Business of the House

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Thursday 8th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)]

The business for next week will include:

Monday 12 October—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Agriculture Bill.

Tuesday 13 October—Remaining stages of the Fisheries Bill [Lords], followed by motion to approve the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) (Amendment) (No.5) Regulations 2020, followed by general debate on covid-19.

Wednesday 14 October—Opposition day (12th allotted day). There will be a debate on a motion relating to “fire and re-hire tactics”, followed by a debate relating to covid-19 contracts and public procurement. Both debates will arise on a motion in the name of the official Opposition.

Thursday 15 October—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill.

Friday 16 October—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 19 October will include:

Monday 19 October—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill.

Tuesday 20 October—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill, followed by business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Wednesday 21 October—Opposition day (13th allotted day). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 22 October—General debate on covid-19.

Friday 23 October—Private Members’ Bills.

[Valerie Vaz]

I thank the Leader of the House for both the Opposition days, but I am concerned about the consequences. Last time the Opposition voted on an amendment to the Trade Bill, the House Twitter account was suspended and I am not sure why, because all it does is present the facts, the explanatory memorandum and the votes. I do not know why that has been stopped—unless, of course, he is afraid of the competition to his own Twitter account, but he just talks about teddy bears, whereas what the House Twitter account has done since 2012 is to inform the public about the procedures and policies of the House and the votes, in a non-political way. It just presents the facts. Could he please ensure that it is restored and given back to the House?

Something is missing: the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care throwing himself down on the green Benches when he has to come and answer questions. We are still entitled to ask questions, are we not? I am just checking, because I would like to ask the Leader of the House where the evidence is for why large parts of the north and the midlands are under lockdown when other areas with higher rates of infection are not.

Let me give the facts: Richmond in North Yorkshire has 73 new cases for every 100,0000—no lockdown. Newark and Sherwood District Council has 84 cases—no lockdown. Wolverhampton has 56 cases, a lower figure than the others, but is in lockdown. Barrow and Furness, 112—no lockdown; Darlington, 110—no lockdown; Wakefield, 73—no lockdown, so can we have an urgent statement from the Secretary of State for Health on these inconsistent, chaotic decisions? We need an explanation.

The Leader of the House will know that good public law is based on making a decision and giving reasons, and it is also based on giving the evidence. Otherwise, I am afraid the lefty lawyers and the do-gooders will have to hold the Government to account, as democracy wants us to do. We are quite happy being the do-gooders, although I am not sure what that makes the Government: the no-gooders—a Government up to no good?

I am pleased that the Leader of the House has provided time for the debate on the 10 pm curfew. Let us try again, as the Leader of the Opposition asked yesterday: can we have the evidence published before the debate? That will inform the debate.

We have a series of Departments that are spending £56 million on consultancy fees. Apparently contracts have been given without competition—nobody else has been allowed to compete; they have just been handed out. The Government’s own Minister, Lord Agnew, said:

“Aside from providing poor value for money, this infantilises the civil service by depriving our brightest people of opportunities to work on some of the most challenging, fulfilling and crunchy issues.”

There is chaos and waste of public money. It is a problem of the Government’s own making because they downsized the civil service. They have lost five senior civil servants, including the Cabinet Secretary, from Whitehall this year. Will the Leader of the House therefore ensure, ahead of the Opposition day debate, that all the contracts that the Government have outsourced are in the public domain, with the amounts and the connections with the Government? We would also like to see the measurable outcomes. It is no good giving out the contracts only for people to turn around and say, “It doesn’t work,” and then the Government have to foot the bill again.

We have silence from the Twitter account, silence on the evidence for lockdown, silence on Government contracts. It is as if the Government were sailing adrift at sea with no radio contact. There is also silence on when fans can return to football stadiums. I saw Walsall prepare their ground, taking three weeks to ensure that it is covid-safe so that all our fans can return. Staff have already taken a reduction in wages. Now the Government are holding those businesses with their hands tied behind their backs. They cannot raise income from fans returning, which helps fans’ health and wellbeing. I do not know whether any Cabinet members go to football matches, but there were some fantastic results last weekend. Fans would have wanted to see them. [Interruption.] I meant that I wonder whether Cabinet members had been to football matches previously. There have been dramatic results. We want to go to our local matches at Walsall. There are dramatic matches there, too. May we have a statement on when football stadiums can open safely? There has not been clarity from the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.

I know that the Leader of the House will say that Foreign Office questions is next Tuesday, but will he ensure that the Foreign Secretary gives the House an update on Nazanin and Anousheh and the meeting with the Iranian Foreign Minister? If he does not give it to the House, will he please give it to the families?

I ask again for a statement on the EU Council meeting on 15 October. It can be given on the Friday or the following Monday.

Mr Speaker, he did it. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) jumped from a plane. He fundraised for Florence and came out unscathed. Today is Gift Aid Awareness Day and I suggest that all hon. Members use that tick and ensure that the charities get their money. Well done to my hon. Friend and all the best to Florence.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Today is not only Gift Aid Awareness Day; it is also Octopus Day. We will be getting our tentacles into many important issues today. If any of us suffer from polydactyly, we will be able to model ourselves on octopodes—as I think the plural of octopus might be.

Let me go through the various important points that the right hon. Lady raised. First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) on a fine charity-raising achievement. Thank heavens that it has gone safely.

On football, I think that you are not entirely happy with some of the recent results, Mr Speaker, and believe that we should probably have a debate on the unfairness of the result and perhaps have it reversed by statutory instrument. Unfortunately that is not part of the Government’s programme, much though I wish to oblige you, Mr Speaker, whenever possible. Even I have been to football matches. I have been to see Keynsham Town and Paulton Rovers—two fine clubs in North East Somerset. I absolutely understand the issue that the right hon. Lady raises, which is a matter of concern to many Members. The Government are keen to help football clubs and have been working with them, but the question is ensuring that grounds can reopen safely, as the right hon. Lady acknowledged in her question.

Let me come on to Twitter. The right hon. Lady says that I tweet about teddy bears. I do indeed, and about Bath Oliver biscuits and the failures of socialism, which is a regular theme of mine. I try to remind people that socialism is fundamentally dangerous and not in the interests of this country. However, the House of Commons Twitter account needs to be rigorously impartial and there were concerns about simply putting out the explanatory notes, which are written by a side that is interested in the result and parti pris. It is not right for the House of Commons in any sense to intervene in the debate. The votes are recorded and there is an excellent app that people can download. Did you know that, Mr Speaker? There is a terrific app—CommonsVotes—on which you can look up every single Commons vote. You can wander around with your telephone and see exactly how every Member of Parliament has voted. That is provided by the House authorities and is absolutely magnificent. The right hon. Lady moans that we have not heard enough from the Secretary of State for Health. We have had 40 oral statements from the Government during the coronavirus pandemic. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has been an assiduous attender at this House to ensure we are fully informed.

[Valerie Vaz]

Only when asked.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Not only when asked. He has made statements. He has volunteered to make statements.

I am very glad to say that we now have a system where issues of national significance will be debated on the Floor of the House. I note the 10 pm curfew is a nationally significant measure. Even though it was not strictly caught by the Health Secretary’s commitment last week, the Government took the decision to move the debate to the Floor of the House in recognition of the level of demand for the debate. We are being responsive to what is being asked for and ensuring proper scrutiny. The fact is that scrutiny helps to improve Government policy. That has always been true and it is one of the key roles of this House.

As regards evidence for individual measures, the Government are acting on the advice of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies. The Government have consistently acted on the advice of SAGE and all measures come in on the best available advice. That is the whole point of having SAGE in the first place.

The right hon. Lady says we have lost five civil servants. It sounds a bit like:

“James James

Morrison Morrison

Weatherby George Dupree

Took great

Care of his Mother,

Though he was only three.

James James said to his Mother,

‘Mother,’ he said, said he;

‘You must never go down

to the end of the town,

if you don’t go down with me.’”

And they went down to the end of the town and got lost. They haven’t got lost at all! Some have retired, some have moved on. This is in the natural course of events. Out of the many thousands of civil servants, for five to have changed jobs really seems to me hardly excessive.

