Business of the House

William Wragg Excerpts

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

The issue of substance yesterday is a very important and serious matter. I can assure the House that there will be ample opportunities in the future to debate it on the Floor of the House, and I will announce further business in the usual way. I gently say to the hon. Lady that I am not ashamed to be a Member of Parliament, and I was not ashamed to be a Member of Parliament yesterday. I think if I were a member of the Labour party, I would be ashamed of that.

[Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)]

It is with regret that I have tabled early-day motion 412.

[That this House has no confidence in Mr Speaker.]

May I ask the Leader of the House about a procedural point, as my EDM continues to gather names this morning? Could she confirm from the Dispatch Box the process by which that motion can be brought as a substantive motion to the Floor of the House in order to be debated and voted on?

[Penny Mordaunt]

The Government will always listen carefully to the views of this House, and the Speaker needs to command its confidence. The future of the speakership is therefore a matter for Members of the House, not the Government, but we will of course listen to any requests for debates in Government time. Members will also know other routes by which they can secure a debate. I reiterate that Mr Speaker has made himself available to speak to all the parties, and I am sure that his door is always open to Members individually too.

Business of the House

William Wragg Excerpts

Thursday 16th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Dover for the work they have been doing on this issue. I will certainly make sure that the new Secretary of State has heard about the hon. Lady’s comments today and is aware of her interest in this matter.

[Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)]

I bring some sad news to the House this morning: my Conservative predecessor, Sir Thomas Arnold, died on Tuesday. He is known to many on the Conservative Benches for his years of work—a decade or so—as chair of candidates. He was the godson of Ivor Novello, and as well as inheriting the rights to various of his musicals, he also inherited his piano. He was quite a character and was a great support to me, and gave me much wise advice; whether I always followed it is a different matter.

As chair of candidates, Sir Thomas oversaw the 1987 and 1992 elections, and is responsible—or, indeed, culpable—for a number of Members being in this House today. His guiding words were these:

“The Conservative Party…is looking for men and women who have a good working knowledge of contemporary politics and a proven track record of experience…who above all know their own minds.”

With those words in mind, might the Leader of the House be able to facilitate a debate so that we can all learn how parties across the House can attract such candidates to be elected to this place?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I am sure I speak for all Members present when I say how sorry we are at that sad news, and that our thoughts are with Sir Thomas’s friends and family. He achieved the only Conservative gain in the 1974 election, which was the second time he stood for Parliament. He was Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Northern Ireland Office and later in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He was vice-chairman of the party under Peter Brooke in 1983, and I am told that the most enjoyable time he spent in Parliament was when he headed the Commons Treasury Select Committee, which included an investigation into the downfall of Barings bank. He achieved a great deal for this country, and we remember him and his service fondly. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

Business of the House

William Wragg Excerpts

Thursday 2nd March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

First, let me take this opportunity to place on the record, as I have been unable to do so this week, the fact that my thoughts and prayers are with all those affected by the appalling train accident in Greece. I know that all Members would want to join me in that. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

I will run through the questions that the hon. Lady has asked me. With regard to the Deputy Prime Minister, there was a statement, in which he would have heard what Members have said and listened to their concerns. However, I will be happy to write to him and make sure that he knows that she has raised the matter this week.

As for the rhetoric we have had from Labour on national missions, I just say to the hon. Lady that a national mission for this country should be the strength of our NHS. If she really wants to get all minds working on that, across all sectors—public, private, philanthropic and charitable—just repeating the rhetoric that large swathes of the population do not care about the NHS is not helpful. We care very much about the NHS. Our record on investment speaks for itself, and she will know that a huge amount of work is ongoing to deal with the very real problem of backlogs because of the pandemic.

The hon. Lady could have spoken about the 92 community diagnostic centres that are open, with diagnostics being one of the main reasons why we still have those waiting list backlogs. She will know that we have massively increased access to GP appointments, with their number per day having increased by 120,000 since this time last year. That is due to the hard work of healthcare professionals, the modernisation that has been adopted, and the hard work of the Secretary of State and his team. She could acknowledge that and move the debate on from some rather outdated rhetoric. I will encourage Labour to do that at every business questions, in all other areas as well.

The hon. Lady invites comparison between the work of the Department for Work and Pensions now and the record of that Department under the last Labour Government, and indeed of the whole Government. I just remind her that we have got 4 million additional people into the workplace, with 2 million being women and 1 million being disabled people who would not otherwise have had those opportunities to work.

