Energy Prices: Support for Business

Debate between Carla Lockhart and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right; we need a better functioning energy market. There are real difficulties with the liquidity in the futures market at the moment. He is also right to say that we need a further and faster roll-out of nuclear energy, which is being worked on, and that offshore wind, which is going at a rapid pace, continues to be a major and growing source of energy within this country.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State has mentioned Northern Ireland several times, highlighting the fact that he is aware that a large number of small businesses there rely on oil for heating their premises. Will he go further than just a throwaway line and confirm that the inadequate and insignificant £100 being offered to households for oil will be reviewed and that the same figure will not be offered to businesses reliant on oil?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Two thirds of Northern Ireland households are not on gas. Therefore, it is fundamental to ensure that Northern Ireland is treated fairly and as a full part—as it is—of the United Kingdom. That is an absolute priority for the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland does not have the price cap that applies in Great Britain, therefore we will need to bring forward legislation to deal with the issues in Northern Ireland. We will do that as a matter of absolute priority to ensure that a scheme is up and running rapidly. We are very conscious of the fuel oil issue, which other Members have raised.

Business of the House

Debate between Carla Lockhart and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 15th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his assiduous work in his constituency, which I had the pleasure of visiting not that long ago. The Government have done many things, with some inconvenience to consumers. We have accepted the price to be paid in banning plastic straws, stirrers and cotton buds, and also in increasing the tax on plastic bags to 10p per bag. The 5p tax has cut usage by 95%, and there will be a new tax coming in from April 2022 for products that do not have at least 30% recycled content, so great steps are being made for unnecessary plastic, but I think he is right to suggest that the subject should be debated, because one should not forget how important it has been to have plastic for personal protective equipment during the course of the pandemic. It is about ensuring that plastic is used for good and essential purposes, and not ones where other materials are available, but I am afraid it will not be a debate in Government time; I think this is another request for the Backbench Business Committee.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Yesterday, this House debated for an hour the horrendous abuse suffered by three young black England players at the hands of, in the main, anonymous, faceless trolls. While I accept the intent—perhaps the good intent—of the Government to bring forward the online harms legislation later this year, does the Leader of the House agree that the main issue pertaining to online abuse is anonymity? Unfortunately, the Bill in its current form does not deal with those who want to hide behind the cloak of anonymity for purely abusive reasons. Does he agree that if this Government really want to get serious about tackling online abuse, the Bill must take anonymity into account?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady raises an important, but complex point. It is right to say that anonymity allows people to behave on social media in a way that they would not behave if they were named, and it is fascinating how many people, when something embarrassing has gone up, insist that their social media account was hacked to try to pretend that it was not them. As soon as people get found out, they immediately try and get away from responsibility for it, so I think anonymity is a problem, but there are occasions when anonymity could be important. It could be important for a whistleblower—somebody exposing corruption or other wrongdoing—so it is right that there should be pre-legislative scrutiny so that we can try to get this balance right and allow for anonymity where it will actually be beneficial. But if people want to say things on social media, they should have the courage of their convictions and put their name to it. As Members of this House, we all know that when we get anonymous letters, they are usually the rudest ones. They are usually the ones where people are ashamed really of what they are saying, which is why they do not dare put their name to it.

Business of the House

Debate between Carla Lockhart and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 25th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Cicero said something along the lines of, “There’s nothing so foolish that some philosopher has not said it.” One rather feels the same of ethics committees: there is nothing so unethical that some ethics committee has not come to the conclusion that it is all right. I was appalled by my hon. Friend telling me that 650 hours of time have been wasted, which shows how deeply foolish the behaviour of King’s College has been, especially in the context of the pandemic. This is clearly being taken up by you, Mr Speaker, but I hope the condemnation of the whole House rings out in the ears of this unethical ethics committee.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) [V]]