As regards outsourcing, a motion arises on an Opposition day debate on Wednesday, when that issue can be discussed in all its glorious, technicolour detail.

Business of the House

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Thursday 1st October 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The business for next week will include:

Monday 5 October—Second Reading of the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill.

Tuesday 6 October—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Prisoners (Disclosure of Information about Victims) Bill, followed by consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Bill [Lords], followed by motion to approve the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No.2) (England) (Amendment) (No.4) Regulations 2020.

Wednesday 7 October—Second Reading of the Pension Schemes Bill [Lords], followed by motion to approve regulations related to public health following the Secretary of State’s earlier announcement.

Thursday 8 October—Debate on a motion on planning reform and house building targets, followed by general debate on the spending of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on support measures for the DCMS sectors during and after the covid-19 pandemic. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 9 October—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 12 October will include:

Monday 12 October—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Agriculture Bill.

Tuesday 13 October—Remaining stages of the Fisheries Bill [Lords], followed by general debate on covid-19.

Wednesday 14 October—Opposition day (12th allotted day). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 15 October—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill.

Friday 16 October—Private Members’ Bills.

Right hon. and hon. Members will also wish to be aware that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise at the conclusion of business on Friday 23 October and return on Monday 2 November.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

I thank the Leader of the House for the business and for announcing the Opposition day and the recess. I also thank him and his office for forwarding all my requests to Ministers. We just need to find a way round the use of “in due course” and “shortly”. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) has received a “soon” on her 10-minute rule Bill on access to benefits for terminally ill people.

We did not get a very helpful response from the Foreign Office Minister, and I would say, in relation to Nazanin, Anousheh and Luke Symons, that we well remember how Jill Morrell kept the names of John McCarthy, Brian Keenan and Terry Waite front and centre so that people would not forget them, and that is what we must do now. These are innocent people who have done no wrong.

Mr Speaker, I know that the whole House—maybe apart from the Government—agrees with your statement and supports it.

Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said that he was announcing a new convention, but I am not quite sure what that means. He said that

“for significant national measures…we will consult Parliament”,

but I thought the Government had to consult Parliament anyway on anything that is supposed to come into effect. He also said that

“wherever possible, we will hold votes”.—[Official Report, 30 September 2020; Vol. 681, c. 388.]

But there is no guarantee of a vote. The Leader of the House will know that the regulations on self-isolation, including the £10,000 fine, came into effect seven hours after publication, but the media were briefed eight days before, so there was plenty of time for a debate.

This so-called new convention only deals with national measures, not local measures, which is what right hon. and hon. Members want to know about, because they want to know what is going on in their constituencies. Last week, the Leader of the House said that there is regular scrutiny and debate, but that is not true, is it? Without the hybrid proceedings, many of our colleagues are excluded from taking part in debates on legislation, so the Government cannot have it both ways.

Let us look at the statutory instruments. Some of them are made through the negative resolution procedure, which means they are signed into law and are debated only if they are prayed against. Mostly, they are administrative and technical, but extending pre-trial custody from 56 days to 238 days deserved a debate, and in any event, the Government decide whether there is time for a debate. What about affirmative SIs? They are laid before the House only after they are signed into law.

Can the Leader of the House say why the majority of the regulations have been made under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, which is meant for emergencies, and not the coronavirus legislation, with its safeguards? Will he guarantee that we will have a debate or even a short statement on any new regulations that are proposed? We want it in the House, not in No. 10 from behind a lectern.

May we have a statement on 16 October, a sitting Friday? The European Council will meet on 15 October. The Prime Minister needs to give a statement to the House on the next phase of the negotiations.

That lack of transparency is everywhere. In the Government’s White Paper on planning, they are removing the requirement to place planning application advertisements in local newspapers. That is already happening in my constituency, where Walsall Council has decided, without any consultation, that it will not do an environmental impact assessment for one of the most important projects there, the route for a sprint bus. It is totally discredited; there will be more traffic; and no one wants it apart from the current Mayor.

Mr Speaker, you mentioned someone who is really good at transparency, and that is Mark Hutton. I, too, agree with your statement and want to pay tribute to Mark Hutton. He has been in this House for 35 years. As you say, one of his greatest legacies is “Erskine May” online, and he was the co-editor, with Sir David Natzler, the 25th edition. In fact, his nickname was “Erskine” Hutton. He always saw the potential of digital, and his advice was quite strategic across the House, both on procedure and how it related to the legal side and on how the House works. When he was at university, apparently he liked directing plays, so obviously he came to work here, because he likes the drama. He has left a great legacy.

The Leader of the House and I were on the Governance of the House Committee, which was very controversial at the time, but Mark managed to get us through that. Also, we agreed the report digitally, and it went through in record time. Mark has not only left online “Erskine May”; he has patiently taught the next generation of Clerks. Mark, we will miss you. Thank you for your work. The House is very grateful, and we hope to see you when you get back—and when we all get back, maybe at a do in Speaker’s House. [Interruption.] We hope you do, Mr Speaker; we are looking forward to your dos.

It is Black History Month. Tomorrow is the anniversary of the birth of Gandhi, and it was lovely to see a photo of Dr Martin Luther King in his dining room with picture of Gandhi. Both of them worked for justice in a non-violent way. Today is also the mid-autumn festival for the Chinese community.

Finally, on behalf of the whole House, I want to send our very best wishes to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), who is jumping out of a plane on Sunday, weather permitting, for six year-old Florence, who has a life-limiting disease and a rare genetic condition. He is not on the call list today, but we hope will see him next week at business questions, hopefully without a plaster cast.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

We all wish the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) and, of course, Florence well. It is a brave thing to do.

I used to live in Hong Kong, and the mid-autumn festival was a public holiday, so I am sorry that I cannot tell the House that we will have a public holiday similarly.

The right hon. Lady began by mentioning the dual nationals and the need to keep their names at the forefront of the national debate, which she has been doing fantastically every week, so that Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and Anousheh Ashouri and Luke Symons are remembered. The Government are made aware of this every week: the right hon. Lady mentions it to me, and I mention it to the Foreign Office. It is known. We are trying our best, but, as was found with hostages before, it is very difficult to get obdurate states and obdurate organisations to move.

On parliamentary scrutiny of the coronavirus—the issue that the right hon. Lady focused on—I note that Labour Members did not actually take part in large numbers. I think a very small number of them voted yesterday. It is a bit worrying if, when we actually have a vote, the official Opposition sit on their hands, so they call for something and then they are absent without leave. They do not formally need leave, of course, under the procedures of the House; it a long time since attendance was demanded. The right hon. Lady asks but the Whips Office does not necessarily want.

On the debates that we are bringing forward and have brought forward, we have had 40 oral statements in relation to covid in this House, in addition to the urgent questions that Mr Speaker has facilitated. This week, we had a full day’s debate. The whole of Monday after questions was devoted to a covid-19 debate, and of course we had the renewal of the orders yesterday. Next week, we will have a vote. We had a vote yesterday, but Labour Members did not take part. [Interruption.] The right hon. Lady is heckling—it is unlike her to heckle—saying, “Vote, vote.” Well, they did not vote. It is not my fault they did not vote. I cannot make Labour Members vote. I have no influence over the Labour Whips Office to get them to turn up and do their job. If they want to sit at home idling away the happy hours not voting—not going through the Division Lobbies—what can I do? I can appeal to your good offices, Mr Speaker. I can ask the Doorkeepers to encourage them. We have set things out in a covid-safe way. But Labour Members decide not to turn up when we give them a vote, which they keep on asking for.

[Valerie Vaz]

We did turn up. Did you listen to the debate?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Not to vote, they didn’t. There will be opportunities to vote on Tuesday and Wednesday next week, and there will be a debate on Tuesday 13 October—which happens to be the anniversary of the birth of Lady Thatcher, so a day of legend and song. On that happy day, we will have a debate on covid-19.

