Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andrew Bridgen and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 25th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend outline to the House what role his Department will have, if any, in advising on and assisting with the Treasury-led review on the energy price guarantee during April?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think the answer is in the name of the Department, which is the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy: any policy relating to energy is one the Department has a role in.

Shale Gas Extraction

Debate between Andrew Bridgen and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Compensation and consent become two sides of the same coin. People will be able to negotiate the level of compensation and it will be a matter for the companies to try and ensure widespread consent by offering a compensation package that is attractive. [Interruption.] Opposition Members howl and wail about this because, actually, we are trying to use market forces. It is amazing—a Conservative Government using market forces!

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should have been fracking our shale gas two years ago? But we are where we are, and the best available time to start is immediately.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend says only two years ago—why such a short timeframe?

Business of the House

Debate between Andrew Bridgen and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 3rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful, as always, to the hon. Gentleman. I have done quite well so far this Session in providing him with the debates he has asked for when he has given me long notice; I cannot promise to be able to do the same, but I always try, if possible, to make time available for the time-sensitive debates. Off-road motorcycling, which has been raised by others in this House, is clearly a problem, but the police must set their own policing priorities. The Government have provided the funding for, I think, an extra 11,000 police officers so far, with a target of 20,000 over the course of the Parliament. I encourage him to put further pressure on his local police force to enforce the law as it is. I do not think it is really for the Government to set policing priorities from the Dispatch Box.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Given that one of the principal benefits of Brexit is that we now have the ability to set our own laws, rules and regulations, may I have a statement from the Leader of the House on the reasoning behind the ending of the Regulatory Reform Committee on 20 May 2021, at the very time when it had the best opportunity to help to shape our regulations to make the UK economy a better place?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is very straightforward: legislative reform orders, which went to the Regulatory Reform Committee, are going to the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee instead, and it seemed more sensible to bring that together with the Select Committee that is in charge of the interests of business, is fighting for business and is economically involved, rather than having a separate and expensive Select Committee. It is a question of efficiency—a legislative reform of our own within this House to save the taxpayer money.

Business of the House

Debate between Andrew Bridgen and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 28th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

One does like to think sometimes of what dinner must be like in the household of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), because everything is “a disgrace”, it is “an outrage”, it is “shocking”. The sound and fury that enthuses him whenever he gets to the Chamber allows no time for nuance, for things being degrees of acceptableness or not being favourable. It is always this absolute outrage, which fortunately, I answered entirely in my answer to the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), the shadow Leader of the House.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Following the recent conviction of the hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) and the strong possibility of a by-election in the seat, the rumours are swirling in the fair county of Leicestershire that the previous incumbent may seek a return to this place. Given that he received a six-month ban from the House of Commons in 2019 following the cocaine and rent boys scandal, which he avoided by standing down, will the Leader of the House give a statement to the House where, hopefully, he will confirm that if Mr Vaz were to return to this place, he would have to serve his punishment outstanding in full?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I will confirm the precise opposite. The House agreed to a six-month suspension for Mr Vaz on 31 October 2019, but Parliament was then dissolved on 6 November for a general election. A suspension cannot carry across into a new Parliament, so that ended Mr Vaz’s suspension. The recall petition process was also terminated by the election, as provided for under section 13 of the Recall of MPs Act 2015. But this is right, because we are here by virtue of our electorate, and the electorate is free to send here whomsoever they choose. I know my hon. Friend will not be happy with that answer, but I remind him about John Wilkes and the Middlesex election. It has not always been the case that this House has acted wisely in whom it has sought to expel, but the electors have had a right to send that person back. Although this may be a difficult case and although this may be disagreeable to my hon. Friend, these constitutional principles are fundamentally important and should not be changed for individual cases.

Business of the House

Debate between Andrew Bridgen and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 23rd September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is important that we have an effective probation service, and I was privileged to visit Birmingham prison recently and to speak to prisoners who are keen to get back on the straight and narrow when they leave prison. They need help and support to do that, and it should be provided as effectively and efficiently as possible, which is what this Government are trying to do.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Experts in the field estimate that the energy requirements of High Speed 2 trains will be five times that of conventional rail. Given that HS2 was sold to us as a green project, and given that the level of interest in the House is such that contributions to last week’s 90-minute Westminster Hall debate were limited to two or three minutes—many hon. and right hon. Members who wished to participate, including me, were not even called—can we have an extended debate on the impact of HS2 on Government energy policy and the level of annual subsidy with which this loss-making project will have to be supported, if it is ever built? Can we have that debate before 2041, when, my whistleblower at the very top of HS2 tells me, phase 1 will actually be able to carry passengers between London and Birmingham?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I thought whistleblowing was more for steam engines than for fast, high-speed trains, but never mind.

Obviously, the energy needed to run a train that is 440 yards long—that is two furlongs, which is an extraordinary length for a train—and going at 225 mph is more than the energy required to run Ivor the Engine. That has to be built into this country’s overall energy plans, but the cost of energy to operate the HS2 network has been accounted for within the project’s overall business case. This energy will be procured on the open market at the right time to start operations and achieve value for money for the taxpayer.

