Shale Gas Extraction

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Baroness Keeley

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Using our domestic resources, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) mentioned earlier, reduces our carbon emissions —it is really straightforward.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

Fracking is an outdated, dangerous and expensive way to produce energy, and it will not provide the clean, secure energy that our country needs. In my constituency, an exploratory fracking site at Barton Moss needed a police operation, which cost Greater Manchester police £1.7 million in 2014 and involved 150 police officers across five months. Fracking did not have community support, and Greater Manchester police had to pay the heavy price of policing the demonstrations against it. Why are the Government forcing it back on the community in my constituency?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

There is a war in Ukraine. We need security of supply.

Energy Prices: Support for Business

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Baroness Keeley

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As I too represent an agricultural constituency, I am very conscious of the needs of farmers, which should be at the forefront of the nation’s care and concern.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

In times of crisis we turn to our civil society organisations to support us with vital services. Across the arts, we are expecting museums, galleries and theatres to provide the public with warm banks. Those critical community and cultural organisations tell me that they face the combined challenges of falling donations and income, rising costs and the continuing impact of covid. What can the Business Secretary tell us to reassure those essential organisations that support for energy costs will extend beyond six months for them?

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Baroness Keeley

Thursday 25th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend asks an excellent question. It is really important that we are all equal under the law, and it is fundamental that the law is carried out by the police. We police by consent; the police are us, and we are the police. For that to work, people have to have confidence that the law will be enforced. Having said that, I do not know the specific details of the case or the reasons for the police decision, but the Government are taking more action to deal specifically with the issues around illegal campsites and associated criminality. I will pass on my hon. Friend’s comments to the Lord Chancellor, and I note with great interest what he has to say about the Human Rights Act.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

More than 2,000 autistic people and people with learning disabilities are being held in inappropriate hospital units, 10 years after the Government promised to close them. Yesterday, we learned that an autistic man with a learning disability, Tony Hickmott, has been detained in care for 21 years, breaking the hearts of his elderly parents Pam and Roy.

That could change if the Government lived up to their promise. Indeed, in our report on the treatment of autistic people and people with learning disabilities, the Health and Social Care Committee has urged the Government to do so. The Government have not responded to that report, although a response was due on 13 September. Will the Leader of the House please take action to press the Secretary of State on the urgency of responding to the report and of acting to make sure that people like Tony Hickmott can live in their home, not in a hospital?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising the matter. I think that anyone who has seen the press reports will be as deeply concerned as she is. I point to a lot of cross-party work that has been done to raise the profile of autism, not least by my late right hon. Friend Dame Cheryl Gillan and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Robert Buckland), who has been very committed in the area.

It is important that the Government respond to Select Committee reports in accordance with the Osmotherly rules. I will take the matter up to ensure that those rules are met.

Participation in Debates

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Baroness Keeley

Monday 16th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The advice of the Government broadly, not specifically to this House, is that it is extremely clinically vulnerable people who should not be going into work, not members of families where a member of that family is extremely clinically vulnerable. It is important that we follow the same advice that we are giving to our constituents. I said earlier that last week I had to write to a constituent saying exactly that, and that I do not feel it is right for this House to take a different approach from the one that we are expecting our constituents to take.

As regards people revealing their medical details, nobody will be expected to go into any detail as to what their illness is. They will merely need to be extremely clinically vulnerable, and it will be a choice for those people. I think the difficulty with allowing anybody who can participate remotely to participate in all aspects remotely is that we would then not have debates; we would have a series of monologues and we would have the risk of the system going down. We have already had a couple of people on calls this afternoon whose words were muffled or distorted. The technology is not perfect. The efforts of the broadcasting team are absolutely admirable, but the technology does not work perfectly and people being here physically is important for proper democratic accountability.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]]

After my recent treatment for breast cancer, my oncologist advised me to reduce my contacts as much as I can during the pandemic. That is the reason I have not been travelling to the House. That does not make me clinically extremely vulnerable, so I would fall outside the changes suggested by the Leader of the House unless they are widened. I am glad we are discussing the extension of remote participation, but the plan by the Leader of the House to restrict it to Members who are clinically extremely vulnerable is just wrong. With the right support, Members can do their job remotely, but we have been denied that. I call on the Leader of the House to do the right thing and confirm that all MPs who are not able to travel to Westminster safely for a health reason or a reason related to the pandemic can participate remotely

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I begin by wishing the hon. Lady well in her recovery.

