Ban on Fracking for Shale Gas Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Greg Knight

Wednesday 19th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is right to say that today is not the end of the matter. If the House were not to accept the local consent mechanism, there would be no ability for local communities to give consent, and that would mean a veto were in place.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. Is the neatest way of assessing local consent to take away the right of appeal to a planning inspector in these matters, so that the decision of the local planning authority is deemed the expression of local consent and is the final decision?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. That is absolutely the purpose of the consultation—to see what form local consent ought to take

Shale Gas Extraction

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Greg Knight

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

In relation to seismic activity, there is no particular dissimilarity to that from mining, and mining is not subject to seismic limits.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Despite what the Secretary of State said, is it not the case that forecasting the occurrence of seismic events as a result of fracking remains a challenge to the experts? Is it not therefore creating a risk of an unknown quantity to pursue shale gas exploration at the present time? Is he aware that the safety of the public is not a currency in which some of us choose to speculate?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Unusually, I disagree with my right hon. Friend. It is all a matter of proportionality. As I pointed out, the movement on ground level from construction is about double that we have had from any instance with shale gas. We know what has happened before. There are not limits on mining. There are not limits on ordinary oil extraction. It is only shale gas that has limits, and there is no evidence that shale gas is worse than any of those other activities. So, I think, on a balance of risks, my right hon. Friend is not coming to the right conclusion.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Greg Knight

Thursday 6th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I remind the House that the SNP Government have decided to take a different route. They do not believe in trusting people to make decisions for themselves. They believe in constant perpetual lockdown which, as I understand it, the leader of the SNP has accepted did not go as well as anticipated, which sounds slightly like the comments of the Japanese Emperor at the end of the last war. What they have done in Scotland has not been a success. What we have done in the rest of the United Kingdom, in England, has worked better by trusting people. We should trust people and we should continue to trust people. People such as the hon. Gentleman should not be afraid to do the work that they have to do.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Can we have a Government review, followed by a statement, of the desirability of ending the ridiculous ritual of putting our clocks back every autumn, thereby plunging the nation into darkness and misery by mid-afternoon for a period of several months? Is there not a good case for keeping summertime in winter? It would cut the number of road accidents, cut energy use and boost tourism.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I invariably agree with my right hon. Friend, but not on this issue. As we all know, time was unified across the United Kingdom with the coming of the railways, otherwise my county of Somerset would be 10 minutes behind London. The way of doing things was to have midday when the sun is at its highest point, which always seemed to me to be a sensible principle.

I think that if we were to change, as we did in the late ’60s, we would simply change back again, because we cannot make the days any longer in the winter. They simply get dark. They are either dark in the morning or dark in the early afternoon, and whichever way it is, people will want it the other way round. Unless God is to give us more daylight, however, I think it is a problem beyond the competence of Her Majesty’s Government.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Greg Knight

Thursday 15th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

First of all, it is amazing how illiberal the Liberals nowadays are. They used to believe in freedom and Mill and all of that, who was closely associated with the Liberal party of old, but the modern version is very dour and controlling. I am happy though to be in absolute agreement with the hon. Lady, my neighbour, on the importance of mathematics. As she knows, Bath University is in her constituency and Bath Spa University is in mine, so we are fortunate to share in our area two very good universities. Mathematics will be at the forefront of how this country competes in future generations. I see that the Protect Pure Maths campaign places a great emphasis on the achievements and legacy of Alan Turing, as the hon. Lady mentioned, so it is good news that he is on the £50 note, which I am sure all of us wish to see more of in our daily lives for all sorts of good reasons. Unfortunately, it is not within my authority to decide the naming of the Committee; it is a matter for the House. I encourage the hon. Lady to have a word with my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) and see whether he, as Chairman of the Committee, is open to such a suggestion. I am sure that, if he were, the House would facilitate such a move.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con) [V]]

Is the Leader of the House aware that 2 million people rely on cash for every transaction that they make and that access to cash is a necessity for countless individuals and small businesses across the UK, particularly for many who are elderly, vulnerable or live in rural areas? Does he accept that people should need to travel only short distances to pay in or take out cash and that cash back without a purchase must be made widely available. On 1 July, the Government published a consultation on plans to protect access to cash. Does he agree that this initiative is not only welcome, but vital?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend’s question follows perfectly from our previous discussion of £50 notes. The Government indeed recognise that access to cash remains important to millions across the UK, and we are committed to legislating to protect access to cash and ensuring the UK’s cash infrastructure is sustainable in the longer term. Already, as part of the Financial Services Act 2021, legislative changes have been made to support the widespread offering, by shops and other businesses, of cashback without a purchase. On 1 July, the Government published a consultation that sets out proposals for new laws to make sure people only need to travel a reasonable distance to pay in or take out cash. So I think Her Minister’s Government and my right hon. Friend are very much at one on this issue.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Greg Knight

