Business of the House
John Bercow Excerpts(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
Following the decision of the House on Saturday 19 October, I should like to make an announcement regarding the business for the remainder of this week:
Tuesday 22 October—Second reading of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill, followed by commencement of Committee of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill.
Wednesday 23 October—Continuation of proceedings on the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill.
Thursday 24 October—Conclusion of proceedings on the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill.
Friday 25 October—The House will not be sitting.
Mr Speaker
In a moment, I will call the shadow Leader of the House, who doubtless will have a prepared contribution. However, I emphasise to the House that I regard this as a relatively narrow business statement, and I gently discourage colleagues from expatiating on a vast miscellany of matters, which they could happily do on Thursday. Let us keep it narrow, because that is what it should be.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Oh, the right hon. Lady asked why I left the Chamber. That is extremely straightforward: points of order are for the Chair, not the Leader of the House. It would be an impertinence of me to think I could possibly know more than Mr Speaker about the proceedings of the House, and I would not like to give the impression of having knowledge that I could not pretend to have. It is for Mr Speaker to rule on points of order, not other hon. Members. I had made my point of order and listened to several others, but there were no further opportunities for me to speak, because it was a matter for the Chair.
The Bill will be published very shortly. The presentation of Bill will be the first item of public business when we come to the business of the day. At that point, simultaneously, as if by magic, the Bill will appear in the Vote Office for right hon. and hon. Members to peruse. I am sure they will enjoy that. The programme motion will be down tonight in an orderly way—well, I hope it will be orderly, but Mr Speaker will rule on that if it is not—for debate tomorrow. And of course the Bill will not be pulled.
The right hon. Lady is one of the most charming Members of this House, and has enormous grace and thoughtfulness, but when she said we were running scared of democracy, she must have been trying to pull our collective legs. It is this Government who have offered a general election not just once, but twice. How frightened is that of democracy? We are so terrified of the voters that we want them to have the chance to vote. We are so scared that we think they should be allowed to go to the ballot box. No, if there is any scaredness, any frightenedness, if anybody is frit, it is the Opposition.
Mr Speaker
Let me endorse what the Leader of the House said in all solemnity about the absolute and precious right of Members and staff to go about their business safely and unimpeded. That has to be an absolute and non-negotiable right. Where that right has been threatened, that threat is to be unequivocally condemned. Sometimes I fear that people think that one form of hollering or protest is acceptable and another is not. The truth is that no behaviour that could be intimidating, threatening or worse can be justified in our democracy.
I note what the Leader of the House said more widely about points of order. Points of order are matters for a response by the Chair. Nevertheless, there was no obligation on him to beetle out of the Chamber during the said points of order, given that most of them were proxies for commentaries upon his own. Nevertheless, I note what he said. There was no disinclination on my part for there to be an emergency business statement. I had rather thought that that was what the Leader of the House was going to proffer, and therefore there was just a genuine misunderstanding between us on that point. I ascribe no ulterior motive to the Leader of the House, and I know that he would not ascribe one to me.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
May I press the Leader of the House on when the debate on the Queen’s Speech will conclude? We always knew that 31 October was a date, and we always knew when the Queen’s Speech would be. Presumably, the timing was agreed between the Government and the Palace.
The fact is that Parliament has spent the best part of three years discussing what it does not want, and it is now time for us to move on. I welcome the business statement, but will we have an opportunity to vote directly on what the Prime Minister has brought back to the House, which is not the Prime Minister’s deal but a deal between the European Union and the British Government?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I intend to move on at quarter past six, so it may well be that not everyone gets in.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
With regard to what happened on Saturday, I simply make the point that, as in the case of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and his son, and that of a Secretary of State as well, I, too, was subjected to an attempt to “take me out”, I suppose we would say. However, there was a remarkable response—not that I was the slightest bit fazed—
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not wish to be unkind or discourteous to the hon. Gentleman, but what I am looking for are single-sentence questions. I am very sorry if the hon. Gentleman was unhappily interrupted, but I want a single-sentence question and not an explanation of his experience on Saturday.
Sir William Cash
The police were very brave. In respect of this Bill, however, I entirely endorse what my right hon. Friend has said about the Benn Act, which was pushed through in a completely unacceptable manner involving the tearing up of Standing Order No. 14, whereas this Bill is in accordance with all the proper procedures, and will deal with the constitutional freedom of this country so that we can regain our self-government.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has expressed his views with great force, but I am sorry to say that he is in violation of the convention relating to the business statement in the way that the Leader of the House said was true of the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) the other day, as a consequence of which no response to the question is required.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Can the Leader of the House confirm that the withdrawal agreement Bill that is about to be published will disapply the requirement under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act that any treaty must be laid before the House for 21 days before it can be ratified?
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
It would be churlish of me, in the current context, to ask for additional time for Back-Bench business. I was mindful of, and very much regret, the harassment of the Leader of the House when he departed from the House on Saturday. With that in mind, I understand that the Government may suggest that over the next three days we might sit until any hour, and if that is the case I hope that they will be mindful of the welfare of all Members, including Back Benchers, on all occasions as they arrive at and leave the House.
Mr Speaker
Let me say, by the way, in case the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) thought that I was being churlish—which was certainly not my intention—that as far as I am concerned, and long may it remain so, the hon. Gentleman is indestructible. He is indestructible.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I might add, Mr Speaker, that the Attorney General, who is sitting next to me, pointed out that the treatment of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone was particularly unpleasant. That gives me another opportunity to thank the police for their sterling work. They are very brave in doing this, because they are heavily outnumbered.
May I begin my congratulating the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) on being re-elected unanimously to his post on the Backbench Business Committee? It is rare in the House to be so highly esteemed by right hon. and hon. Members that no one dares even enter the contest.
The point that the hon. Gentleman has made is a serious one, and I hope that it will be communicated to the Serjeant at Arms so that appropriate measures can be taken.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Mr Speaker, earlier you were kind enough to quote what I said on 18 March, but not, I fear, in full. I went on to make another sentence, which was:
“Dare I say that there is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repented than over the 99 who are not in need of repentance”,
because, I, like my hon. Friend, am greatly in favour of continuing to follow precedents and using them as a guide. And they are a guide, and the guide in this case may be what you yourself, Mr Speaker, said on that day:
“It depends on the particular circumstance. For example, it depends whether one is facilitating the House and allowing the expression of an opinion that might otherwise be denied”.—[Official Report, 18 March 2019; Vol. 656, c. 778-79.]
I think this has been a very important guide to the decisions that you have made both recently and historically in your term as Speaker, so no doubt these things will be in your mind as you deliberate and consider further what my hon Friend has said.
Mr Speaker
Yes, and in relation to column 778 of Hansard on 18 March of this year, I do not want to be anything but fully generous to the Leader of the House, but there was a further segment—a very delicious and juicy segment—in his question to me, and that was, if memory serves me correctly, whether there would be an opportunity for decision via the Second Reading of the withdrawal Bill, and I confirmed in my reply to him that his thinking on that matter was correct. So I completely accept the sinner and repenteth bit, and it was only in the name of time that I did not quote that, but I am quoting another part, so we have now got the full smorgasbord of the intervention of the right hon. Gentleman before he became a right hon. Gentleman.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My right hon. and learned Friend is somebody who has always wanted us to remain in the European Union and who disapproves of referendums. He has always made that absolutely clear—[Interruption.] No, that is relevant because that position deserves admiration because he has not tried to use procedural methods to hide his view. His view has been clear to the House and the country throughout, and I happen to think that that is extraordinarily impressive and straightforward. I bow to his position as the Father of the House, which is one of great distinction and gives him a sense of history for what goes on in this place. I would say to him that using accelerated procedures has come about because of the deadline that we have of 31 October, and here I disagree with him: this is not a phoney deadline. That deadline was set because of the workings of article 50. The point is that this should have ended in March. We have already had one extension and there is other business that this country needs to move on to. The second deadline is 31 October, and we have managed to get a new agreement with the European Union, which everybody said was impossible. That is a significant achievement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but because of that we now have this deadline to meet. Yes, of course I would be happy to sit overnight if that is what the House wishes. I am not entirely convinced that it is what the House wishes, but we need to get this legislation through, to deliver on what 17.4 million people voted for.
