Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Kerry McCarthy

Thursday 24th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

One of the opportunities of Brexit is that we will be able to encourage people to buy more from SMEs, which tend to be UK-based rather than from overseas. Opening up procurement has the effect of ensuring that more British companies get contracts, and that is a good thing to be doing, but there is always a balance to be struck between ensuring that one buys cheaply and efficiently and supporting British companies. I believe that British companies can out-compete, and be as efficient as, anyone in the world, and that that is how procurement ought to operate.

[Kerry McCarthy]

The Government spend £2 billion every year on food for schools, hospitals, prisons and so on. When they eventually respond to the national food strategy, will they accept its recommendations on reforming procurement rules so that food purchased with taxpayers’ money is always healthy and sustainable—and will the Minister confirm that foie gras will not be on the menu?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I do not think we need to go into my personal dietary habits. I have mainly been giving free publicity to Cadbury Creme Eggs over the years, rather than going into the details of whether or not I like foie gras—although people may be able to guess what the answer is.

As for the strategy for procurement of food, one of the things it will do is allow social benefit to be taken into account. It will not just be about value for money, although value for money is inevitably fundamental to all procurement, so it will be possible for people to make decisions on a broader range of issues.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Kerry McCarthy

Thursday 4th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I view it as my role as Leader of the House to facilitate issues of this kind, when Members bring forward specific issues relating to their constituents who are not receiving an efficient Government service. I will therefore take this up with the Home Secretary after business questions, although perhaps if the hon. Gentleman could email to me further details of his constituent and the new name that he has adopted by deed poll, I will do what I can to try to speed up the process.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

As shadow roads Minister, I had spent this week preparing to speak in a Committee on Monday on motor vehicles regulations—that was slightly complicated by the fact that one of the statutory instruments did not seem to have been published. We were told yesterday that that Committee would not go ahead. As a result, I had a conversation with the chair of the all-party group on trailer and towing safety, our neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth). It would have saved an awful lot of time and an awful lot of conversation and speculation yesterday if we had been told that the reason why the Committee was pulled was that it would be listed for the main Chamber on Monday instead. To be frank, this has upset rather a lot of people who were hoping that the measures on trailers were not going to go ahead. I would like to know from the Leader of the House why things could not have been tied up and why, when the Delegated Legislation Committee was cancelled, we could not have been told that it was going to be in the Chamber.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That is a very good question, but the answer is that the Chamber has to be told first the business of the Chamber. That is a courtesy to the House. I appreciate that when things are being cancelled, it is not helpful that people are not informed of the replacement, but it is absolutely standard practice to notify the Chamber first of business in the Chamber.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Kerry McCarthy

Thursday 13th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend is doing so very effectively. It is deeply troubling that what he reports is going on. I reiterate that the Government are recruiting more police, with 6,620 so far. It was Sir Robert Peel who said, “We are the police and the police are us.” In his call for us to support the police, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right; we are a society that is policed with civilians, not by a military, and therefore everything we can do to support the police in their difficult task is worth doing. I am glad to hear that there are more patrols in response to the worrying circumstances that he reports to the House.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) [V]]

The Leader of the House said earlier that he does not think the West of England Combined Authority should exist because it unduly benefits Bristol, but Bristol is not getting the support it needs for Temple Quarter regeneration, for example, or for improving transport infrastructure, such as the A4, which many of his constituents use to drive through my constituency and into Bristol city centre. May we have a statement on what the Government’s levelling up agenda means for the West of England? To me and to many of the people who voted for Dan Norris last week it looks very much as though we have been written off.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

There is a socialist Mayor of Bristol and a socialist Mayor of WECA, and they have responsibility for a lot of these development areas. Levelling up is something for the whole country, as I know very well in my own constituency. I am very much looking forward to things such as the introduction of the lifelong learning loan, which will help people who may have been left behind in education previously and who will be able to get a second chance. Levelling up is for everybody, but I fear it is true that money leaks out of North East Somerset into Bristol under WECA, and that is not something I am broadly in favour of.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Kerry McCarthy

Thursday 18th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The UK and Bangladesh share a close relationship based on strong historical and people-to-people links. We continue to work closely together on our shared interests, including security, development, climate, trade and the Rohingya crisis. We are working closely with the Government of Bangladesh to mark Bangladesh’s 50th anniversary and the 50th anniversary of Bangladesh-UK relations, including on 26 March 2021.

