northern Ireland Minister, he did not even seem to be aware of them.

Given the appalling nature of how people are being kept in the dark about a new set of border posts within the United Kingdom, and how this will disrupt trade with Northern Ireland, can we have a debate in Government time on how the border control model is going to operate, and an explanation of why the promise of frictionless trade between Northern Ireland and GB is going to be broken?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this very important matter. This is not just about the integrity of the internal market; businesses need to understand what obligations will be placed on them by these processes and they want clarity soon. He will know that further work is ongoing on a number of fronts in the wake of the landmark Windsor framework. The next questions to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland are not until 21 June, so I will write on the right hon. Gentleman’s behalf both to him and to the Foreign Secretary, who is heavily involved in these matters as well, to make them aware of his concerns.

Business of the House

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Thursday 16th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank my hon. Friend for all the work he has done internationally on the convention. I know he has been doing some recent work on this. He will have assisted his aim today by raising this important convention on the Floor of the House, but he will know the usual means by which he can direct other Members’ attention to it: by securing a debate either through the Backbench Business Committee or on the Adjournment. I will certainly make sure that the Foreign Secretary has heard about the work that my hon. Friend is doing and his keenness that we do more to promote others signing the convention and ratifying it.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I am pleased that the Leader of the House has announced that there will be a debate on the Stormont brake next Wednesday. It would have been helpful if the statutory instrument could have been published this week for proper consideration. Regardless of that, we welcome the debate. I am sure that she will be aware that in Washington this week, my leader indicated that the Windsor framework still does not address many of the difficulties caused by the Northern Ireland protocol. In particular, the Stormont brake is inadequate because it does not ensure that MLAs in Northern Ireland can stop the application of EU law. There are still 300 areas of EU law that will apply to Northern Ireland, even after the Windsor framework, and the European Court of Justice will still adjudicate on them. Will the Leader of the House ensure that adequate answers are given by the Ministers responsible, explaining the difference between the rhetoric and the reality of the framework document?

[Penny Mordaunt]

My right hon. Friend raises some important points. He will know that in order to implement the Windsor framework, a series of statutory instruments will need to be brought forward, and we need to ensure good time to debate those and areas of concern. This SI, which I have described as a keystone in that Windsor framework, is a section on which the whole framework depends. It will be an important debate. The SI will be published on Monday. That is the earliest I think we can bring that forward, but I wanted to give all hon. and right hon. Members as much notice as possible.

Replacement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

In terms of the Opposition’s performance, I think Larry the cat would give them a run for their money.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I and my colleagues take no joy in the difficulties in which the Government and the country find themselves at present, because they affect all our constituents. Does the Leader of the House agree that most people watching today do not want to see political point scoring or in-house backstabbing? They want to know how they can afford to pay their mortgages, how they can meet the cost of living and how they can make decisions about their businesses.

[Penny Mordaunt]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Lovely though I am, I think that people want to hear from the Chancellor. They want to hear the detail of the policies that are changing, and hon. Members will want to ask him about how that will affect their constituents. That is what we should be focusing on today.

Committee on Standards

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a point that I am going to make in slightly more detail.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the Leader of the House also accept that the report itself says, towards its conclusion, that “paid advocacy” and the exceptions are open to interpretation? That being the case, and given that there are two different interpretations here, surely the difference of interpretation should be open to some appeal.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and this is one of the key things that the Committee will be asked to look at, to see whether it can clarify the interpretation on the whistleblowing exemption.

Let me return to Standing Order No. 150, which appears to provide a mechanism for the investigation of contentious cases that respects natural justice, ensures that legal counsel is appointed, is appropriate for what is a quasi-judicial process, and introduces significant checks and balances into the investigation, such as the appointment of a separate member by the Speaker to act as an assessor and the right of the Member being investigated to call witnesses and be able to examine other witnesses, rather than leaving this to the discretion of the Commissioner. In a case where so many witnesses and so many Members have made their concerns known, it is unfortunate that the Commissioner did not appoint such a panel. Indeed, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Committee on Standards have never opted to use this mechanism, despite having had many contentious cases before them.

Business of the House

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Thursday 4th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend on becoming my right hon. Friend, which I think creates pleasure across the whole House? I am looking forward to that being formalised at the next Privy Council.

The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government have convened a small working group of retailers and local authorities to examine how best to reopen these sectors, so it is being co-ordinated with the business community. Small shops have no limits on their hours, and large shops have no limits on their hours Monday to Saturday.

With regard to restaurants and pubs, there is always a sensitivity about local communities if hours are extended, but indeed it is important that when businesses are back, they are able to operate to re-earn some of the money that they have lost. They will be supported by new restart grants, providing up to £6,000 for non-essential retail premises, and we will continue to provide eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties in England with 100% business rates relief from 1 April 2021 to 30 June 2021, and with 66% rates relief from 1 July to 31 March. Things are being done to help them, and opening hours will be a matter for local decision making.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

At the weekend, the Leader of the House kindly proffered some advice to Unionists as to how, in four years’ time, they might get rid of the Northern Ireland protocol. He knows, of course, that in those four years the EU will impose new laws on Northern Ireland, that the Northern Ireland Assembly will have no ability to decide whether or not to implement them, and that, if they do not implement them, the UK Government will be taken to the European Court of Justice.

