Strengthening Standards in Public Life

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 17th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Of course, everybody agrees with that, but how does one determine realistically what is taking too much of one’s time on an outside interest? It should be common sense and it should be left to the judgment of the electorate. What worries me is that, if it is left to the commissioner for standards, however distinguished, that will give that official a degree of power never enjoyed by any official ever before over Members of Parliament. We are accountable not to officials, but to our electorate.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are responsible and accountable to our voters. This is why the Chairman of the Standards Committee will be leading his distinguished Committee in looking into this and I hope will make recommendations to the House.

Independent Expert Panel Recommendations for Sanctions and the Recall of MPs Act 2015

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I do not want to get involved in the substance of the case, but as a general principle, does the hon. Lady think there is something in the notion of natural law that people should be punished according to the law at the time they commit the offence?

[Thangam Debbonaire]

As I said, I completely understand the reservations that Members have—I have them myself. Retrospective rule change is an extremely unfortunate situation to be put in. As I outlined, other options were open, but unfortunately they were not taken up, so we find ourselves in a position where we will have a prospective rule change and there will be someone among us whom the independent expert panel has found to have carried out behaviour that would otherwise have triggered a recall. I respect and value the different views of the right hon. Gentleman and of other hon. Members, nevertheless I seek to test the opinion of the House by putting the amendment to a vote.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for bringing the motion to the House as he said he would. He is absolutely right that it closes the loophole that was recognised and identified as we were putting the measure through the House.

I have been on the ICGS since its inception—I have been on all the working groups and bodies that have been assembled to get to where we are in producing the report and having the policy in place in the House—and I would say that what we have achieved in the past few years has transformed the culture and behaviour around the House. It has been a thoroughly positive initiative and piece of work. I thank everybody who has been involved in the past few years, because we are in a much better place in this House than we were a few years ago when some of these issues were identified.

The Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House are entirely right to talk about the experience of the last few days, its impact on all of us and how the House is being perceived, because there is goodwill towards the House. People are looking at Members of Parliament and what we do and observing how we conduct our business. For the first time in a long time, we are seeing a bit of respect and a grudging admiration for the type of thing that we get involved in and the work we do on behalf of our constituents.

It is right, therefore, that we start to pay attention to some of the outstanding issues in the House that we still have to deal with, such as the essence and culture; how we perceive the behaviour of others; and how some of those behaviours, when they go so badly wrong, as they have in a couple of circumstances, are addressed and rectified. In the ICGS, in the past few years, we have made good progress to address those things, but there are still issues and difficulties that we need to look at.

The SNP will support Labour’s amendment, because no one should get away with something because of a technicality or a loophole, or because a process was not in place at the time of the offence. There is almost a sense that somebody has got away with it and that the whole idea of justice has not been served, particularly for those who were so badly compromised by the actions of one of our colleagues in the House. It is absolutely right that that is addressed and put right.

The Leader of the House is right to identify the concerns of Sir Stephen Irwin, to whom I pay tribute for his work on the IEP. The coming together of the IEP in the last year has been a fantastic innovation. It has been the cherry on the cake for the ICGS; it has allowed us to go into these issues and cases with a depth and thoroughness that would not otherwise have been available. I thank Sir Stephen for the work he has done and for the way that the independent expert panel has made such a difference to the workings and arrangements of the ICGS.

I was at the Commission meeting when Sir Stephen detailed his concerns and difficulties with some of the proposals, but I think the shadow Leader of the House has designed a means for the amendment to be made constructively and within the spirit of what has been achieved. If there is a willingness to try to ensure that justice has been served for the victims in this particular case, we should do that, regardless of the difficulties we may encounter on the way. If it is the right thing to do, the House should do it. We will support the amendment today.

As we go forward, it is important that the House starts to look beyond this at some of the other issues. Something that has not been addressed yet, and which we will have to look at in future, is the concern that Members of Parliament under investigation for the most serious of transgressions against members of staff in this House are still able to access the parliamentary estate and go about their business as normal.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

What about the principle that somebody is innocent until proved guilty?

[Pete Wishart]

That is a very good principle, and it is one that underpins nearly everything we do in this House and throughout the legal systems of all jurisdictions across the United Kingdom, but it does not apply in all the other workplaces throughout the United Kingdom. If somebody has been identified as a transgressor in the most serious way, that person will not have access to their workplace as we are suggesting they still can in this House. I have discussed this with the staff unions in the House and with several members of staff, and I know there is still huge concern. They are looking to bring the matter forward for the House to take a view on and try to resolve to their satisfaction. We are going to have to confront this issue.