I want to pay tribute, as the right hon. Lady did, to Mark Hutton. Thirty-five years’ service in this House is a pretty good innings. He has been an absolutely authoritative source of advice on procedure and parliamentary privilege. Parliamentary privilege is one of the most interesting topics of discussion: it is such an important part of how we do our work. He has obviously been a distinguished Clerk of the Journals. He has been very ready to give advice to Members on knotty procedural problems. He has been involved with three editions, two as deputy editor and then as co-editor, of “Erskine May”. I must confess that his career is practically what I might like to have had, so in paying this tribute to him, I am a little bit envious of his distinction, his learning and his capability. I served—I think the right hon. Lady may have done as well—on the Committee chaired by Jack Straw looking into the governance of the House. That Committee was handled by the two of them with such effectiveness and subtlety that it came up with a very good answer. I would like to record my gratitude to him, not just personally but also on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government.

The right hon Lady mentioned that this is Black History Month. I am a great encourager of all history. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, for countless generations, people of African and Caribbean descent have been shaping our nation’s story, making a huge difference to our national and cultural life and helping to make Britain a better place to be. The more we learn from our history, the better.

Business of the House

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Thursday 24th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)]

The business for next week will include:

Monday 28 September—General debate on covid-19.

Tuesday 29 September—Remaining stages of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill.

Wednesday 30 September—Second reading of the Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No.2) Bill, followed by a motion under the Coronavirus Act 2020 relating to the renewal of the temporary provisions, followed by all stages of the Sentencing Bill [Lords], followed by a debate on motions relating to planning.

Thursday 1 October—Consideration of a business of the House motion, followed by all stages of the Social Security (Up-Rating of Benefits) Bill. 

Friday 2 October—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 5 October will include:

Monday 5 October—Second reading of the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill. 

Tuesday 6 October—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Prisoners (Disclosure of Information about Victims) Bill, followed by consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Bill [Lords], followed by a motion to approve the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No.2) (England) (Amendment) (No.4) Regulations 2020. 

Wednesday 7 October—Second reading of the Pension Schemes Bill [Lords].

Thursday 8 October—Debate on a motion on planning reform and house building targets, followed by a general debate on the spending of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on support measures for the DCMS sectors during and after the covid-19 pandemic. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee. 

Friday 9 October—The House will not be sitting.

[Valerie Vaz]

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving us the business for the next two weeks.

The Leader of the House did not give me a reply on Anousheh’s diplomatic protection. As he will know, Nazanin has this week had to file a complaint about being harassed by revolutionary guards. We hear that the Iranian Foreign Minister has offered a complete prisoner swap with the United States, and I thought that was the reason why we were being held back. May we have a statement on our British nationals? I know the Foreign Secretary has been abroad. Will he give a statement next week? I hope that we will have something on Luke Symons in the Yemen debate later on today.

May we have a debate on the unjust policy of the child maintenance service? I have two constituents who have been told that they have paid everything, but have then suddenly received a letter, even though they have a letter saying that they have paid everything, that they have to pay more back. I have written to the Minister concerned, but received a response from the officials rather than the Minister. I point out that this is a policy issue. There is a third constituent who has said that parental alienation is being incentivised under this scheme, because, basically, if a child is staying with one parent, that parent gets paid on the basis of how long the child stays with them. Can we have a debate on these apparent injustices in the Child Maintenance Service?

It was great to see the Prime Minister come to the House on Tuesday rather than appearing outside. Ministers are now coming to the House. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster came to the House to confirm that there will be a border in Kent. We will just wait for the announcement on the border in the Irish sea. Sadly, though, the Chancellor decided to speak to the media, and not the House, about scrapping the Budget. The shadow Chancellor has asked him 40 times—it will be 41 later on— about his plans for the ending of the furlough scheme. We are trying to support our folk in these difficult times. They are in this situation through no fault of their own.

Will the Leader of the House have a word with the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy? I understand that he is interfering with witnesses on the Select Committee. He intervened and did not authorise a witness to attend. He also issued a ministerial direction to force through a deal. The Leader of the House will know that Erskine May says that

“a select committee has the power to send for persons”

and that

“that power is unqualified”.

Can we have a debate then on the Floor of the House—if the Secretary of State will not allow witnesses to the Select Committee—on the OneWeb deal?

It is a great anniversary of Lady Hale’s judgment today. She has said that Parliament “surrendered” its role over the emergency legislation. I know that there is a debate on covid, but that is not what she was talking about. She was talking about the fact that the Coronavirus Act 2020 gave sweeping powers and that it was not surprising that the police were as confused as the public. We do not all have the luxury of going to the rose garden for our pleas in mitigation.

Mr Speaker, you will have seen the seventh report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which expressed concern about the amount of legislation that is coming into force before it is laid. I know that the Government have had to write to you, Mr Speaker, 25 times since March to explain why legislation has come into force before it was laid. I thought Parliament was sovereign. Will the Leader of the House please ensure that anything that is laid is discussed in Parliament first?

Can we have a debate on the Government’s own report, the McGregor Smith report, which was commissioned by the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid)—he of the “Cummings and goings”. There were 22 recommendations. The noble Baroness said that

“unconscious bias is more pervasive and…more insidious”

than “overt racism”. She recommended free online unconscious bias training. Her Majesty’s Opposition have already done it; I have done it. I got 100%—I may not have got 100%, but I tried nevertheless. Everywhere where sentences are meted out, black, Asian and minority ethnic people are more likely to be affected than anyone else; they are over-represented. I hope that the Leader of the House will encourage his colleagues to undertake this unconscious bias training that the House is putting forward.

We have lost two giants. We have all lived and grown up with the cultural icons of Sir Terence Conran and Sir Harold Evans, who have both died. They are giants of design and investigative journalism.

Finally, I know that the whole House will agree to raise a cup of coffee to Macmillan Cancer Support. Many of our colleagues are going through difficult times. We also know family and friends who are doing so. They will know that tomorrow, as we raise that cup of coffee, they are not forgotten.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The right hon. Lady is absolutely right: we should of course have a cup of coffee tomorrow to help Macmillan, which I know is trying to raise a larger amount of money than it raised last year. My coffee of choice is Alta Rica, which I strongly recommend to anybody who enjoys a nice cup of instant coffee. People may also want to have a cake with it.

May I also join the right hon. Lady in her condolences to the families of Sir Harry Evans and Sir Terence Conran? Sir Harry Evans was my father’s opposite number at The Sunday Times for 14 years, while my father was editing The Times. My father thought of him as one of the finest editors of his generation and his campaigns were really very remarkable; he made The Sunday Times a truly great newspaper.

Coming to Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and Anousheh Ashouri, there will be opportunities to raise issues with the Foreign Secretary in coming weeks. I always pass on to the Foreign Office issues raised by the right hon. Lady. I note her particular inquiry about the diplomatic question for Anousheh Ashouri, and I will take that up specifically to try to get her a direct answer on that.

The right hon. Lady says that responses from officials are not satisfactory. I thought this might come up. It reminds me that when I was at school, if something was handed in that was unsatisfactory, it was given back by the schoolmaster with a little tear at the top of the paper and it was asked that it be redone. I would suggest that if Members have responses from officials that they think are unsatisfactory, they do exactly that and send it back to the Ministry asking for a new response. Responses are expected from Ministers. It was known as a rip. So if you want to let rip, send these letters back, because it is deeply unsatisfactory and has been coming up more and more often at question time.

On unfairness in child maintenance, as a constituency MP I deeply sympathise with this. I have found the various guises of the child maintenance organisations to be one of the hardest issues to deal with on behalf of my constituents. We need to continue to bring to the attention of Ministers the fact that these organisations ought to provide a better service for families. As the right hon Lady mentions, it is desperately unfair when somebody has done the right thing, has made all the payments, and then finds that a further claim is made, usually because of administrative inefficiency.