Thursday 8th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Government speak with one voice, so if I were not able to be here, the Deputy Chief Whip—the Treasurer of Her Majesty’s Household, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew)—would appear for me, as he did once before, and, I am sorry to say, he did it extraordinarily well, which rather made me nervous, thinking that he might take this role on a more permanent basis. There are always opportunities for Government Ministers to be replaced by other Ministers, speaking with one voice for the Government.

As for the more general concern, the question is: are we getting to a stage where we live with covid and it is like other diseases, so Members of the House will be affected in the same way as if they had another illness? That is something that we have coped with over hundreds of years. There is a pairing system that works very well. There are means of getting questions raised on one’s behalf, but this has been an exceptional period with exceptional practices because of the widespread, all-encompassing nature of the pandemic. Assuming that that is not going to continue to be the case permanently, we ought to return to normal as soon as possible.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con) [V]]

While we all welcome the progress towards getting back to normal, is the Leader of the House aware that the covid emergency did result in some innovations being put in place that were widely welcomed and popular? One in particular was the option given to local councils to hold virtual meetings, which has now lapsed. I know that my right hon. Friend prefers to embrace tradition before innovation, but will he and other Ministers note that there is a widespread desire for this option to be made permanently available? Will the Government therefore respond positively to this suggestion and bring forward legislation on the matter sooner rather than later?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that it would require primary legislation. I am not convinced of the strength of argument for it in ordinary times. I think that meetings are best when held together and there is better democratic accountability when people are together and able to have the informal, as well as the formal, conversations that take place in council meetings. Much the same is true for this House.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Greg Knight

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I join the hon. Gentleman in passing on our condolences to the hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) at a very sad time for her and for her family? We will remember Ray in our prayers.

As regards time for the Backbench Business Committee, next week will really be about sorting out ping-pong. Unless the hon. Gentleman is going to join us in a game of what some call whiff-whaff, we may not necessarily have time for Backbench Business debates.

To come to the fan-led review of football, this will be chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who is herself a very committed footballer and fan of football. She knows everything about the subject very much from the point of view of a fan and will cover the financial stability of the men’s and women’s games, governance and regulation, the merits and the independent regulator, and, crucially to the hon. Gentleman’s point, how fans can have a greater say in the oversight of the game. I think, therefore, that it is a case of ask and you shall be given.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con) [V]]

As we move along the road map towards normality, Ministers are rightly reminding the public of the mantra “Hands, face, space”. Does the Leader of the House agree that in future ministerial statements, there should be an additional message to the public, particularly to those visiting tourist areas such as East Yorkshire—namely, “Hands, face, space, but don’t be a disgrace. Take your rubbish and litter away and bin it”? Does he agree that we should be keeping Britain tidy as well as safe?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I remember an occasion when Margaret Thatcher went to St James’s Park to pick up litter—actually, the litter had to be put down for her to pick up because there was not any immediately to hand—and she had the slogan “Bag it and bin it and that way we’ll win it”. Those words and the words of my right hon. Friend are ones that we should all bear in mind.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Greg Knight

Thursday 25th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend the Equalities Minister is looking at the reasons for the higher rates of infection among minority communities, and is expected to produce a report shortly on that. It is obviously important that we level up across the whole country, and that is what Government policy is dedicated to doing. It is fundamental that we ensure that everybody in this country has an equal chance.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con) [V]]

Can we have a statement or a Government policy announcement authorising that more robust action be taken in future to reduce the risk of flooding? Are there not valuable national lessons to be learned from Somerset, which should now be applied elsewhere, including in Yorkshire—namely, that higher levels of river maintenance and river dredging do work in reducing the flood risk?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon Friend raises a very good point—that dredging worked extraordinarily well in the Somerset levels. The Government have a major policy plan to deal with flooding, including £5.2 billion to be invested in flood and coastal defences—double the previous expenditure of taxpayers’ money—which will protect 350,000 homes over the next six years, on top of the nearly 300,000 properties that are already better protected compared with 2015. So he has raised an important point and, yes, I hope, as always, the nation will learn from Somerset.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Greg Knight

Thursday 21st January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I join the right hon. Lady in congratulating President Biden and Vice-President Harris? I think we are both personally delighted that President Biden is the second Catholic, only, to be President of the United States; to have a fellow religionist in charge of the free world is very good news.

