Business of the House

Debate between William Wragg and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 17th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

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

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

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

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

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

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

Business of the House

Debate between William Wragg and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 4th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

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

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

Mr Speaker,

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

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

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

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

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

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

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

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

Debate between William Wragg and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Wednesday 13th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

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

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

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

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

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

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

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

Proceedings during the Pandemic

Debate between William Wragg and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 2nd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proceedings during the Pandemic and Hybrid Scrutiny Proceedings

Debate between William Wragg and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 21st April 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I rise to speak to the motion on proceedings during the pandemic and, as you have explained, Mr Speaker, I will also speak to the motion on hybrid scrutiny proceedings.

Mr Speaker, may I start by thanking you and the House staff for the incredible work that has taken place during the Easter recess to allow me to move these motions today? It is worth noting that our Clerks and staff often work very long hours when the House is sitting and expect to be compensated for that in recess periods. On this occasion, we have asked them to work during the recess period too, placing a double burden upon them. I am also grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for allowing these motions to be moved without formal notice, and to House staff for arranging the publication yesterday of these motions and the accompanying explanatory note.

From tomorrow, if the House agrees these motions, we will resume oral questions, statements and urgent questions virtually. While the new digital Parliament may not be perfect—Members may launch forth into fine perorations only to be muted or snatched away altogether by an intermittent internet connection—we must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The parliamentary authorities have done a superb job to get this up and running at short notice. Should the House agree these motions today, I would expect to bring forward further motions shortly so that we can extend our virtual ways of working for a longer period and to more substantive business, including legislation.

Before turning to the motions, I want to set out my gratitude to the Procedure Committee for its rapid work. These are difficult and challenging times, and these necessary changes are happening at a pace that would not be ideal in more normal times. The Procedure Committee has an essential role in advising this House on reform. I am grateful to the Committee and to its Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), for its report published today, and I commit to continuing to work closely with it. We will all want to keep under review how the procedures work. I know that the Committee has particular concerns about moving to electronic voting, and I would certainly want to work closely with the Committee on the options for that. I hope it will reassure the Committee if I say that, once we have moved to considering substantive business as well, I will be looking to make certain that we initially schedule business that is unlikely to be divided on.

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

I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way at this early stage. Could he confirm that it is his intention tomorrow to bring forward a motion on remote voting?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think we must wait till tomorrow for tomorrow’s business, but I do expect further motions to be brought forward on how this House will operate and move forward to substantive business. Those motions will be laid in the normal way before the rise of the House, so that we do not have to have the extraordinary situation of bringing forward motions without notice, but there will be further motions.

Business of the House

Debate between William Wragg and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 21st April 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The right hon. Lady is so right to mention, at the beginning of her statement, the dead and the grieving. We must pray for the souls of the dead, for the comfort of those who grieve, and for those who are suffering in the hope that they recover. I think all of us have known people who have been very seriously ill. The recovery of those who have been ill is worth praying for.

May I join the right hon. Lady in congratulating the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) on his election? I am one of those people who always think that an effective Opposition lead to better Government, so, in a roundabout way, I wish him extraordinarily well, because I think it is in the interests of the country to have an effective Opposition. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) on winning the deputy leadership. I am particularly pleased, if I may say so, Mr Speaker, that the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) remained in her place in the reshuffle. I hope that we can carry on debating as we have been. I am grateful for her support in this difficult time, and for the support of the Opposition in being very constructive in most of its suggestions.

I, too, believe there will be a statement by the Health Secretary tomorrow—the first virtual statement. I am sure he will, as always, give proper answers. I do not think that the right hon. Lady need worry about his answers being anything other than proper and complete. It is right that issues are raised in the House in that way.

As always, the right hon. Lady raises the issue of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, who, as she knows, has been temporarily released. The Government hope that that release will be made permanent and will continue to make the case for British citizens who are detained improperly.

I note the right hon. Lady’s request for the terms of reference for the inquiry into the disproportionate number of deaths among the BAME community. I will take that up for her and give her a written answer.

I got in first to wish Her Majesty a happy birthday, but I am always happy to do it. Is it not wonderful that we can carry on singing the national anthem while washing our hands? We will do that today with a special spring in our step.

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

May I begin by expressing my condolences to the families of constituents who have sadly lost their lives to covid-19? I pay particular tribute to the nurses and doctors at Stepping Hill Hospital, and those working in social care throughout my constituency, for their extraordinary efforts. In that light, may I ask the Leader of the House if he could convey the message that it may be appropriate for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to make a statement tomorrow on PPE procurement processes? I am sure that we are all finding, in our own ways with inquiries from businesses and healthcare settings, that there is certainly a blockage in the system. Mr Speaker, I would have tabled an urgent question on the matter today, but it would have been an invidious decision for you to have had to make, given that many Members have not been present and our new proceedings have not yet been adopted. However, its urgency is absolutely vital.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

On the question of a statement tomorrow, I have already mentioned that I believe it will be the Health Secretary who will be making a statement. The issue of PPE is important. It is worth bearing in mind that over 1 billion pieces of PPE have been distributed. Yes, of course there is more that needs to be done, but I am sure that will be covered by the Health Secretary tomorrow.