The motion is a good one, which we can all support, and I thank the Leader of the House for bringing it forward. It deals with the loophole, and we now have recourse to recall in a way that we never thought we would be able to secure, even a year ago. There is no good reason not to apply the provision retrospectively, if there is a willingness in the House for the issue to be addressed, and to be addressed in the way outlined in the amendment that the shadow Leader of the House has put forward, which I will support. I thank everybody once again for the support we have had throughout the creation of the scheme. I acknowledge the progress that we have made, but there is still more work to be done.

Business of the House

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 23rd September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The furlough scheme has been enormously helpful and one of the key things that has maintained employment in this country. In Scotland, it has protected more than 910,000 jobs. However, I would be happy to take up the case of Mr Barnett with HMRC and with other Ministers. I have always thought business questions were a good opportunity to raise constituency issues that have not been solved by other means, and I will try to get a proper answer for the hon. Gentleman’s constituent.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The Leader of the House rightly talks about greening the environment. This week, a company has put in an application for a solar farm around Gainsborough that would be the size of 4,000 football pitches. It says that this is a nationally significant infrastructure project, and therefore, under a law passed by the last Labour Government, no local planning is allowed at all. There is no say for West Lindsey District Council, the county council, myself or anybody else. Can we have a debate on this matter? I was going to ask about a levelling-up grant for Gainsborough, but perhaps we could have a bit more levelling up for local democracy too.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is obviously important that planning decisions are taken efficiently and that matters of national importance come to a national level. I have to say that 4,000 football pitches sounds like a very large area. I do not know very much about football, but I know that a football pitch is not an entirely small space. It cannot be that dissimilar to 4,000 cricket pitches. I note my right hon. Friend’s concern, and he is right to raise it in this House. The opportunity to discuss it will probably be best provided through an Adjournment debate to ensure that this specific issue can be raised and that a Minister of the Crown can be held to account.

Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 20th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

There is a lot of what the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) said that I agree with. Let us get on with it. Let us come together in this. I commend both the Leader of the House for his approach and his speech and the spokesperson for the Sponsor Body, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds). They both spoke in a very outgoing, moderate and sensible way.

This is not a debate between decant and not decant. It is not a debate with, on one side, pragmatic modernisers who want to do what is right and, on the other side, stuffy traditionalists who just care about staying in a Palace that they love. It is far more complex than that. So it is not a debate about decant or not decant—it is about how we get on with the job of restoring this Palace and not having a gold-plate operation. That is what I want to address my arguments towards.

I have to deal, in that regard, with the present proposal—the Northern Estate programme as it is. This is the entire demolition of Richmond House, and this is where I follow what the right hon. Gentleman just said; I would argue that it is financially wasteful, environmentally unsound and not necessary.

Let me look at this in a bit more detail and go back to the original Joint Committee report, which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House signed. It said that

“a temporary Chamber could be established in its”—

that is, Richmond House’s—

“inner courtyard and the rest of the House of Commons’ core operations could be consolidated in and around Portcullis House and the Northern Estate”.

The Northern Estate programme later found that measurements of the Commons Chamber, including the exact footprint of Division Lobbies with the oriel bay windows, would not fit in the courtyard, so the Northern Estate programme claims that this requires the entire grade II* listed building to be demolished, except for its façade, and for total replacement with a new permanent building.

On 31 January 2018, the Leader of the House said that

“the conclusion that we came to, preliminarily favouring a complete decant, was based on the assumption that a temporary Chamber could be put up in Richmond House.”—[Official Report, 31 January 2018; Vol. 635, c. 885.]

Demolition of Richmond House is a completely different cost basis and I, for one, would not have come to that conclusion, had we known the true picture. The possibility of demolishing Richmond House is not mentioned at all in the Joint Committee report.

[Damian Hinds]

My right hon. Friend is right, of course, about the historical sequence, but I hope that it is of some reassurance if I tell him that, since I have been involved in the Sponsor Body, I can honestly say that I have not met a single person, either in this House or on the restoration and renewal programme, who now believes that it is desirable to make the full demolition of Richmond House that he alludes to. We have to cut our cloth and, as I said in my remarks—and indeed, as the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) just said—we have to work within what we have, and we need to work out what compromises we need in order to do that.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

That is extremely helpful because, as I said, I have to work with what we have at the moment, and from what the spokesperson for the Sponsor Body now says, we seem to have moved on from the demolition of Richmond House. This will be of enormous comfort to the heritage organisations such as SAVE, with which I have been working very closely. If we are looking at a grade II* listed building, even the lowest level of listing is defined as

“warranting every effort to preserve”

these buildings—that is according to Historic England—and Richmond House is above that. It was, of course, one of the most important public buildings created in the 1980s.