I welcome the hon. Lady’s gentle encouragement about the performance of Whitehall Departments. She knows that I take this matter very seriously. I have had permanent secretaries come to see me in my office, particularly, in recent times, the permanent secretary at the Home Office. She will know that we have achieved on the backlog on those questions and the casework that is so important to us in this place—70,000 more pieces of correspondence have been dealt with since this matter was raised in this House. Both Lord True, the Leader of the House of Lords, and I will be seeing all permanent secretaries next week, and we have a list of suggestions on how things can be improved. I will always want Members of this House to have timely access to information, and I shall continue to operate on that basis.

[Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)]

As my right hon. Friend will know, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee is a warm and friendly ensemble of parliamentarians, which Ministers enjoy appearing before. I pay tribute to her for doing so, and to all current Cabinet Office Ministers, but is she aware that sometimes our cordial invitation falls on deaf ears when the Ministers concerned are in different Departments but there are matter of interest to our Committee and this House? While she is writing down her little list, may I ask her to add to it the need to remind her colleagues on the Treasury Bench that they should put scrutiny before this House as the foremost obligation in their in-trays?

With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, may I also—to prove that I am in a good and charitable mood this morning—wish my right hon. Friend a very happy birthday for this weekend? It would be ungallant of me to say the age but, frankly, I cannot believe it.

[Penny Mordaunt]

I am the grand old age of twenty-thirty this weekend. I thank my hon. Friend for that very kind remark. He will know that, having been a frequent flyer before his Committee, I take what he says very seriously. I shall certainly ensure that any Secretary of State whom he has invited to give evidence is encouraged to do so.

Business of the House

William Wragg Excerpts

Thursday 17th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The shadow Leader of the House asked me on Tuesday for a statement by the Treasury and one was provided on Wednesday. I wish I could say that it was immediate cause and effect, but it was in the pipeline anyway. The push from the hon. Lady moved us in the right direction. That statement was in relation to the Treasury support around the pandemic. It is worth bearing in mind, as I have said already, the total amount—£407 billion—that has already been spent on supporting 14 million jobs and people through furlough and self-employed schemes. Furlough continues until September. There are retail grants of up to £18,000 for retail, hospitality, leisure and personal care businesses. The business rates holiday continues to the end of June, but then tapers for another nine months. The 5% VAT cut continues until the end of September. Of course, I share the concern of the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell); it is a really difficult and uncertain time. The extension to the terminus date of 19 July is one that nobody wanted, but it was necessitated by events. The end is now in sight. The support has been extremely generous and, I am glad to say, effective, as we see the economy beginning to bounce back. However, I will of course pass on her comments to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

[Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)]

Could we have a debate on the subject of working from home? It has been reported that a consultation will soon be launched. What is being done to support those who wish to return to their place of work, but are prevented from doing so by their employers? Loneliness and isolation have become endemic during this pandemic, and people’s experiences of working from home have been very different. We must have a balanced debate about relying on assumptions, not least because of the implications for our public transport system and the prosperity of our towns and cities?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about this. The guidance is clear that if people need to go into work, they are allowed to go into work. If employers think that they need their employees to come into work, they are entitled to ask them to come into work. Even within the civil service, managers are advised to accommodate requests to work in the office when home working is not suitable for wellbeing reasons. These can be a whole variety of reasons—it could be loneliness, or it could be the unsuitability of the accommodation, in that particularly younger people who are part of the workforce do not necessarily have an excess of space in their flats in which to work.

It is really important that we get back to normal. We want to have vibrant towns and cities, we want people coming back into work, and we want commuting systems—trains, buses and so on—that are financially viable, and that means people coming back to work. The sooner we get back to normal the better, but in the meantime, anyone who wants to go into work should have a conversation with his or her employer and say, “I want to come back into work”, and employers should facilitate that.

Electoral Commission

William Wragg Excerpts

Monday 22nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)]

Realising the hour, I shall not detain the House long at all, which I know will come as a great relief to colleagues. Let me just say that, as a member of the panel appointed by Mr Speaker to conduct the interview process, I have no doubt whatsoever of the sterling abilities of Mr John Pullinger and therefore recommend him wholeheartedly to Her Majesty for appointment as chair of the Electoral Commission for a four-year period. He will do that job with great ability without fear or favour. I was struck particularly by his understanding of the word “impartiality”.

