Nomination of Members to Committees

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government do have a working majority on the Floor of the House, and as they are extensions of the Floor of this House, it is right that the Government must be able to have a realistic opportunity of getting their business through Committees.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Is it not a fundamental position in our constitution that the Queen’s government must be carried on, and is it not also true that if the motion is passed, its being passed will prove that the majority is there for the Government to get their business through?

--- Later in debate ---

[Valerie Vaz]

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was listening, but the name of the Committee has changed from the Committee of Selection to the Selection Committee.

The Selection Committee appoints Members to the Standing Committees. The Government want the extra place on Public Bill Committees to give them the majority that they do not have. This is not about the smooth running of business; it is a power grab. It is not about allowing proper scrutiny; it is a power grab. It is not about wanting to abide by the democratic result of the election; it is a power grab. What are the Government relying on? I heard nothing from the Leader of the House on why the Government want to do this.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I wonder whether the hon. Lady could answer one question. If the situation were reversed, does she think she would be bringing forward a similar motion to the one that has been brought forward by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House?

[Valerie Vaz]

There is no end to the hon. Gentleman’s talents, because he has asked the question that I was just about to answer.

What are the Government relying on? Is it precedent? In 1974, the minority Labour Administration had a Government majority on the Committee of Selection, but it appointed Standing Committees with no overall majority. That is, there were Committees with equal numbers. In October 1974, there was a Government majority and that was reflected in the Committees. In April 1976, when the Government lost their overall majority, a motion was passed that stated that the Committee of Selection would appoint Committees with a Government majority only when the Government had an overall majority. That was the Harrison motion. From that point, the Committee of Selection nominated Standing Committees of equal numbers. That was a Labour Government being honourable.

In 1995, there was a Conservative Government and the Whip was withdrawn from the Maastricht rebels. Some hon. Members might be too young to remember the Major Government, but the former Prime Minister had a name for some of those people and it began with B.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I am almost grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Yes, the Government with their grubby £1 billion deal with the Democratic Unionist party have a confidence and supply arrangement on the Floor of the House; what they most definitely do not have is a majority on the Committees of this House, which are determined by the country and how the people voted.

This minority Conservative Government have 317 Members out of the 650 Members available in this House; that amounts to 48.7% of the membership of this House. What they are therefore entitled to is 48.7% of the membership of the Committees of this House. But that is not the case for this Government; for them, democracy is a mere impediment as they grimly hold on to power and ensure they get their way in everything they try to undertake. This is a Parliament of minorities, and the structures and arrangements of this House must reflect that reality and that fact.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

I give way to the hon. Gentleman; how could I not?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, whose speeches are normally compelling, but on this occasion there is one flaw. If this motion is passed, it is the democratic will of the House of Commons that Standing Orders be amended, and therefore that has democratic backing. For him to say it is not democratic is simply wrong.

[Pete Wishart]

The Government will pass this tonight; they will get their way because they have the DUP in their £1 billion pocket, but that does not make it right or democratic. They have 48.7% of the membership of the House; they should not have any more than that proportion in terms of Committees.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I rise to speak to the amendment standing in my name and in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas).

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), as he is a man whom I hold in very high regard. I served with him in the coalition Government for five years as a Minister. Indeed, for part of that time, I sat beside him at the Cabinet table. Therefore, with substantial regret, I say that what he has just given us was not his finest contribution. What he described was some sort of parliamentary game-playing or sport. When he spoke about the functions of Opposition, he missed out the most important one. The most important job that we as Opposition Members of this Parliament have to do is scrutiny, which is why the composition of the Committees to which we commit Bills upstairs matters. That is why it is, in fact, a matter of quite fundamental principle.

I think that we might all acknowledge that, from time to time in this House, we indulge in a little bit of hyperbole, occasionally even straying into polemic. I think of some of the matters that the right hon. Gentleman and I opposed during the years of the Blair-Brown Government. One example is when they tried to extend detention without charge to 90 days. I remember also the passage of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. He and I and others described them then as constitutional outrages—it was a “power grab” and an “affront to democracy”. I may even on occasion have indulged in a small measure of hyperbole and rhetoric myself. [Hon. Members: “No!”] We all do it. I am reminded that when Paddy Ashdown was leader of my party, it was a joke popular among other parties—obviously not to me or the media at the time—that the message on his answering machine was, “Thank you for calling Paddy Ashdown. I am not able to take your call. Please leave your message after the high moral tone.” We have all done it, but the difficulty that is caused by relying on rhetoric and hyperbole is that it is difficult then to know what to say when we come across a proposal such as that which the Government bring to the House today. I can describe it as others have done as a “constitutional outrage”. I can say, as others have done, that it is an affront to democracy. However, to say that suggests that that is somehow just the same as those measures that we have previously described in those terms, but it is not. It is much worse. It is an obnoxious measure for which I know of no precedent in my time in the House.

In this country, we do not have a written constitution. We proceed much of the time according to the process of convention and principle, and so it is also for the ordering of our proceedings in this House. Here, too, we often rely on the process of convention and precedence. It is a delicate system of checks and balances. I am certainly not saying that it is one that is incapable of improvement. I have supported many improvements to it over the years, but we have to approach these matters in a rather more holistic manner than is being taken by the Government tonight. Once we start removing these checks and balances, we risk at least one of two things.