The UK was one of the first countries in the world to recognise an independent Bangladesh after Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was received by the former Prime Minister, Sir Edward Heath, in Downing Street on 8 January 1972. We look forward to the fourth UK-Bangladesh strategic dialogue, which is to take place in London later this year, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is a good thing to celebrate, and to celebrate an independence day that is not independence from us, which is perhaps a rare treat.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) [V]]

Today the Government announced that plug-in grants for the purchase of new electric vehicles will be slashed again from £3,000 to £2,500; this is after they were cut from £3,500 to £3,000 last year. I know that the Leader of the House is very fond of his old Bentley, but the Government are meant to be committed to a ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars by 2030. At the moment, new EVs are simply not affordable for many people. Can we have a statement, so that we can ask Ministers in the House why the Government’s policy on this seems to be going in completely the wrong direction?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The answer is that there is a limit to taxpayers’ money, and that as more electric vehicles are produced, so they become more efficient and so the price falls. This is the natural economic process, and it is one that will be mainly led by the private sector. This is how we have got the innovation so far, through the private sector producing these remarkable vehicles. We managed to switch from the horse and cart to the internal combustion engine without large Government subsidies. A little bit of Government help is right, but it cannot be excessive because the taxpayer cannot afford it.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Kerry McCarthy

Thursday 28th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is very wise in how he uses the House’s mechanisms, because the lines I have here come from the Department for Transport, although I would add my own line that the car-hating Mayor of London wanted to do his best to upset motorists, and neither is he very fond of taxi drivers, who Disraeli called the gondoliers of London and who should always be respected and admired for the work they do.

It would be wrong of me to comment on the specific judgment because it may be under appeal from Transport for London and it is not proper to discuss current legal cases. However, the Government have made it clear to local authorities that they must consider the effect on all road users when developing cycling and walking schemes through the active travel fund. Allocations from tranche 2 of the active travel fund were announced last November. These were subject to LAs demonstrating that they have consulted local communities on proposed schemes. The Government’s additional network management duty guidance on reallocating road space was updated in November alongside the tranche 2 announcements and strengthens the advice on consulting disabled people. It recommends that authorities carry out quality impact assessments and reminds them of their duties under equalities legislation. But I think the real answer to my hon. Friend is: vote Conservative in the local elections and let us have a Tory Mayor.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) [V]]

It is a bit disappointing that the Leader of the House, my constituency neighbour, does not take more seriously the need to tackle air pollution, but I want to ask about something else today. Two weeks ago, he suggested that fish

“are now British fish, and they are better and happier fish for it.”—[Official Report, 14 January 2021; Vol. 687, c. 510.]

Obviously he was being a bit silly, which he likes to do from time to time, but if he does really care about the emotional wellbeing of fish, or any other sentient beings, above and beyond nurturing their sense of national identity, perhaps he might find parliamentary time to bring forward the animal sentience Bill that was promised to this House as long ago as 2017. There is no excuse for the delay and no excuse for breaking that promise to the House, so can he just get on with it?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

First, I do not know why the hon. Lady thinks I do not mind about air pollution, which is a matter of great seriousness. It has to be remembered that it was the last socialist Government who encouraged people to have the diesel cars that have done so much damage to our air quality. She ought to remember that when phrasing her questions. On the animal sentience Bill, it was in the manifesto and there is every intention of bringing it forward. The Government are going to meet their manifesto commitments.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Kerry McCarthy

Monday 2nd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The testing capacity is now at 480,000, 9.6 million people have been tested at least once, and 30.5 million virus tests have been carried out, which is more than in any other European country. I saw my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care lurking behind the Speaker’s Chair, and I think he deserves a great deal of credit for the enormous amount of hard work he has done to get up to those 30.5 million tests. That is not to pretend there is not more to be done—there is, but what has been done so far is absolutely remarkable, from a standing start.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I think the expression of sheer despair from my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) in response to that answer has just demonstrated that we can see people’s reactions on screen.

The Leader of the House is waxing lyrical about how important it is for us to be here and fully play our role as representatives—I am asking my third question of the day, and I am more than happy to do that—but he cannot say that on the one hand and then allow only 90 minutes for the regulations to be debated on Wednesday. Surely at least half that time will be taken up by the Front Benchers. That means that there will be very little time and very few Back Benchers will be able to speak up on behalf of their constituents. That is just not right.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

We are having a debate immediately after this session, we have had two hours from the Prime Minister, and we had a debate on the Thursday before the House rose. Therefore, a great deal of time has been made available out of the scarce resource that time is within this House for debating the coronavirus, and our Standing Orders provide for 90 minutes under an Act.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Kerry McCarthy

Thursday 2nd July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave earlier, because I gave some detail on this, but the Chancellor’s statement will be a further opportunity to raise this issue.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister’s comments about newt counting earlier this week suggest that he is prepared to let developers ride roughshod over environmental concerns, so can the Leader of the House offer me some reassurance that this is not the case? If the Environment Bill is not due to come back into Committee until September, which I understand is the case, how on earth is the Bill going to get through both Houses to enable the Office for Environmental Protection to be established in Bristol before we end the transition period? Will there not be a regulatory gap as far as environmental protections are concerned?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The two great newt fanciers were Gussie Fink-Nottle and Ken Livingstone. They were always interested in newts, and I am sure that they are—