That is, I am afraid, where the agreement comes to a sad end. Ministers have come to the Dispatch Box with great regularity and have made statement after statement. They have brought things to the House. The Prime Minister has been here. The Chancellor will be here very shortly. The Health Secretary has been here. The Foreign Secretary will be here shortly. The House has been kept up to date. Baroness Hale has now, of course, retired from the Supreme Court, and is as entitled to her opinions as any other Member of the House of Lords. [Interruption.] Of course the noble Lady is, and she can make speeches in the House of Lords that I am sure people will pay great attention to and be interested in. However, I think she is out of date as to what is going on in this House and the level of scrutiny that we have—indeed, that we are having next week, with the general debate on covid-19 but also the debate on the six-month extension of the regulations if that is what the House wishes to do. It will be a decision of this House, as the legislation was in the first place. The idea that the House is not doing its job is absurd. There is regular scrutiny and regular debate, and quite rightly so.

On the question of statutory instruments being made, the point at which they are laid and subject to subsequent debate is a form of this House—a form that this House has used for many years to ensure that swift action can be taken where necessary. The debates that are required will be held. Statutory instruments that are made on that basis have to be approved by the House; otherwise they fall if the House were not to approve them. That is very important.

I note what the right hon. Lady says about BEIS and the Select Committee. The House does have the power to call for persons and papers. That is a power delegated to Select Committees, which can of course use various methods to increase pressure on people to come. I will take up with the Secretary of State the specific issue she raised, but there are sometimes good reasons why officials cannot be present at Select Committees.

Finally, the House has made unconscious bias training available, and if people want to do it, that is a matter for them.

Proxy Voting

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

I, too, will address both motions in my response. I thank the Leader of the House for tabling them, and a special thank you to the Chair of the Procedure Committee and its members. They have worked incredibly hard to get many reports out in double-quick time, so that we can continue with this.

The Committee’s report is the fourth of the Session and was published on 10 September, but the launch of the first inquiry seems a long time ago, after the House resolved on 1 February 2018:

“That this House believes that it would be to the benefit of the functioning of parliamentary democracy that honourable Members who have had a baby or adopted a child should for a period of time be entitled, but not required, to discharge their responsibilities to vote in this House by proxy.”

We have had a number of debates and, as I set out from the Dispatch Box on 18 July 2018, 13 September 2018 and 22 January 2019, Her Majesty’s Opposition, the Labour party, support the principle of proxy voting for parental absence. I am not sure when baby Sixtus was born and whether the Leader of the House indulged in proxy voting at the time.

The motion provides for the new Standing Order for voting by proxy for parental absence. It is not temporary or time-limited. It accepts the Procedure Committee’s recommendation that

“provision for proxy voting for parental absence be made in the standing orders of the House”.

The new Standing Order makes a number of amendments to the original proxy scheme, allowing proxy voting for the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, in addition to the others. It removes the provision for the exercise of a proxy vote for Members who have suffered a miscarriage, quite rightly replacing the wording with

“in circumstances where there have been complications relating to childbirth”,

which may include postnatal depression. It removes the restriction on proxy voting in a Division

“on any motion in the form specified in section 2(2) of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011”—

if we want to vote for an early general election, we may do so by proxy. Those were all recommended by the Procedure Committee in its report.

In the proposed Standing Order, the certification process touched on by the Leader of the House becomes the responsibility of the Speaker alone. The Procedure Committee’s report found:

“The requirement to produce certificates of pregnancy or adoption to demonstrate eligibility for a proxy vote has proved onerous.”

The Committee suggested that such certificates were “unnecessary”, which I also suggested during the debates—people do not have to prove that they are pregnant or having a baby. It is up to the Speaker to decide whether to remove the certification process. I agree with that recommendation.

I was to provide evidence to the Procedure Committee in March, but the pandemic set in and I was unable to do so. It was arranged for 15 July, but I think the evidence was incorporated into the Committee’s other report, “Procedure under coronavirus restrictions”. As a result, the evidence was not included in this report, but I know that the written evidence is on the website. I hope it was taken into account. I have to pay tribute to the Clerk of the Committee, who has been assiduous. I have known him from other Committees, and my thanks go to him.

[Karen Bradley]

I wanted to say absolutely, categorically, that the right hon. Lady’s evidence was very informative and informed our report. She was right that the evidence is published under a different inquiry, but it very much helped to inform us in this inquiry.

[Valerie Vaz]

I thank the right hon. Lady for that.

Turning to proxy voting during the pandemic, the second motion amends the Standing Order on voting by proxy to allow proxy votes

“for medical or public health reasons relating to the pandemic”

until 3 November 2020.

The Procedure Committee report found that

“the system of remote voting used in May was a more effective means of handling divisions in the House under conditions where the division lobbies could not be used in the traditional way and where a large number of Members were unable to attend for public health reasons.”

Her Majesty’s Opposition put that in our written evidence for the Committee on 9 July 2020, when we said:

“The electronic remote voting system was a practical and necessary measure which allowed Parliament to continue in unprecedented circumstances during the pandemic. The decision to end electronic voting on 2 June 2020 was”—

I am afraid—

“undertaken without consultation or consideration of Members”,

or of their democratic accountability. It was replaced by the proxy voting system, which was clearly inferior to the safe and efficient remote voting system that did not fail once.

In its report, the Procedure Committee found that the current system of proxy voting for coronavirus absences

“is barely adequate, is potentially unreliable and imposes disproportionate administrative burdens on staff.”

[Owen Thompson]

Even with the extension to proxy voting, does the right hon. Lady agree that a number of Members are still disenfranchised because they are not able to cast a vote in the House?

[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.

[Mr Harper]

I have discussed this matter with the Leader of the House, and I agree with the right hon. Lady’s point about participating in legislative debates. It is good that we have enabled colleagues to participate virtually in the scrutiny parts of the House’s proceedings, but we must look at a way of enabling those who cannot be here to participate in the legislative process. As the Prime Minister said this week—I think he is right—we are in this for the long haul. This is not a short, tiny period. We could be operating under these procedures well into next year at the earliest, and we need measures that enable all colleagues to participate fully in the business of the House. That is not for our benefit, but for that of our constituents.

[Valerie Vaz]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and many right hon. and hon. Members have told me that they are disenfranchised because they cannot take part, particularly in recent important legislation such as the Internal Market Bill. They cannot tell the House what is happening in their constituency if they are unable to be here for public health reasons. We need a functional remote voting system that ensures fair representation and allows all right hon. and hon. Members to do their democratic duty. We in Her Majesty’s Opposition support the motion.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Business of the House

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)]

The business for next week will include:

Monday 21 September—Continuation of consideration in Committee of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill (day 3).

Tuesday 22 September—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill (day 4).

Wednesday 23 September—Second Reading of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill, followed by motion relating to proxy voting.

Thursday 24 September—General debate on the situation in Yemen, followed by general debate on the settlement and annexation of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, followed by general debate on the Rohingya humanitarian crisis and the effects of the covid-19 pandemic. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 25 September—Private Member’s Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 28 September will include:

Monday 28 September—Remaining stages of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill (day 1).

Tuesday 29 September—Conclusion of the remaining stages of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill (day 2).

Wednesday 30 September—Second Reading of the Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No.2) Bill, followed by motion under the Coronavirus Act 2020 relating to the renewal of temporary provisions, followed by all stages of the Sentencing Bill [Lords], followed by debate on motions relating to planning.

Thursday 1 October—Proceedings on a Bill relating to social security benefits uprating.

Friday 2 October—The House will not be sitting.

[Valerie Vaz]

I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the forthcoming business and you, Mr Speaker, for the statement you made on those two issues. I have to say that what happened yesterday was unacceptable, and I hope we can all sit down and talk about one or two of the incidents. I, too, want to place on record my thanks to the Clerk of the House, the House staff who managed to switch to a different system and the Doorkeepers who reminded us that we were on television.

If that was not enough, I do not know when the Government are going to make a statement about the chaos and the warning about the queues of lorries that will take place in Kent. Some 7,000 lorries will take two days to get through. More sites are being planned, such as the Waterbrook Park site behind the MOJO site, and local people know nothing about what is going on. A coronavirus test centre was abruptly closed to make way for a customs check. Staff were told out of the blue that it would be closing. When are we going to have a statement on what is going to happen in Kent after 31 December? Mr Speaker, to paraphrase Joni Mitchell, they paved the garden of England and put up a lorry park.