Once operational, HS2 will be delivering significantly lower overall carbon journeys than other modes, offering journeys at roughly half the carbon impact of intercity rail per passenger mile. The delivery into service date for phase 1 of HS2 remains 2029 to 2033, so I am interested in my hon. Friend’s whistleblower and I will, of course, pass the whistle on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Business of the House

Debate between Andrew Bridgen and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 5th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady has proved, in an excellent way, that she needs no advice from me, but her point is noted and I will give the Department for Transport a gentle reminder on her behalf.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

It has been brought to my attention that the affairs of a business allegedly producing counterfeit antiques have been made the subject of a consent order, now known as a non-disclosure agreement, with large cash settlements being used to enable the perpetrator not only to escape justice but to threaten those who seek to bring these matters to light. Indeed, a journalist who wrote about the matter in a very small antiques journal was financially ruined and narrowly escaped a custodial sentence back in June 2018. Can we therefore please have a debate on the scope and use of non-disclosure agreements where there is evidence that they are being used to escape potential criminal prosecution?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Non-disclosure agreements cannot prevent any disclosure that is required or protected by law; nor can they preclude an individual from asserting their statutory rights under either the Employment Rights Act 1996—including, of most importance, whistleblowing—or the Equality Act 2010. There are often legitimate reasons for parties to seek to enter an NDA, such as preventing commercial information being shared inappropriately or protecting intellectual property, but they should not be used, and may not be used, to conceal criminality.

Business of the House

Debate between Andrew Bridgen and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 6th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I was on the all-party group on Equitable Life and, like many Members, I had constituents affected by this, but I think the Government have done what is reasonable to put this right. In 2011, they established the Equitable Life payment scheme and have paid out over £1.2 billion to nearly 1 million policyholders. The scheme was wound down in 2016, but there are no plans to reopen this scheme or to revisit any of the previous policy decisions.

I understand that there are some who are disappointed that the taxpayer could not fund the full £4.1 billion relative losses suffered by policyholders, but there are always constraints on Government expenditure. It is worth bearing in mind that, at the point at which this scheme came out, we were running a budget deficit of about £150 billion a year. Within those limits, I think the scheme was reasonable. Up to £1.5 billion tax-free was provided for the scheme because some of the most vulnerable did receive 100% of their losses.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Last week, alongside many colleagues from across the House, including the Prime Minister, I attended the excellent Keep Britain Tidy event. Littering and fly-tipping is of huge concern to my constituents as it adversely affects not only our environment, but the wellbeing of local residents. May we have a debate on the powers of local authorities to tackle this blight? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as well as issuing fixed penalty fines, a fitting punishment would be requiring perpetrators to undertake supervised litter picking in their local community? That would be a better form of retribution and also act as a very strong deterrent.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It was marvellous to see the Wombles coming from Wimbledon all the way to Westminster—the Wombles of Westminster—ensuring that we try to keep Britain tidy. I think the punishment of offenders is probably a matter for the Lord Chancellor, but I will pass on the representations of my hon. Friend.

Business of the House

Debate between Andrew Bridgen and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 16th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

At charter renewal, the BBC gained various concessions. It got an annual inflation-linked increase in the licence fee and an extension to the charter period, and it is no longer asked to fund the roll-out of superfast broadband. My proposals for the decriminalisation of non-payment of the licence fee were also dropped in return for the BBC agreeing to fund the universal over-75s licence fee concession.

Given that the BBC now seems intent on reneging on that promise to our over-75s, and noting the comments of the Prime Minister a couple of weeks ago, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time to revisit decriminalisation as a method of protecting the poor and vulnerable from this most regressive of taxes? When will the Government find time to debate that matter?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is worth pointing out that the criminalisation of non-payment of the licence fee falls particularly heavily on women, who are the ones most often found guilty of this offence. My hon. Friend’s point is well made, but I think the Prime Minister has heard it, because he has made indications that this matter may be considered. My hon. Friend, in raising it and campaigning for it, is doing a public service.

Business of the House

Debate between Andrew Bridgen and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 24th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

We hope that the House will vote for a general election on Monday, because we need to clear this up. We cannot go on endlessly, not making any decisions, and that seems to be the situation this House is in. It won’t say yes and it won’t say no; it won’t say stay and it won’t say go. We need to bring this to a conclusion and the hard stop of a general election may help focus minds, because nothing else seems to.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that for those who do not want Brexit there will never be enough time to debate it, and for those who do not want a general election there will always be an excuse to avoid it, and it would appear that those two positions are not mutually exclusive?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is right. I think there may be a developing desire in some quarters in this House to suspend the quinquennial Act.

