Business of the House

Debate between Brendan O'Hara and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 3rd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful for that invitation. I hope it was to hear the parliamentary choir rather than to join it, as I think they would chuck me out quickly if I started warbling.

My hon. Friend makes such an important point about PFI. As a matter of ordinary routine, the Government are always the least expensive borrower; this was a fundamental flaw in many PFI schemes, hence the 6% rate paid by the Royal Stoke hospital. We could perhaps broaden the debate out into one about the general failures of the previous Labour Government to understand basic economics, because that is where the problem comes from.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

Overnight, the US Government slapped a whopping 25% tariff on Scotch whisky imports to the USA. As we both know, Mr Speaker, my constituency produces some of the best whiskies we have ever tasted. The tariffs affect jobs, investment and growth, so may we have an urgent statement and debate in Government time to highlight the massive importance of the Scotch whisky industry to the UK economy? What steps will the Government take to tackle the issue and protect this vital industry?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I was hoping the hon. Gentleman was going to offer a tasting for right hon. and hon. Members, perhaps in celebration of the Queen’s Speech. Many people think that whisky is good for sore throats, so it may be that a bottle will be winging its way to the Speaker’s apartments.

The great advantage of leaving the European Union is that once we are outside the European Union, we will not be punished for the failures of the EU and the—[Interruption.] This action has been taken because of a World Trade Organisation judgment. The WTO has ruled against the European Union giving subsidies to Airbus. If we were not part of the European Union, we could have separate agreements with the United States and no extra duty on Scotch whisky, which would be very good.

Data Protection Bill [Lords]

Debate between Brendan O'Hara and Jacob Rees-Mogg

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 9th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Brendan O'Hara]

The right hon. Gentleman may push that to the vote, but new clause 20 seeks to impose on Scotland a system of press regulation from Westminster, even though this is wholly devolved. I appreciate the work that he and others in Hacked Off have tried to do to square that circle, but it has not been squared. Therefore, we cannot support a system of press regulation that will be imposed from Westminster on Holyrood. That is why I am so pleased that new clause 18 is presented in such a way that it takes on board all of our concerns. I am extremely grateful for the efforts made by the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) in fashioning the new clause in a way that allows the second part of the Leveson inquiry to take place while recognising the devolution settlement and the distinct position in Scotland. I commend the passion with which he put across his argument this afternoon.

There will be some who will say that part 2 of Leveson is now out of date—indeed, the Secretary of State said as much when he announced his plans to scrap it. People are right to say that much has changed since 2011, which was before Brexit or the fake news agenda dominated the newspapers, but we need to ask ourselves how much has really changed since the height of the phone hacking scandal. The Government are convinced that a step change has taken place, but I question whether it really has. The Secretary of State has pointed out that the world has changed, but these concerns are as relevant now as they were then.

We have seen how social media is now part and parcel of everyday life. Surely the time is right, with this second part of Leveson, to investigate the role of social media companies—Facebook, Twitter and others—in spreading fake news and disinformation. I would like to think that this inquiry would look to build on the outstanding work being done by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) and his Select Committee in pursuing fake news and the spread of disinformation.

On behalf of the Scottish National party, I am delighted to have added my name to new clause 18 because I believe any reasonable person would agree that the terms of reference for this part of the Leveson inquiry have not yet been met.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The freedom of the press is so overwhelmingly precious that we should preserve it even if sometimes the press upsets us. It is amazing how many people who have had run-ins with the press have suddenly found that they think it should be more tightly regulated. Fascinatingly, the Daily Mail carried out a survey of their lordships House and discovered that more than a third of those who voted to shackle the press had been embarrassed by the press. May I therefore pay all the greater tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) for his impressive speech? He has suffered at the hands of the press, yet he recognises that the value of the free press is one of the great jewels in the crown of our constitutional settlement. But it is a jewel that has become tarnished because of actions taken by us; in four years, we have fallen in the rank of free nations from 30th to 40th, so that now we are behind Trinidad and Tobago, and, perhaps most insultingly, even below the French in freedom of the press. The clauses before us today should fill us with shame because they go to the heart of what we should believe in, in terms of our liberties, our freedoms and the rule of law.

New clause 18 seeks to have double jeopardy. Why did Leveson 2 not go ahead in the first place? It was because of a fear that trials could be made unfair by an inquiry going ahead at the same time. But those trials have now gone ahead and juries have returned verdicts. Interestingly, what verdicts did they return? It was not the ones the establishment expected. By and large, the journalists were found not guilty—not guilty of misusing any public office—but the police who gave them information were found guilty.

Was that not proper justice at work? The receiving of information as a journalist is your job, but the giving of information as a policeman is against the law. They have had justice, they have had the inquiry and they have been through the process, but now people want to put those found innocent through it again. They want to call them in front of a tribunal, to put them on oath, to put them in the stocks, and to let them be quizzed, questioned and interrogated so that the freedom of the press can be undermined and pressurised by those who have sometimes had the sharp lash of the press’s tongue against them. It reeks of self-interest.