While we welcome the actions taken by the Government yesterday—we trust that they will not deviate from the short-term measures that they have taken to protect Northern Ireland from the protocol—really, the answer is a long-term solution. I know that the Leader of the House is a fan of P. G. Wodehouse, but we do not need a Jeeves to sort this issue out; there are alternatives that the Government already know and that have been put forward to them. May we have a debate in Government time to discuss those alternatives as a means of replacing the damaging Northern Ireland protocol?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I cannot promise the right hon. Gentleman a debate in Government time, but the issue is unquestionably a serious one, and he will note, as indeed he did in his question, that my noble Friend Lord Frost is taking serious action on this matter. He is extending the implementation period of the protocol by six months to try to ensure the smooth flow of goods between one part of the United Kingdom and another. That is the fundamental point: Northern Ireland is as much a part of the United Kingdom as Somerset and even, Mr Speaker, as Lancashire, and we should recognise that in everything that we do, say and legislate for in this House.

Business of the House

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Thursday 4th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is the greatest salesman for Don Valley and Doncaster that one could imagine. His constituents should be so reassured to have him as their representative and champion. There is still somebody called the Queen’s Champion—an hereditary post—who used to appear at coronations. My hon. Friend holds a similar role in being a champion for his constituency.

The Government are considering new locations for the civil service, and it is obviously important to find the sorts of locations that have excellent transport links and housing. The Cabinet Office, through the Places for Growth programme, is finalising relocation plans and beginning their implementation following the spending review. We want to ensure that our geography of locations covers as large and representative an area of the UK as possible, with the aim of having decision makers based in locations to create and distribute opportunity, jobs and investment across the country, including Yorkshire.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP) [V]]

By any objective assessment, the promises made to the people of Northern Ireland—that, as a result of the Northern Ireland protocol, their citizenship of the UK would not be diminished and their access to the GB market would not be disrupted—have been totally discredited. Tens of thousands of people cannot buy online from GB; horticultural supplies to gardeners and garden centres have almost stopped; businesses have found that they cannot get supplies, which has put in jeopardy their production; and petty EU rules have seen goods turned away at ports because they were not loaded on pallets acceptable to the EU, or machinery had soil residue on their tyres. All that is before full implementation of the protocol. The grace period ends in April, and what will happen after that—we have not yet even seen the impact of EU legislation being imposed undemocratically on Northern Ireland—is unthinkable. Will the Leader of the House consider a half-day Opposition day debate on those issues, which are of fundamental importance to the people of Northern Ireland, to the Union and to the integrity of the UK market, given that the Democratic Unionist party has not had an Opposition day debate in this Session?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Obviously, I listen very carefully to the right hon. Gentleman’s request for an Opposition day debate. The DUP does not automatically have one, but I note that in the past it often has, so that will certainly be discussed in the normal manner.

As to the mainstay of his question, this is a matter of the greatest concern. Northern Ireland is a fundamental part of the United Kingdom. The agreement with the European Union was intended to respect that, and to respect the Belfast agreement—the Good Friday agreement —that sets out clearly that no change can be made to the status of Northern Ireland without the consent of both communities. Both my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster have been taking up these issues with urgency. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been in touch with his opposite numbers in the European Union to see how things can be improved, and my right hon Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that there is no question but that we will ensure that steps are taken to safeguard the position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. I note that the actions of the European Union recently show that the threshold for article 16’s use was perhaps not as high as we may previously have thought.

Business of the House

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Monday 8th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend is correct: the legal date for us to leave the European Union is indeed this Friday, 12 April. However, he will also be aware that the Bill that is currently being discussed in the other place seeks to change the date of our departure, and that is the substance of the motion that will be discussed tomorrow should the Bill receive Royal Assent tonight.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Rather than the Government’s being condemned for being in contempt of the view of the House, should not the House recognise that, in passing the Bill, it is in contempt of the views of the vast majority of people in this country, because they voted to leave? The Bill seeks to undermine the UK’s ability to leave the European Union. The Leader of the House should not hang her head in shame for being disdainful to the House of Commons, because she is right to say that the Bill is a constitutional outrage, and also a democratic outrage.

[Andrea Leadsom]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Not only is the Bill against our conventions, but it seeks to subvert the will of the people as expressed in the referendum in 2016. That is a great shame, and it does not do credit to this House.

Business of the House

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Monday 1st April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

My right hon. and learned Friend has a slightly different recollection from my own. Indeed, the Prime Minister did say that she would seek the views of this House, but my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) came forward with his motion prior to the Government being able to do so. The Government respect that, but are concerned about the precedent.

Last week, the House considered a variety of options as a way forward and will do so again today. What was clearly demonstrated last week is that there is no agreed way forward, but urgent action is needed. I continue to believe that the deal the Government have negotiated is a good compromise that delivers on the referendum, while protecting jobs and our security partnership with our EU friends and neighbours.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I disagree with the right hon. Lady on the withdrawal agreement being a good compromise, but does she agree, first, that any vote in this House today is indicative; and, secondly, that it would be totally unreasonable to expect any Government to negotiate an arrangement totally at odds with the programme they set out, the manifesto commitments they made, and the arrangements that the people of the United Kingdom would accept?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I think the right hon. Gentleman was reading my mind. I was literally just about to say that any alternative solution that the House votes for would need to be deliverable, would need to be negotiable with the European Union, and would need to deliver on the vote of the referendum.