European Union (Approval of Treaty Amendment Decision) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Andrew Bridgen and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Monday 10th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, but I must disappoint him. I support the treaty. For once when it comes to a European issue, I think that the Government have got it right, because what they are doing gets us out of the problem. That is the whole point. Once we have got ourselves out of the problem, how Europe deals with it and funds it is a matter for Europe. Yes, it is important that we trade with them, and yes, it is important for there to be stability within the eurozone—although I would prefer a new stability without a euro and with individual currencies, as I think that that would be a better and more prosperous stability—but a report by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the House on the matter is not going to sell an extra widget to Belgium.

[Andrew Bridgen]

My hon. Friend is as eloquent as ever. Does he agree that, given the speed at which events unravel during the eurozone crisis, even if this were our business—which it is not—an annual report would be at best irrelevant?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend’s intervention is incredibly helpful, because it has reminded me of the one important point that I wanted to make in this little speech against the new clauses. Absolutely the only risk posed to us by the treaty is that it will not lead to repeal of the regulation setting up the EFSM, and that we will remain liable or another article 122 bail-out fund will come through. That is the only risk left to us, and if such a situation were to arise, the House would want to scrutinise it immediately, rather than wait for some pedestrian report to be delivered.

These new clauses are glorious in their way—glorious in their irrelevance and in their failing to appreciate what the whole point of the treaty is. They are a delightful effort to make sure that there is some debate, and they have given me an opportunity to speak when I had, for once, intended to be silent in a European debate. Because of their rank irrelevance, I could do nothing but speak out against them. I have every confidence that Her Majesty’s Government, with a careful operation by the Whips Office, will ensure that they are firmly defeated.

Lawful Industrial Action (Minor Errors) Bill

Debate between Andrew Bridgen and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Friday 22nd October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend knows that I have an affinity for thresholds in other circumstances. Obviously, I am not going to talk about that, because it is not germane to the Bill, but I think it right that a sufficient number should express their will for a ballot to be valid, and that while we are debating Second Reading, we ought to think about what else it could have said, had it been a better Bill—a Bill that the House might have liked and approved on Second Reading. It could have contained further reforms to give power back to the members. I actually believe in the slogan used by Baldwin for his election: “Trust the People”. The people are the masters of their politicians, and they know what is best for them, and the greater the democracy in trade unions, the better it is for their members.

I was struck by the Minister’s comments that the Bill would make 15 sections of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 subject to accidental mistakes and a broad interpretation. Does that not make the hairs on the backs of hon. Members’ necks stand up, when they think of what has gone before, and when they think of the possibilities for manipulation and for people to stand over others as they fill out their ballot papers? Perhaps it would be done in the canteen. Perhaps one person would gather everyone together, and if only 20% of the vote went astray, nobody would mind. It would not be substantial; it would be a minor error, a small failing, a little bit on the side.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Does my hon. Friend agree that were the Bill to become law, it could be viewed by a vast number of unions and union officials, who are quite capable of running a ballot in line with the current regulations, as a complete insult to their intelligence?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If a union cannot run a ballot properly, that is a disastrous state for that union to be in, but people use the mechanisms to hand. We should always be suspicious—always cautious, always careful—about allowing exemptions, because as soon as we do, people work out how to use them for a purpose other than that which was initially intended. That is why legislation in this place needs to be so properly considered—and considered in due and appropriate detail—because when it is not, people might actually believe the title of the Bill, which I come back to.

As the Minister so rightly said, the title refers to “Minor Errors”. Clause 2 deals with the short title, and although I doubt whether the short title of a Bill should very often be a contentious matter, on this occasion I think that it is. I do not think that the Bill ought to be called the Lawful Industrial Action (Minor Errors) Bill. If passed, it should be called the Lawful Industrial Action (Coach and Horses) Act 2010, because that, as I said in an intervention on the Minister, is what it would do to the law as it stands. The Bill would get rid of so many safeguards, and this House is here to safeguard the British people—our electors—not just from over-mighty government, but from over-mighty private organisations that may wish to use and abuse their power.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am so grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, which is one that I made to the Minister myself, when sadly he was not present. Indeed, the Hansard reporters asked me to spell it out, so the hon. Gentleman will notice that it is in Hansard tomorrow. De minimis non curat lex is, of course, a right and just principle, but it is in existing law. The question of what is “substantial” is the important one, and an 80:20 test is deeply unsatisfactory, because it simply allows too much impropriety to take place.

For the benefit of the hon. Gentleman, who is interested in my clubs—I believe that I am allowed to answer this point, Mr Deputy Speaker, as it was raised in an intervention—I should add that I am not a member of the Carlton club, although I think it is in a very fine building and has an excellent membership, and that I think that Fortnum and Mason is a very fine shop, and would be very happy to place that on record.

I would like to return to the Bill.

[Andrew Bridgen]

In the light of the interventions from various Labour Members, does my hon. Friend agree that pretending that only they care about workers’ rights is a fallacy? My great-grandfather was one of the founders of the union movement. My grandfather was a miner, and my other grandfather—