Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 24th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It must be said that my right hon. Friend was an excellent Secretary of State who was enormously co-operative with me, when I was in the relevant role, in trying to get DEFRA to be positive about this at a time when, as he rightly says, it was carrying a huge burden of work.

The problem is that we cannot shy away from the difficult decisions. That is what government is about, as in the old cliché “To govern is to choose.” Nature Britain, or Natural Britain, or whatever it is called, has prevented 160,000 houses from being built because of the nutrients rules resulting from a decision made by the European Court of Justice in 2018. It is all very well for Opposition Members to say that we should keep every environmental rule we have ever had, but I want my constituents to have houses, and I want other people’s constituents to have houses. We should be making those choices and putting the case to govern. That, I am afraid, is at the heart of this: a lack of decisiveness, of drive, of backbone to get things done.

I agree with my right hon. Friend that there would have been some things that were difficult. That is why the Bill contained provisions to roll things over and to say, “If you can make a good case for why this must stay, it will stay”, but the default was that it would be removed. I have mentioned the nutrients problem, and the habitats regulations are another example of rules that stop us doing things that are environmentally friendly and would benefit the environment because there may be some habitat nearby. I had to delay a decision on using waste to provide energy because of the common seal. Well, the very name of the common seal demonstrates that it is common, and that we should not be worrying about it too much when we could do something that would be enormously environmentally beneficial. The habitats directive is too dirigiste, too continental in its approach to regulating how we operate and how our economy runs.

I have already mentioned novel foods, but what about the other advantages for a modern, knowledge-based economy? What about clinical trials? I cannot tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, how pleased I am to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) lurking by the Chair, because he produced a brilliant report explaining how some of these things could be done. Why have they not been done? Did the Bill not offer a perfect opportunity for us to do them? Instead, people are appealing against rules relating to anchovies, and that really seems to me not to be the Gentleman’s Relish that we would desire. This is a loss of opportunities—an opportunity for economic growth, and also an opportunity to move away from the civil code approach to law to the common-law approach, which is fundamental.

We see this in other emerging legislation. I hope you will forgive me, Mr Deputy Speaker, for a brief digression. The monstrous Energy Bill is all about regulating rather than allowing. What the repeal would have done, had it gone through, was to allow rather than regulate. This is based on the principle that wise bureaucrats—I praised civil servants earlier—really understand how business can best operate, if only people will follow the rules of those bureaucrats. What we want, according to our tradition, is an approach that says it is legal to do something unless it is specifically dangerous.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

The taskforce on innovation, growth and regulatory reform report produced over 100 recommendations for the Government, but the big case it made was for moving regulation making from what is essentially a coded base and returning it to a common law basis, which—exactly as my right hon. Friend was about to say—is, “It’s okay unless it turns out that it is damaging.” That is how our courts work, and it is the best practice in the world. That is why we should have made that progress.

EU Retained Law

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Wednesday 22nd June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to thank me for an advance copy of my statement; it is a pity, then, that he did not read it, because so many of his questions were answered there. He wants to know what the purpose is—the purpose is supply-side reforms that are essential for dealing with the cost of living crisis. [Interruption.] He quotes “marginal”, so he did pay attention to one thing, but he then wrenched it out of context to use it in a way that shows he was not following the argument. Each individual item is marginal, but cumulatively they are fundamental. That is how we have supply side reforms.

There are endless obstacles in the way of doing business—hundreds and thousands of them—and our job is to find them, expose them and remove them and to have a Bill that makes that simple. If you had to have primary legislation to remove every stone from your shoe, Madam Deputy Speaker—no doubt they are very elegant shoes that no stone would dare enter, but nonetheless, should a stone enter and we needed primary legislation to remove it, that brave stone would remain there almost permanently. What we are doing is speeding up the process so that stones may be removed from shoes.

Then the socialists complain that the agreement was not up to scratch. Bear in mind that at that point the Labour party still did not want to leave the European Union. It was still arguing about things such as a second referendum. Labour Members did not want to follow what the British people had voted for, and now they want slavish acceptance of EU laws. Have we not had a socialist recently calling for the single market to be where we should end up again? That is where they want to be: under the yoke of Brussels, ignoring the referendum and the will of the British people.

The hon. Gentleman also thought that this dashboard should be released before my statement to Parliament. Some people may remember that I used to be Leader of the House, and in that role I was regularly hearing from Mr Speaker about information being given out before it had come to the Floor of the House. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) nodding—he would be the first to raise a point of order.

