Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 24th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alyn Smith]

I will choose my words: the hon. Member is right in what he says, but he misses the point that we have left the EU and that did not apply from that point onwards. What he says was correct about two years ago, but what I am saying is correct now. It is open to this Parliament to revoke any piece of legislation wherever it came from. This Bill is borne of malice rather than being a constructive blueprint for the UK’s future.

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

The hon. Gentleman has just correctly said it is open to this Parliament to repeal any European law; that is exactly what this Bill does. It is not malice; it is just using the power we took back.

[Alyn Smith]

Can anybody explain to me what additional power, focus or agenda this Bill gives to the power that exists already by this Parliament being sovereign—that is not my worldview, but it is the worldview of many Members? I do not see this as necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Bill spells potential disaster for the environment and for working people. It sets out exactly what is wrong with the way we write and pass laws. For that reason, I will vote against it. I support the Lords amendments to stop the power grab, and Lords amendments 15, 6 and 42 to protect our vital environmental regulations. The Bill should not condense power into the hands of Ministers. We should have a say in this place about what laws we want to throw on the scrapheap.

May I begin by congratulating my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) on the exceptional elegance with which he put forward the case this afternoon? I understand now why members of his profession take silk, because it was certainly a silken performance. I reiterate my thanks to and admiration for the Bill team, which I mentioned on Second Reading. I think my hon. and learned Friend would agree that he has worked with one of the finest Bill teams with which Parliament has had the pleasure of bringing forward legislation in recent years. The team was completely on top of a difficult subject from a very early stage.

Those are not all the nice things I will say at this stage, but I will say how much I regret the Government’s amendment in the House of Lords to reverse the whole basis of what the Bill is trying to achieve. The Bill aimed to achieve a balance whereby EU law would go rather than stay. Now, the balance is that EU law will stay rather than go. There are 587 laws in the new schedule that are going. There is no way that my hon. and learned Friend can think that they are serious—they are trivialities of remaining EU law that have been dusted off and found to make a reasonable number.

When the Secretary of State told people she was thinking of taking this approach, she indicated that there might be some important repeals in that list. There is virtually nothing of any importance in that list. Fishing, as far as countries with which we do not have particular relations is concerned, is utterly trivial, with details on anchovies—all sorts of things that do not matter have been put in the schedule. That is a failure by His Majesty’s Government. They ought to have been looking at which things we could put in it that people already know need to be repealed.

I would elucidate that point by saying that over the last couple of days, we have heard that the Government have come to the conclusion that things can be done to help the wine industry. Dare I say, those were known a year ago? They are not novel. DEFRA has been sitting on them for that year. It could have brought them forward and included them in the revocations in the Bill to give us something solid and practical that would have been beneficial in the next few weeks, rather than something that merely deals with old hat, the passé, the gone and the mainly forgotten.

[Simon Hoare]

May I begin by wishing my right hon. Friend a very happy birthday?

I have a huge amount of sympathy, as I think most Members do, with the argument that a lot of that stuff could have been done. But last year, post covid, we had Ukraine and a huge amount of political instability in this place, with changes of Ministers more often than most people change their socks—sometimes within a couple of weeks. The idea of trying to get the job done in that atmosphere and environment of huge change, instability and uncertainty, undermines his point that it was a wasted year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am rather worried about the air fresheners that my hon. Friend must need in his household if he changes his socks only once a fortnight. I am afraid that the Government’s argument that “We cannot do it because we have not put the effort into it” is particularly weak. With ministerial drive—and it has to be said, with some very good civil servants in some of these areas—it is possible to get things done. A £4 million contract has been given to a law firm to help take the Bill further and faster. I think that “We can’t do it, it’s all far too difficult” is a worse argument than saying “We do not want to do it” in the first place, which may be closer to the truth.

[Simon Hoare]

Either I was not clear or my right hon. Friend is deliberately misinterpreting my point, because that was not the point I was making. It is not that it could not be done, but that there was a reason why it was not done, and that was the chaos and confusion of last year. Those are two entirely different things.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The point my hon. Friend misses is that there is still some time between now and the end of the year. This work could be pushed through if there were the desire to do it.

This Bill is a tremendous missed opportunity. It is a missed opportunity not because of Brexit per se. It is not a missed opportunity because those of us who voted for Brexit expected the will of the British people—expressed in 2016 and 2019—to be pushed forward, although that is important. It is not a missed opportunity because the unelected House has decided to try and block a Brexit-related reform, as it has consistently done. Interestingly, the amendments passed in the unelected House are all designed to frustrate the progress of the Bill and its operation, and are, by and large, although not exclusively, supported—lo and behold—by people who never wanted Brexit in the first place. It is noticeable that the overwhelming majority of people in this House who do not want the full revocation of EU laws always opposed Brexit. However, it is not about that. The missed opportunity is in not achieving supply-side reforms that would get growth for the UK economy.