I am sure the whole House would like me to do that.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Baroness Keeley

Thursday 5th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend makes such a powerful point. It is deeply unsatisfactory that it has taken 50 years to deal with this issue and that there will be further delays. The Government do have plans to improve the planning system and to speed up infrastructure projects. Let us hope he does not find any newts, because they are often an absolute nuisance—a newtsance, one might even say, Mr Speaker—when it comes to building projects. I will pass on my hon. Friend’s comments to my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary, who will be answering questions in a month’s time, on 3 December.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]]

The new Government guidance on care home visits requires them to take place outside, at a window, or with a floor-to-ceiling Perspex screen separating people. For many of the cases I have had raised with me, that is not a solution as their loved ones have dementia or are bed-bound, or the care home lacks the resources to make the adaptations required. I would like to apply for an Adjournment debate to raise those cases with the relevant Minister, but because I am participating virtually I cannot do so, even though the Chamber is already set up for virtual participation and, as we know, Adjournment debates are primarily for the hon. Member and the Minister. Will the Leader of the House consider changing Standing Orders so that Members can apply for and lead an Adjournment debate virtually, and enable them to do their jobs?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady is proving that she can do her job  by raising this important issue. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has made regular statements where he can be questioned. Adjournment debates do allow other hon. Members to intervene. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is sitting in his usual place, regularly intervenes very helpfully in Adjournment debates. It is important that the debates in this House are with people who are physically here, but the hon. Lady has proved that she can raise her point in these interrogative sessions.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Baroness Keeley

Thursday 16th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think there is not a single Member of this House who has not had, in his or her constituency, an issue raised of a planning kind that is of great importance to local constituents. It is important that local views are made known and that facilities have been kept during the coronavirus pandemic to ensure that virtual planning committees, with local planning authorities across the country, are implementing planning decisions. However, they are also still required to consult on and publicise planning applications to get the views of local communities. I think that is the right way to proceed.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]]

I want to support the comments of the shadow Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), on the lack of accountability. Throughout this crisis I have received a very high level of casework, with many issues raised by constituents about the lack of financial support for them from Government schemes, but, having written to Ministers, I have often received template replies from correspondence officers rather than from the Ministers themselves. Those replies merely restate details of existing schemes, rather than dealing with my constituents’ concerns. The Leader of the House talks of courtesy, but can he tell me what he will do to ensure that I get full responses from Ministers when I raise constituents’ issues? Anything less than that is a betrayal of the democratic role we play.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady is right. Responses from correspondents in Departments is not the correct way to treat Members of Parliament. If I may make a brief defence of Departments that did that at the height of the pandemic, I think they were almost overwhelmed with correspondence at that time and I had a certain sympathy with them at that time. However, I think that time has passed and that we have a right to expect proper answers. What have I done? Well, as of yesterday I wrote to one Minister. I raised, jointly with the Leader of the House of Lords, the issue of responses to written questions with Ministers some weeks ago. I will take up, and have taken up, individual cases of poor answers for individual Members of Parliament. If the hon. Lady would like me to take up any cases on her behalf, I will happily do that. It is essential and a key part of holding the Government to account that correspondence is responded to in a timely way by a Minister.