Mr Speaker
For the benefit of those observing our proceedings who are uninitiated on this matter, I should emphasise that it is now 49 years, four months and three days since the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) was elected to this House, and he has remained a Member of this House throughout that period. It is a quite remarkable state of affairs.
Mr Clarke
Mr Speaker, are you prepared to indulge me with a second question—a follow-up question—to the Leader of the House? My long-standing preference for Britain to be a member of the European Union has nothing to do with my question. I propose to vote for the Bill on Second Reading, and I will vote for Third Reading when we get there. The question is why are the accelerated procedures so accelerated? To have just two and a half days and not sitting on Friday is not a way to accelerate the procedures; it is a way to abbreviate them. Unless we are prepared to contemplate a more expansive debate, there is not the slightest possibility of considering the deal that has been obtained within the time available.
Mr Speaker
I think that is what is called the privilege of being the Father of the House; it is otherwise utterly disorderly!
Mr Rees-Mogg
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I said that you and I both enjoyed the sound of our own voice, but we are mere amateurs compared with my right hon. and learned Friend.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I thank the hon. Lady for all that she does to be a voice for the people of Northern Ireland in this House. It is of fundamental importance to remember always that we are United Kingdom, and the effects on Northern Ireland are important within this proposed legislation. In principle, I would be delighted to accept her invitation, but I am unsure whether the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would want me to, because it is his bailiwick. However, I would be absolutely honoured to visit Northern Ireland, and it would be a pleasure to return there.
Mr Speaker
Bailiwick is an excellent word. The Leader of the House and I share an affection for it.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I am glad that the Leader of the House has been able to contain himself on the Front Bench right the way through all these questions. Unlike the Father of the House, I fully intend to vote against the Bill on Second Reading and, for that matter, on Third Reading. Having not had the courtesy of sight of a draft programme motion through the usual channels, I wonder whether the Leader of the House can tell us whether the Third Reading debate will have protected time, so that those of us who do want to make every effort to stop Brexit on behalf of our constituents who voted against it will have that opportunity?
Business of the House
John Bercow Excerpts(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I can see that the hon. Gentleman wishes to contribute to the exchanges on this matter. He does not have to do a salute.
Mr Leslie
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I was clearing my throat at that particular moment. I am grateful to have caught your eye.
This may look like an innocuous motion from the Government, essentially suggesting that hon. Members, prior to Second Reading, should be allowed to table amendments for the Committee stage, but these are highly unusual circumstances and this motion relates to probably one of the most momentous pieces of legislation that has happened certainly in the last 50 years. It is of course preferable to give hon. Members as much time as possible to table amendments for the Committee stage and potentially for the Report stage, although there is normally an intervening period between the Committee stage and the Report stage.
For the benefit of the House, I want to highlight that, as far as I know, the programme motion for this Bill has not yet been published, although I have heard some quite frightening rumours about what the programme motion is likely to look like. One suggestion I have heard—I invite the Leader of the House to disabuse me of this—is that, as well as seeking Second Reading tomorrow, the Government also intend to commence the Committee stage and have a number of hours in Committee tomorrow.
Mr Speaker
Order. I very gently interrupt the hon. Gentleman to say that that information was divulged, and therefore this prospect was foreshadowed, in the business statement that the Leader of the House delivered earlier, so it is not something on which we need to dilate further.
Mr Leslie
I am very grateful, Mr Speaker. I may not have been in the Chamber at that moment in time, but I am still quite shocked at the idea of having the Second Reading take place and then moving straight on to the Committee stage on Tuesday—tomorrow. The reason this is relevant to this motion today is that the House is expecting Members to frame and draft amendments to a Bill that we have not yet had the opportunity to see. It has just this preceding moment received its First Reading. The time is now 7.41 pm, and we are expected to table amendments for a Committee stage that will take place tomorrow—I think on clauses 1 to 4 of the proposed Bill.
While this motion is, I think, absolutely the minimum required, it is worth reflecting on the appalling notion that this Bill is going to be rammed through in this way and in this particular fashion. I say this for a very good reason. Many hon. Members will remember—the Leader of the House is too young, possibly, to remember many of these things—that the practice when considering legislation that amends aspects of European treaties has quite a long pedigree. The House of Commons Library has rather helpfully produced a briefing paper about the parliamentary process of Bills in respect of EU treaties. We know that the Commons Committee stage on the treaty of Rome was not three days or two days, but 22 days; for the Maastricht treaty, 23 days; for the treaty of Lisbon, 11 days; for the treaty of Amsterdam, five days; for the Single European Act, four days; and for the smallest of them all, the treaty of Nice, three days. In total, there were five days of Commons consideration for the treaty of Nice reform.
This is an unprecedentedly short period of time to dedicate to a massive and momentous piece of legislation. Personally, I am very worried that the motion we are now debating is the first in a series of attempts by the Government to presage what is essentially the ramming through of a piece of legislation in what I regard as a disorderly way. Order in this place is a matter for you, Mr Speaker, but from my perspective, in terms of good law making, this has all the hallmarks of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and all those other bad pieces of legislation. We know that legislation that has not had a chance to be properly scrutinised tends to end up with ill effects or unforeseen consequences for our constituents.
At a quarter to eight in the evening, what are hon. Members really supposed to do? Presumably, by now, the Bill has been published and is hot off the press and available for us to scurry to the Vote Office and look at. Perhaps the Leader of the House—I have not had the opportunity to see it—can tell me how many pages there are in that legislation. He is asking in this motion for us to go and write amendments to that piece of legislation and table those this evening for them to be in order for a Committee stage that is taking place tomorrow. I do not know whether the Leader of the House can say on how many occasions a Bill of such magnitude and importance has had a Second Reading and Committee stage on the same day. Perhaps he can give me some examples, but I do not see that that was the case in any preceding piece of European Union legislation going back to the early 1970s, before I was even born. I am really worried about this motion being the first of many such motions. I think it is necessary as an absolute minimum, but everybody needs to be alert to the fact that it is not just an unfair way to treat the House of Commons, but quite a dangerous approach to take.
Business of the House (Saturday 19 October)
John Bercow Excerpts(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before I call the Leader of the House to move the motion, I should inform the House that I have selected amendment (a) in the name of Sir Oliver Letwin.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), perhaps I should just say this for the elucidation of the House. The House will take its own view of the Government’s motion and indeed of the amendment from the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), but it is important that colleagues do so with open eyes. The only point I want to make—it is a very simple procedural point—is that although theoretically, as the Leader of the House quite rightly said, the debate could end up being shorter if the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for West Dorset were passed because a lengthy exchange on a prime ministerial statement could truncate such a debate, that would be the result of a decision from the Chair, because the Chair has discretion. There is no way on earth that I would allow that to happen, manifestly because I am looking to serve the interests of the House. The debate would not be shorter—absolutely would not be shorter. Whether people want to support that amendment or not is another matter, but it is important that people are clear about what the implications are. I am best placed to say what the implications are and I have just said it.