We had the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box this morning—the Leader of the Opposition missed a trick here—saying how marvellous it was that the IMF had said the UK economy would grow by 0.4%. Now, I happen to think that the IMF is absolutely useless and that its forecasts are valueless—it gets them wrong the whole time—but the idea that 0.4% economic growth is a success, when inflation has only just come out of double digits, is not factually accurate. This Bill was the opportunity to get growth, but instead we are changing laws on anchovies. That seems to me to be pretty fishy, because there are other things that we could have done. That is the point.

The challenge that has been put down—it was put down by the Secretary of State herself—is what people like me would do instead. Well, there are a whole swathe of laws that it would be a good idea to remove. If we look at the EU’s basis for regulating, it takes a process approach rather than an outcome approach. This Bill was an opportunity, even with a cut-and-paste scheme, to move from a process approach to an outcome approach.

What am I talking about? I am talking about product specification regulations, of which there are dozens. No country does that; only the EU specifies products in that way. We are now keeping all those regulations, whereas we should have been getting rid of them and saying that what we want are safe products, which encourages competition and innovation and encourages us to import goods at lower cost from places other than the EU.

We should have been looking at the absolutely lunatic emissions trading scheme that we have. We heard from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake), and Sheffield is famous for its steel. However, we have made life for steel producers in this country completely impossible. Why have we done this? Because we have very high energy costs and a mad ETS that then tries to wind round some subsidy to help lower producers’ costs. If we just had lower energy costs in the first place and got rid of the ETS, which came out of the European Union, we would do better. Where could we have done that? We were going to do it in the Bill until a Lords amendment was so unwisely brought forward.

There are also the working time regulations. It might be possible to say that some people in this Chamber, when dozing off while listening to speeches that are intolerably dull, are in fact working—it seems heroic that our Doorkeepers never doze off, considering some of the things they have to listen to. However, under the working time directive, hours when people are asleep count as work. That is an enormous burden on the NHS; it has been calculated that the working time directive costs the NHS £3 billion. We could have dealt with that in the revocations under this Bill, had the Government not lost their nerve.

What about new opportunities in food and the regulations that stop us having novel foods? You may not wish to eat novel foods, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to eat novel foods. However, if there is a market for them, surely the UK should be regulating in a way that opens it up. We had a Bill in front of us that, unamended, would have allowed us to deal with novel foods swiftly by getting rid of EU regulations.

[George Eustice]

rose—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Of course I will give way to the expert on foods.

[George Eustice]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, because he has made many references to the Department in which I was once Secretary of State. I have a great deal of sympathy for the argument he is advancing, and I do understand that he wanted to ensure that the concrete did not set around these EU regulations so that they just stayed in place. However, as he will know, I was a bit more sceptical than he was about the idea of a sunset clause.

In a Department such as DEFRA where 80% of the legislation is legacy EU law, there would be three broad categories. The first would be the trivial regulations involving olive oil labelling and so on, whose removal would require considerable effort but would not help business. The second category would be regulations that were a bit contentious; we would probably not want to do anything about them. The third would be the big things such as the habitats directive, which ought to be addressed, but everyone would say, “It is too difficult to do it just now.” I think it right to prioritise the bad law that needs attention, rather than getting bogged down in some of the more trivial laws when it would probably cost businesses more to remove them than to leave them in place.

[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.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend is right. That is what the Bill did until it was gutted and the key part of it was removed so that the basis is now to retain a law unless it is specifically removed, rather than removing it unless it is specifically retained.

Unfortunately that approach is getting worse. In October we will apply rules on goods coming into this country from the EU that are safe, adding costs to consumers in an inflationary era, which is what these regulations continually do. The fundamental problem—the suspicion that we can see people beginning to think about—is that of the 587 rules that are being repealed, hardly a single one changes alignment with the European Union. Is there, hidden away in the bowels of Government, some decision that we will in fact remain aligned with the European Union, possibly because of the Windsor protocol? Otherwise, why are we not repealing all those strange and unimportant things? Apparently we cannot get a dog bone from a butcher because of EU rules. Why has that not gone? Why have we not been allowed to bring back imperial measures, which have been promised for years? They are not the biggest reward of Brexit, but why are we doing these little bits and pieces in the 587 that are there? Why are we not making the changes that would have made our wine industry more successful and economic?

Unfortunately, the Bill is a great lost opportunity. The reason—the excuse—given is not that it is impossible or that we do not want supply-side reforms but the inertia of officialdom. Whether that is ministerial inertia or other inertia, it is ultimately the politicians who must take the responsibility. I am afraid that a lot of responsibility has been abdicated in these amendments.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). We agree on nothing but he makes his points very well. It is a help as I will be able to tell my constituents that, in front of the architect of the Bill, I made the case for why the approach was entirely wrong, and I shall do so. His speech reminds us that it was the plan all along to make food standards poorer, to attack the environment—not only to build houses, as in his case, but for other reasons too. At the time, the Government said, “Oh no, we’ll never make standards poorer”. Released from his ministerial role, however, the right hon. Gentleman is clear about the things that he wanted to do. Why on earth, he asks, do we not want to change alignment? The reason is that it is bad for the economy, and I will focus on that in my response to the amendments.