It is interesting that the following week, on Monday 28 and Tuesday 29 September, there are further days for the conclusion of the Internal Market Bill; I thought it would all be over this week so that the Prime Minister could go to party conference and wave a piece of paper in the air saying, “Oh, we have Brexit done.” It was the Government who signed the agreement, with the protocol, on 9 January and have now done what looks like a handbrake turn. To paraphrase what happened on the Health and Social Care Act 2012, it was a U-turn so big people could see it from space—perhaps from the moon, even.

Mr Speaker, the Leader of the House tweeted:

“Starmer’s Socialists still suck up to Brussels.”

As I said, it has nothing to do with Brexit. What we are doing is sucking up to the rule of law. The Law Society president has said that that is non-negotiable. He said that clauses 41-45:

“Represent a direct challenge to the rule of law,”

and he is urging hon. Members to vote against it.

The Leader of the House will know that we are celebrating 10 years since Pope Emeritus Benedict’s visit. In his speech, the Pope said that the separation of powers in this country is “an inspiration” and so is our,

“respect for the rule of law”.

Those are the words in his speech; I urge the Leader of the House to read them. This country has an internationally renowned reputation for legal services and as a place for the administration of justice, and that is all going to change. We have a law officer who has just recently resigned.

Can we have a debate on saving British businesses? The Leader of the House will know that the founder of ARM has written to the Prime Minister to stop the sale to Nvidia.

He said it was

“an issue of national economic sovereignty…Surrendering UK’s most powerful trade weapon to the US is making Britain a…vassal state.”

Has the Leader of the House heard that phrase before? He has failed to act in the public interest. It is a powerful letter and the Government should take a golden share in ARM. Could we have a statement on the negotiations and ensure that a business such as that will put the interests of the British people first, rather than being used as a powerful trade weapon for the United States?

I know there is a health statement later, but where was the chair of the test and trace programme? She has made no statement since 19 August. Public Health England has been abolished. We have had mixed messages. Do the Government really think that people without symptoms are going to have a test? The number of tests returned within 24 hours has fallen from 68% to 8%. It seems to be all “talk, talk” and not “test, test”.

More importantly, I want to use the Leader of the House’s good offices, if he could speak to Ministers in the Department of Work and Pensions. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) had a ten-minute rule Bill in July on how people who are terminally ill are treated in the benefits system. She asked a question and she was told by the Minister at the time that the outcome of the review would be done shortly. The Minister said on Monday he will have it done “as quickly as possible.” Could we have a statement as soon as possible, hopefully next week, on what is happening with scrapping the six-month rule?

I am sure that the Leader of the House has already seen the 250 to 300 statutory instruments that are coming down the line. Could he ensure that there will be proper scrutiny of those issues?

It was the fourth birthday that Sherry Izadi, the wife of Anousheh, has had without him. Anousheh also needs diplomatic protection. Nazanin had that terrible prospect of not knowing whether she was on trial. I know the Foreign Secretary has been to America, and I hope that in some way we are nearer to a solution, as the Defence Secretary has suggested. Of course, let us not forget Luke Symons in Yemen; I hope there will be a statement next week in the Back-Bench debate.

I hope the Leader of the House will join me in thanking the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew)—I forgot to mention him earlier—for standing in so wonderfully for him last week and also Marcial Boo, the chief executive of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, who left last Friday. I thank him for his six years. He has made many changes and says that he has left IPSA in a better place. He never failed to deal with queries on behalf of my colleagues. He saw three elections, winding up offices and setting up new offices. We thank him for his service and wish him well in the future.

Finally, happy new year, shanah tovah, to the Jewish community. I know that it has been difficult to have the celebrations, but maybe Rosh Hashanah next year will be back to normal.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I also wish the Jewish community a happy new year? Of course, celebrations are difficult this year under the regulation.

May I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) and Deputy Chief Whip? I was worried that last week he was far too good and that this week hon. Members would all be clamouring for him. Indeed, I fear that they are, but are too polite and kindly to admit it to my face, although I have no doubt that the call will go out on Twitter that Members want the Deputy Chief Whip.

I also add my thanks to Marcial Boo, who carried out a very difficult task with dignity and patience. He was always available to Members to hear representations and was always keen to put things right. I think he did very good public service in possibly one of the most testing jobs, in which there are 650 critics and very few defenders. I think he did it really admirably.

The right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) is right once again to raise the question of British nationals detained overseas, including Anousheh Ashoori and Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. It is good news that the second trial has so far been deferred, and I hope that it will not take place. The detainees in Yemen can of course be raised in the debate coming up next week. The Government take this issue very seriously, but as the right hon. Lady knows, there are limitations to what the Government can do with a foreign nation that is determined to behave in the way that Iran behaves.

The right hon. Lady asked me about the scrutiny of statutory instruments. She will notice in the business that I announced that we are making time available for debate of statutory instruments where the Opposition prayed against them. It is the will of the Government, the habit of the Government and, indeed, the requirement of Parliament that where debates are requested, wherever it is possible and feasible in terms of the management of business, we will do our best to facilitate them and ensure proper scrutiny. That is of course up to Members as well. Some statutory instrument Committees do not take very long to perform their scrutiny, and we should all look to our own consciences as to how much we wish to debate statutory instruments when they come before Committees.

The right hon. Lady raises the point about the Department for Work and Pensions, and the terminally ill and the promise of an answer. I will follow that up for her; it is a reasonable request to have made. I will ask the Secretary of State to ensure a written response as to when we can expect an answer, even if we do not have the answer itself.

I am afraid that is where the sweetness and light has to end, because some of the other things that the right hon Lady said were really rather more contentious and have to be disputed. The UKIM Bill is a really important piece of legislation. It builds on section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, which made it clear that the law in this country is made by Parliament. That has been our historic constitutional position. The Prime Minister himself has pointed out that the EU in these negotiations is not acting with good faith. If we are negotiating with somebody who is not behaving in good faith, we have to protect our interests, and we have a fundamental duty to protect the Good Friday agreement. It is absolutely clear in the Good Friday agreement that there will be no change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland without agreement from the people of Northern Ireland. Putting tariffs on, banning food going from GB to Northern Ireland, would be such a fundamental change. It is our duty to stop that happening, because it is our duty to protect the Good Friday agreement and to support the United Kingdom. A fine piece of legislation has been crafted, and is being piloted through the House of Commons, that will do precisely that. It is the right law, it is good law and it will protect the position of the people of Britain.

The Government have consistently ensured that provisions are being made in Kent for whatever may be the result on 1 January next year. That is absolutely the right thing to do, and the Government are continuing to do that.

As regards testing, one has to be reasonable. I was not here last week because I was awaiting a test result, and that was quite right; people who have family members who have developed symptoms must self-isolate. The right hon. Lady’s right hon. Friend, the Leader of the Opposition, also did the right thing in self-isolating until the test result came back. We all have an obligation to try to stop a dangerous disease spreading, but we have gone from a disease that nobody knew about a few months ago to one where nearly a quarter of a million people a day can be tested, and the Prime Minister expects that to rise to half a million by the end of the October. Instead of this endless carping, with people saying it is difficult to get them, we should be celebrating this phenomenal success of the British nation in getting up to a quarter of a million tests for a disease that nobody knew about until earlier in the year. That is a success of our society, our health experts and our Administration. Yes, there is demand for more; yes, demand exceeds supply, but the supply is increasing and what has been done is really rather remarkable and something we should be proud of.

Finally, on the Division yesterday, well that is the great thing about being here physically: we had a fall-back plan, so we could all get through the Lobbies. Just think if we had all been remote: the business would have fallen and we would not have got the business through the House. [Interruption.] There is some cackling from the Opposition Benches. They seem to think that when technology fails you need even more technology, whereas as actually good, trusty turning up and saying “Aye” or “Nay” worked extraordinarily well.

Business of the House

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees- Mogg)]

The business for the week commencing 7 September will include:

Monday 7 September—Remaining stages of the Fire Safety Bill, followed by motion relating to the appointment of trustees to the House of Commons Members Fund, followed by motion relating to the reappointment of the Chairman of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, followed by motion relating to the reappointment of an Electoral Commissioner.