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Kerry McCarthy

Wednesday 25th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

First, may I wish the hon. Gentleman’s mother good health at the age of 90? I hope that she is staying at home and following all the advice, although sometimes persuading mothers to do what they are advised to do is not easy. Cleaners are very important. The Prime Minister said that an announcement would come out soon, and I think he implied 48 hours, which would get us to Friday, so, reading into what the Prime Minister said, I think the hon. Gentleman’s question answers itself.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Following up on the point made about answers to named day questions, I tabled a question last week on behalf of the Cystic Fibrosis Trust, asking what special provisions would be put in place to ensure that people would have priority access to hospital and to testing. I was told on Monday that the Government would not be able to answer in the time available. Does that mean that I am not now going to get an answer until the end of April, or is there any way we can at least ensure that those questions are carried over?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I must confess I would have a certain sympathy with the Department of Health and Social Care at the moment for not answering questions with its normal efficiency. We as Members have to be reasonable in the matters of scrutiny that we are asking for. I suggest that the hon. Lady write to the Department on that question.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Kerry McCarthy

Thursday 17th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is an almost universally observed convention of this House that there is a two-week period between the first laying of a Bill and its Second Reading, yet on Wednesday we have the Environment Bill, which is absolutely massive—it has 122 clauses and 20 schedules. In two of the Committees I sit on, we did pre-legislative scrutiny of the first bit, but there is a whole load of other stuff that we have not seen before. Does it really have to be brought back so quickly? Can we not give environmental groups and MPs the chance to scrutinise it before we get to Second Reading?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think there is a general feeling that it is really important to proceed with this Bill. I have a great desire to uphold the conventions of this House. I note, though, that a lot of Opposition Members voted for the Cooper-Boles Bill and for the surrender Bill, both of which were pushed through very rapidly, so this does happen. When we have major items of legislation that have widespread support, it is important that, as you might say, Mr Speaker, we do not allow convention to stand in the way of what is in the national interest.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Kerry McCarthy

Thursday 26th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. I have a general rule which I am happy to tell the House: as Leader of the House, I will meet any Member who wants to see me to discuss nappies or any other subject that comes to mind. It is important that hon. and right hon. Members have access to people, and I know, Mr Speaker, that you think the same.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

If I can start by asking the Leader of the House to pass on my congratulations to his niece, who, I gather, was selected for Stafford last night. I am slightly disappointed that she is not standing against me again given the 2017 result.

On a more serious note, we both raised at Prime Minister’s questions before the summer recess the case of my constituent Jake Ogborne and access to the drug Spinraza. It has been raised a number of times in various different forums in this House. What does the Leader of House think that we can do to try to make sure that Jake’s case is raised again?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I thank the hon. Lady for her characteristically generous words? That is very much appreciated and, as my neighbour in Somerset, it is kind of her. I will certainly pass that on to Theodora. I am now bound by collective responsibility, but my views on Spinraza have not changed since I became Leader of the House. She has quite rightly raised this issue, and I will write to the Secretary of State for Health making the point that she has made.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Kerry McCarthy

Thursday 18th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The problem with that argument is that we have facts that show that the amount of revenue has gone down. Over a three-year period it has gone down very substantially, because the rate was high. The hon. Lady’s comments also serve to illustrate the following point on my behalf, for which I am grateful: when tax rates are raised, people change their behaviour so that the tax they pay is reduced. That is where the Laffer curve comes in. Income is reduced when tax rates are too high.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is a student of behavioural psychology, as he is of so many other subjects, so can he explain why the Government believe that if we give more money to wealthy people that encourages them to work harder, whereas the lower paid are encouraged to work harder if we give them less money?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady—my near neighbour, as she represents a Bristol constituency—is very wise and does, I am sure, understand this point. The answer is that the question being asked differs between benefits and earnings, although the argument is essentially the same. Inevitably, where there is a level of benefits that discourages people from working, if that increases more slowly, it encourages people to work. It is an identical argument to the one that says people keep more of the money they earn if taxes are set lower.

Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Kerry McCarthy

Tuesday 26th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and spot on. That is a most helpful intervention. There is no point in giving money late in the day to everybody—those who need it and those who do not need it alike—for an unspecified purpose when other ways of spending money may prove to be more useful.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is saying that benefits should be targeted rather than universal and that they should be for a very specific purpose—that the state should dictate what the benefit money is spent on, which contradicts what he said earlier about the nanny state. Given his support for targeting benefits, how does he justify the Government’s continued support for the winter fuel allowance?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The winter fuel allowance goes to the elderly, many of whom will have paid full national insurance contributions, and it is therefore in some sense a recompense for what they have paid in. I think that to look after the old in society is an important and virtuous thing to do. It is right to give that help so that people can be warm in their homes, but we are talking at present about £250 for children when they are born that will give them a pitiful amount a few years later. We are talking about £190 given to every woman who is going to have a baby for no necessary benefit to her because she may not need the money or it may be received too late for her to address some of the problems referred to earlier. Those two benefits are therefore unnecessary and wrong.

The third benefit is the Government’s matching of personal savings, and there is a misconception here. Saving from a deficit is a dis-saving to the economy because there are costs associated with allocating that saving. To put that more simply, if someone borrows money from one account to put into another account they will pay a higher rate of interest on their borrowings than they will receive on their savings so, net, the country is dis-saving by topping up savings accounts. Opposition Members are therefore wrong to say that this is an encouragement to saving.

We need to look at all that is being done in the broader context. We have this phenomenal deficit—our highest peacetime deficit—which the Government have, in a workmanlike and serious-minded way, decided to tackle. They have decided to bring the deficit down so that we may have the conditions for economic growth. The essence of good government and of a sensible Treasury policy is to ensure that there are the conditions where business can thrive, jobs can be created and money can cascade through the economy. That is what really lifts people out of—

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

I am sorry, but I do not have time to give way because we are a bit under the cosh.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) talked about how scrapping the child trust fund would heighten the contrast between the tax advantages for the wealthiest savers and the poorest and vulnerable slipping further and further behind. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) reminded the House of the old biblical tale of the widow’s mite and the comparison with the poor being made to contribute to deficit reduction at great sacrifice while the very richest in society will not feel the same pain.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana R. Johnson) talked about how the saving gateway had been piloted in Hull. That measure was not mentioned as much during today’s debate, but it is obviously important and it was praised by my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin).

My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont)—I think that I finally pronounced that right after several attempts—talked about how the child trust fund is about freedom and opportunity, and not about the nanny state. That is such an important point to make, because the fund is about creating the ability for young people to go out into the adult world with a little bit behind them that they can put to good use.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) rightly pointed out that those on the Government Benches have been using specious arguments against universalism all afternoon, yet they are not arguing that the health in pregnancy grant should be targeted, although that would be the logical conclusion of their argument. They are also not using the same argument to say that the winter fuel allowance, for example, should be targeted.

We heard a passionate defence of the health in pregnancy grant and the child trust fund from my hon. Friends the Members for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) and for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore). The latter described some of the language used or some of the suggestions made by those on the Benches opposite about what the health in pregnancy grant could be used for as quite offensive. The suggestion that ladies, as my neighbour, the hon. Member for North East Somerset, would say, cannot be trusted to spend the money wisely in a way that would benefit their health and their child is quite offensive.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

rose—

[Kerry McCarthy]

By way of light relief today—[Hon. Members: “Give way.”] I would love to.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, because I want to clarify that I had not made the point that people did not spend their money wisely. It may have been made by somebody else, but I would not like people to be confused.

[Kerry McCarthy]

My reference to the hon. Gentleman related just to the fact that he used the term “ladies” quite frequently during the debate, which is actually charming in its own way.

Earlier today, after a heavy morning spent in the Finance Bill Committee, by way of light relief I watched a video that had been posted on the ConservativeHome website in January this year. It was one of those videos that the Conservative party was very fond of when it was on a mission to convince the British voters that it really had changed and was no longer the nasty party. It featured the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister, of course, in his shirt sleeves talking with well-rehearsed spontaneity to an audience carefully chosen to seem like a random cross-section of the general public. He said that he wanted this Government

“to be the most family friendly Government we’ve ever had in this country and that is about everything we do to support families and it’s about supporting every sort of family.”

What have this Government, in collusion with their friends from the Liberal Democrat party, done to support families? For a start, what have they done to support children? The so-called emergency Budget and the spending review take away almost £7 billion from funds to support children, three times the amount the bank levy is estimated to raise. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, families with children will lose the most from what this Government plan to do by 2014-15. The poorest 10% of families will lose 7% of their income. The Government are freezing child benefit, cutting child care tax credits, restricting the Sure Start maternity grant to just the first child and, of course, axing the child trust fund and the health in pregnancy grant under the Bill that we have considered today.

What about when the children get a bit older? Education maintenance allowances are being abolished, school spending per pupil is being cut in real terms and the IFS has said that the pupil premium could widen funding inequalities. As the End Child Poverty campaign said after the comprehensive spending review, it was

“a dark day for any family struggling to stay out of poverty, or deep in it already and fearing things will get worse still.”