Business of the House

William Wragg Excerpts

Thursday 4th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I was going to say that I refer the right hon. Lady to the answer that I gave some moments ago, but let me just go back to what I said. The reason we need this fund is because of the failings of socialism—socialist councils and socialist MPs, letting down their constituents—and this Government are putting things right. They are levelling up, and many of the areas that are receiving the money still have socialist councils but, in their wisdom, they elected Conservative MPs to get over decades of socialist mismanagement. That is why the areas in most need now have Conservative MPs. Let us hope that Hull has Conservative MPs, too, and then it will be managed better.

[Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)]

Mr Speaker,

“Have you ever been in the House of Commons and taken a good square look at the inmates?”—

so wrote P. G. Wodehouse, to continue today’s theme. He was less than complimentary about some of the characters, but quite what he would have made of the virtual Parliament is anybody’s guess. Bearing in mind those inmates, will the Leader of the House provide us with an update on when we will be released from this captivity?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

If we are going to swap P. G. Wodehouse quotes, a glorious one comes to mind: “The Right Hon.” Gentleman

“was a tubby little chap who looked like he had been poured into his clothes and had forgotten to say ‘When.’”

That has always been one of my favourites—[Interruption.] No, my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) is my hon. Friend, so it is perfectly safe, and I said the right hon. Gentleman anyway, so any connoisseur of procedure—as my hon. Friend is—would know that I was not referring to him.

We need to get back to normal. We need to get back to the Chamber being full and bustling and Ministers being held to account. Debates with full interventions are much better than debates that are a series of monologues read out that pay no attention to what has been said beforehand, with people just filling the airwaves for three minutes. We want to get back to being a proper Chamber and I hope that we can do so in line with the general road map.

Sittings in Westminster Hall (Suspension) (No. 2)

William Wragg Excerpts

Wednesday 13th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his intervention. I made it clear in my opening remarks that I am very reluctant to remove this scrutiny. Scrutiny is important not just because it is the right of Members to hold the Government to account, but because it leads to better government. Scrutiny of the Government’s ideas and processes, and seeking redress of grievance, helps our constituents, so I would not have brought forward these motions had there not been a widespread appeal for them.

[Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend indicated that Opposition Members on the Commission were keen for this eventuality to come to pass. Is he suggesting that the Opposition do not want to scrutinise the Government?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very reluctant to try to make party political capital out of this. I think everybody is behaving in a serious-minded manner to ensure that the House is as covid-secure as it can be and that, under the exceptional circumstances, we carry out our business to the extent that we can but put limitations on it where that is prudent, so I do not wish to seek to cast aspersions or blame.

These motions reflect the reality of the current lockdown and the desire to limit physical attendance on the estate, in line with the current covid guidance. They also reflect the necessary focus on ensuring that the business in the Chamber is prioritised, particularly now that Members are able to participate remotely in substantive proceedings.

To come back to the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford, I do understand the reasons for the amendments tabled to these two motions, but I would ask that the House agrees to the motions as tabled. However—I underline this—I commit to ensuring that a motion is brought forward to reopen Westminster Hall and to bring back sitting Fridays at the earliest opportunity, when it is both possible and practicable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)]

Many people will, quite rightly, hold the Government to account for their handling of the covid pandemic, but many in this House perhaps fail to hold themselves to account for not holding the Government to account. This House is at its worst when we talk about ourselves, which is all that we have done this evening. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) spoke a great deal of sense: we are not here to speak for ourselves but to speak on behalf of our constituents. That should be at the forefront of our minds in every single proceeding, whether in this Chamber or indeed in Westminster Hall. While I will not match the theatrics of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) in my brief remarks, I agree with him entirely.

We are in a grave public health emergency. No one can doubt that; the figures today prove it. But let us have regard for our constituents, who, day in, day out, turn up diligently to work in supermarkets, attend upon those who are vulnerable in their homes, or go about their business because they have no other option. What example do we set for them? I suggest it is a poor one, because we have made many measures in this House to be covid-secure—quite frankly, going above and beyond, and rightly so, to be an exemplar of covid security.

The virtual Parliament is virtually nothing. It consists of a series of disjointed monologues set against a variety of backgrounds. Scrutiny of the Government is the duty of every single Member of this House, regardless of the party to which they belong. I fear that in debates such as this and proposals contained therein, we have singularly failed in that.

Committee on Standards

William Wragg Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

Yes. So the Leader of the House was wrong earlier when he suggested that this was going to be resolved and it was not decided yet how the Government were going to be voting next week. I am sure he inadvertently misled us.

The second point is that we have moved the goalposts. How can we ask people to apply for a job and say that there is no bar to their applying just because they have been a party member, and then suddenly change three quarters of the way through the process once they have already been offered it? The point for the individual candidates—both Michael Maguire and Melanie Carter—is that they have been hanging around for months. I know Melanie Carter’s situation: she has resigned from various different posts because she thought that she was going to be having this post, because that is what the House of Commons Commission had decided.