Tuesday 8 September—Remaining stages of the Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Bill [Lords].

Wednesday 9 September—Opposition day (11th allotted day). There will be a debate on protection of jobs and businesses, followed by a debate on this summer’s exam results. Both debates will arise on a motion in the name of the official Opposition.

Thursday 10 September—General debate on the aviation sector, followed by general debate on support for the tourism industry after the covid-19 lockdown. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 11 September—Private Members’ Bills.

[Valerie Vaz]

I thank the Leader of the House for the business for next week, and for the Opposition day. May I correct him on the title of the second debate on our Opposition day? The official title will be “The personal role and involvement of the Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Education in this summer’s exams fiasco.”

I welcome the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), who is standing in for the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard).

One small plea, Mr Speaker, in terms of voting: that we separate the queues. I know that you, too, are quite keen to separate the Ayes and the Noes. If we could do that, that might be safer.

On an extremely serious note, yesterday the Prime Minister, in response to the Leader of the Opposition, said that he would not meet the families of the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK because they were in litigation. They have said they are not in litigation, so I think the Prime Minister has to come to the House—maybe he will do that on Wednesday—to correct the record. Could he then meet the families?

Could the Leader of the House find time to introduce urgent legislation on the rotection of renters? I think the current protection runs out on 20 September and we need that urgent legislation for further protection.

We have prayed against the town and country planning permitted development regulations—I think there are three sets of them. The shadow Minister for Housing and Planning, my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), has written to the Secretary of State. I hope that the Leader of the House will find time for that debate.

During August Parliament was not sitting, but extremely important announcements were being made. I cannot understand why the Government, who say consistently that Parliament is sovereign, do not come to the House to explain changes in policy. Apparently, algorithms will now be used in planning decisions. That takes away the very nature of making planning decisions—whether relevant considerations are taken into account or whether irrelevant considerations are taken into account—and it undermines administrative law. When you make a decision, you must give reasons.

The Town and Country Planning Association says that 90% of planning applications are approved and there are 1 million unbuilt commissions. It is time for the shires to rise up and oppose these new policies. Will the Leader of the House ask the current Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to come to the House to explain why he is using algorithms to stomp on our green and pleasant land?

As though that was not enough, the Secretary of State for Education must come to Parliament—not just on our Opposition day, but next week, given the written and oral evidence of the chair of Ofqual. On Tuesday, the Education Secretary did not apologise for the debacle; all he said was that he was

“deeply sorry that those who have borne the brunt…have been students”.—[Official Report, 1 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 42.]

There was nothing about the mistake—no mention that students had to demonstrate to be heard. There were three in the marriage: the Department of Education, Public First, which was appointed in June, and Ofqual. We need an urgent statement and a proper response, and the current Secretary of State for Education must explain who knew what and when, and that includes the Prime Minister. They are using algorithms to stomp on the dreams of our young people.

It is very sad that the great educationist, Sir Ken Robinson, passed away; he made a great contribution to education and his TED talks were absolutely amazing—they have the most views, and I urge people to watch them.

May I write to the Leader of the House about a constituent whose two sons had their grades downgraded and cannot take the A-levels and GCSEs that they want? He has been very responsive whenever I have written to him.

Of course, we all mourn the passing of John Hume, that great peacemaker. Talking of Ireland, may we have a debate on the £355 million package and the £200 million that goes to the trader support service, which will help with paperwork for the Northern Ireland border? We are slightly confused by the remarks of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster: he says that although the

“protocol doesn’t change the economic or the constitutional position”,

it does give Northern Ireland

“privileged access into the European single market.”

Well, we would like that for the rest of the United Kingdom. So there is in fact a border in the Irish sea.

Why is the Department of Health and Social Care not answering written questions? Hon. Members are getting answers back saying that it is not possible to answer the question in the usual time. Why?

In answer to a question at column 6 of Tuesday’s Official Report from my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) about the remaining functions of Public Health England, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said that the new functions would be “embedded” in the NHS, but did not say how. Will the right hon. Gentleman come to the House to explain what is going to happen with all those functions of PHE, instead of randomly closing A&Es around the country?

May we also have an urgent statement on the recruitment process at No. 10? Yet another person who has applied to the adverts for “weirdos and misfits” has now had to resign because of their extreme views, and a Minister has had to relinquish shares in a company because his company was given a contract under these emergency schemes. That goes to the heart of No. 10—there is something rotten at the heart of No. 10. It is like Palmyra: they are destroying accountable structures on the ground of false ideology. Here is the “Ministerial Code”:

“Ministers have a duty to Parliament to account, and be held to account, for the policies, decisions and actions”

of Government Departments and agencies. They are not.

Of course I am going to raise Nazanin and Anoosheh, but let me take a different tack: will the Leader of the House ask the Defence Secretary to kindly look at Richard Ratcliffe’s letter? There is also Luke Symons in Yemen; my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) is supporting the family.

I am pleased that the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan) is on the mend, but I just want to finally mention Julia Clifford, who works in the Tea Room and who is, sadly, very ill. I know she has the love and support of all hon. Members throughout the House; we wish her a speedy recovery—it will be a long one, but we want to see her back in the Tea Room.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The right hon. Lady is absolutely right about that. The pleasure that all Members get from going to the Tea Room is due to the wonderful staff there, who work so hard and cheer us all up. They spread a degree of sweetness and light, which politicians sometimes try to do, but not always as successfully as those in the Tea Room.

On Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, I note what the right hon. Lady says about a letter to the Defence Secretary. I will take that up—and, indeed, Anoosheh Ashoori. Both of these issues are of considerable concern to Her Majesty’s Government. I do not have any particularly new information, but I am always willing to take up any points that the right hon. Lady raises at these sessions.

May I also associate myself with the words of the right hon. Lady about John Hume, who was indeed a great contributor to peace? May his soul and the souls of all the faithful departed rest in peace.

Now I want to come to the right hon. Lady’s political points—this question of No. 10 appointments. We are lucky that No. 10 Downing Street has such fine people working there—fine intellects, people doing their best for this country, people thinking things through, coming up with inspired ideas—and I do not think it would be possible to imagine a better functioning, more forward-looking Government than the one we currently have. [Interruption.] Of course the Opposition scoff, but dare I say it, that is in the title of being in the Opposition. It is, as Disraeli said, the job of the Opposition to oppose, even when they see this shining beacon of wisdom in front of them, as they get in No. 10.

Proceedings During the Pandemic (No. 4)

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

I thank the Leader of the House for tabling the motion and the Procedure Committee for its work on this issue. It is the right thing to do in the circumstances, given the difficulties that we still face with the pandemic, so Her Majesty’s Opposition support the motion.

Restoration and Renewal

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

What a lovely performance. It is hard to believe that restoration and renewal, commonly known as R&R—nothing to do with rest and relaxation—was first established in 2013 by both Houses. Imagine if we had actually started the work then: it might even have been completed by now.

I can see why the Leader of the House wanted to schedule this debate. We could have debated the redundancies at British Airways, something that he did not even find time for next Wednesday, but he chose to do this now. Of the current Cabinet, only two members voted for a full decant, seven did not vote and 15, including the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House, voted against a full decant.

I hope that this debate is not about revisiting the project. Everyone accepts that work must be done on this building, not least because it is not accessible, and it is a heritage building. From seeing pictures or visiting the basement, it is clear that work must be done from a safety aspect underground and to the stonework outside. It all needs to be looked at, because this is a once-in-a-lifetime project and it will keep us going for the next few —maybe hundred—years.

I want to make a few points. First, we agreed a process in May 2019, when the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill was introduced, and it then received Royal Assent on 8 October 2019. The House agreed that, using the successful model of the Olympics, we would have a Sponsor Body and a Delivery Authority. Those are made up of experts, but there is parliamentary oversight. They became substantive bodies in April this year, and we in this House have tasked those experts with dealing with this important programme. I want to thank the parliamentarians who are serving on the Sponsor Body: the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), who has been involved in this project for a long time—he has seen it all, right from the beginning—the hon. Members for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) and for Poole (Sir Robert Syms), Lord Best, Lord Carter, Lord Deighton and Baroness Scott. They are all on the Sponsor Body, so both Houses of Parliament have oversight of the project.