I can cut short my speech, because I appear to be on a bit of a winning streak. I do not really need to quote all the various points that have been made by numerous distinguished architects and historic buildings organisations in favour of Richmond House, which was put up only 30 years ago. Of course, demolishing it would be environmentally unsound.

[Mark Tami]

I do not want to upset the right hon. Member, but my preferred option would be to knock the building down, apart from the façade, and to create something that would have a useful legacy. The reality is that I do not think that will happen, so we have to work within the given footprint. That would probably mean that we had only one Division Lobby rather than two, which would not be the end of the world.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

It is so wonderful to all come together and find a way forward. I can provide a way forward, because I have been working with SAVE on the matter. This is called the Mark Hines proposal, and it is from a professional architect. SAVE commissioned Mark Hines Architects to look into preserving Richmond House. He found that a replica Commons Chamber would fit into the Richmond House courtyard. His proposal includes a full Chamber of the same size and layout as at present, Division Lobbies, public and press seating at gallery level—somewhat reduced, understandably —and handicapped access. It would fulfil the full security needs, having a separate public entrance with security clearing area and a blast-proof structure. A private security firm has assessed the plan and said that it meets security requirements.

Architectural plans prove that this is possible. The building could be prefabricated off site and installed using cranes within a matter of months, and independent security consultants confirm that it is as safe as existing proposals. It is professionally costed at £46 million, in contrast to reports in the architectural press that the current plan would cost £1.6 billion. To reassure my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), the former Leader of the House, if the House of Commons insists that we decant and create an alternative Chamber, I proffer that solution. It would save a listed building and provide a perfectly adequate alternative.

I must say that there is an even cheaper proposal, and I hope the House will forgive me if I share it. That is the Anthony Delarue proposal—again, he is a professional architect—which I commissioned. He accepts that a top-to-bottom renovation makes sense, because, as we have heard, the systems need a total revamp. He proposes that we move temporarily to the House of Lords Chamber, as we did in the second world war, and that the House of Lords move to the Royal Gallery. He suggests—this is a professional architect, not me—that these areas could be sectioned off with complete external servicing, with linear access to Portcullis House via New Palace Yard, and with temporary canteens, lavatories and so on accommodated in Old Palace Yard, Victoria Tower Gardens or Abingdon Street Gardens.

That proposal has all the advantages of a full decant. Every electrical socket, bit of wiring, air duct and climate control system can be pulled out and comprehensively done in one go. It solves the most expensive problem—the provision of temporary accommodation—by housing two plenary Chambers within the existing Palace. Richmond House will not be just preserved but integrated into the estate, to house workers displaced from the Palace. The proposal eliminates the lengthy timeframe of potential public inquiries into the demolishing of a listed building. Of course, it retains the QEII conference centre, with all the financial advantages to the Treasury of retaining its income from the centre. That is the proposal. I put it forward as probably the very cheapest option, rather akin to what we did in the second world war. If the House insists on a full decant into Richmond House, however, I proffer the courtyard idea.

None of these plans is set in stone. We can be clever, and we can pick and choose. Surely, time has moved on. As has been said again and again in this debate, we have proved that we can work virtually. I am with the Leader of the House; I do not like virtual working, but it can greatly shorten the time for which we have to be away from this Chamber. There are other proposals I have put which are even cheaper. We know—I know we cannot say much about it—that there is already an emergency alternative pop-up Chamber stored somewhere. If we had to move away for a few months or a year, we could use the atrium of Portcullis House. I met the architect of Portcullis House. He actually designed it so a Chamber could go in the atrium. A Chamber with Division Lobbies could fit exactly in that space. Not ideal, but surely we have proved during this pandemic that we do not have to move out of this place for ever. I was very interested in what the Leader of the House said, and I think what the Chairman of the Committee said, if I remember rightly, that while we would want to move out all the Committees from here, we could actually seal off the Chamber and have access through the corridor past the Prime Minister’s office.