Business of the House
John Bercow Excerpts(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. A very large number of right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, but we must expedite proceedings because there is other important business with which to deal, so there is a premium on brevity from Back and Front Benchers alike.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on an issue that was brought to my attention at the recent Conservative party conference: the lack of careers advice at school for young people who suffer from hearing loss?
Mr Speaker
Order. For the avoidance of doubt—I know that the Leader of the House will readily accept this, and I say it for the benefit of those observing our proceedings—the arbiter of order is the Chair. The arbiter of order is not the Leader of the House. Proceedings were entirely orderly; otherwise, I would have indicated to the contrary. It is the prerogative of the Leader of the House to respond as he thinks fit to each question put. I will just very gently make the point that if there is a desire in responding to questions to develop an argument more fully and with justified—in his mind—pride to celebrate a particular policy, and in the process going somewhat beyond merely treating of the schedule of business for next week, it is perhaps not altogether generous-spirited to excoriate a colleague who does not operate in quite the way that the Leader of the House would like. But as I say, I will judge order, and I do not require any help from the Treasury Bench.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
From personal or familial experience, and because of all the work we do here, we know of the fragility of good health, and 100,000 sufferers from multiple sclerosis know that, too. This week, I, along with colleagues, learned more about that condition in a presentation that was given in the House. Its causes are complex and its symptoms are initially very subtle, so raising awareness is critical, and a statement or motion before the House would allow that to happen. Ruskin said:
“Government and co-operation are in all things the laws of life”
Co-operation across this House can help to counter this dreadful condition.
Mr Rees-Mogg
First, may I thank the hon. Lady for the tribute she has paid to the House staff? We are extraordinarily lucky in the way we are looked after in this House and with the commitment they have to Parliament. This gives me the opportunity to say that every member of my private office volunteered to come in to work on Saturday. That gives me great pride in the team I am supported by, and I know this applies across the House. This House is incredibly good at education and bringing young people in, and it is one of the things you have focused on, Mr Speaker. The team in the education department are stunningly good, and I am certainly in favour of encouraging this, if Select Committees can do it.
Mr Speaker
I warmly appreciate what the Leader of the House has said about the staff of the House. I think it will be warmly appreciated by Members throughout the House and, above all, by those staff, who have been very properly acknowledged and congratulated. I thank him for that.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
May I take this opportunity to thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing the NATO Parliamentary Assembly to use the House? The House did itself proud, and many of the delegates, from all around the world, including partner nations, were very impressed by what we are able to do here.
Thousands of women in the UK suffer from the debilitating, chronic disease of endometriosis. Despite employment law requiring employers to support employees with medical conditions, many women find themselves forced out of work, with little redress, especially because, on average, diagnosis can take seven to 12 years. May we have a debate on workplace practices for women who are suffering with this terrible disease, so that they do not have the trauma and stress of losing their jobs, on top of having to deal with a debilitating condition that destroys their work lives, as well as their personal lives?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I see the hon. Lady is shaking her head, and I encourage her to go back to the DWP. If there is anything that I or the Secretary of State can do to support her, I am sure that that will happen. This is one of our proper and right roles; we should always put pressure on the bureaucracy when it makes an error with constituents to ensure that that error is put right. If there is anything I can do to help, I absolutely assure her that I will do so.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am used to waiting, but unfortunately so are my constituents—when it comes to the A14 in South Suffolk. The prospect of an independent trade policy is a great step forward for our economy, but we will only be able to take advantage of it if we support the infrastructure that our crucial ports rely on, including Felixstowe. All Felixstowe’s freight comes out on the A14 so the Copdock interchange is crucial, but it is completely substandard. When does my right hon. Friend expect the Transport Secretary to announce the road investment strategy 2 funding allocations? Let me tell him that it will go down very well if includes funding for the Copdock interchange.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am always happy to try to facilitate meetings where I can. I am willing to see all Members of this House about any issues they seek to raise. Secretaries of State and Ministers have a duty, in my view, to see Back-Bench Members when the issues are sufficiently serious.
Mr Speaker
I thank the Leader of the House, the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) and the 60 Back Benchers who questioned the Leader of the House.
Business of the House
John Bercow Excerpts(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Rees-Mogg
If I may, I will answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions in reverse order. The canonisation of Cardinal Newman is a matter of great joy to Catholics in this country and to other Christians. It is a matter of huge celebration. It is very rare that a Briton is elevated and becomes, by God’s divine mercy, a saint, and we should all rejoice at that. I do not know whether a member of Her Majesty’s Government is going to be at the ceremony. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that I should go, but if he was, that suggestion is very welcome. However, that is not for me to decide. I agree that it would be suitable to have a meeting to discuss the 10th anniversary of the Holy Father Emeritus’s visit, which was a wonderful occasion on which he gave a very moving speech.
As regards Opposition days, I am going to say what I said to the shadow Leader of the House. Should the hon. Gentleman want to have a vote of no confidence, time will be made available and we will give him a day in which to speak. That would give us the opportunity to speak in the other direction on the many virtues of this fantastic Government.
Mr Speaker
I am bound to observe that the Leader of the House’s enthusiasm about canonisation is beginning to sound a little like ambition.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Contrary to the claim by the Hollies, who were a well-known musical ensemble, the air that we breathe is not all that we need. But we cannot live without it, as more than 10,000 sufferers of cystic fibrosis know as they gasp for breath each day. Yesterday in this House, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) drew our attention to the drug Orkambi, which can be a life-saving treatment. It is certainly a life-changing one for more than half those who suffer. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made on how that drug can be made available in the United Kingdom as it has been in Scotland? I know that you admire Edmund Burke as much as I do, Mr Speaker. He said:
“There is but one law for all, namely that law which governs all law, the law of our Creator, the law of humanity, justice, equity”.
In the name of those virtues, please make this drug available for those who suffer in silence.
Mr Speaker
I hope that the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) will take the hint. Adjournment debates, urgent questions, emergency debates—Burke would expect nothing less.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I wonder whether the Leader of the House would agree that one of the most innovative and successful innovations in recent times was the creation of a Children’s Commissioner, particularly with Anne Longfield as a very brave champion for children. Does he agree that we should have an early debate on what she revealed only last week—that 20% of the children coming out of our schools have no qualifications at all? That was not mentioned very much at the Conservative party conference. Is it not about time that we looked at it in a debate in this House, and did something about it?
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
May I wish you a speedy recovery, Mr Speaker? On next week’s business, the Speaker is clearly suffering from a problem with his voice and he puts in enormous hours in the Chair, staying there for quite extreme times and having to shout at times to keep the House in order. Would it be appropriate, or would the Leader of the House recommend—I do not know the propriety of this—that the Speaker is asked not to chair those sorts of debates, particularly on the European Union, in order to protect his health?
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is entirely a matter for you to decide which debates you chair and which debates you do not chair, Mr Speaker, although I would say that for the convenience of previous Speakers in past times, before there were deputies, there was a curtain—
Business of the House
John Bercow Excerpts(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
It is a question of a medical doctor or a doctor of philosophy. I think on this occasion I will take the medical doctor. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) is a very distinguished fellow, but he is not a doctor. We will come to him in due course. I call Dr Caroline Johnson.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I know how hard my right hon. Friend works for his constituents, but perhaps there is one he has worked especially hard for, and that is his constituent Max, who has Batten disease and needed Brineura, an important drug for this rare and very unpleasant condition, which ultimately would lead to his death if he did not have the drug. My right hon. Friend asked an urgent question on this before the summer recess, and just after the Prorogation ceremony we heard from NHS England that this drug will now be available. Does he feel that a debate on the rare diseases protocol would be beneficial in ensuring that other people do not have to wait as long as Max?