Secondly, the Leader of the House alluded to costs. At all stages, the National Audit Office and the Comptroller and Auditor General are involved, and their job is clearly set out: to certify that Departments and any other bodies have used resources efficiently, effectively and with economy; and so long as they report regularly, costs can be kept in check. We are not dealing with repairs that could result in even more eye-watering figures; we are dealing with keeping this building safe. I want to put it on record that at no stage are Members or anybody visiting the building unsafe. Yes, there may be fires, but there is a team of people who put those fires out practically every day. The Clerk of the House would be absolving himself of his responsibility if he let Members in here when the building was unsafe. The case for a full decant is strong. We do not need noises off raising the prospect of alternative sites. Inevitably, there will be costs as yet uncosted.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The right hon. Lady says that the case for a full decant is strong. I do not want to get into that argument. I want to ask her about her attitude to whether it is necessary to demolish the listed Richmond House. If she wants a full decant, could we not move into a temporary, rather than permanent, Chamber in the courtyard of Richmond House, as has been fully costed and scoped by the heritage organisation SAVE?

[Valerie Vaz]

I will come on to Richmond House, but it is not my opinion—it is an opinion that this House has taken to transfer authority for doing that to the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority. As I said, we are not the experts; they are the experts, and they will be able to undertake that.

The case for a full decant is strong. The Prime Minister has written a letter about moving to York. I do not know whether that has been costed—perhaps the Leader of the House could tell us what costs are associated with moving there. The costings of the building work and moving to York or anywhere else is a matter for the Sponsor Body to look at. This House will not be able to continue with a patch-and-mend approach or a quick fix; that will not do. Any delays will exacerbate the problem, probably making it cost more as some of the systems reach the end of their shelf life.

The Northern Estate programme is for improvements to the buildings in Norman Shaw North and South and Derby Gate, and it is progressing. Plans to house a temporary Chamber were part of the programme. Concerns were expressed about the heritage of Richmond House, but in fact it is only 33 years old. I am pleased that the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) intervened on me, because he has been in the House for 37 years, so he will remember when Richmond House was not even there—it did not exist. We now have a strategic review, in which Members are encouraged to take part, and they have until 7 August.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Will the right hon. Lady clarify the review being conducted by the Sponsor Body? Presumably, the Sponsor Body is allowed to conclude that the full decant is no longer regarded as the most cost-effective option, or is she serving notice that because the House has voted it through by, I think, a mere 14 votes some time ago, that option is closed to it? Presumably, that option is open to it.

[Valerie Vaz]

I am a lot of things but I am not a prophet and I cannot see into the future. I cannot see into the minds of the Sponsor Body, much as I would like to, because I am sure I would be of great help to the House. I am just coming on to that in a second.

There is the challenge panel, which is interesting. I have a list of the hon. Members and various people on the challenge panel, but I cannot see on there a single member from the Opposition parties. We have a strategic adviser to the Prime Minister and various other people, but I cannot see where Opposition Members—any of the Opposition—can have their view heard on the challenge panel. It is good that Sir David Higgins is on there, because he ran a very successful campaign to deliver the Olympics. I had the privilege of interviewing him when I was on the House Governance Committee and I know that he is very conscious of how to have an end to a project. He talked about Gantt charts and proper schedules. It was different with the Olympic Delivery Authority because there was an end date, but I am sure the Sponsor Body can come to some conclusion on how we come to the end of the project.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. Is not the important point about the exchange that has just taken place that the Sponsor Body should be completely free to come up with a number of totally good options, from full decant to no decant at all, and then, as a result of that, come up with a properly costed project that Parliament can either accept or reject in a vote in 2022?

[Valerie Vaz]

As with any body of the House, the Sponsor Body will listen to what hon. Members say in the debate today and make up its own mind. I cannot tell it what to do. I do not even have a voice on the Sponsor Body, but other people do and, as they have set out very clearly, they will listen to hon. Members’ views until 7 August. Right hon. and hon. Members should feed into that.

The review will enable us to continue with progress ,and the Sponsor Body is in the process of updating the costings. The costings were undertaken some time ago, so it is right that it should do that. Before the work, we will vote on the outline business case, as the Leader of the House said, but that has already been pushed back to 2022.

As right hon. and hon. Members have said in previous debates, and in the debate in which we voted for a full decant, the project will be about the whole country benefiting from the heritage, and from utilising the skills and crafts of the whole country. There will be no blacklisting and there will be an upskilling of our diverse workforce. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will see that this is preserving the home of our democracy for over 1,000 years and for generations to come.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Valerie Vaz]

The Leader of the House and I have kept our closing remarks short to allow more Members to speak. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken. The Sponsor Body is the body that will look after our interests, and I have great faith that the hon. Members on it will, on a cross-party basis, look after the interests of Parliament and the costs and keep those at the forefront of their minds. One hon. Member mentioned the Elizabeth Tower. We did not know what was going to be found there, and that is why the costs went up. On Richmond House, I am not sure, but I think there was legionella disease floating around somewhere, so it is important that we see what is going on there.

The review is important because Members can feed their views into it, and yes we are not experts, but the Sponsor Body and the Delivery Authority do have experts on them. I agree with the many Members who have said we cannot do the work because all the services are connected. We do have to decant somewhere, although it might be for the Sponsor Body to provide an answer to that.

I feel sorry for new Members, because they have not been part of the debate, but I think the models were shown to them all at the induction day, so they knew this was coming down the line. I am pleased that many of them have taken part in this debate. We do not know the outcome of the review. Let us wait and see what comes up.

I want to conclude with a quote from the restoration and renewal programme’s vision. That vision is

“to transform the Houses of Parliament to be fit for the future as the working home for our parliamentary democracy, welcoming to all and a celebration of our rich heritage.”

To coin a phrase: let’s get going.

Business of the House

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)]

The business for the week commencing 20 July will include:

Monday 20 July—Remaining stages of the Trade Bill.

Tuesday 21 July—Remaining stages of the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.

Wednesday 22 July—Matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.

At the conclusion of business, the House will rise for the summer recess and return on Tuesday 1 September.

The business for the week commencing 31 August will include:

Monday 31 August—The House will not be sitting.

Tuesday 1 September—Second Reading of the Fisheries Bill [Lords].

Wednesday 2 September—Second reading of the Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Bill [Lords].

Thursday 3 September—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill.

Friday 4 September—The House will not be sitting.

For the convenience of the House—[Laughter.]—I can confirm that, following correspondence from the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, I will be tabling motions on Monday’s Order Paper to give the House the opportunity to agree an extension to the current proxy voting arrangements until 28 September.

In addition, I am aware of the understandable desire for Members from all parties to see the return of business to Westminster Hall. It may help if I update the House by saying that discussions are already taking place with the House authorities with a view to Westminster Hall debates resuming as soon as practicable. I understand from the House authorities that the aim is for business to resume from 5 October, if possible.

[Mr Speaker]

Now that we have flushed that through, we will go back to Valerie Vaz.

[Valerie Vaz]

I am going to stay away from the lavatory jokes.

I thank the Leader of the House for the business for next week and the first week of September. The first thing I am going to ask for is a list of updated ministerial responsibilities, please—perhaps we could have that next week.

In his response on Nazanin last week, the Leader of the House missed out Anousheh, and there was no mention of Luke Symons. None of them have done anything wrong. The Leader of the House said that Nazanin’s case is a top priority, but there was also no response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), who made a separate but important point about Iran.

My colleagues and I are extremely concerned that the responses from Ministers to our letters are falling somewhat below what should be expected. Ministers are obliged to provide meaningful responses. It is quite an easy phrase: “Ministers’ meaningful responses”—MMR—so it would be quite good if we could give them a poke by thinking of it as an injection. Perhaps we can send copies of all the letters that we have received to the Leader of the House so that he can have a look at them. I received one from the civil servants—this is nothing to do with the civil servants—that was a generalist response and contained nothing about the case that I had raised.