I want to emphasise that this is not a debate between decant and not decant. I am perfectly happy, and all those colleagues on the Back Benches I have been working with are perfectly happy, if we have to decant for a few months, eight months, nine months, a year. What we do not want—I will finish on this point, Madam Deputy Speaker—is a gold-plating operation. We do not want Richmond House demolished. We do not want a permanent replica Chamber created at vast cost. We do not want to surrender our fate to an army of consultants and architects to leave this place and be out of it for five or 10 years. Look at the Canadian example: we could be out of this place for up to 10 years. I do not believe that that is what the public really want. This is a citadel of our democracy. For many people in the world, this democracy is about this building. By all means, let us come together and get on with it, but let us have a short decant, not a long, highly wasteful decant of up to 10 years.

Amendments to the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is not for me to say what decision the decision maker should come to, but the decision maker should base any decision on the language of the policy at the time. It would not be fair to make a decision on our clarification ex post facto. I hope that is helpful to the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I think this is quite important. The House is perfectly entitled to change its rules, but it is an absolutely fundamental part of natural justice that laws should not be changed retrospectively. Just for the sake of argument, we may, for instance, be dealing with a historical case that happened several years ago and the Member has left this House. It is absolutely vital that the Leader of the House makes it clear that that person would be judged according to the rules at the time, not according to the way we are changing the rules now. Do I make myself clear? If he makes that clear, that would be very helpful.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely clear, and that is broadly what I have been saying. What I am not committing to is to saying how the decision maker would interpret the rules as they were at the time, in view of the stated intention that the House had, because there was a degree of disagreement between the two. That is a matter for the decision maker to decide on the basis of the wording at the time, not on the basis of subsequent changes to the wording. What we are doing today should not influence the decision maker’s view of what existed at the time in one direction or the other. It should be based on what existed at the time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

May I too express my thanks and good wishes to Ray Mortimer?

My interest in the issue arises from when I was on the Standards Committee, particularly during the 2017-19 Parliament. During that time, I was involved in discussions leading up to the creation of the ICGS and its extension in 2019. I have read the conclusion of the House of Commons Commission following Alison Stanley’s review, and I accept that the Commission is right to take the necessary measures in response to that review, but my concerns tonight are about the Commission’s endorsement of

“other changes recommended by staff for clarification and updating”.

I say to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that those are changes recommended by staff not in response to a request from Alison Stanley, but off their own bat. I do not know how they have appeared, who they were sent to or why we cannot see them, but it would be useful for the purposes of transparency if we could.

Those are set out in paragraphs 12 to 18 of the report. As has been discussed, the most significant change is in paragraph 16, which changes the scope of the provisions on bullying and harassment. I do not have any problem with the revision, but what I do have a problem with is the possibility that that change is retrospective. The issue of retrospection was discussed quite usefully in the original report. There was a legal opinion from Tom Linden, QC, on what were then being discussed as pre-scheme cases, and the opinion is set out on page 93 in the delivery report, published in July 2018. In that legal opinion, Tom Linden makes it clear that there is a common law presumption against retrospective effect. I hope that we are not going to get into territory where litigation will arise if people feel that the common law presumption against retrospection is not being honoured by the decision makers.

In that opinion, Tom Linden quotes Lord Brightman giving a good definition about what is retrospective and what is not. Lord Brightman says that it is

“retrospective if it takes away or impairs a vested right acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation, or imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability, in regard to events already past.”

It seems to me, from what we have heard, that the changes to paragraph 4.3 would be regarded as retrospective if those principles were applied.

The words in paragraph 16 that these changes are

“so that it more clearly reflects the policy intention of the Commission”

are weasel words. I can say that there is no evidence whatsoever—I was on the Standards Committee—that the Standards Committee, the Commission or this House ever intended, when extending the scope to non-recent cases in July 2019, that it should be possible to complain of the conduct of any former member of the parliamentary community until that person died. In other words, it might be 10, 20 or 30 years hence.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Would it not be helpful if the Leader of the House, when he sums up this debate, made it absolutely clear that in the case of historic allegations, if the subject of that complaint is no longer a passholder, then that complaint should be judged firmly on the rules of the time?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I think the Leader of the House will say that he has more or less said that, but anything else that he can do to reconfirm that would be extremely helpful. Where is the evidence that there was a misrepresentation of the intention in the wording of paragraph 4.3? The text of the paragraph remained the same in July 2019 as it was in June 2018, and if the new text had been intended to change the rules, then I think the Standards Committee, this House and the Commission would have been totally in opposition to any suggestion that we could expose former Members of Parliament to the risk of being complained against and investigated for the rest of their lives after they had left the House. In a sense, what this Commission report seems to say is that that was the intention, but it was never properly expressed in words. My view is that if that had been the intention and it had been expressed in words, it would never have been passed by this House, which is why I am agitated about this and particularly keen to see the terms in which the staff were recommending these changes.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I realise that other people want to join in the debate, but this issue will not go away unless we clarify that these changes will not be retrospective in any respect.