Mr Speaker
Order. Perhaps I should have explained—I will now do so. The next debate, if it is to have two hours, needs to start at 3 o’clock. If people insist on making long interventions, they must know that they are stopping others. It is as simple and incontrovertible as that.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The issue with Max, who has Batten disease, is one of the greatest difficulty, and I am so pleased that the drug is now being made available, but I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a need for greater debate and discussion on the availability of medicines for rare diseases. Again, I think it is a Backbench Business matter, but the Government are taking it seriously, and I am grateful to NHS England for finding the funding so that Max can get the drug he so needs.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I make an exception for the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, which, for geographical reasons, has slightly fewer constituents, but they are some of the finest people in this country. I would not quite say they count double, but they are heading in that direction. When this matter was being debated some years ago, I thought we should create a rotten borough for him, because he brings so much levity and pleasure to the House through his interjections.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am very sympathetic to what my hon. Friend says. The statutory instrument is prepared but is being considered and will be introduced if there is a suitable opportunity.
Mr Speaker
I cannot believe the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) has forgotten the fact of his pearls of wisdom so soon after he uttered them. Maybe he has a second set of pearls in mind—I do not know—but it may have to wait. I beg the Leader of the House’s pardon.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to refer to Bills by colloquial names. It is a traditional and perfectly reasonable thing to do. Of course, it is a political matter. People will use the names they use. The forms on language in this House are well set out. As you said earlier, Mr Speaker, nothing disorderly happened yesterday. We have to be really careful. Civility and being polite to each other are important, and when Members on either side are vilified or threats to their safety are made, we must oppose it vigorously, but that is of a very different order of magnitude from robust debate in this House. To conflate the two is a fundamental error and risks making the serious nature of what is happening to some Members appear part of the back and forth of politics. It is not—it is really serious. The term “surrender Bill” is a matter of taste, not a matter of any real importance. I am quite happy with the term “surrender Bill”.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I think that really is a matter for the Governor of the Bank of England, but it might be worth taking it up with the about-to-be-elected Chairman of the Treasury Committee, who may be able to call him in to ask him about the important question of credit control by banks.
Mr Speaker
And that election will take place in the course of October, as I suspect the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) will know.
Business of the House
John Bercow Excerpts(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. With permission, I wonder if I may add to the comments that were just made, because what you said was of fundamental importance. A lot of Members of this House, but particularly women and ethnic minorities, get treated in a quite disgraceful way. I have never tried to make a great fuss about what has happened on my own account, because it is very mild compared with what others have had to put up with, and I am well aware of that. I am grateful for the support that I have had from Members on both sides of the House—I catch the eye of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who has always been very good about this, and of course you, Mr Speaker.
What has happened to me has been very, very minor. What has happened to other Members, particularly on social media, has been deeply unpleasant and troubling. We all have a responsibility to be mild in our language when we are speaking in this House or outside. I am afraid to say that it is something where all sides err from time to time, and it would be invidious to pick on individual examples, but we have a responsibility of leadership. At this particular time, emotions are unquestionably running very high, and therefore calmness is to be encouraged, though we are discussing matters of the greatest importance.
I thank you, Mr Speaker, for what you said, which I think has the support of the House. May I also congratulate you on sitting there for 10 hours, 37 minutes and six seconds without a break, which I think is more than any of the rest of us have managed? I also want to reiterate the thanks you gave to the staff at the beginning of today’s proceedings. As Members will know, the Door- keepers expect to be on holiday at this time in a recess that was long planned, and many of them have had to rearrange their affairs to be here to look after us and ensure that our proceedings run. They are not alone—this applies to Clerks as well and to the staff who work in the catering department—and we ought to thank them for breaking potentially long-standing commitments to be with us.
The business for tomorrow is as follows:
Thursday 26 September—The House will be asked to approve a conference adjournment motion for next week, followed by a general debate on the principles of democracy and the rights of the electorate.
Mr Speaker
I thank the Leader of the House very warmly for the opening remarks that he made. By the way, my experience, likewise, has been extremely minor by comparison with the experience of colleagues. I merely mentioned it to demonstrate empathy, but he and I are in the same boat in that regard, and I very much appreciate his words.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, may I associate myself with the remarks you made about the Members who have faced such difficulties and thank you for making them? I also thank the Leader of the House, and I want to respectfully ask him to ask the Prime Minister not to call the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 the surrender Bill—he could start with that, please.
I thank the Leader of the House for his business statement, following the Adjournment of the House on 9 September. While it is vital that the House sits to scrutinise the Government at this important time for the country, we stand ready to work with the Government to ensure that the Tory party conference takes place in the fantastic Labour-led city of Manchester.
It is surely possible for the Leader of the House to schedule important legislation that commands widespread support across the House. The Government need the three statutory instruments on Northern Ireland, scheduled previously in September. Surely the Leader of the House could bring forward the Second Reading of the Domestic Abuse Bill, which would be supported on both sides of the House. The Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill would similarly be supported widely by Members. Those important Bills are not contentious, and they would allow the House to sit while the Conservative party conference went ahead. Given the Government’s desultory approach to motions proposed by Opposition parties, may I also ask for an Opposition day?
I know the Leader of the House was part of the whole process, and I notice that the Prime Minister did not want to talk about the judgment of the Supreme Court, but I want to place on record Her Majesty’s Opposition’s thanks to the justices of the Supreme Court for the speed at which they heard the cases and gave judgment, and to all those who took part in the legal process. The judgment was a clear restatement of the principles on which our democracy, the sovereignty of Parliament and the rule of law are based. I am pleased, Mr Speaker, that you have read into the record the citation of the judgment. I would ask that the whole judgement be included in Hansard. Anyone who reads that judgment will think that it should be a model for citizenship and be taught everywhere, as a vital part of our democracy.
The first sentence of the judgment makes it clear that the issue decided by the Court
“is not when and on what terms the United Kingdom is to leave the European Union. The issue is whether the advice given by the Prime Minister to Her Majesty the Queen…that Parliament should be prorogued was lawful.”
The justices were concerned that
“the longer that Parliament stands prorogued, the greater the risk that responsible government may be replaced by unaccountable government: the antithesis of the democratic model.”
Does the Leader of the House agree with that? At paragraph 50, they also said that
“a decision to prorogue Parliament (or to advise the monarch to prorogue Parliament) will be unlawful if the prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive.”
Does the Leader of the House accept that that will also affect any future Prorogations? The justices confirmed the foundations of our constitution at paragraph 55:
“We live in a representative democracy. The House of Commons exists because the people have elected its members. The Government is not directly elected by the people (unlike the position in some other democracies).”
The Government therefore exist because of, and are accountable to, the House of Commons. Will the Leader of the House clarify the comments on a constitutional coup? Did he mean the Government were embarking on a constitutional coup, or was it the Supreme Court? Who exactly is undertaking this constitutional coup?
The question asked by the justices was whether the action of the Prime Minister had the effect of frustrating or preventing the constitutional role of Parliament in holding the Government to account. The answer they gave, at paragraph 56, was, “of course it did”. This was not a normal Prorogation, as you said, Mr Speaker; they mostly last five days.
Why are the Government spinning that they do not agree with the judgment? These are eminent justices well versed in the law, undertaking their role as checks and balances, who have heard the submissions and come to their own conclusion. Does the Leader of the House agree that every Member of the House who impugns that judgment effectively does not accept the rule of law or the sovereignty of Parliament? The Government cannot say they disagree with the judgment when they offered no evidence other than a witness statement from the Treasury Solicitor and a memo from Nikki da Costa, which was copied to various other people. As the justices said, they are concerned not with the Prime Minister’s motive but with whether there was a reason, and none was given for closing Parliament for five weeks. As the memo says, everything was focused on the Queen’s Speech. Why did that require a Prorogation taking five weeks? The evidence of a previous Prime Minister, Sir John Major, was unchallenged by the Government. He said that it typically lasts four to six days, not weeks, and that he has never known a Government to need five weeks to put together the legislative agenda. How long does the Leader of the House think that preparations for the Queen’s Speech should take, and will Parliament be prorogued before the Queen’s Speech on 14 October?