I disagree with the motion to dismiss Lords amendments 15 and 42. I agree with the statements made on Lords amendments 1 and 6. There was a useful exchange earlier in which Members clarified the specifics of the amendment tabled by Lord Hope. On the principle of taking back control, the Minister said that we had taken back control, but that begs the question: who does “we” refer to? That is still one of the biggest reasons why a huge number of my constituents care about the Bill.

It is worth reminding ourselves that Second Reading fell on the first day of the current Prime Minister’s premiership, the day when he promised to govern with “integrity, professionalism and accountability.” It is fair to say that promise has been utterly broken, especially given the behaviour of some of his Cabinet colleagues. He also promised to review and repeal all EU law within his first 100 days and, with the completely gutted Bill before us, we see that promise has been broken, too. It is a completely different Bill and a different proposition from how it began. Some of us are happy about that, and some are not, but I am pleased that it is a different approach.

When the Bill was first introduced, I and others felt it was ideologically driven, particularly the cliff-edge provisions that would have ended up in chaos. I said at the time that the provisions were “corrosive” and “unnecessary”. What we need now, above all else—post-pandemic and amid the war in Ukraine and the cost of living crisis—is calm. Members have spoken about throwing the baby out with the bathwater, which is exactly what this Bill would have done. It would have been a chaotic slash-and-burn approach, and I am pleased the Government have come to their senses.

I thank my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the other place for their work. Their exposure of the Bill’s potential damage through the reams of amendments they tabled has effected change. In particular, the Government have rightly made an amendment to eliminate the cliff edge for thousands of laws, to many of which we did not know whether the Bill would apply, which I have always found hugely bizarre.

I would hope that every Member in the Chamber believes in securing vital standards on, for example, sewage, although I find myself questioning whether every Member, indeed, does. It beggars belief that those standards were ever under threat, not least because of the result of the local elections, which were fought on such issues.

In introducing this Bill, what exactly was the Government’s problem with the Bathing Water Regulations 2013 and the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017, which never went far enough—we would have gone much further—but would have protected our hard-fought bathing water status in Oxford. The fact there had to be a fight, taking up so much parliamentary time, is one reason why we felt the Bill took entirely the wrong approach.

More than 400 constituents have written to me about the Bill, and they are rightly concerned about what it might still do—I will come to the “still” point in a moment—to workers’ rights and environmental protections. One constituent said:

“I don’t understand how the government can promise to improve our environment at the same time as setting out a law that could lead to basic protections getting weaker.”

I could not agree more.

The Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust wrote to me about the Bill just this week and, although it welcomes, as we all do, some of the concessions that have been made, it is still concerned:

“We are in a nature and climate emergency. It is essential that the current level of legal protection is upheld and not weakened.”

There is still more work to do, and these Lords amendments, which the Liberal Democrats support, go some way to achieve that. Although many crucial standards and safeguards have been saved, thanks to the Government’s U-turn, the truth is that the Bill will hand Ministers, not Parliament, the power to meddle with them at a later date via secondary legislation, which means we need to remain vigilant on workers’ rights, sewage and the natural environment.

Should the next election result in anywhere near what the polls suggest, with the shoe ending up on the other foot, would Conservative Members trust the next Government always to get it right? Casting no aspersions, I do not, because I believe in parliamentary democracy. Even ideas with which I might agree benefit from scrutiny, a bit of prodding and other people’s experience, not least the experience of our constituents. That is why we support Lords amendment 42, which would ensure that if Ministers want to make changes to law in the future, a Joint Committee would be involved. I have heard those who have said that that is not the right mechanism, but do they disagree with the principle I have just put forward? If that is not the right mechanism, what is? I ask them to find one. We need a mechanism by which this House can bring our experience and scrutiny to bear, and, unfortunately, if it is not just a Joint Committee, it simply does not exist.

The Liberal Democrats also support Lords amendment 15, which provides a double lock on regulations that protect the environment or ensure our food is safe. It was put forward by my constituent Lord Krebs of Wytham, an eminent Cross Bencher who was the first chairman of the British Food Standards Agency. He will have constructed this provision thoughtfully and knowledgeably. For those regulations that will not be scrapped by the Bill, the amendment will ensure that Ministers cannot meddle with them in any way to lower standards. At the Dispatch Box, they consistently say—

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Wednesday 24th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend says he is a protectionist, and I think that might need a bit of amplification. I do not think he means it in the traditional sense of the word, but I am genuinely intrigued.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Yes, he does!