Business of the House

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 11th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I have a great deal of sympathy with the point that the hon. Lady is making. When we represent constituents who need drugs for rare diseases, it is important that we get them. I think the principle that NICE is independent in making these decisions is also a sensible one, but it is crucial that its decisions are made in a timely way and appear to be reasonable to the country at large. NICE is a matter that will come up for debate, but it may be that the hon. Lady will want an Adjournment debate on this specific issue. I had one on Batten disease before joining the Government, and the Government proved very sympathetic to the quest for my constituent.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Some people overstate their case by saying that the state of this building is ruinous, but one thing that is certain is that the public finances are in ruins. So will the Leader of the House take this opportunity to make it clear that, when it comes to the restoration and renewal of Parliament, the absolute first priority of Government is value for money? In this context, will he note that the House has never voted to demolish the grade I listed Richmond House? It is a listed building, and there is the issue of carbon and all the other issues. Can the Leader of the House have an open mind about it and learn from our experience of working virtually by perhaps not having a September sitting and, above all, getting on with the work now? In this report, where it says, “What is the cost?”, the whole thing is blanked out. What is going on here? Let us have value for money. That is what the taxpayer wants.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I agree with my right hon. Friend that taxpayers’ money has to be spent wisely. The proposal for Richmond House and the Queen Elizabeth II Centre was that there would be about £1.5 billion of expenditure on temporary Chambers. This cannot have been a sensible thing to do even in less straitened financial times; in the current circumstances, it seems to me to be for the birds. We have to focus on value for money, and I agree with my right hon. Friend.

I am not the greatest advocate of hybrid proceedings—they are better than nothing, but they are not as good as real physical participation in debate—but I would rather have hybrid proceedings for a little bit when we could not use this Chamber than spend a billion and a half pounds. We as Members of Parliament have a responsibility to our constituents when their money is being spent to accept that, while great reforms or restorations are taking place, we may have to put up with a little bit of discomfort. There may be, occasionally, a little bit of banging and noise being made, and we cannot be too fussy about that if we are to keep this as a working operational building. But the key work needs to be done, and it needs to be done in a timely fashion, with value for money at its heart.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Were we to have a debate to praise our sovereign lady, it would take up all the legislative time available in the House, so all I will say is:

“God save our gracious Queen!

Long live our noble Queen!

God save the Queen!

Send her victorious,

Happy and glorious,

Long to reign over us,

God save the Queen.

O Lord our God arise,

Scatter her enemies,

And make them fall:

Confound their politics,

Frustrate their knavish tricks,

On Thee our hopes we fix:

God save us all!”

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Follow that.

[Mr Speaker]

We are about to.

Business of the House

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 4th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I begin by saying how sorry I am that the right hon. and learned Lady has left the SNP Front Bench? That is not because I regularly agree with her, because I do not think that I do, but because she has made it clear that she is one of the most intelligent and careful scrutinisers of Government, not just on her party’s Benches but in this House. When I was on the Brexit Committee with her, her analysis and her questioning were, I must admit, second to none. As I believe that good government depends on careful scrutiny, her removal from office is a loss to our democratic system. Dare I say, perhaps ungraciously, that Mona Lott is responsible for this and it may be for reasons of internal SNP politicking?

To come to the right hon. and learned Lady’s point, free speech is fundamental, and it is disgraceful that she received threats for her views and her removal from office, to the extent where the police had to be involved. Every Member of this House should feel safe in whatever they say as long as it is within the law and is not effectively threatening violence. What is said in this House is of course completely protected. It is outrageous that she should have been placed in this position. Can I commit to supporting freedom of speech? Absolutely I can. That is what this place exists for; that is what underpins our democracy. Much as I disagree with her on so many things, may I commend her courage in standing up for freedom of speech and putting forward her views clearly in a difficult and sensitive area but one where she has a right to be heard?