A fundamental change was going to take place on 31 October. With the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019, this House, by our motions and enactments, does not support the Government on the issue of leaving without an agreement. At this time, we needed scrutiny Committees and the release of documents updating both Houses, but none of that could take place while Parliament was not sitting. Sadly, the Government did not believe us, but they had to be checked by the Supreme Court.
Given that the Supreme Court has decided that everything that flows from the unlawful Order in Council is unlawful, could we have a debate on the costs to the taxpayer of that unlawful act, including of flights and the return of Parliament, and could the Leader of the House publish those costs? Why should the taxpayer foot the bill for the Government’s unlawfulness?
This Government have cast aside parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law, and they are now casting aside the checks and balances of our democracy by disagreeing with the judgment. The Leader of the House did not raise an objection. As one of his predecessors has said, he is the voice of Parliament in the Cabinet. Why did the Leader of the House not protect parliamentary sovereignty? He will know that in 1733 Dr Thomas Fuller said:
“Be you never so high, the law is above you.”
How very rude. If this Government cannot obey the law and do not believe in accountability to Parliament or in the sovereignty of Parliament, they should step aside now.
Mr Speaker
Order. Before I ask the Leader of the House to respond, I should like to emphasise, because it has been a long day, although we are, arguably, just getting going, that this is a narrow business statement. I do not use the term “narrow” in any pejorative sense; it is narrow in the sense that it is tightly focused on the proposed business for tomorrow. I certainly would not have dreamed of interrupting the shadow Leader of the House, who has put a series of points on the record—I make absolutely no complaint about that—but there will be a further business statement tomorrow, and that will be the occasion for wider inquiries about subsequent days and the preferences of colleagues for debates on those days. This statement treats of tomorrow, and therefore it would be helpful if colleagues would observe that in terms of the questions that they ask. I am not trying to prevent anybody from speaking, but this is about tomorrow’s business. It is not a general debate and it is not about a subsequent week’s business. I hope that that is helpful.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) on becoming a Privy Counsellor? I am looking forward, wearing my other hat as Lord President of the Council, to being present when she is sworn in as a member. I think that the whole House is pleased that this has happened.
I am very grateful for, though, I am sorry to say, slightly suspicious of, the hon. Lady’s offer that we could all go off to Manchester and business could carry on here if the business were desperately uncontentious. There has been a recent habit for Standing Order motions to lead to legislation, and it would be a pity if the Conservative Benches were empty because we were all in the wonderful city of Manchester. Tomorrow’s motion to have a recess for three days seems only fair, as the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party have had their conferences and we should have ours. [Interruption.] I understand that this is difficult for the SNP, but had we carried on with the Prorogation it would have been able to have its conference—[Interruption.] Would it not? Well, that is a great loss for so many people.
I share the hon. Lady’s concentration on the Domestic Abuse Bill and the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill. They are both important measures and we will bear them in mind when we make the statement tomorrow, depending on how events go.
The hon. Lady asked about the “constitutional coup”. That phrase has been attributed to me, and I use the word “attributed” with great care.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
“Measured” is a relative term, and I say in the friendliest possible spirit to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), whose elegant constructions favour the House each week, that I think that he thinks that he was being measured. I think that each of us probably needs to reflect on this.
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
Could we have an early debate, perhaps even tomorrow, on getting a deal and what it might look like? The Prime Minister stressed earlier that he was seeking a deal, which was extremely welcome. We have seen various initiatives in recent weeks, such as the alternative arrangements commission and the new MPs for a deal group, which includes the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) and others. There does seem to be a renewed momentum, including from other parties in the House, towards getting a deal. Would it not be sensible to have a debate early on to see what the parameters of that deal might look like? Ultimately we will have to have that debate in this House. Would it not be sensible to have at least a reconnaissance sooner rather than later of what might be acceptable?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Prime Minister said earlier that the hon. Gentleman normally makes sensible points. This is the second time today when he has not. That is the most fatuous point I have heard. We know full well that Her Majesty acts on the advice of her Prime Minister. That was set out in front of the Supreme Court and was not questioned by anybody. Her Majesty does not independently decide whether to prorogue or not to prorogue. The British public know that. The only doubt that is ever caused is by hon. Gentlemen opposite raising the point that it is the Queen and trying to politicise Her Majesty, of which I think the great work, “Erskine May”, disapproves. It is quite wrong to drag Her Majesty into it. The responsibility is unquestionably the Prime Minister’s and this is the routine a, b, c of constitutionalism. Anybody who understands the constitution knows that Her Majesty had no discretion. There was no question of dragging her into it and it is the hon. Gentleman—who is, to use your favourite word, Mr Speaker, chuntering away merrily—who ought to go back to school and learn about the constitution. A Ladybird book can be provided.
Mr Speaker
It is not for me to say, and it was not evident to me whether the activity was being undertaken merrily, but I can certainly confirm that there was chuntering from a sedentary position. I may say, of course, that the expression “chuntering from a sedentary position” is very commonplace in the work of the House, but I have noticed in my travels to Parliaments around the world that it is a source of regular comment and no little amusement.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
It is great to see the Leader of the House at the Dispatch Box, in his natural element. May I ask him a question that does not relate to Brexit? Before the House was prorogued, because of a Standing Order No. 24 debate it unfortunately lost the opportunity to debate and conclude the remaining stages of the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill. The measure is uncontroversial on both sides of the House, and its basic point is to extend the sentence for cruelty to an animal from six months to five years.
Will the Leader of the House be in a position to say something in his statement tomorrow about finding Government time for this important Bill which, amid all these other controversies, would allow us better to protect animals across the country? The Bill is vital to the millions of animal lovers in the United Kingdom, so could the Government find time to bring back the Bill and get it on the statute book as soon as possible?
Business of the House
John Bercow Excerpts(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Rees-Mogg
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me deal with the last point first. I would not have dreamed of saying that you were wrong. I made the point, the classic point, that you have not eyes to see with nor lips to speak except as directed by this House. I believe, Mr Speaker, that that is what you do, properly. You have consistently taken the view that the House should be able to debate what it wishes to debate, although I will confess that sometimes if I were in your position I might come to a different decision. That is not in any sense disrespectful to Mr Speaker.
Let me come to this panoply of questions that we have had. First, I thank the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) for supporting us on Northern Ireland legislation and looking forward to the Lords amendments. The early parliamentary motion will be put down tonight, as it needs to be, before the close of business.
On the very important issue that hon. Lady raises on every occasion, relating to Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, the Foreign Office is doing what it can. It is a very difficult situation. It is so important that the Foreign Office, in all these consular cases—the hon. Lady mentioned a number of them—is as vigorous as it can be. In my view, the statement made by a former Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston in the Don Pacifico affair, is the right approach for Governments to take in defending the interests of British citizens abroad. We should be incredibly robust about it. I believe the Foreign Office is doing as much as it possibly can, but sadly we cannot tell other countries what to do.
We then come on to the Queen’s Speech and what will happen to the Bills that are stuck. The Bills that are stuck will become unstuck because they will fall on prorogation. That is the sort of de-supergluing process that we are able to use. I am glad to tell the House that all the Bills that are needed for leaving the European Union on 31 October are in place.