[Danny Kruger]

I think my right hon. and learned Friend is trying to rescue me from some sort of political blunder, which I am perfectly capable of making. I am grateful to him for that. This is not the moment for that great debate, although I mentioned the tension in our philosophy between the free trading and protectionist impulses. I want to look after our Wiltshire farmers and I want to see the industry of this country rise again and Britain become a great exporting nation.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I wonder if it is fair to say that my hon. Friend is the Lord George Bentinck of the modern era?

[Danny Kruger]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend, the Peel of our era.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not try the patience of the House any longer. My point is that, whether people are free traders or protectionists, surely they want to see VAT reformed. That was the great Brexit freedom opportunity, and we should be using our new freedoms to do it.

We need more ambition. I recognise that the Government intend to report every six months. I am pleased with amendment (b) to Lords amendment 16, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell) with the support of the Government, and I particularly support amendment (a) to Lords amendment 16 in the name of the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, which will require the Government to specify at every reporting stage the laws that are going to be reformed or revoked. I support the case my hon. Friend made for having some kind of tsar or commander-in-chief to oversee the process of identifying the laws for reform or revocation. We need a good process here, but we have the right Bill with the right principles in it, and we can now fight out the proper vision for the future of our country.

United Kingdom’s Withdrawal from the European Union

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Friday 29th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow). Another day, another Brexit vote, which is not quite the Brexit vote that we need and does not quite have the numbers that it needs to win. It does not quite give constituents, companies or our four countries the certainty that they require, yet here we are again.

The British state is beset with a Tory Westminster Government behaving like Olympian gods, as if our constituents, many of whom have livelihoods that depend on our relationship with Europe, and we were mere pawns in their chess game. They insist on bringing forward meaningful vote after vote after vote, knowing that they produce absolutely nothing, but pretend that they are doing something. This is nothing more than deceit, duplicity and deception from a Government acting in desperation. Then the Prime Minister has the audacity to go on national television and blame us, Members of this House, for her failure as Head of State to govern.

We are ensnared in a morass of procedural minutiae, with twists and turns of byzantine complexity—a six-volume Gibbon’s “Decline and Fall of the British Empire”—played out in painfully tedious slow-motion in what used to be held in respect as the mother of Parliaments. We cannot discuss the failure of this House without turning to the Benches on this side. We were helpfully reminded this week—everyone was reminded—that Labour is “not a remain party”, and don’t we know it. If the Labour party had done its sole job and opposed any of the disastrous moves by the Government, not simply closed its eyes and wished upon its negotiation-free Brexit, we would now have a clear way forward and we would not be clinging to the whims of the European Reform Group and the intransigence of the Democratic Unionist party. Alas, as long as we stick to this archaic, dysfunctional Westminster system, we are stuck with Her Majesty’s Opposition, complicit with Her Majesty’s Government.

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

The right hon. Lady mentioned the ERG. If Her Majesty’s Government had followed the whims of the ERG we would be in a much better position today.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

The ERG does what suits it best and, as we see, many of its members are allowed to change their opinion. If only the people of the nations of the United Kingdom were allowed as much.

I would say to Labour that if Wales leaves Europe because of Labour Members, Labour fiefdom in Wales is at an end. If Labour abandons the interests of Wales, Wales will abandon Labour. This House, at the behest of both the Brexiteering Unionist parties has so far failed to make any decisions about our future relationship with the European Union. The blame is at their door. We have suggested ways forward to marshal decision making, with my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) suggesting indicative votes using an alternative voting system to decide how we proceed. That was first raised weeks upon weeks ago, long before the Government lost their first meaningful vote. If the Prime Minister had pulled her fingers out of her ears and listened to anyone other than the privileged elite of the ERG and the DUP—the elite of the Brexiteers—we could have used the last two and a half months to make some progress, to decide what the House thinks is the best way forward and to simply get on with it.

It cannot be said often enough: how often is the Prime Minister going to game democracy for her own purposes? How many ERGers will switch their votes and their previous principles on the most spurious of thin reasons? Will they not open their eyes and see that representative parliamentary democracy in this place has stalled? If it is good enough for the Tories to have multiple shots, how do they have the nerve to argue that the people are somehow unworthy of a final-say referendum? Bring on a people’s vote—our salvation in public democracy.

To close, we are where we are because of this tin-eared, time-wasting and timorous British Government, who are hell bent on putting their own interests before the interests of farmers, factory workers and families across the UK. If this is the best the Commons can cobble together, we are in serious trouble. Britain is broken, and Westminster is simply not working. The people of Wales deserve better than this failed empire of a Union. The timbers of this ship of state are rotten, and we in Wales must look to Europe and to ourselves for salvation.

Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Opinion

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

1st reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 12th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

And so it was under that particular Prime Minister! I was telling the hon. Gentleman the complete truth, as I am telling him it now. I have forgotten what the other question was—that was a betrayal of robing room talk. I am so taken aback by that question that I think I had better sit down.

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

My right hon. and learned Friend has pointed out that much of what is being said is political as well as legal. Will he therefore set out for the House what penalties might fall upon this country if a future Parliament, which obviously cannot be bound, were to decide to resile from the commitments under the backstop?

[The Attorney General]

Well, my hon. Friend will know that as an Attorney General I simply could not give countenance to the idea that this country would break its international legal obligations. As I have pointed out to the House, there is a right for the United Kingdom to terminate this agreement. If fundamental circumstances change, in the view of the United Kingdom, it would attempt to resolve the matter within the joint committee and it would attempt to resolve it politically, but if, ultimately, with the sovereign right of this House and of the British Government at the time, the United Kingdom took the view that those fundamental circumstances had indeed changed, it would have an undoubted legal right to withdrawal from any treaty.

Let us be clear about these kinds of absolute interpretations of black-letter text. A sovereign state has the right to withdraw if a treaty is no longer compatible with its fundamental interests or, to put it a different way, if fundamental circumstances have changed. I would say that apart from that, of course this country could resile from its commitments, but it would be unwise and it would not be in the tradition of this country to do so. In those circumstances, it is perfectly true that the only remedies the Union would have would be to take countermeasures, and no doubt it would pollute the atmosphere for fruitful relationships between us, which is precisely why this country will never do it, and neither would the European Union.

Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Position

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Monday 3rd December 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

If the vote had been lost instead, precisely the same position would pertain, which is that the Attorney General and the Government would be faced with a clash of constitutional principle. Of course the Government wish to do all they can, which is why I am here today to answer as candidly and frankly as possible the questions of the House on any matter about which it wishes to ask, but if I am satisfied and convinced that any disclosure of the kind the House has asked for would be contrary to the national interest, I cannot comply with the House’s request. I urge the House to understand that I am doing everything I can, as are the Government, to fulfil the spirit of the request. No matter upon which this House inquires will be dressed up, disguised or in any way downplayed. Nothing—nothing—will be held back.

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

My right hon. and learned Friend has been enormously gracious in being willing to answer any question the House may have on legal matters, and there are many questions that we all have to ask that may not be easy to put in one short question, but unfortunately he does not answer the basic point about denying a motion passed by this House. Saying that in his view it is not in the national interest is not good enough. When the Government lose a vote, they must follow the will of this House under an Humble Address, according to all precedent. It is no longer a matter for the Government to judge; it has been decided by this House, which is a higher authority. I therefore urge my right hon. and learned Friend, in spite of his generosity in answering questions, to go back and release the advice asked for by this House.

[The Attorney General]

Well, of course, when a request comes from the quarter from which it has just come, I will always want to re-examine the assumptions that I have made, but I have to say to my hon. Friend that the problem here is that it cannot be right that the House, by means of such a motion, has the power, blind, to call for any matter that has been discussed in connection with the Government of this country. Where does it end? [Interruption.] Just wait a minute. I am trying to do my best. Where do the limits of this power end? Does it extend to Cabinet minutes? Does it extend to the papers of the secret intelligence service? Is the House, by means of this motion, to command any paper of any kind, central to the interests of this nation, without even being able to check that, by its release, it is causing, or might cause, severe damage to the public interest? I invite my hon. Friend to consider the implications of the absolute rule that he is talking about. It cannot be right and if one looks at previous versions—[Interruption.] If one looks at previous versions of “Erskine May”, one sees that the motion to return is confined to documents of public and official character. If there are good reasons of public policy why those papers should not be disclosed, then the House will either withdraw or rescind its motion.

In this case, I am convinced that to disclose any advice that might have been given would be fundamentally contrary to the interests of this country. [Interruption.] I say to Labour Members that there is no use baying and shouting. What I am trying to do is guard the public interest—that is all. It is time that they grew up and got real. If there were a single item that I thought might be politically embarrassing, I would have no truck with the idea that this advice or any that I might have been given should be disclosed. It is because the public interest is at stake. What part of that proposition is the Labour party incapable of understanding?

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 15th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I was not going to quote Sir James Dyson, but the right hon. Gentleman has, happily, added to my remarks.