European Union (Finance) Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Baroness Keeley

Tuesday 23rd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Barbara Keeley]

Indeed we could. Let me go on and make a few more points about the proportion that is allocated to that very important priority of competitiveness for jobs and growth. In 2014, only around €15 billion will be spent by the EU on that budget priority compared with over €41 billion for market-related spending and direct payments for agriculture. There is no sense in a system that takes that vital priority—vital for every part of the EU—of competitiveness for jobs and growth and spends so little on it. Out of the €6.3 billion of European Union funding allocated to the UK in 2013, only 23% was spending on jobs and growth compared with 63% on agriculture. It is the balance that we are calling into account.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North said on Second Reading, although the proportion of the budget for agriculture has been falling, there has been a fairly significant increase in money terms over the past eight years. As long as this balance seems wrong to people, it will be very hard for many of us to explain on the doorstep why we are spending only 23% of European Union funding in the UK on jobs and growth but 63% on agriculture. Some hon. Members might find such an explanation easier in their constituencies than others, but it is a difficult argument.

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

I am very sympathetic to what the hon. Lady is saying. My one concern would be that if there are reforms, they do not disadvantage some farmers in North East Somerset and other rural constituencies to favour spending on the continent. Reform is quite right, but it needs to be fair for the United Kingdom’s farmers.

[Barbara Keeley]

The more reviews that we carry out of those priorities, the more that we develop our understanding of where the money is going. Earlier, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) called for these matters to be discussed in a language that his constituents could understand, and I do not think that they are discussed in such a way. Having ploughed through very many debates and very many documents in relation to the Bill, I do not think that those matters are understood. The hon. Gentleman is quite right.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury said she accepted that expenditure on the CAP is

“still too high both in absolute terms and as a proportion of the overall budget.”—[Official Report, 11 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 1426.]

If that is what the Treasury team currently feel—that it is still too high, both in absolute terms and as a proportion of the overall budget—what are we doing to understand that better, to review it and to change it?

It is my assertion that previous reviews have not led to the level of reform that we want to achieve. It was our purpose in tabling new clause 2 to keep focus on that vital issue. When most member states are finding it necessary to make very difficult decisions—clearly, we are in that position ourselves—about their own budgets and spending, the European Union must ensure that expenditure is efficient and focused on addressing the major concerns that member states face. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) said in the October 2012 debate:

“The next seven years of the EU budget should prioritise jobs, growth, infrastructure and practical programmes that rejuvenate fragile economies.”

As I mentioned on Second Reading, this is much needed when we still have 735,000 16 to 24-year-olds in the UK looking for work. That should be our focus—those young people.

We need a better balance of funding and we need the European Union to provide a better framework and strategy to achieve growth and jobs. Looking deeper into the detail, and the spending commitment to the EU’s smart and inclusive growth priority, only a quarter of that is spent on competitiveness for jobs and growth, and three quarters on the EU’s cohesion policies, including structural funds. It probably is not appropriate today to open up further debate about the use of structural funds. That is often discussed when we are discussing EU finance, but as my hon. Friend also said:

“Savings can be made on aspects of EU structural funds that…are too often committed in a haphazard manner and depend on outdated commitments rather than future priorities. Unless structural funds contribute to positive economic development, they cannot be justified.”—[Official Report, 31 October 2012; Vol. 552, c. 304.]

The Opposition say strongly that the proportion of the EU’s smart and inclusive growth expenditure that goes towards securing competitiveness for jobs and growth is too small. That important area of spending accounts for around a quarter of the EU budget in 2014, but that rises to only 27% across the whole six-year period.

High Cost Credit Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Baroness Keeley

Friday 12th July 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I begin by referring hon. Members to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—not, I am glad to say, because I am a payday lender, but because I am regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and am therefore involved in something that is relevant in the broadest sense.

It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who is one of the most gripping speakers in this House. I am glad that he always speaks at sufficient length that his thoughts can be developed, which is invariably helpful to the deliberation on Bills. I was glad, too, that we agreed on the one point about Parliament regulating things rather than handing them out to random bodies. There is, however, one thing on which we disagree—his conclusion. I am going to say quite straightforwardly that I oppose this Bill. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on introducing it, but I do not think it is the right answer to the problem. There are different answers to it, some of which I shall try to cover.