We then come to the diary questions. What was I doing? [Interruption.] On the ability to leave on 31 October, all the legislation that is needed is in place. We have 580 statutory instruments to make sure it will all happen smoothly. That is all done. It is ready. It is prepared. Her Majesty’s Government have been a model of efficiency and efficacy in preparing this. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is perhaps one of the most impressive administrative Ministers this country has ever seen.
I was asked questions about my knowledge of the next Queen’s Speech. The hon. Lady is aware that one of the main duties of the Leader of the House is to prepare for the next Queen’s Speech. That is what one does. That is what one is briefed on from the very beginning. Bids for items in the next Queen’s Speech come to the Leader of the House, so that has been part of my briefing from the point at which I was appointed and that is the reason why this Session is coming to an end. It has gone on for far too long, as the hon. Lady rightly pointed out—as indeed did the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who seems to be fidgeting at the moment in an uncharacteristically fidgety way.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Mr Speaker, your knowledge of being able to fidget is so extensive that I am sure you will be able to tell the House or make it a chapter in your memoirs on un-fidgety fidgeting.
That is the straightforward reason for the Prorogation. The Prorogation is taking place to have a new Queen’s Speech to set out the really exciting one nation policies that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wishes to set out. [Interruption.] Mr Speaker, I know and we all know, because we have heard you say it many times, that however much chuntering there is from the other side you will make time for me to answer all their questions, which I am looking forward to with eager anticipation. I will be better able to answer them if they wait their turn, rather than making noises imitating a farmyard that I cannot translate because I am not Dr Doolittle. If only I were Dr Doolittle, life might be easier. So that is the routine part of my responsibility and that is why Parliament will be prorogued.
On the conference recess, on the last occasion I appeared at the Dispatch Box to answer these questions I raised the issue of the conference recess. Sitting opposite me was none other than that really distinguished figure, the Opposition Chief Whip. [Interruption.] It was not the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) who is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench now, but the Opposition Chief Whip. When I said that we would have the conference recess, the Opposition Chief Whip nodded. As we all know, a nod from the Opposition Chief Whip is like the nod of Zeus: what it nods at is done and is viewed as authoritative, so let us have no questions about that.
The hon. Lady came on to scaremongering. She seems to wish to compete to become the scaremonger-in-chief. The preparations have been made. They are in place and they have been done with remarkable efficiency. But yes, a lot of remainers wish to make our skins crawl. I am afraid it seems to me that Dr David Nicholl is as irresponsible as Dr Wakefield. [Interruption.] I will repeat: as irresponsible as Dr Wakefield, in threatening that people will die because we leave the European Union. What level of irresponsibility was that?
In conclusion, I say to the hon. Lady and the House that this Government have offered them the opportunity, if they do not like what we are doing, to seek an election and put themselves to the voters, but they dare not do that. They are frightened of the voters and all they wish to do is obstruct democracy.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the future staging of party conferences? It seems to me that these conferences have changed out of all recognition and in future could easily be held over a long weekend.
Mr Speaker
What a very sound question. I am even more delighted than usual to have called the hon. Gentleman so early. These are meetings of voluntary organisations which could perfectly well take place over a weekend. The idea that we should be away from our main place of work for this sort of indulgence will strike very large numbers of people across the country as bizarre.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Mr Speaker, I wondered if you were going to suggest a job share. Perhaps I should sit in as Speaker on occasion and you should answer questions as Leader of the House. I am sorry to say that I have a slightly different answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess). Party conferences are an important part of the political process. I am really glad to say that this year’s Conservative party conference is going to be primarily an occasion for members. We are going to get back to putting members front and central, because they are the people who select us and for whom we work, and who campaign for us. Party conferences are important and it is a reasonable time to have. This House has not been that busy, it has to be said, earlier in the Session. Therefore, having a party conference is perfectly reasonable.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful as always to the hon. Gentleman for his characteristic charm. What we have seen today is, I think in history, unprecedented, unknown and unseen. We have seen a frightened Scotsman. They are people who are known for their courage, their forthrightness and their sturdiness, and they are scared of going in front of their voters. They have run away from an election. They are—what is it?—“tim’rous beasties”, I think they must be called, who dare not face their voters. I just wonder whether that is because of the narrow majority that the hon. Gentleman has. He parades it as concern for Conservative Members, and he is worried that they may be in danger, but surely if that is what he really thinks, he should be embracing the opportunity for an election and pushing forward for it.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned, as did the hon. Member for Walsall South, my right hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson), who has decided to leave Her Majesty’s Government. This is something that we know about across the country: families disagree on Brexit. My enormously distinguished, wise and good sister, Annunziata, has gone and joined the Brexit party—and not only joined it, but got elected to the European Parliament. We all have, within our families, these disagreements over an issue that is of fundamental importance to us—[Interruption.]
Mr Rees-Mogg
Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is of fundamental importance to us all, and that is why it is right to put this back to the British people in a general election, so that they can decide and the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) can restore the honour of the people of Scotland by showing he is not afraid.
Mr Speaker
These are richly enjoyable exchanges. That would ordinarily be the case in the presence of the Leader of the House in any circumstance, but I believe that it is more so because, unless I am much mistaken, the right hon. Gentleman is not the only Rees-Mogg present and observing our proceedings today. It is a great pleasure and privilege to welcome little Moggs in particular, of whom there are several, and other members of the Rees-Mogg dynasty.
Notwithstanding that joy, one of the responsibilities of the Speaker is to safeguard the rights of Members in respect of business to follow. I make that point simply to underline the imperative of brevity from Back and Front Benchers alike in observing that, exceptionally today, it may not be possible for everybody to be called on the business statement. We will do our best, and the quest for brevity can be led—I think with distinction—by Dr Julian Lewis.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May we have a statement or debate on the circumstances of the seizure of a British-flagged tanker by Iran in the Gulf? If there is not enough time for that, will the Leader of the House have a word with the Secretary of State for Defence, because the Defence Committee on Monday has a session planned, but the former Secretary of State—my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt)—has so far not yet received the information that she requires from the Ministry of Defence to enable her to give testimony to us?
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is indeed an addled Parliament that is not able to get things done, and the conclusion that my right hon. Friend draws is correct. Royal Assent will be given speedily once the Bill has completed its passage through the House of Lords and come back to us, if necessary, with any amendments. I obviously cannot predict what their lordships will do, but if it completes those stages, it will receive Royal Assent, and speedily.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
With the Government’s disgraceful proroguing of Parliament, not only will hon. Members be unable to scrutinise Ministers on Brexit, but I will be robbed of the opportunity to press Ministers following Tata’s announcement that it proposes to close all steelworks in Newport, so what will the Leader of the House do to facilitate a debate so that we can all fight to save our steel industry?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The issues that the hon. Lady raises are of fundamental importance. We will all have had similar cases brought to us in our constituencies. The Prime Minister is fully behind the Domestic Abuse Bill. I cannot tell the hon. Lady what precisely will be in the Queen’s Speech, but I think that I can give a steer that it would be a great surprise to all of us if the Bill were not revived very quickly, because her concern is shared across the House.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
May we have a statement from the Health Secretary on when NHS England’s new genomic medicine service will be fully operational?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. We need to wrap up this session by 1.40, so much briefer questions are now needed.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Leader of the House has a big family, as I have. There is a woman in Tehran who cannot see her husband and cannot see her little daughter. While the House is not sitting, will the Leader of the House lead an all-party delegation to Iran—I would be with him—to see whether we can get that woman released?
Mr Rees-Mogg
This is a matter for the Foreign Secretary. I cannot constitutionally interfere in the Foreign Secretary’s business. However, I completely share the concern. If you were to lead a delegation Mr Speaker, I think that that would be very powerful, but I do hope you will make sure that you get back.