The Foreign Secretary pointed out in that letter the difficulties there are in dealing with dual nationals, because some countries do not recognise the concept of dual nationals, and that is particularly true of China and Iran. That was referred to in the letter and I will, of course, as I do every week, take up the points regarding the dual nationals who are held improperly in Iran.

To come to the right hon. Lady’s tease about the titles for the debates on Monday, let me say that council tax is a matter for local authorities, as she knows. The Government have provided many billions of pounds to local authorities during the pandemic, including £4.6 billion of un-ring-fenced money to help them deal with it. So the resources from the central taxpayer to help the local taxpayer have been enormous.

I am aware of the UCL report. I am afraid I think the idea of a House business Committee is cloud cuckoo land. We saw how unsatisfactory and divisive it was when this House did not have the Government able to organise the business during the 2017 to 2019 Parliament. It was chaotic for the Government and for Parliament, and it was very bad for the temper of political debate. A Government have the right to set the timetable in the House by virtue of the mandate they have got from the British voters, and then Members of the House have to be convinced on each individual issue that they wish to support the Government. I have to say that the right hon. Lady would be taking exactly that view if she were Leader of the House rather than shadow Leader of the House. I therefore think that a House business Committee would not be wise. I would be strongly opposed to it as I think it would lead to the sort of chaos and disruption we had in the last Parliament.

The right hon. Lady mentioned fiscal responsibility and the Labour party in the same sentence, which forgets the message left by a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury about there being “no money left”. The last time the Labour party was in government it ran out of money, and one should judge people by what they do rather than by what they say. What the Labour party does whenever it is in office is run out of money. The right hon. Lady then mentioned testing. Some 52 million people have been tested. That is a large number of people and a very large percentage of the population, although, obviously, that includes many people who have had more than one test. We are talking about 700,000 tests per day. She then mentioned musicians. The position on musicians is extraordinarily clear. Her Majesty’s Government have said that during the negotiations we made proposals that would have allowed musicians to travel and perform in the UK and the EU more easily without needing work permits. These were based on the input of the music bodies such as UK Music and the Musicians’ Union, but the EU rejected those proposals. Therefore, musicians are in the position they are in because the EU rejected those proposals.

The right hon. Lady then mentioned the fishing industry. There is £23 million in addition to the £100 million to help modernise fishing fleets, to recognise that any delays for the fishing industry are particularly difficult because of the short shelf life of fresh fish, and therefore the extra help is important. They have faced particular changes, but the advantages that our fishing industry will have are going to be reaped as the days and years go on. Already, we have an increase in the exclusive zone in which only UK boats can fish. We will have a 25% quota uplift at the end of five years, beginning at 15%. That will be very good for rejuvenating the fishing industry, and extra money is being provided to help ensure that that happens. It is a positive solution to help our very important fishing industry.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con) [V]]

Is the Leader of the House aware that Morrisons and Aldi supermarkets have announced that they are to stock and sell more British goods in future? If we cannot have a debate on that, will he warmly welcome that initiative and encourage other retailers to follow suit? Does he agree that buying British is the practical and effective way to champion our local farmers and promote their produce?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Madam Deputy Speaker, normally it would be disorderly to have a prop, but on this occasion I have one that is a face mask, and as face masks are so strongly encouraged in the Chamber, I hope you will allow me a semi-prop face mask. I agree with my right hon. Friend that we should try to buy British where we can. Of course, I am not in favour of protectionism, but the British produce some of the best goods in the world, and it has to be said that Morrisons often provides my joint for a Sunday lunch. Its beef is not only delicious but also good value. Good-value British products are what we want, and we want to eat more of them.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Greg Knight

Thursday 10th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Yes, what? Quite right. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) does not believe in democracy. He is against it, because there was a vote in 2014 that was a generational vote. He may think that a generation means the generation of the fruit fly, but I think the generation in question is the generation of a person, a voter, and we have not got close to a generation. It is fascinating that he does not want to talk about the success of the United Kingdom and the £8.2 billion provided by the UK taxpayer to help Scotland, or the disaster that the SNP is at the moment, with its failures in governing Scotland, its failure in education, its failure in health and its failure in law and order.