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The Leader of the House mentioned the Queen’s Champion. Actually, my right hon. Friend, with his style, would make a very good Queen’s Champion, but unfortunately the post is held by the lord of the manor of Scrivelsby in the county of Lincolnshire. Can I suggest to him, though, that he becomes another champion—a champion for good value for money? Since the House voted by a very narrow margin to demolish a perfectly serviceable Richmond House and erect a temporary Chamber at vast cost, everything has changed. The country is broke and we have proved, have we not, that we can run Parliament virtually if we have to? So may we have an urgent debate on this matter, get on with the work, if necessary close Parliament down except virtually between July and October, and work in double-shifts and perhaps bring in Front-Bench spokesmen to a pop-up Parliament in the atrium of Portcullis House, but above all get on with the work and pursue value for money?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend is right to say that the pandemic has increased the eternal need to ensure that when it comes to all Government expenditure, but especially restoration and renewal, the taxpayer is only asked to pay for vital works, not gold-plating. I will confess to him that some of the figures I have heard bandied around for the total cost, and some I am seeing requested for budgets at the moment, are eye-watering, and it is hard to believe that that is what is required for the vital works.

The Palace of Westminster must remain the home of our democracy. It is a temple to democracy: that is what our Victorian forebears built it to be. It is one we should be immeasurably proud of and must preserve and use, because we need to carry on our work in this fantastic Palace, not somewhere else. But it has to be said that the “how” should follow the “what” in this regard, not the other way round: the “what” comes after we have worked out “how”, which is why hon. and right hon. Members like my right hon. Friend will have such an important role to play in the coming months in helping to determine the scale of the project—the “what” that is required. We are the ones accountable to constituents, so it is quite right that we will be the Members of Parliament—the Members of this current Parliament—who make the final decisions on how to proceed.

Participation in Debates

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 16th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The issue around Westminster Hall is what I am told by the House authorities, which seems to me to be a reasonably authoritative position. It is a question of resources. As I said earlier, the broadcasting team is relatively small and has been working under a great deal of pressure to try to deliver not just the Chamber but Select Committees performing remotely. Those resources are not unlimited and have to be shared in a way that gives the greatest satisfaction to the most people. Westminster Hall cannot be broadcast currently with remote participation unless resources were to be taken from somewhere else. That is a question ultimately for the House if it wanted to lessen, perhaps, the facilities available to Select Committees or take resources from somewhere else. That is what I have been told by the House authorities, and I am sure that what they have told me is accurate.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

After nearly an hour of being battered from all sides, it is about time that someone supported the Leader of the House and did the unpopular thing of defending the Government. May I say that I welcome what he said and the moderate way in which he said it? While I am happy with extending this provision to people who are clinically vulnerable, may I urge him not to bow to pressure and extend virtual debating to everybody, giving everyone carte blanche? We are in danger in this country of creating two worlds: an Aldous Huxley “Brave New World” where middle class people can sit in the comfort of their own homes and do their jobs and ordinary people are forced out into the workplace. Our job is to set an example and be here. “Parliament” comes from the French “parler”, and it does not mean talking at people but talking with people. There is a practical point: if we are having a debate, we do not want to be like the Council of Europe with its dead debates where people read out speeches; we want to have people here and intervening on each other.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am naturally grateful to my right hon. Friend. He is right that we do need to be here. I share his concern that we think we should do things differently from other people. That is why I have consistently tried to set out a case where the House behaves in the way that other key workers are.

Yes, I know right hon. and hon. Members have to travel from their constituencies to get here, but other key workers have to take journeys, too—we are not alone in that. We are not alone in needing to go to our workplace because it does not operate properly without us. We should, in fact, be proud of the fact that we are key workers and, alongside other key workers, doing our duty to make democracy function.

My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point about there being two groups of people, which we should bear in mind. As I said, we should be standing shoulder to shoulder with our constituents, recognising that they have to face these difficulties as well. We are not, in this sense, unique. As we can help those who are extremely clinically vulnerable, it is right that we should do so. However, that will be a limited change, because the resources and the ability to have proper debate are limiting factors in what can or should be done.

Proxy Voting

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Yes. The motion before us says:

“a certificate already granted should be varied, if satisfied there are urgent and unforeseeable circumstances”,

so Mr Speaker now has the ability to do this at very short notice. With parental leave, there is normally some element of notice, whereas with the coronavirus, there may not be any notice at all. However, there has to be some discretion for Mr Speaker, because there comes a point in the day at which it is too difficult administratively to get something in place. The hon. Gentleman raises a fair point, and I am glad to say that that has been taken account of.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend said that we have brought in proxy voting to help Members for reasons of public health. The trouble is that this whole system has been corrupted. A huge number of Members of Parliament now have proxy votes. I do not believe that the great majority of them are actually shielding or medically ill—I think it is just for convenience. This shows the creeping danger of what is going on. I would like to get from the Leader of the House, as someone who loves the House of Commons, a personal view of that and a determination that if a Member wants to vote, in virtually all circumstances, they should take the trouble to turn up here.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I hope that my right hon. Friend is wrong in saying that people are abusing the system. We have to have a system that works on trust, and that is one of the changes being made to the parental leave system: previously, evidence had to come from a doctor, but now we are accepting that hon. Members will behave honourably.