The Leader of the House’s motion should be the motion that came from the House of Commons Commission. That is what Standing Order No. 149A says. He is doing it

“on behalf of the…Commission”—

not on behalf of the Government or on behalf of himself, but on behalf of the Commission, and I know that the Commission is not happy about this.

This is House business. It should not be whipped, let alone when the Government have more than 200 proxy votes in their back pocket. This is just wrong. It is the wrong way to do our business. This is House business, and we have to find ways of reclaiming some elements where we actually decide things not on the basis of which party we are a member of, but on the basis of what we think is right for Parliament.

[Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)]

I just want to ask whether, if this is House business—which I think it is, absolutely—why, therefore, is the Labour Chief Whip’s name on the amendment?

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, he is a Member of the House. My name is not on it incidentally, as the hon. Gentleman might have noticed, though whether my name is on it is probably not the most important thing. When we discussed this matter in the Committee today, we decided that it was not a matter for the Committee to decide who should be sitting on the Committee, and that is why I did not sign the amendment yesterday. I do support it, though, because it is taking forward precisely what was decided by the House of Commons Commission after a thorough, Nolan principle-based process of appointment.

I think this does harm to the House’s reputation, partly because we have taken so long about it, and also because we have suddenly brought politics into it at the last minute and moved the goalposts. If this were in any other business, I am sure that the person concerned would be thinking of suing, and it may well be that Melanie Carter will think about that, for all I know. She may not be able to sue the proceeding in Parliament, but there may be other elements of the process that she is able to sue. To be honest, I would say to her, “Good luck with that.”

It would of course be this candidate that the Leader of the House decides is not the appropriate one—a very successful woman lawyer who happens to be a single mum. It would be this candidate, wouldn’t it, that is the one that does not come forward? Were there any questions about any of the other candidates as to whether they had been party members previously? No. This is the only one that a question has been asked of.

Proceedings during the Pandemic

William Wragg Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I hear mutterings around the Chamber saying that that is a good idea. Unfortunately, neither the Chief Whip from the hon. Gentleman’s side or from my side is in the Chamber at the moment, and I think it might be useful to consult them before I make an off-the-cuff suggestion, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman, who is a wise and experienced parliamentarian, that I will pass his views on to the Chief Whip. Perhaps he would be so kind as to do the same to his own Chief Whip, and perhaps there could be a meeting of minds in that area.

I have been working with the House authorities to see how MPs with underlying health conditions who have been told to shield or are receiving specific Government advice about their health may be able to continue to contribute to proceedings in this House. I mentioned this on 20 May and reconfirm that I will table a further motion later today on some virtual participation by hon. Members. As it happens, for this motion I have used some of the language in the amendment tabled by the shadow Leader of the House, to whom I give my thanks, and other Opposition Members to ensure that such participation is available for Members unable to attend Westminster for medical and public health reasons related to the pandemic.

Turning to the motion itself, it may help if I briefly set out the Government’s approach. Today’s motion is the necessary paving step that gives the House the opportunity to signal how it wishes to conduct proceedings in the coming weeks. In response, I hope the House authorities will be able to complete the work already undertaken over the Whitsun recess, and I hope that hon. and right hon. Members will also find the explanatory note published alongside the motion helpful.

The motion updates the House’s procedures relating to Divisions and attendance in the Chamber to ensure compliance with social distancing restrictions. These temporary changes to Standing Orders will be in force until 7 July 2020. The motion rescinds the resolution of 21 April, which provided an overarching framework for the temporary Standing Orders relating to hybrid proceedings. This resolution is no longer needed as the Standing Orders have now lapsed and we are returning to physical proceedings.

Paragraphs (1) to (3) of motion 2 set out an approach to Divisions. If agreed by the House, Division arrangements will be set out by the Speaker and will adhere to Public Health England guidance—and I wonder if I may, through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, congratulate Mr Speaker on the work he has done to ensure and test a system for voting that meets the requirements of PHE; he has invested a lot of time in it to make sure that we have a system that will operate.

[Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)]

On this rather vexed issue of voting, could further consideration perhaps be given to the use of deferred Divisions? I understand the argument about consequential votes, but that could be dealt with quite simply by allowing them to drop away, and we would avoid any scenes that might bring us into a certain degree of disrepute.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the points that he has made. I assure him that the Government will listen carefully to any ideas that come forth from the Procedure Committee and from hon. Members in relation to how things can be improved and made more fluid in these difficult circumstances.