The hon. Gentleman does not want to get on to the rather juicy gossip that is coming out of the SNP, either. What do we have? The chief executive of the SNP, when he is at home, never talks about politics with the First Minister—no, of course not—he only talks about cooking. That makes it sound as if his household is even more old-fashioned than mine, because I must confess that in the Rees-Mogg household we spend a lot of time talking about politics; it seems improbable that such a highly-politicised family never talks about such interesting things. Scotland is beginning to see through the SNP. We had a vote, and the vote has been respected; we also had a debate on Europe, and that vote is being respected too.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con) [V]]

As the Leader of the House is aware, the hospitality sector has suffered very badly during the pandemic and continues to do so. Is he aware, though, that many businesses, including pubs, still need more financial aid to enable them to survive? Irrespective of any future debates, can we have an assurance today from the Leader of the House that the plight of the hospitality sector and the financial support given will remain under constant review by the Government? As he may know, in a number of areas, such as East Yorkshire, the sector is vitally important to the local economy.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Our hospitality sector and our pubs are a glory of the British nation and provide much pleasure to people as well as employment and business activity. Efforts have been made, very serious ones: VAT has been reduced, cash grants of £3,000 a month have been made available and money has been made available to local councils. The Government greatly understand and appreciate the problems that the sector has faced during the lockdowns that have been necessary because of the coronavirus. Support has been made available, but ultimately this is taxpayers’ money that is being spent and, while it is right that the Government continue to work out how they can support the sector, ultimately, there is not unlimited money.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Greg Knight

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con) [V]]

Is the Leader of the House aware that over the years we have had several debates about unfair practices by the operators of private car parks, culminating in the passing into law of my private Member’s Bill, the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, which he supported? Now that the consultation period for the new code of practice has closed, can the Government avoid the need for further debates by acting quickly to bring the code into force and bring transparency, fairness and justice for motorists when parking?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend knows the level of sympathy I have for that cause, which he has championed so effectively. He, like the Conservative party, is a fantastic supporter of motorists generally. He is a model for how we should back motorists and ensure efficient, fair and well-priced parking, which is one of the essential cogs in our local communities, and much of our local economy depends on it. Rogue private parking firms—they are not always private, it has to be said—have made drivers’ lives a misery, with improper fines, harassment, intimidation and over-zealous enforcement. I am very glad that the consultation has started, and I look forward, as my right hon. Friend does, to the implementation of the parking code of conduct, restoring fairness and accountability, and barring rogue parking firms from accessing Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency data. I hope the rogue parking firms are listening, because it is getting that DVLA data that has allowed them to make such a nuisance of themselves.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Greg Knight

Thursday 1st October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady is right to raise this issue, which many Members from all parties have raised in the past. People’s access to vital services is of great importance and has been debated in the House previously. The hon. Lady is also right to raise her specific constituency issues and put pressure on the service providers to continue to provide the services that their customers and local residents need.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con) [V]]

May we have a debate on the use of sky lanterns? Is the Leader of the House aware that they pose a fire risk to farmers’ crops and are a danger to animals if ingested? As they are, in effect, hazardous airborne litter that invariably lands on someone else’s property, why do we not ban them?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very well aware of the concern my right hon. Friend raises, because it has been raised with me by my own constituents, and I am aware of farmers’ concerns about sky lanterns. However, I am always reluctant to jump to the immediate conclusion that things should be banned. There may be a way of enjoying sky lanterns without endangering crops and livestock. The knee-jerk reaction to ban is something politicians should always be a little bit careful of.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Greg Knight

Thursday 16th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am well aware of the constitutional convention regarding the length of a Session, and the Session, as with all Sessions, will depend on the progress of business, but as this one has only just started, it is perhaps a bit premature to see its ending.

With regard to the ministerial code and courtesy, the normal courtesy is that a Member informs another Member of a visit to a constituency, but not necessarily invites another Member to attend the event. It is a notification rather than an invitation, so I do not think one should extend the normal courtesies and expect there to be an invitation.