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

I am flattered that the hon. Gentleman pays such close attention to my speeches. I was talking about regulation in the City of London, not employment regulation. I think there is now consensus across the political firmament that employment regulations will remain in place, which is one of the reasons why his new clause is not necessary.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am happy to be corrected on that point, but I would say to the hon. Gentleman that it is a bit rich to suggest that the many public pronouncements that have been made on employment rights over many years by so many Conservative Members have been forgotten entirely and that Conservative Members are suddenly the champions of enhanced workers’ rights. We do not believe that, which is why we need legal safeguards in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Grieve]

I understand that that is why my hon. Friend thinks we should go. As he knows, I personally think that in the globalised world in which we operate, as we mentioned yesterday, the notion that the only source of law is likely to be the domestic Parliament of one’s country is rather fanciful, given that we are currently subordinate or have signed up cheerfully to all sorts of areas of international law without any difficulty at all. I accept, without wishing to go over old ground, that the way in which EU law operates in this country through its direct effect does pose some issues that have particularly exercised my hon. Friend the Member for Stone. Nevertheless, the idea that all sources of law in this country come from this House is wrong, full stop.

The question is how we make sure that in bringing this law into our own law, we preserve its essence—because that is what the Government say they want to do—until such time as we as a domestic Parliament decide that we want to do something about it. The problem that has arisen is that, as currently drafted, the importation of EU law means that standards in areas such as equalities and the environment will no longer enjoy the legal protection that EU membership gives them—indeed, they will, for the most part, be repealable by statutory instrument.

On the whole in this House, we would not think it appropriate to do that with our own primary legislation, and this legislation is undoubtedly important enough to have primary status. That is because clauses 2 to 4 on retaining most EU-derived law are worded in such a way as to turn it principally into secondary legislation in United Kingdom law.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

There seems to be an inconsistency in what my right hon. and learned Friend is saying. He has been happy for law to come into this country and become our senior law having been approved by a qualified majority vote in which the British Government may have voted against, but he would object to its being repealed through a statutory instrument subject to a parliamentary process in this House and the other place.

[Mr Grieve]

I fully appreciate that my hon. Friend has a great distaste for the way in which this law has been imported into our country during the course of our membership of the EU. However, two wrongs do not make a right. He could profitably look at the prolonged period of time it is going to take to replace all this law—five years, 10 years, 20 years, 30 years? I would be prepared to have a small wager with him that some of this is still going to be around in three or four decades to come.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 15th November 2016 Commons Chamber

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

Would my hon. and learned Friend not go further and say that a Bill on national security is precisely the wrong place for restrictions on the press, as it would make it look as if we were really trying to hit them hard?

[The Solicitor General]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Bill is all about balance and the importance the Executive attach to the way they seek to interfere or intrude into the private lives of individuals and to setting out clearly the criteria that must be met before they can act. It would be wrong to take any measure that sends a message that the Government wish to ride roughshod over the interests of individuals and freedom of speech. He knows that the consultation launched two weeks ago will deal with the very issues that have caused him concern over a number of years, although it would be wrong for me to pre-empt the outcome of that open process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

I am glad to rise in support, once again, of these very important amendments. I believe that any member of the public who just heard the Solicitor General’s speech will be puzzled about the Government’s resistance to implementing an aspect of Leveson that they agreed to in principle some time ago.

Labour fully supports the Lords amendments and has consistently and genuinely called for the Leveson recommendations to be implemented in full. A new system of independent self-regulation was agreed by the three main political parties in 2013, following extensive consultation with victims of press intrusion, and Labour believes that the promises made to them should be honoured. If the best that the Government can come up with is that hoary old doctrine of unripe time—“It’s a good idea but not now”—they must be a little desperate. It is disappointing that we have to speak to the amendments yet again to get the Government to honour their agreements. It is a breach of the cross-party agreement, and breaks promises made by the House to the victims.

Lords amendment 15B would not be necessary had the Government fulfilled their stated commitment to implement section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which they have promised to do innumerable times. Happily, the amendment goes further than section 40 and would not require ministerial approval, meaning that it would automatically implement section 40 in relation to phone hacking claims. This would restate the clear intention of Parliament as previously expressed in 2013. Ministers have talked about riding roughshod. The Society of Editors, the National Union of Journalists, with the backing of the TUC, and many others concerned with the freedom of the press, have said that there is the potential to ride roughshod over freedoms.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Will the hon. Lady explain one point about the amendment? Why should the press be punished if it is not in fact guilty of phone hacking?

[Ms Abbott]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will complete my next paragraph and then address his point.

The ability of journalists to protect their sources is a vital part of a functioning democracy. It means whistleblowers, important sources and others can divulge matters sometimes of the utmost public interest—there is a host of whistleblowers in the NHS, to take just one example, and there have been important whistleblowers in almost every area of public life. However, we have to once again flag up the powers in the Bill—although it is a Bill we support—and say that simply being able to identify internet records without ever examining the content would potentially allow the identification of whistleblowers in many cases. This represents a potential infringement of civil liberties, a riding roughshod over civil liberties and a riding roughshod over the freedom that ultimately benefits us all.

As for the point raised by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), if the Government do not want to implement this aspect of Leveson and if they do not think it necessary, why have they on so many occasions, including to the victims themselves, promised to do so?