Let me start, however, by placing the problem in its historical context. The issue of usury, as the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) rightly called it, is one that goes back to the most ancient times. The Hittites, the Egyptians and the Phoenicians were all lending each other food, substances, bits and pieces and getting them back. It is always a pleasure to mention the Phoenicians because it is believed that Joseph of Arimathea brought Jesus himself to Somerset on a Phoenician trading vessel. It was quite near Bristol, so we never know whether our lord might have gone there, too. This is the ancient history of usury: it is almost as old a profession as the oldest profession; it is part of human nature to lend things and have them returned at interest.

Usury is an issue that has troubled theologians over the years. The Old Testament includes particularly strong statements against it. I shall quote only one, the first one from Exodus 22:25:

“If thou lend money to any of My people, even to the poor with thee, thou shalt not be to him as a creditor; neither shall ye lay upon him interest.”

Even in the Book of Exodus, limits are being set on the amount that may be charged on the repayment that is to come.

[Barbara Keeley]

Is the hon. Gentleman going to move on to the example of Jesus throwing the moneylenders out of the temple of Jerusalem?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Perhaps the hon. Lady refers to:

“You have made my Father’s house a den of thieves”.

I was not going to quote that because I thought it was so well known that it would be unnecessary to trouble the House with it. Interestingly, however, the money changers in the temple were changing ordinary Roman coinage into the special coinage used in the temple for buying sacrifices and so forth, and making a very healthy return on that. I am not quite sure that it is the same as usury, which is another reason why I was not going to mention that precise example. However, it is interesting that these issues have come up over the years.

The councils of the Church have considered the matter. At the council of Nicaea, the Church council that set out the Creed also decided that the clergy may not lend money at interest, and that interest may not be charged above a rate of 1% a month. The same issues were being discussed then—the rate of interest being charged and who may be involved in the process. The rather splendid Pope Sixtus V—I rather like somebody called Sixtus V; there seems to be some incongruity in it—said that charging interest was

“detestable to God and man, damned by the sacred canons and contrary to Christian charity.”

We see that these issues have been problematic for not just hundreds but thousands of years. They have been debated by theologians and looked at by economists.

The fundamental point is that there are people who have money to lend and people who want to borrow, and bringing the two together, when done in a suitable way, is beneficial to both sides. It makes it possible for people to spread payments, make investments and order their lives in a way that is convenient to them, and at the same time it makes a profit for the person on the other side of the transaction, who has excess capital to lend out. However, with that come difficulties and problems that Governments have sought to solve over generations.

At this point, I think it is relevant to quote the introduction to Henry VIII’s Act against usury, which shows the context of the problem. It states:

“Where before this Time divers and sundry Acts, Statutes and Laws have been ordained, had and made within this Realm, for the avoiding and Punishment of Usury, being a Thing unlawful, and of other corrupt Bargains Shifts and Chevisances, which Acts Statutes and Laws been so obscure and dark in Sentences, Words and Terms, and upon the same so many Doubts Ambiguities and Questions have risen and grown, and the same Acts Statutes and Laws been of so little Force or Effect, that by reason thereof little or no Punishment hath ensued to the Offenders of the same, but rather hath encouraged them to use the same.”

That, I fear, is why, in the end, I am not going to support the Bill. What happens is that Parliament legislates to rectify a problem but finds that what it legislates does not actually do that. Henry VIII’s Act was repealed within six years. It was against usury and also set a maximum rate on mortgages of 10% per annum. However, it did not work, because there are always people needing to borrow money and people willing to lend it to them. The question is how that is done, at what stage in the process and who is involved.

Having a source of borrowing within a regulated business system is preferable to loan sharks, who have been mentioned. We hear about “legal loan sharks”, and they may become illegal in some of their practices, but as far as I am aware Wonga, however bad a company it is, does not send people round with baseball bats. There seems to be a fundamental problem in legislating in a way that will push people in difficulties in that direction.