I note what the right hon. Lady says about Big Ben. However, it seems to me that, with regard to bunging a bob for Big Ben bongs, one should not look gift horses in the mouth. If people wish to pay for things, that should be considered as part of their public spiritedness rather than that they should feel that everything should always fall on the hard-pressed taxpayer, but then, as a Conservative, I do not think that things should always fall on hard-pressed taxpayers if that can be avoided.

With regard to accident and emergency figures, there have been record numbers going through this year. The health service has coped extremely well with a difficult winter. The Government’s proposals for funding the health service will be coming into law following a Second Reading debate on Monday 27 January, so the commitment of this Government to the health service is absolutely second to none. It is a very impressive record and one of which the Conservatives, and indeed the country, can be proud.

With regard to Flybe, there was an urgent question on that, and the House will continue to be updated. The role of this House is always to scrutinise how public funds are used, and I am sure the House will be diligent in doing that. There will be Transport questions on Thursday 30 January, where the matter can be raised further.

With regard to the number of children people have, I am not one to lecture anybody. I am all in favour of large families; I have six children of my own. I would always discourage people from being disobliging towards people who have large families, because I think they are absolutely splendid—the more children, the merrier.

The right hon. Lady quite rightly continues to raise every week in these sessions the case of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe. The Prime Minister spoke to the Iranian President on 9 January; the Foreign Secretary did so on 6 January. The matter continues to be pursued, but the right hon. Lady is right to continue to raise it, because putting pressure on the Government and holding them to account is part of what this House does.

I endorse the right hon. Lady’s suggestion that Members sign the Holocaust memorial book. I am pleased that we are having the debate next Thursday, and that, prior to the establishment of the Backbench Business Committee, the Government have found time to ensure that it will take place.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Can we have a debate on my Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, which became law in March last year? Indeed, the Leader of the House supported the measure when he was a Back Bencher. The purpose of the debate would be to find out why the Government are still dragging their feet in introducing the code of practice mandated by that Act.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

When I was a Back Bencher, I thought it was the most brilliant private Member’s Bill ever introduced. I am concerned that there is an allegation of foot dragging. Feet should not be dragged by Governments; Governments should be fleet of foot. I will therefore take up this matter on behalf of my right hon. Friend, although there will also be an opportunity to do so at Transport questions. It may also be something, Mr Speaker, that you would consider for an urgent question or an Adjournment debate, or—heaven forfend—a debate under Standing Order No. 24; we have not had one of those recently.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Greg Knight

Thursday 24th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That is one of the most charming points that has been raised in this House. We all have a responsibility to those with visible or invisible disabilities. I am not sure that Government time will allow, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman about raising that point more generally and about the need to lift that point in our general behaviour.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Can we have a debate on my Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, which became law in March, to find out why the Government are dragging their feet in introducing the code of practice mandated by that Act?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I have a feeling I supported my right hon. Friend in bringing that Act forward, so I will most certainly take this up with the relevant Secretary of State to find out why on earth there is any foot dragging, which is most uncharacteristic of this Government.

Business of the House (Saturday 19 October)

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Greg Knight

Thursday 17th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I meant the whole House.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, if this motion is passed, facilities in the Palace of Westminster that are normally open when the House of Commons is sitting will also be open on Saturday?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Not all the facilities will be open, but there will be sufficient facilities to ensure the culinary comfort of Members if they get a little bit peckish during the course of the day.

The Government have made quite remarkable progress in these negotiations, which will be reported to the House. This is a really inspiring negotiating triumph that the Prime Minister has achieved. The papers have been made available as early as possible, to be as courteous and helpful to the House as possible. The debate date is set by the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act.

It is remarkable how far we have come, when everybody said it was impossible. In 85 days, the undemocratic backstop has been removed. At the end of the transition period—that is to say, on 31 December 2020—we will no longer be under the imperial yoke of the European Union. We will be able to implement our own free trade deals. We will be able to set our own regulations. We will be in charge of our own laws. It is an incredible achievement and so much better than where we were at Easter.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Greg Knight

Thursday 3rd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

One of the things announced at the Conservative party conference was that the age entry rate for the minimum wage will come down, which will help younger people to earn more money—that must be a good thing to ensure that they have the resources that they need. It was also announced that we will be building more houses, because one of the problems is a shortage of them. I think last year was the highest year of all but one in the last 30 for house building, so we are moving in the right direction.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Can we have a debate about making better use of time? Is the Leader of the House aware that in three weeks we will go through that ridiculous ritual of putting our clocks back, thereby plunging the country into darkness and misery by mid-afternoon? Can we have a debate to look at the benefits of staying on summer time all year round?