Mr Speaker
On the principle that Members always speak the truth in the Chamber, I have to assume that the right hon. Gentleman was sincere in what he just said.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
On the Chancellor’s desk since last July has been a shortlist of candidates to succeed Mark Carney as Governor of the Bank of England. Is the Leader of the House aware of the Chancellor’s plans to make a statement on who he has recommended be appointed, so that the Treasury Committee may scrutinise that appointment?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am very grateful for that question. The hon. Gentleman has just said that he expects his party to lose the election. Not only has the Labour party passed a surrender Bill, but it has now decided to surrender as a political force. What we have just heard is that Labour Members do not think that they can have an election on 15 October. Why? Because they would lose. If they are so confident that they would win, they can win and cancel Brexit, which is their real purpose, but they do not trust the people.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Barely a life in this place, or beyond in our constituencies—perhaps through family or friends—has not been touched by cancer and its treatment. You, Mr Speaker, and the Leader of the House will know of the critical relationship between detection, diagnosis and definitive treatment. Will the Leader of the House therefore arrange either a statement or a debate on early diagnosis? It would assuage fear, prevent pain and, hopefully, stop people dying.
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I begin by thanking the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for their kind words last week when a protest was proposed outside my house? I was very grateful for that and for their bipartisan approach; I think we all have a concern that Members’ houses should not be affected, and I am genuinely grateful.
The issue the hon. Lady raises is very serious, and I have great sympathy for the WASPI women—it is difficult for them—but the situation we inherited in 2010 in terms of the public finances necessitated it, and although I am not unsympathetic to a debate, I very much doubt the decision is going to be changed.
Mr Speaker
I very much endorse what the Leader of the House said about the hon. Members for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) and for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). I have made that point myself before, but I take the opportunity to do so again: people who have political disagreements with public figures should not demonstrate in a way that causes real anxiety and fear either to that Member—that public servant—or to members of his or her family; that is intolerable.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
May we have an urgent statement on UK Government support for the people and Government of the Bahamas given their very difficult situation?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Frankly, I think when people start saying that people are going to die because of Brexit, their reputations are destroyed by themselves.
Mr Speaker
I am extremely grateful to the Leader of the House and to colleagues for their brevity.
European Union (Withdrawal)
John Bercow Excerpts(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I remind the House—it is a case of reminding as reference was made to this matter only a few moments ago—that a paper with the terms of the motion has been distributed.
Crispin Blunt
If my right hon. Friend recalls, the Foreign Affairs Committee’s report on no deal two weeks before we gave notice under article 50, which was unanimously agreed across a Committee wholly split on the merits of the issue, concluded that the damage that would be done by the failure to get an agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union would be greater for the European Union in material terms, but greater for the United Kingdom in proportionate terms. However, the absolute damage being represented on the other side is at stake, so his negotiation—
Mr Speaker
Order. It is very selfish if an intervention is so long as to prevent other people from getting in.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I agree with my hon. Friend that the proportions are different from the absolutes, but I fear that my hon. Friend’s Committee’s report was deficient, in my view, in an important respect. There is a counterbalancing point from the EU’s perspective, and that is that actually demonstrating that it causes great pain proportionately to the country that is doing it is regarded as a significant political, ideological and geopolitical advantage. We have no similar advantage, so the threat to our prosperity and the welfare of our people is the only issue that arises, whereas for the EU there is a positive advantage in a no-deal exit to be balanced against the absolute and proportionately much smaller effect on the member states’ economies. Again, my hon. Friend and I may differ in that judgment, but that is the judgment that we are asking the House to make, and I take the view that I have espoused.
In the light of the four facts—the slender chance of a deal being struck on the Government’s terms; the fact that this is Parliament’s last chance to block a no-deal exit on 31 October; the fact that without a parliamentary block the Government are willing to take us into a no deal exit; and the fact that prospect of such a disorderly and undemocratic no-deal exit is a threat to our prosperity and our Union, rather than an effective negotiating strategy with the EU—we are putting forward to the House today a motion, the sole purpose of which is to enable the House tomorrow to debate and vote on a Bill in the names of the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt). If the House votes for this motion tonight, it will give itself the ability to vote for that Bill tomorrow. That Bill will mandate the Prime Minister to seek an extension to 31 January unless he has either got a deal in place at the end of the European Council meeting in October and has got it agreed by Parliament or has got Parliament to agree to a no-deal exit by 19 October.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House go back to his point about Standing Order No. 24? It seems to me that he is absolutely correct—as Mr Speaker was correct in his previous statement—that this could not be on a substantive motion. If the motion, which appears to be substantive, is carried tonight, it seems to me that the Government would have every right to declare it ultra vires and ignore it.
Mr Speaker
Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman will not presume to argue with the judgment of the Chair, entitled as he is to the possession and expression of his opinion. What I say to him in order to help him and to assist the Leader of the House is this: if, in the judgment of the Chair, a motion under Standing Order No. 24 is expressed in neutral terms, it will not be open to amendment—if it is judged to be expressed in neutral terms. The reality of the matter is that there have been previous occasions upon which there have been Standing Order No. 24 motion debates which have contained what I would prefer to call evaluative motions, notably on 18 March 2013 and on 11 December 2018 with which I feel sure the Leader of the House is familiar. It is in conformity with that practice that I have operated. I have taken advice of a professional kind, and I am entirely satisfied that the judgment that I have made is consistent with that advice. My attitude is simply to seek to facilitate the House. The Leader of the House rightly referred to my responsibility as grave and solemn, and I completely accept that as well as I accept his right to his own view about my judgment in this matter. I have sought to exercise my judgment in discharging my responsibility to facilitate the House of Commons—to facilitate the legislature. I have done it; I am doing it; and I will do it to the best of my ability without fear or favour—or, to coin a phrase, come what may, do or die.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful, as always, Mr Speaker, for your contribution to the debate. It is always very useful that your words are referred to and that the House should be reminded of them. It was suggested by you that this matter should be referred to the Procedure Committee and that the motion should be amended, which it has not been.
Mr Rees-Mogg
There is, I am sorry to say, a stunning arrogance to that view. It fails to understand where sovereignty comes from. [Interruption.] I do indeed dare to say this, and I say it to my right hon. Friend.
Mr Speaker
Order. I recognise that there are strongly held views on both sides of the House on all aspects of this matter, but the Leader of the House must be heard.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Sovereignty in this House comes from the British people. The idea that we can overrule 17.4 million people is preposterous, and the idea that our rules do not exist to protect the people from arrogant power grabs is mistaken. Those rules are there for the protection of the people.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Mr Speaker, you will be glad to know that I am drawing gently to a close, and therefore I fear that time for interventions, except from my very old friend, the right hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), the Chair of the very distinguished Committee that she is the Chair of. [Laughter.]
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
For once, the right hon. Gentleman has made an error and over-promoted me, but I thank him for his distinctive comments.
There is a serious point here: we are a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. I take that judgment seriously, as I know do colleagues across the House. The Government do not have not have a majority and we are in uncharted constitutional territory, so it is absolutely right and proper that we exercise our judgment in the interests of the country to avoid, at the very least, a no-deal Brexit. For all the right hon. Gentleman’s talk, we must exercise that judgment, and that is what we are doing. It is entirely responsible.
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not think that the Leader of the House was planning to invite the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) to join him in Balmoral, so I am not sure that it makes a great deal of difference in the immediate circumstances.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am afraid that the hon. Lady is wrong because there is a routine constitutional procedure to deal with the situation she describes, and that is the vote of confidence. Yes, we are a representative body, but where does our sovereignty come from? Here I am in agreement with the Scots: sovereignty comes from the people to Parliament. We hold it in trust for them and they gave us an instruction. If we follow this route, we are left with but three options: we have to accept the deal with its anti-democratic backstop; we have to keep on extending, because Parliament would never accept that we are ready to leave; or we could simply revoke and tell 17.4 million people that they were wrong.