The motion states:

“The Speaker may certify that a Member’s eligibility for a proxy vote for medical or public health reasons related to the pandemic should take effect before the certificate is published in the Votes and Proceedings”.

It is for “medical or public health” reasons. That includes being in an area subject to a local lockdown; being unable to send children to school because of needing to self-isolate or because the school has required children to be at home for whatever reason; and issues relating to difficulties with public transport, which were more acute earlier in the crisis than they are now. It is a fairly broad definition because the circumstances are changeable and, to some extent, unknowable. It seems only fair to allow Members, on their own say-so and their own cognisance, to say to Mr Speaker that they feel they are in such a position that they need a proxy.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

May I press my right hon. Friend on that? Why do some Members have a proxy vote one week but are then here the next week, or they have a proxy vote and we see them wandering around the corridors? We all know that this is being abused, and I want the Leader of the House to give a firm commitment that he will not have this creeping corruption of our procedures.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Members with a proxy vote may only appear remotely. They may not appear in the Chamber. Mr Speaker has been absolutely clear on that. I would not expect Members who have a proxy vote to be in the precincts of the Palace, because if they can be here, they ought to be voting in person. Any Member who had behaved in that way would not be behaving within the spirit of the temporary Standing Order.

This system has allowed many Members to have their votes recorded, and in the current circumstances, I think it is right that we make the continuing provision for proxy voting. The broad eligibility criteria provide appropriate flexibility in the circumstances. Any Member who has any concerns related to the coronavirus must feel entitled to apply for a proxy vote, and I hope that this motion will be agreed by the House today. It will allow for the current temporary arrangements to be in place until 3 November 2020, in line with the arrangements for remote participation in the Chamber and other measures that facilitate social distancing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Valerie Vaz]

They are able to cast a vote through the proxy system, but they are not able to come here to do that.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I am sorry, but I cannot believe it is right that I was sitting in my garden at my daughter’s birthday party in Lincolnshire, and I could nip in and try to proxy vote. Given the circumstances we are in—we are supposed to be Members of Parliament; we are not forced to be here—most Members of Parliament can make the effort to come here in person and vote. Remote voting did not always work. I do not know what it is like in Leicester or Vauxhall, but in Lincolnshire our broadband is terrible, and at least twice the system broke down for me. Members turning up in person and being seen by their colleagues—that is the right way to vote.

[Valerie Vaz]

The right hon. Gentleman may have been in his garden, but he could not have used proxy voting—it was by remote voting. The House worked hard to get this system up and running, and there were many tests. When it came to voting, the system worked, and it enabled people not only to vote remotely, but to take part in debates, which was vital. How the right hon. Gentleman chooses to vote is a matter for him, but I know that hon. Members are assiduous. They did listen to and take part in debates, and they could vote remotely. I am sorry that he did not like the system. It did work, and it worked extremely easily.

In my oral evidence to the Procedure Committee on 21 July, I recommended the reinstatement of electronic remote voting for those Members who are unable to attend the parliamentary estate in person for public health reasons related to the pandemic. That is key: a pandemic is going on. I am delighted that the Procedure Committee also took that view, and it is unfortunate that the Leader of the House has chosen not to implement the recommendations.

Members are still unable to take part in debates on primary legislation, and can participate virtually only in questions, urgent questions and statements. I do not know whether the Leader of the House is aware that the Petitions Committee had a debate with people taking part even while shielding. We know that can work, and I hope he will look at that. As we enter a new phase of coronavirus restrictions with rising infection rates, Parliament needs a safe, functional remote system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Hon. Members may not know this, but in the 18th century Members used to send their servants to vote for them—they would mumble “Leigh” or whatever the name was. That is why we are not allowed to wear an overcoat as we walk through the Division Lobby.

I am afraid that human nature is innately lazy, and there is a reason why we vote in person. I say to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) that, yes, the Government are encouraging solicitors to work from home, but this is not a solicitor’s office; this is the Parliament of the United Kingdom. We are elected by the people to come here and to be here—to be seen and to see.