Business of the House

Debate between William Wragg and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 12th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

On the first point from the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee, yes, I will try to give him an early indication in respect of the 30th and the 31st. Very often, the day before a recess is available to the Backbench Business Committee—that might be a helpful comment. As regards the very important constituent case, if the hon. Gentleman is having difficulties with the Home Office in getting replies, I will obviously help, but I assume that he is taking it up in the normal way.

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

Notwith- standing the kindly overtures from the shadow Leader of the House, may we have a debate in Government time on restoration and renewal, particularly given the National Audit Office investigation into the shambles of the Big Ben restoration? We cannot afford to spend upwards of £6 billion on this place when there are better value-for-money options available that do not involve a full decant.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Obviously, this is a new Parliament and a new House of Commons, and it will be entitled to make decisions as it sees fit. It is accepted that the mechanical and engineering plant needs replacing, but some of the costs that one has read about are eye-watering. We have to focus on value for money, so I am sympathetic to the approach that my hon. Friend is taking.

Business of the House

Debate between William Wragg and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Monday 28th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I thank my hon. Friend—the DUP still are our friends in many, many ways. Our shared desire for Unionism is very strong, and all our Unionists are friends, if I may say so. However, the House rejected the programme motion, so it seemed to will the end but not the means. Ultimately, this House needs to make a full decision, and it is deeply reluctant to do that.

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

In these deliberations, has my right hon. Friend given full consideration to early-day motion 57 in the name of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field)? Many Conservative Members see this as a way forward, and I would urge my right hon. Friend to give it proper consideration.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his point. It would indeed be a historic occasion if an EDM were actually something serious that could be given proper consideration.

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [Lords]

Debate between William Wragg and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Monday 7th December 2015 Commons Chamber

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

I wish to support some of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (William Wragg) and to try to give more information to the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) to explain why I am in favour of first past the post.

Briefly, let me talk about referendums and why I have attached my name to amendment 2. It seems that there is a slowly developing theory of referendums in this country that fits in with a parliamentary democracy. It is that those of us who sit in this House, who admire this House and who approve of how our constitution works, have a great affection for the understanding that we are representatives and not delegates, and that we are here to exercise sovereignty on behalf of the people for a five-year period before returning it to them in toto at the end of that period. That is the well-established constitutional position. Against that, and in sympathy with that, there is a developing view of where referendums are useful, and moving from useful to becoming essential; and that is to do with the structures of government. The reason for that is that there is a permanency in the structures of government that outweighs the normal level of legislation with which we deal.

It is quite right that Scotland had referendums on its decisions on independence and on establishing a Parliament in the first place, because those are effectively permanent decisions, irreversible and unchangeable without the consent of the Scottish people. Likewise in Wales, the Welsh have had referendums on their Assembly, as has Northern Ireland, too. With regard to local councils and changes, if the structures are to work they need to go with the grain of popular consent. Authority, when it is used, needs to have a legitimacy that is based in democratic consent. When that consent was not given in the Local Government Act 1972, there was a great deal of hostility to what was done because it did not meet the requirements of local people. Against that evolving doctrine of referendums there is, inevitably, the Government’s view of referendums, which I characterise, perhaps unfairly, as being, “We will have referendums when we think we will win them, but if we think we won’t win them, it is a bit too dangerous, so we won’t take the risk.” It is a pity that the Government have not taken the risk with these new structures. Let us take the Mayor of London as an example. The Mayor of London has enormous popular consent, even when it was Ken Livingstone, let alone now that it is the great man, my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson).

[William Wragg]

The London example is a case in point. That system of mayoralty was assented to by the population at a referendum.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That is exactly the point I am making. That is why there has been affection for the Mayors, even from people who do not share their political sympathies. It is felt that they have a legitimacy to do what they have done. I voted against having a mayor for London, because I thought that another tier of government was quite unnecessary; we already have far too many. However, because London had a referendum and the referendum was won, there is a legitimacy. The great city that I neighbour, the city of Bristol, elected a mayor, having decided to do so through a referendum. Therefore, the people of Bristol have invested in that office and given legitimacy to it. I cannot think of anything worse than having an elected mayor covering Somerset, and I would oppose it tooth and nail. The watchwords will be, “Somerset will fight, and Somerset will be right.”