I am glad that there are a few socialists in today, rather than being on picket lines. It might be that when they are on their picket lines, they could read a bit of “Erskine May” and the Standing Orders of this place to understand that things are meant to be announced here first, which is what we are doing.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having made this statement? It is quite right that we need to get on with this. To those who complain about not having absolutely everything done now on the Floor of the House by primary legislation, I say that so many of these rules and regulations were imported without so much as a single element being dealt with on the Floor of the House, so we need to ensure we get this in balance.

Can I press my right hon. Friend on general data protection regulation rules? One of the problems we have is that many charities, small businesses and start-ups face real cost problems and regulatory detail problems that they cannot cope with, and they have cried out for changes to be made. Will he confirm to me that this is one of the areas that the Government will look at to make sure that those charities, companies and individuals do not face anything like the terrible bureaucratic mess that is the regulations today?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend makes two very good points. The first is that it is important to note that most of these laws came in using the section 2(2) power under the European Communities Act 1972. The vast majority were not subject to a parliamentary process, despite the diligence of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee. When we asked for debates on the Floor of the House in that Committee, they were often not given, and the debates that were held in Committee could not refuse or block a European law—even the ports directive, which everyone was united against. This great flood of regulations came in without so much as a by-your-leave from this House, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) is right to point that out.

My right hon. Friend makes a good point on GDPR, and it is worth bearing in mind that Australia has a general exemption from GDPR for smaller businesses. Whether we can go that far, I do not know, but I will certainly take his point up with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.

Business of the House

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 25th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

When anyone is reminded of the Good Law Project, one of course remembers that it is led by an infamous fox murderer who goes out in a kimono and bashes poor harmless foxes to death in a cruel and unusual fashion. I seem to remember that that did not lead to a prosecution—I may be wrong. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should take that to a judicial review to consider more serious sanctions. I am glad to say that the Government are toughening up on laws on animal cruelty, which may be of interest to the Good Law Project leaders.

On the very serious issue the hon. Gentleman raises about the channel crossing disaster, we are having a day and a half of debate on that on Report, which will cover legal routes of entry and toughening up on illegal routes of entry. It is a United Kingdom-wide policy, so I hope we will have the support of the SNP in doing that.

On the mainstay of the hon. Gentleman’s question, this time he got so furious that he started giggling at his own fury. I have found out why he is so upset this week. It is not because he is waiting in eager anticipation for St Andrew’s Day next year, which will of course be a proper celebration for him and his right hon. and hon. Friends. The reason he is so grumpy today is a new opinion poll that shows that the proportion of voters who ranked the constitution in their preference for the Scottish Government’s top three priorities fell by eight points to 13%; and fewer than one third of SNP voters, 28%, ranked independence on their hierarchy of priorities. It is a sad day for him today. I will not tease him for being grumpy. He is justifiably being grumpy, because his sandcastles are gently being washed away by a tide of Unionism.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

Given the outrageous information emerging from a Sheffield Hallam University study on the slave labour used in the mining of rare-earth materials that are used here in our solar array supply chains, and the Chinese Government’s terrible record on the Uyghur genocide, Tibetan slave labour, and the threats to Hong Kong and Taiwan, will the Leader of the House provide time for a debate on whether this Government—any Government—should boycott the winter Olympics, which should never have been awarded to that despotic regime? May we have an urgent debate, please?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise these issues. The Government have been very clear about the human rights abuses against the Uyghurs, and about what has been going on in Hong Kong and the failure of the communist Government of China to follow the joint declaration that was agreed in the 1980s. The whole issue of religious toleration—so not just the Uyghurs, but what has happened in Tibet—is rightly raised very regularly in this House, and it is right that the communist Government are reminded of their moral obligations. However, the UK Government have long had a policy of thinking that sporting boycotts do not work and that it is a matter for the International Olympic Committee to decide whether the athletes go—[Interruption.] As regards whether Government Ministers would wish to go to the People’s Republic of China, I can tell my right hon. Friend that no tickets have been booked.

Business of the House

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 30th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I entirely agree with that. We will work on this as fast as possible. We took up suggestions from the Backbench Business Committee for next Thursday, which would ideally be the Backbench Business day.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

May I urge my right hon. Friend to recall the cross-party concern about the misbehaviour of many online betting companies and the growing drive towards addiction as a result of that misbehaviour? Given that, will he encourage the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to call in the Gambling Commission, which now refuses to release the name of the individual who owns Betway? Nobody knows where its money comes from, and it seems absurd that in this circumstance we cannot now find out. It is time we got to the bottom of this.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend has been a formidable champion on this and played a crucial role in reducing the maximum stake for fixed odds betting terminals, which was of great importance to many people. I know that the issues he raises are of concern across the House. I have heard what he has said, and I will make sure that the relevant Department knows too.