First, we can bring the machinery of Parliament to a grinding halt, and tonight the Government risk breaking our machinery beyond repair. The alternative prospect is that we raise the possibility of other parts of the system reacting in a way that is designed to compensate for our breaking of the checks and balances. It is known in this House, surely, that their lordships in the other place proceed on the basis of the Salisbury convention. They respect our right to be the superior Chamber because we have the democratic mandate from the voters. Now, if we are not going to demonstrate respect for the democratically reached decision of the voters, how can we expect their lordships at the other end of the building to do so?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Quite a number of peers, including Liberal Democrat peers, have questioned whether the Salisbury-Addison convention applies. Lib Dem peers have said that they do not feel bound by it as they had nothing to do with it when it was agreed in the first place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

As we like to say in Glasgow sometimes, “Where’s your parliamentary sovereignty now?” Over the past two days, I have listened to Conservative Members talk about how they were taking back control as a result of the European referendum, but all that will happen is that control will be taken straight from the hands of the hated Brussels bureaucrats and handed straight to the minority Executive and the mandarins in Whitehall.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

rose—

[Patrick Grady]

If the future Prime Minister from North East Somerset wants to intervene already, I am happy to let him.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I would be delighted to be the Prime Minister of North East Somerset when it makes a unilateral declaration of independence. The hon. Gentleman does not realise what parliamentary sovereignty means. What it means is that this House can make its internal rules of operation, and that they cannot be challenged by any court in this country or abroad. This is parliamentary sovereignty in action.

[Patrick Grady]

This is verbal gymnastics in action, and I have thoroughly enjoyed watching the Brexiteers contort themselves over the past couple of days. How anyone who believes in the parliamentary sovereignty that they claim to believe in—anyone who believes in the democratic mandate that we have as Members of this House—can vote for tonight’s motion is absolutely beyond me.

The Government do not have a working majority in this House. It says so on the House of Commons website, which states “Government Majority 0”, with a small star to indicate that there is a confidence and supply agreement. If the Government had a working majority, the DUP Members who are sitting behind me would be sitting opposite me on the Government Benches. DUP Members are not part of the Government. If they were, this motion would not be a necessity because the Government would have the majority that they claim to have.

The reality is that we are a Parliament of minorities, and the Government should live up to the rhetoric that we keep hearing from them about wanting to work with everyone, work across the aisle and work for different parties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

This is not some great constitutional crisis; it is within the thread of our constitution. The great Duke of Wellington’s guiding constitutional principle was that the King’s Government must be carried on. In older age, he changed it to the Queen’s Government. That is the situation today. Since 1881, when, Mr Speaker, your illustrious predecessor, Speaker Brand, brought debate to a close, it has been recognised that the rules of the House must ensure that business can be proceeded with efficiently. That has been put into Standing Orders, and Standing Orders have been consistently amended and altered, suspended or changed, to ensure that the Government of the day can get their business through. It is very straightforward: if the Government of the day do not command a majority, a vote of no confidence is tabled and the Government fall. That is the fundamental principle of our constitution.

After that, what we are dealing with is purely administrative, not highfalutin constitutionalism. We know, because the Queen’s Speech was carried, that in the House there is a majority for the Government’s programme. It is therefore legitimate for the motion for an amendment to Standing Orders to be passed tonight, to ensure that that which has already been established on the Floor of the House applies in Committee.

The absurdity of the Opposition’s position is that the Committee of Selection, when there is an odd number on a Committee, should always give that odd number so that the Government can be defeated. How does that represent either the result of the general election or the combination of seats in the House? It is clear that with an odd number, the majority must belong to the governing side, with the support of our friends in the Democratic Unionist party who voted for the Queen’s Speech.

When the numbers are even, the result in the Bill Committee will of course be determined by the vote of the Chairman, who, by convention, will vote for no change. That will mean no change in the Bill passed on the Floor of the House, which will mean that both Government and Opposition amendments will fail in Committee if it is even-numbered, and will be tabled again on Report. Any Bill must have been presented by a Government who have a majority, and who have not been overturned by a vote of no confidence. It must be the case that the Bill has been given a Second Reading, and therefore, in principle, commands a majority in the House. On Report, any changes made in Committee can be overturned, so if we lose the support of our friends in the Democratic Unionist party, any proposal that is disliked can be stopped. Then there is the final stage, Third Reading. At every stage, the will of the House will be respected.

The speech, of great elegance, that was made by the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), and the speech—of equal elegance—that was made by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), had the great virtue of enormous and gloriously synthetic anger. Their fundamental good nature shone through. We saw that they knew that if they were in the Government’s position, exactly the same motion would be before the House. We know that in 1976, such a motion was snuck before the House on a quiet Friday when no one would notice. There is tradition for this; there is precedent for this; and it is the right thing for the party, the House, the Government and the nation.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Kevin Foster.

Mr Foster was on the list, but he has obviously taken himself off the list. In that case, we will have the joys of Mr Eddie Hughes.