The Leader of the House keeps talking about the accountability of this Government, and he ended the virtual Parliament. He wanted us to come back, he said, because it keeps Ministers accountable, so let’s have it. What about the accountability of the purchase of 27 acres near Ashford in Kent, without the knowledge of the local MP and without the people who live near this lorry park even knowing it would be based there? The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster told the House that there were no plans to build a lorry park in Dover. What he failed to go on to say was that it would be in Ashford. In his statement he mentioned technology, but there were no details of the technology, how it would work or how it would be used for border checks. Can we have an urgent statement on the delivery plans for these borders and all EU-facing ports and also a statement on the border with Ireland, which the Minister said he would make later this month? Well, the House will not be sitting, so can we have an urgent statement on the plans for a border with the island of Ireland?

The Secretary of State for International Trade needs to an updated statement, too. She has now put together a Trade and Agriculture Commission, which she announced on Sunday by press release, but not to this House. Will the Leader of the House confirm that there will be regular updates to the House? I know that the commission will be reporting to the Secretary of State, but hon. Members would also like to know what the Commission does.

The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will be making a statement later. I cannot ask a question, so will the Leader of the House ask him why Walsall Council cannot use its full discretionary grant for local authorities of £7.6 million? BEIS officials have capped it at £2 million and stopped it using the balance. We are the neighbour to Birmingham and we are just a tiny place, so it is really important to keep our local economy going. The head of Blue Coat School has asked why Walsall libraries are not open, so can the Leader of the House confirm that Government guidance was that pubs and libraries could open from 4 July?

Will the Leader of the House join me in commending the education service, and all hon. Members of Parliament, for their efforts on Parliament Week, which is at the beginning of November? David Clark said that 4,192 organisations have signed up for it. Last year, more than a million people took part, and there were 11,000 activities. North East Somerset came 11th and Walsall came 17th, so we are hoping to beat you this year. Congratulations to everyone—hon. Members and the Parliament team—on raising awareness of Parliament at this important time.

I have one quick point. Depending on what happens in September and how the Procedure Committee reports on its inquiry, can the Leader of the House think about whether we could have an Aye queue and a No queue when we are voting? It would mean that we did not need to have the Whip standing in the middle. Perhaps we could have the Aye queue out of the Members’ Lobby and down those stairs, and the No queue through Central Lobby and down to St Stephen’s stairs. That would mean that the queues would be separate in Westminster Hall and we would know which queue to go to.

Mr Speaker, I join you in congratulating Rui Duarte on his 44 years of service and his retirement. Every event I have attended has always run smoothly in this House. We wish him a well-deserved retirement.

Finally, Mr Speaker, I thank you, your deputies and everyone who works in this House. They have got together to use their talents, their abilities and their skills—that includes Members and our staff. We had the first virtual Parliament in the world. I want to wish everyone well, thank them all for their work and tell them to stay safe.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The right hon. Lady is absolutely right, as you are, Mr Speaker, to thank Rui Duarte for his amazing service to the House. It is illustrative of how fortunate we are as parliamentarians to have this support. There have been 150,000 functions with one man to oversee them. That is quite phenomenal. We are served so well.

As we come to the end of this Session—these are the last business questions before the end of the Session—the right hon. Lady is also right to thank the staff of this House in all sorts of areas, both seen and unseen, for the work that has been done to ensure that Parliament continued doing its job in extraordinarily difficult circumstances. This covers such a wide range of staff. It is the cleaners who have been ensuring that it was safe to come back. It is the organisation of the House that has ensured that the lines are put out so that we can sit in a covid-safe manner. It is the Doorkeepers who constantly work to ensure that everything runs smoothly and that the right number of Members are in the Chamber. I see the Clerk of the House sitting at the table—the team he leads has done a phenomenal job under his inspired leadership, so we are very lucky.

Mr Speaker, I see your own secretary standing next to you. Her work has been absolutely invaluable in making sure that everything works well and, from the Leader of the House’s Office, she is an absolute pleasure to deal with. I fear that the honourable lady is going red as I say this, but the tribute is, none the less, greatly deserved.

I wish to address the points the right hon. Lady raises on Nazanin, Anousheh, and Luke. I can reassure her that consular efforts are being made in all those cases and that support is also being given to Mr Ashoori, supporting the family. It is really important that this support is given and takes place. Consular access to British nationals in Yemen is extremely difficult, given that our embassy operations are suspended, but we continue to press the Houthis to release Luke on humanitarian grounds. The efforts are being made, and the right hon. Lady is right to raise this issue every week.

On ministerial responsibilities, the right hon. Lady knows that this list is always produced in as reasonably timely manner as can possibly be achieved, but ensuring that it is accurate and kept up to date is a complex and time-consuming process, and therefore the list will be provided in due course—in the fullness of time. She is right to raise the point about letters from Ministers; I have received complaints from across the House. Ministers are aware that it is a basic courtesy that replies come from Ministers, not from officials, and I am reminding Ministers of that. We hold the Government to account, not officials to account. That is our role, and I will remind people about that. However, on the accountability point, since we have been back accountability, the Chamber has improved enormously, with a full hour of Question Time.

The right hon. Lady complains that there was no holding to account about the buying of land in the Ashford constituency, but that is exactly what she was doing; she was raising the point and trying to hold me to account for a decision made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. So proper accountability is taking place, and I am delighted that she is so assiduous in ensuring that we are held to account, as she is doing on the issue of the Irish border. The thing to remember on that issue is that there will be no obstacle to trade from Northern Ireland coming to Great Britain, that Great Britain and Northern Ireland remain in a single customs area and that the UK will not be divided by any agreements made with the European Union.

As regards the trade and agricultural commission, the Agriculture Bill is in the other place, having completed its passage here. The commission will be set up and it seems to me an extremely sensible way to proceed.

On the opening of libraries, not everything that can be opened has been opened. Some people, be they councils or businesses, have decided, for their own private reasons, not to open immediately that they have been allowed to do so. The right hon. Lady will notice that in central Westminster not every restaurant has reopened since it has been allowed to do so, and that is a decision for the individual businesses.

I am delighted to discover that we in North East Somerset won the competition against Walsall South in regards to Parliament Week, but I do not think that that is a reflection on the individual Members of Parliament for those constituencies—it was merely good luck. It is a great event and I certainly encourage participation in it this year.

Finally, on the issue of the Aye queue and No queue, I initially thought that the r hon. Lady was referring to the intelligence level of Members on her side of the House, which I think is extraordinarily high but misguided, whereas on our side of the House the level is extraordinarily high and rightly guided. However, her suggestion will be borne in mind, and I am sure that the Procedure Committee will take it up with interest.

Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

I thank the Leader of the House for bringing forward the motion. It has been the longest time taken to set up the Intelligence and Security Committee; I think the last time it has taken so long was in 1994. He will know that I have raised this at business questions several times, so setting up the Committee today cannot go without some acknowledgment of the delay, and perhaps an apology to the House. That would be much appreciated.

We have heard from eminent Members of this House, such as Dominic Grieve, the former Chair, who warned that

“the effective and robust oversight of the intelligence community, entrusted to us, is too important to have been left in a vacuum for so many months.”

Lord Ricketts said:

“It was a fundamental part of the deal when the intelligence agencies got more intrusive powers to combat terrorism that at the same time Parliament got stronger powers of oversight”,

and the Intelligence and Security Committee is that “oversight”. Four important inquiries were going on and of course the Russia report, which has been on the Prime Minister’s desk for six months. Can the Leader of the House say when that will be published?

I am pleased by the Opposition team. As the Leader of the House said, the Opposition nominate their members, and we have a fantastic team in my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and Lord West. They are assiduous parliamentarians, and they will do their work diligently. I also want to place on the record my thanks to David Hanson and Caroline Flint for their work on the Committee.

With this Committee, we are able to preserve the balance between liberty and security. The robust and continuous oversight of the intelligence and security community is both necessary for our democracy and vital for our national security. Her Majesty’s Opposition support the motion.