The approach taken today is the most unconstitutional use of this House since the days of Charles Stewart Parnell, when he tried to bung up Parliament. Usurping the Executive’s right is unconstitutional; the abuse of emergency debates to do so is unconstitutional; and the Bill itself is yet more unconstitutional. A. V. Dicey said that all conventions have
“one ultimate object, to secure that Parliament or the Cabinet…shall in the long run give effect to the will…of the nation”.
These conventions are being disregarded today, and so, by extension, is the will of the nation. Parliament sets itself against the people. Sovereignty comes from the people to Parliament. It does not come to Parliament out of a void. If Parliament tries to challenge the people, this stretches the elastic of our constitution near to breaking point. We should recognise that the people are our masters and show ourselves to be their lieges and servants, not place ourselves in the position of their overlords. As we come to vote today, I hope that all Members will contemplate the current constitutional confusion and consider the chaos that this concatenation of circumstances could create.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. After we have heard from the Father of the House, whom I intend shall speak next, it will be necessary for there to be a time limit on Back-Bench speeches, imposed by me in the name of trying to accommodate the maximum number of colleagues in this important debate. I call Mr Kenneth Clarke.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am afraid a five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches will now apply.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Main Question put accordingly.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Business of the House
John Bercow Excerpts(5 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Rees-Mogg
I thank the shadow Leader of the House for her incisive list of questions and, indeed, for the suggestion that I replace nanny with the staff in the Leader of the House’s office. I think they might be a bit bemused if six children trotted in with me and expected to be looked after by House of Commons staff, so I will not go down that route.
“Erskine May” is available online for free. I understand that Opposition Members view themselves as modern, cutting-edge and thrusting. Therefore, going online might not be too problematic for them. Even I can do it occasionally myself. If they do not want to do that, the proper edition of “Erskine May” is available for £400 and may prove a good investment.
The business has been announced for a week, as has been standard practice for some time. I know that historically it was not, but you said yourself, Mr Speaker, that convention has to evolve, and this is one of those conventions that has evolved. Now, we merely have it for one week.
The hon. Lady asked about the conference recess. She knows that recesses are a matter for this House to determine. No doubt a proposal will be made through the usual channels, but I imagine that it would be convenient for Members to be able to attend their own party conferences. That is what has happened previously, and it tends to be to everybody’s benefit. [Interruption.] I am glad to see the Labour Chief Whip nodding, or at least appearing to nod, at that. I therefore think that something may be forthcoming in due course.
The issue of Prorogation is absolutely marvellous, because the hon. Lady asked for a new Session and asked when this Session would end, and then asked me to promise that we would not prorogue. We cannot have both, because we cannot get to a new Session without proroguing. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said that he views Prorogation as an archaic mechanism and that he does not wish to see archaic mechanisms used—[Laughter.] As I am now bound by collective responsibility, that is now also my view.
The Lords message about a Joint Committee will obviously be looked into. We always wish to treat the other place with respect; that is an important way in which we operate. That will be taken care of in due course.
On the written ministerial statements, I was going to use a word beginning with “d” and ending in “n”, with an “-ed” on the end—you are if you do and the same if you don’t—but Mr Speaker might rule me out of order if I did say that, which I do not want to happen on my first appearance at this Dispatch Box. Parliament wants to know what is going on and there is limited time for debates. Earlier this week, Mr Speaker granted me an urgent question on Batten disease. We know that the system for getting statements and urgent questions answered works. Therefore, if there are issues that people wish to raise from the 70 written ministerial statements, there are mechanisms that the hon. Lady is extremely well aware of.
As to the hon. Lady’s very important point about Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe, absolutely I will take that up. I promise that I will take it up every week for her. We as a nation should always put the interests of our citizens first; that is fundamental to how this country should operate in its conduct with foreign nations. The treatment that Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe has had to undergo is shameful and must be so distressing. When the hon. Lady talks about her child—a five-year-old—being deprived of a mother, that is the most awful thing that one can imagine. I have the greatest sympathy and yes, of course I will take this matter up.
May I conclude by reiterating the thanks that the hon. Lady gave to everybody in the House? How lucky I am now to be Leader of the House—what a privilege it is and what a fine House we have. I have always found that, whenever one wants to know what is going on in the House, the Doorkeepers know first and provide us with a fabulous service.
In paying tribute to Paul Evans as he retires, I should say that the British constitution is a hobby of all sensible people. It is the most interesting matter to discuss and be informed about. It is why £400 for “Erskine May” is such a good investment: it educates one about the British constitution. I wish him well in his retirement.
Finally, I pay tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), who was such a distinguished Leader of the House and Lord President of the Council.
Mr Speaker
There are, of course, Greek antecedents of the word “archaic”—a concept and fact with which the Leader of the House himself will be closely familiar. However, I think I can say, without fear of contradiction and for the avoidance of doubt, that the word “archaic” as it is now spelt originated in the 19th century, and in France. By the standards of the Leader of the House, it is distressingly modern and also—I say this simply as a matter of fact—of foreign origin. He will have his own views about that matter and others.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I start by welcoming my hon. Friend—I do not think he is yet “right hon.”—to his post. I think he will bring modulated and very moderate tones to these debates. One thing is for certain: having a seat in business questions will now be an absolute must. I welcome my hon. Friend in that regard.
Nothing can be done in this Session, but I want to raise a particular issue. With Lord McColl, I am a co-sponsor of a Bill to change the process relating to modern-day slavery. I ask and urge my hon. Friend to press his colleagues at the Home Office, who have to date been utterly mealy-mouthed about the changes necessary to give victims of modern-day slavery the opportunity to come forward without fearing arrest and incarceration. Will he press his colleagues at the Home Office to urgently bring forward the Bill’s provisions as soon as possible, to improve the quality of the lives of those who suffer most? [Interruption.]
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am keen to move on to the statement by the Prime Minister at or very close to 11.30 am, so the normal practice of accommodating everybody will not apply today. However, participation will be maximised by short questions and the Leader of the House’s characteristically pithy replies. Single-sentence inquiries are to be preferred.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
I express my congratulations to the Leader of the House on the new job. He has said already today that he will be the voice of this Chamber and that he will hold the Government to account. Will he therefore tell us what he feels about the appointment by the new Prime Minister, as his closest adviser, of somebody who has been found in contempt of this House? What will he do to hold him to account for that decision, and what does he feel about it?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Mr Speaker, we have got perambulators and nannies into this session, which I think must be a first for questions to the Leader of the House. The issue of Prorogation is one that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said is an archaic usage, but there will have to be a Prorogation before there is a new Session. This is the routine constitutional position, and I believe in maintaining the constitutional conventions.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Those kippers, I can assure the hon. Lady, were absolutely delicious. They were eaten by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister with gusto, showing his characteristic support for the British fishing industry. The hon. Lady knows that Bills come back through the normal channels, and all things will be well and all will be well, and all manner of things will be well.
Mr Speaker
Gusto eating is a challenge to even the most vivid imagination, but we will reflect upon that, I feel sure.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
Earlier this week a group of local authorities representing rural areas formed a coalition under the title Britain’s Leading Edge. Many of these areas have benefited from European funding. Once we leave the EU, will the Government continue their commitment to investing in these areas through the shared prosperity fund?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. We must now move on, but in thanking the new Leader of the House, I note that there will be many opportunities to question him about future business in the weeks and months ahead.