Ministerial Statements

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Greg Knight

Monday 5th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am deeply grateful to, and flattered by, the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Knight]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent contribution to this debate. In essence, is not our problem that the ministerial code, upon which we rely for justice in this respect, is presided over by the Prime Minister acting as a judge, when in reality he must also be an advocate for, and on the same side as, his Minister?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. It is important that this be brought to the Commons as a matter of our procedure, and that we do not rely on the good will or benign nature of the Government to see that it is enforced.

I want to finish on the sympathy that I have for the Government. They have allowed the formation of a Backbench Business Committee, which is letting debates such as this take place. Ministers are regularly making statements and they are answering questions for over an hour on those statements. There is a more rigorous approach to the treatment of scrutiny, and the House of Commons is being treated more seriously. That is a thoroughly good and admirable thing. None the less, the House of Commons should be greedy and say, “We want more scrutiny of the Government. We want to push the Government further so that we may keep them under control and under a proper check because they wield the most gigantic power.”

The Government have all the organs of state at their control. They have as many press officers, briefers and leakers as one may wish to cast a stick at. The Opposition do not have that. Nevertheless, the day will come when the Conservatives are once again in opposition and we will want to claw our way back into government and will not want to have the dice loaded against us as they were between 1997 and 2010. For that, we must make tough decisions to hold the Government to account when it is a Government whom we support, and that scrutiny must be firmly embedded, reinforced and made solid in the culture of the House. Although the motion may not be ideal, it unquestionably moves in the right direction. If the Government do not accept it today, I hope that they will at least indicate what they will accept and how quickly they will pass this from the Government, the Crown, and back to Parliament.

Estates of Deceased Persons (Forfeiture Rule and Law of Succession) Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Greg Knight

Friday 21st January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Knight]

If I may respond to that en passant, as it were, I accept that argument. The Procedure Committee has not yet considered this, but an argument can be made that we could consider bringing in a process whereby when a private Member’s Bill has had three hours of debate the question is then put. The Procedure Committee would wish to consider that option, although I would not wish to prejudge how it might decide to form its view on that proposition. That certainly could be done and it would mean that we would have more debates, which, in my view, is a good thing.

The next duty of anyone who comes fairly high in the ballot is to decide on the subject. Hon. Members basically make a choice in one of two areas. Either they choose a subject of great controversy or perhaps startling change and to have their day in the sun on Second Reading, knowing that the Bill will be opposed by the Government and even by the official Opposition and will be talked out, or they look for something less controversial but worthy in the hope that they can get it on to the statute book. I have to be honest and say that my first choice was to introduce a daylight saving Bill, but I was usurped by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), who was higher up the ballot and who, to her great credit, has successfully piloted her Bill to Committee. I wish her well with it. Because of her decision, I decided to look around for another less controversial but worthy proposition, and I decided that I wanted to introduce a Bill that would make our law fairer in some way.

I had cause to look at some of the recent work of the Law Commission and of the Select Committee on Justice—I am delighted to see that the Chairman of that Committee, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), is in his place—and I observed some of their reflections on the forfeiture rule and the law of succession. I therefore decided on my present Bill. I accept that it is not likely to be the talking point of the week in the village pub, but it deals with three related areas where, in my view, a small change in our law is both warranted and desirable.

I must tell the House that due to the complexities of the subject, this will not be a speech full of soundbites. I shall give some background. The Bill seeks to amend the law of succession in England and Wales where a person disclaims—that is, rejects—an inheritance or is disqualified from receiving an inheritance by reason of the forfeiture rule. What is the forfeiture rule? It has long been a doctrine of the common law of this country and I think it is a good doctrine to which no reasonable person could take exception. It states that if a man or woman is criminally responsible for the death of another, neither he or she nor his or her elected representatives can be entitled to reap any financial benefit from that act. As Lord Justice Salmon said in the case of Gray v. Barr, which was reported in 1971, 2 All England Reports at page 974:

“it would in general, shock the public conscience if a man could use the courts to enforce a money claim either under a contract or a will by reason of his having committed such act”—

that is, the act of murder.