The claim that these measures will impinge on the freedom of the press is factually inaccurate. Instead, they would allow for a low-cost and timely mechanism for redress on behalf of those who have been or believe themselves to have been mistreated or maligned by the press. I repeat the point that was made earlier: this is not about celebrities, but about ordinary people who through no fault of their own get caught up in the maw of the tabloid press and have to put up with seeing their picture appearing on the front page of tabloid newspapers day after day—often on the basis of misinterpreted tips from the police force. These people need to be able to get redress. That is why we support the amendments.

This amendment 15B, which the Government intend to vote down, was proposed and improved in the House of Lords by the Cross Bencher Baroness Hollins and overwhelmingly passed. It would implement the same provisions as are contained in section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 in respect of claims against media organisations over phone hacking and other unlawful interception of communications. While there is a free-for-all by ignoring Leveson and a failure to implement section 40, the most irresponsible practices of the press, which can ruin the lives of ordinary people, will go unchecked without any recourse—except for celebrities and the ultra-rich, who can afford libel lawyers.

It was always envisaged that as soon as pending legal proceedings were complete, we would see the second phase of the Leveson inquiry. The Minister had a lot to say about the consultation. Does he remember that Leveson lasted over two years and cost £5.4 million in total? Having spent so much money and so much time—and particularly the time of so many distinguished lawyers—why on earth do we need another consultation? Opposition Members believe that this is merely a stalling mechanism, and we think that the Government’s continuing to stall on this issue is disrespectful of, and inappropriate for, the ordinary victims of phone hacking.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)]

I rise briefly to express my agreement with the Solicitor General and particularly with my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins). A vibrant, responsible local press that is able to speak freely and report stories within the law is a pillar of our democracy. It is something we should be proud of and always strive to protect. What concerns me, and the press, is the potential for the press to have done nothing wrong—having not misreported a story or wronged an individual—and yet to find itself on the receiving end of costs that threaten its existence.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe has eloquently set out, no one disputes that there should be a way for people who have been genuinely wronged by the press to have access to affordable and effective redress. It is beyond doubt that this must be addressed. To that end, I fully support the approach put forward by the Solicitor General and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in undertaking a further consultation to see whether a way forward can be found that strikes the right balance. The Secretary of State has adopted an open, measured, sensible and appropriate approach to implementing our clear determination to provide redress while safeguarding the freedoms and viability of our hugely precious local press.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

This is an absolutely dreadful amendment and it should be thrown out, rejected and sent back to the House of Lords. It is fundamentally wrong. It seeks to punish those who might be innocent and to fine them for telling the truth and for saying things that people in power do not like. This amendment goes to the heart of our free press, and it should be thrown in the bin. IMPRESS is already an organisation of ill repute, founded, funded and paid for by somebody who is known to us only because of his misdeeds. A degenerate libertine has provided all the money for IMPRESS, which only the most junior newspapers will sign up to. It is a dreadful body.

We should maintain the freedom of our press to help us with our liberties. We have only to look at the policeman who went to prison a few weeks ago. He successfully sued the press in the 1990s, but it turned out that he was in fact a child molester. Whenever we put constraints on the press, we help the powerful to get away with misdeeds. This House should stand up for freedom. It should stand up for liberty and it should reject the unelected House of Lords trying to prevent scandal from being reported freely.

[Richard Drax]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), who was most eloquent. I have a disadvantage in following such eloquence with a short speech. I believe that I have just a few minutes left. I must declare an interest in that I was a journalist for 17 years. Perhaps I saw a little bit of the worst, but most of it was good. It is the local and regional press—the majority of our press today—that I am concerned about. It simply will not be able to take the risk of reporting at local level, albeit accurately and fairly, lest it should incur a costly exercise in court, and that is not acceptable.

In the first week of my career, the editor called me in and said, “Richard, you cannot go far wrong if you report fairly and accurately.” I agree with other hon. Members who have said that the message to the editors must be that they should report fairly, accurately and truthfully. Truth is the biggest sword of defence for the press. As my editor said: if in doubt, leave it out. I implore all editors who want a free press, as I and many other hon. Members do, to behave honourably, truthfully and in good faith. If they cannot report something that they long to report because they know it will result in a huge sale of newspapers, I suggest that they delay publication until they have the facts.

European Convention on Human Rights: UK Membership

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

Again, I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that there is more to promoting human rights here and abroad than our membership of that court or even of the convention. We do a great deal more to help to promote human rights, and we should continue to do so.

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

May I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for showing himself also to be gallant in defending the Home Secretary’s position? There seem to be a couple of errors in her speech. One was that she said it was the European Court of Human Rights that stopped us deporting foreign people, when it was in fact the ECJ that stopped Abu Hamza’s daughter-in-law being removed, contrary to the Home Secretary’s view.