With regard to the safety of Members, I agree that what we are doing is completely absurd. Here we are, totally socially distanced—I am not allowed to go just one step further towards my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie)—but then we wander through the Lobby, all crowded and chatting to each other. Is it beyond the bounds of possibility that we could have another voting terminal in the Lobby, or outside the Chamber, or in Westminster Hall? We could even have one in Portcullis House—at least it would still be in Parliament. People say that we are unsafe when voting, but there is a way of getting around it.

This whole issue of proxy voting just shows what happens when we make these reforms. I am afraid that, human nature being what it is, people would much rather be sitting at home or doing their gardening and then tapping on a computer to vote than making all the effort of coming down here. I say to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East—we know that large numbers of SNP Members are proxy voting—that of course it is a crashing bore to have to come all the way here on the plane from Edinburgh or Glasgow, taking three and a half hours. It takes me three and a half hours to get here from Lincolnshire, but I take the view that if I want to speak and take part, I should make the effort to come.

What if someone is genuinely ill and cannot be here? Again, I suspect that a lot of people who have proxy votes are not really genuinely ill—it is just very convenient to sit at home, appear on the screen up there and have their say without making the effort to make the journey. But if someone is genuinely ill and does not want to come, they do what we have always done—they go to the Whips and say, “Can I have a pair?” The advantage of that is that we have to give a reason, and sometimes they say yes and sometimes they say no. If they say no, we can sometimes ignore them, as I have done many times, or, if we want to preserve our careers, we can obey the instruction and make sure we turn up.

There is nothing wrong with pairing. We have the Whips here. It would be perfectly possible. We have always done it in the past. In the famous vote that Jim Callaghan lost by one vote, there was one Labour Member genuinely ill in hospital. Even then, we were allowed to bring people down here in ambulances and the Whips would check them in. But Jim Callaghan, being a gentleman, said, “No, I’m not going to take that Labour MP out of hospital to come here in an ambulance to be checked by the Whips to vote—he will be allowed to stay in hospital and die in peace.” He lost the vote, lost the Government and lost the general election. People did things properly, and we must ensure that we do things properly.

This is a zombie Parliament. These call lists are just terrible. The much derided Speaker Bercow, who everybody apparently now dislikes—I thought he was quite a good Speaker at the time—made sure that everybody got in. The Prime Minister was constantly coming here. Mr Cameron was constantly coming here, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) was always coming here: we were questioning them and everybody got in. Now we have these call lists. Some people have been applying for Prime Minister’s Question Time for two years and have not got in once. This is giving too much power to the Government. It is scandalous that some Whips are going through the Division Lobbies wielding 50 votes. This is just letting the Government off the hook.

By the way, I am all in favour of parental leave. I was on the Procedure Committee and I voted it through. I remember that when my son was born on a Thursday, the Whips made me turn up here on the Monday. They were pretty tough. They are quite nice people now, the Whips. In those days, they were all ex-Army officers who had had a good war and had burnt faces from burning tanks and things. They were cruel and horrible. They made me turn up three days after my son was born. I am all in favour of parental leave, but it has to be tightly controlled.

I beg my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley): do not take this system too far. Let us recall what has happened in this period and go back to the traditional way of being here and voting in person.

Business of the House

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I congratulate the hon. Lady on the birth of her child in February? There is no greater joy than a new life coming into the world. As regards how this House operates, the Procedure Committee is looking at the issue of proxy voting for maternity and paternity leave, which seems to be a scheme that has worked well. I know that the hon. Lady gave evidence to the Procedure Committee recently on that subject. Ultimately, though, Parliament must be a coming together of Members from across the country physically, and as soon as it is safe to have it entirely physical once again, that is what we must get back to.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

May I make a controversial statement—that we live in a parliamentary democracy? As regards wearing face masks, I do not think that there will be time, because the order has not been laid, to have a debate. Surely the Leader of the House—indeed, the Government—in a matter as controversial as the enforced wearing of face masks from an increasingly authoritarian Executive, know that there should be a debate here and a vote. After all, this is highly controversial and everybody in the country has a view. Up to 70 million people will be affected by it. Lincolnshire has an infection rate of 150 in 150,000, so we have natural social distancing anyway. Why can we not just have more democracy and less authoritarianism from this Government?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As I understand it—although I will be corrected if this is not right—it is a made affirmative statutory instrument that will have to come to the House in due course, in accordance with the normal procedures. But my right hon. Friend is absolutely right; we are a parliamentary democracy, so decisions made by the Government have to be supported by this House. It is worth bearing in mind that the House passed the emergency legislation which provided the powers for these things to happen.