Throughout the pandemic, we have seen many civilian employees step up and go the extra mile to keep our country running. At the very outset of this pandemic, the military were called upon to run the covid testing facilities, with little time to train and limited personal protective equipment, on Operation Rescript. They then very quickly built the Nightingale hospitals. As ever, both regulars and reservists were ready to serve their country in a time of need. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is right that the contribution of the military be recognised and that a debate be held in this House on the Government’s plans to recognise the service of the armed forces, particularly the plans to award them a medal for their selfless service?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent and, if I may say so, strongly Unionist point. Her Majesty’s armed forces have played an incredibly important role in supporting us throughout the pandemic, from its earliest stages to assisting with the vaccine roll-out throughout the entire kingdom. I am sure all Members across the House will join me in paying tribute to the invaluable efforts the armed forces have made during the pandemic. We are committed to providing service personnel with the recognition and gratitude their service deserves, and I hope the establishment of the armed forces covenant in law by the Armed Forces Bill will go some way to marking this recognition.

Business of the House

Debate between Carla Lockhart and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 21st January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I will try to answer the broader question on Petitions Committee debates. I did undertake to try to find time for Petitions Committee debates, and that is a commitment I take seriously. I am liaising with others to try to find a suitable slot for that, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this point.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) [V]]

The Leader of the House will recall that my last question to him was in relation to the naming of an MP’s office after two IRA terrorists. While I thank him for his subsequent letter, I would appreciate a meeting with him to discuss his suggested way forward.

On the subject of the victims of terrorism, we currently have the shameful situation of troubles victims right across the United Kingdom—and they are right across the UK—being told they cannot receive their troubles pensions payment because of a dispute about where the funding for this scheme will come from. Would the Leader of the House agree that such a dispute between the Government and the Northern Ireland Finance Minister, who might I add is someone who does glorify terrorism, is only adding to the pain of victims and that a compromise agreement is needed soon? Would he agree to a debate on a range of support given by the Government to victims of terrorism right across the United Kingdom?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this issue. She does raise the most important and troubling points at business questions, and this one is of particular concern. It is absolutely essential that those promised troubles pensions receive the support to which they are entitled. This year is the centenary of Northern Ireland, and we must use it to celebrate it as an essential part of United Kingdom and to toast 100 years more—at least. It is only right that we try to resolve this issue and bring solace to the victims of terror. I will of course take this up with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I cannot promise a debate, although I think this is a subject very worthy of an Adjournment debate—not that it is for me to tell Mr Speaker how to set his Adjournment debate timetable.

Business of the House

Debate between Carla Lockhart and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 26th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend undoubtedly raises an important point. It is vital that the Government make and implement all their coronavirus measures with public consent. Indeed, one of the remarkable things has been the extent to which the British people have voluntarily accepted the restraints and have not found it necessary to have them onerously imposed upon them. We will debate the statutory instruments next week, as I announced in my statement, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care will be making a statement shortly. It is important to have the right balance between acting quickly and decisively while managing also to consult the necessary bodies.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) [V]]

The Leader of the House will, I am sure, share my opposition to and abhorrence of the glorification of terrorism in our society. Sadly, in Northern Ireland this happens on a daily basis. Indeed, the hon. Member for South Down (Chris Hazzard) has a constituency office named after two members of the Provisional IRA. Mr Sammy Heenan, a South Down constituent, was 12 when he watched as his father died outside their family home near Castlewellan following an IRA attack. He has described the signage as “repugnant”, “obscene” and “deeply, deeply offensive”. Will the Leader of the House agree that it would send a strong message to victims of terror in Northern Ireland and, indeed, across this United Kingdom, if the House took a stand against MPs who glorify terrorists? Does he agree that a debate to allow Members to express their opposition to the glorification of terrorism would send a strong message to constituents that it is wrong and that we stand united against it?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady raises a point of fundamental importance. In this Chamber we have the shields of people such as Airey Neave and Ian Gow who were murdered by terrorists. We should remember and commemorate those who were killed and honour their memory; we should not honour and commemorate murders—people who are wicked and evil and deserve condemnation, not commemoration.