The Government wish to ensure that the House continues to function in line with Public Health England advice. Paragraph (4) therefore ensures that the Speaker may limit the number of Members present in the Chamber at any given time, and disapplies the Standing Orders relating to the prayer card system. The Standing Order will be discontinued in order that the flow of Members in and out of the Chamber can be managed, but I reassure Members that Prayers themselves will take place at the start of each sitting day. Finally, paragraph (5) disapplies Standing Orders relating to English votes procedures, as double majority voting is likely to be incompatible with the arrangements for socially distanced Divisions.

Let me now turn to the amendments tabled by the Opposition parties and the Procedure Committee. I reiterate my gratitude to the Procedure Committee—particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley)—for its and her swift work, and welcome continuing discussions with that prestigious Committee. I used to be on it, which is why I think particularly highly of it; it is one of the most interesting Select Committees in the House.

I hope that my commitment to bring forward tomorrow a Government motion to allow some participation in hybrid proceedings for those who are shielding demonstrates my commitment to ensuring safe participation for as many Members as possible, and that those amendments which seek to require some hybrid participation can be withdrawn on that basis.

I have already set out the case against remote voting, but let me address the argument made by some Members that if a Member is not able to vote, they will be entirely disenfranchised. I do not accept that. There are many other ways in which MPs represent their constituents in Parliament, including through tabling written questions, writing correspondence, tabling amendments and attending hearings of Select Committees, which will continue. Select Committees can continue to meet remotely under the resolution that I brought forward in March and will continue to carry out their important work with Members participating from around the country. It is worth noting that the Liaison Committee very successfully quizzed the Prime Minister in this way, so scrutiny carries on in other ways too.

I know that there has been concern about the operation of evidence sessions for Public Bill Committees. I hope that the House will welcome the fact that some specific witnesses to the Domestic Abuse Bill have been told that they will be able to give evidence remotely on Thursday, should they wish to. I was keen to ensure that this was possible. Some had assumed that it was not, but this concern turns out to be misplaced. The House has confirmed that under existing rules, witnesses can indeed give evidence remotely to Public Bill Committees in the same way that they have long been able to with Select Committees. It can therefore happen with no changes to the Standing Orders.

I ask that the House agrees the motion today and considers the further motion that I will bring forward tomorrow. I have no doubt that the Procedure Committee will continue to keep our ways of working under review, and I welcome that. For my part, I very happily commit to continuing to do the same, in order that we can ensure that the House can continue to go about its business effectively and safely.

Hybrid Proceedings (Extension of Temporary Orders)

William Wragg Excerpts

Tuesday 12th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)]

I do not take personally at all the fact that my amendment was not selected for debate; I appreciate that I might well need to choose a better modal verb if I am to resubmit it for any future motion.

A rumour is going around that I have been somewhat grumpy over these proceedings. I try my best to cheer people as I go around this place, but sometimes I fail, given the challenges I meet from some Members at least. However, I fully acknowledge the hard work and effort that has gone on—the Herculean effort—to ensure that at least some form of scrutiny and good work can continue in this House. That said, I am afraid that a virtual Parliament is, in comparison with normal times, virtually nothing. We should not be blinded by the technology as an end in itself.

I have made many a poor speech in this Chamber. Perhaps the one I am giving briefly this afternoon will rank among the worst, but at least it has been elevated by the surroundings in which we find ourselves, rather than being part of a series of disjointed monologues given in front of bad curtains. That is the image of Parliament being created today.

It is necessary for us to lead by example and return to our place of work. Many of our constituents are also anxious to do so, even with adaptations in their workplaces. I think of my father, a Hotpoint engineer, who has spent his time going around houses fixing washing machines, getting on with it quietly. It is a nonsense to assume that we can conduct our affairs sat in our living rooms. It is an insult to the public.

I know that certain procedural matters may be inconvenient to deal with at the moment, given these temporary Standing Orders, and I am not necessarily going to test them to their limits this afternoon, Mr Speaker, and leave you in an invidious position. I welcome what the Leader of the House has said. We must return at the pace—indeed, ahead of it, perhaps—that we expect of the rest of the country. But let us not delude ourselves into thinking that these provisions have in any way allowed us to scrutinise Government enough. Think about who welcomed them: those who wish to diminish the Westminster Parliament, as we have seen from some contributions so far, and, just perhaps, Ministers who quite enjoy a lack of scrutiny.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the House to wind up the debate for the Government and request that his speech is no longer than two minutes.