On the issue of whether we have to be in the European convention on human rights while in the EU, I refer my right hon. and learned Friend to article 6.3 of the treaty on European Union:

“Fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention …shall constitute general principles of the Union’s law.”

Furthermore, the Commission, when asked specifically what would happen if a member state left the convention, said it would consider using article 7, which allows for the suspension of a member’s voting rights. It seems to me that, for once, European treaties are written in clear language that is understandable even to non-lawyers.

[The Attorney General]

On my hon. Friend’s last point, if only that were true. I do not think there is the simplicity that he suggests there is on that point. He is of course right that ECHR principles contribute to European Union via the charter, but that is not the same as putting together the European convention on human rights and European law and saying that they are indistinguishable and indivisible from each other. That is not the position.

In relation to deportation, the difficulty we often face, as my hon. Friend will know, is the interpretation of article 8 of the convention, which deals with the right to a family life. That is a good example of the way in which rights drawn up perfectly sensibly in the convention can be extended beyond where they were meant to go, or of how the balancing exercise at the heart of all human rights law is not conducted in what he and I would consider to be a sensible way.

Assisted Suicide

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2012 Commons Chamber

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

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker; patience is rewarded in this important debate. I will make my own position extremely clear. I start as a Catholic, and I believe that human life is sacred, which I take from the Catholic catechism:

“Human life must be respected because it is sacred. From its beginning human life involves the creative action of God and it remains forever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end.”

That is my view, but I accept that it will not be the view of all my constituents or of everybody in this country, and that although many of us have personal and deep beliefs, the legislature must think beyond that, to the practicalities involved in the DPP’s advice, and see how that fits with our consciences.

I want to look at some of the areas of concern in the Director of Public Prosecutions’ advice, which is in many ways very sensible. It places a particular obligation on doctors and nurses not to be involved in a suicide, for example, but I am concerned that, in two areas, its flexibility could lead to problems. The first involves the requirement to determine whether the victim has

“reached a voluntary, clear, settled and informed decision to commit suicide”.

In such circumstances, we are dealing with very vulnerable people who are ill and at the end of their lives. How voluntary is that decision really going to be?

[Anna Soubry]

A constituent of mine has written to me at length and with great feeling on this subject. He is a bright, intelligent man at the end of his life who might fall into some unfortunate condition. He therefore has every ability to make a decision, as a grown-up person, about how he wants to end his life. Why should he not have that right?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

We have to legislate for everybody, not just for my hon. Friend’s most able constituents. We have to legislate for the weak and vulnerable, and for those who have nobody to defend them. Yes, of course we can all cite examples of highly intelligent, capable people who would be able, for example, to resist pressure from family members who might be after an inheritance, but what about those who feel that they have become a burden to society? My greatest concern for the elderly and the frail is that, although they might be enjoying their lives, they might feel that they have become a burden and therefore selflessly propose that their own end should be hastened. That is my concern about the term “voluntary”.

I am also concerned about the terms “clear” and “settled”. People might clearly settle something in their youth, then change their mind as the time gets closer. We read the saddest cases in the newspapers of people who have taken overdoses of paracetamol, then regretted their action and decided that they want to live. As the moment comes closer, how settled is that decision that was taken at an earlier stage?

I am also concerned about the word “informed”, Mr Speaker. Informed by whom? Are you going to set up a committee, perhaps with the two of us, to advise on the different options available to people who are at a late and vulnerable stage of their lives? Or will they in fact receive that advice from people who favour a particular course of action? How will we decide whether that information is fair, reasonable, and sufficient to allow them to make a choice that will protect their friends or family from a prosecution for assisting in their suicide?

The guidelines also state that a prosecution is less likely when a suspect is “wholly motivated by compassion”. Of course the family and the spouses involved should be motivated by compassion, but who in this House clearly knows their own motivations when they do particular things? Most motivations are mixed in a number of ways.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the public interest criteria laid down by the Director of Public Prosecutions give the prosecuting authorities the opportunity to balance whether an action has been malicious or compassionate?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The Director of Public Prosecutions has indeed set out those guidelines, but can he be certain of people’s motivations? If we ourselves cannot always be certain of our own motivations for doing things, how much more difficult must it be for a lawyer, learned though he might be, to decide on somebody’s motives?

I must warn the House that we are sometimes in the greatest danger from those who are closest to us. I looked this up on the website of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Between 1995 and 1999, 80% of children under the age of one who were killed were killed by their parents, those from whom they would have expected love and compassion. We should therefore be very careful about assuming that just because there is a close relationship, there is automatically compassion.

My solution is that the DPP should be very cautious in his guidelines, and that we should always trust in the good sense of juries if these matters are ever brought to prosecution, for that is where hope lies.

Voting by Prisoners

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Thursday 10th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Raab]

I give way to my hon. Friend.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. King Alfred was a good Somerset man who did his duty to rescue us not only from Vikings, but from high taxation.