Experience has shown that there are some cases—they might be few, but they are hard cases—where the public conscience would not want the full forfeiture provisions to apply, such as those involving mercy killings, the survivor of a suicide pact initiated by the non-surviving party and perhaps a battered wife driven almost beyond the borderline of sanity by the cruelty of a violent spouse. In such cases, the criminal courts will normally have been merciful and might have not even awarded any custodial sentence in the criminal proceedings. It was to deal with these situations and cases like them that the Forfeiture Act 1982 was passed. That Act provides for discretion to be applied by the courts in cases of manslaughter—I emphasise the word manslaughter, because there is no discretion in cases of murder. In cases of manslaughter where mitigating circumstances exist, the courts can allow the forfeiture rule to be relaxed, where appropriate.

The current rule is defined in section 1 of the 1982 Act as meaning the rule of public policy, which in certain circumstances precludes a person who has unlawfully killed another or unlawfully aided, abetted, counselled or procured the death of that other from acquiring a benefit in consequence of the killing.

My Bill gives effect, with some modifications, to the recommendations set out in the Law Commission’s 2005 report, “The Forfeiture Rule and the Law of Succession”. The subject of forfeiture and succession was referred to the Law Commission following the very unsatisfactory case Re DWS (deceased) 2001. Briefly, the facts of that case were that a person, whom I will call P, killed both his parents, neither of whom left a will. The court had to decide who was entitled to inherit P’s father’s estate under the intestacy rules, which are specified in sections 46 and 47 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925. P was not allowed to inherit because of the forfeiture rule, which I have just outlined. However, P’s child, the grandchild of P’s victims, could not inherit in place of P, because under the intestacy rules P was still alive and therefore P’s child could not take an interest in the estate. In that particular case, the victim’s estate therefore passed to a sister, which was unsatisfactory because by the time the court reached its conclusion the sister herself had passed away.

The Law Commission considered that the outcome of that case was unfair, and I agree. Equally unfairly, however, a situation might arise in which a killer forfeited an inheritance under a will. I do not believe that allowing a killer’s children to inherit from the victim in those narrow circumstances would encourage anyone who would not otherwise do so to commit a murder or attempted murder. The alternative is to stay with our present law and disinherit innocent children, which is most unfair. In any event, the law offers protection to prevent a killer from benefiting from a forfeited inheritance that passes to a minor, because the court has power on application to appoint two trustees or more where a minority interest arises on intestacy. It also has the power to pass over any person with a prior interest in a grant of letters of administration and appoint someone else to run the estate.

Similar problems can also occur where a person disclaims an inheritance under a will or on intestacy. For example, where in an intestacy—to the non-lawyers among us, that means where there is no will to say what should happen to the estate—the person who disclaims is the only child of the deceased, the inheritance will bypass the child’s descendants, because grandchildren can only inherit from their grandparent if their parent dies before the grandparent, in which case the inheritance passes instead to the deceased’s other, but more distant, blood relatives.

Let me give the House an example of how that might arise. Let us say that A, the deceased, dies and leaves a fortune, money which he lawfully made from his ownership of a nightclub and casino. He does not leave a will, but dies leaving a son, B, and two grandchildren, C and D. B is a strict follower of Victorian values and is a devout Baptist Christian, unlike his father. His views are similar to those of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in the USA, which holds the views that God’s way is that we should earn what we get and that gambling is a sin. Because of those beliefs, B decides that he cannot in all conscience accept the legacy, so he disclaims—that is, he gives up his entitlement to money from his father’s estate. Under our law, in so doing he would prevent his own children, C and D, from inheriting, which applies even if they were to welcome the inheritance with open arms. Indeed, C and D might have embraced gambling as passionately as their own father had disowned it, but that would make no difference. Under our law, the inheritance would go elsewhere, which is neither right nor fair. That is why I am seeking to make a change with my Bill.

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

If the strict Baptist did not want the money to go to his children, because he thought that

“the wages of sin is death”,

would he be able to take the inheritance and give it away, which would have the same effect as disclaiming, and therefore not lose his right to make that choice?

[Mr Knight]

B would be able to do that, although our law clearly states that one cannot refuse part of an inheritance—it is all or nothing. Once the decision is made, one cannot change one’s mind, unless others have not acted on one’s initial decision, in which case one can. The son would be at liberty to accept the inheritance and then give it away—indeed, he could give it to the church of which he was a member.

Stranger things happen where there is a will. If someone decides to give up something that they have been bequeathed in a will, what happens depends on the wording of the will. Such cases would need individual consideration.