EU Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Changes

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Robin Walker

Monday 11th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

I can only reiterate what I have already said, which is that we will be holding the meaningful vote tomorrow. Of course, exactly what is brought forward by the Government will depend on the outcome of the negotiations, which are still ongoing.

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

With regard to the legal changes required to the withdrawal agreement, this House voted for the entire removal of the backstop. Does it not strike my hon. Friend as incongruous at the very least that it is harder to the leave the backstop than it is to leave the EU under article 50?

[Mr Walker]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, as always. The Government have heard loudly and clearly this House’s concerns about the backstop, and they are what the negotiations are to address. I am confident and hopeful that we will come forward tomorrow with something that will allow even him to support the Government’s deal.

Leaving the EU: Implementation

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Robin Walker

Monday 29th January 2018 Commons Chamber

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

How does my hon. Friend square paragraph 4 of the European Union’s guidelines, which requires the phase 1 agreement to be respected in full and implemented in legal terms, with the idea that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed?

[Mr Walker]

We have already set out our desire to reach that legal agreement with the EU on the withdrawal agreement, but it is of course clear from the terms of article 50 that the withdrawal agreement must have regard to the framework for the future relationship, which we are seeking to establish through the negotiations.

Leaving the EU: Sectoral Impact Assessments

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Robin Walker

Tuesday 28th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

The Government have provided the reports covering the 58 sectors to the Select Committee, and I look forward to the Select Committee being able to scrutinise them in detail. The hon. Lady has been persistent in pressing for as much of this information as possible to be put in the public domain. Her Front-Bench team have also been persistent in recognising that that could not be done with all the information, subject to negotiations, without damaging our national interest.

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

The issue now is not whether it is in the Government’s interest to publish these documents. If the Government did not want to publish them, they should have voted down or amended the Humble Address. In all precedent, this is a binding motion, unlike the previous motion passed earlier in the year, which was not a Humble Address and not a binding motion. To meet this motion, it is not at the discretion of the Government to decide what to take out; it is at the discretion of the Select Committee. I therefore urge the Government either to meet the terms of the motion in full, or to seek to put down a new motion.

[Mr Walker]

I take my hon. Friend’s expertise in parliamentary procedure extremely seriously, and I recognise the point that he is making. We do feel that we have responded to the motion in full by preparing for the Select Committee sectoral analyses. The point that I make to him is that the sectoral analyses did not exist in the form that was requested in the motion at the time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Robin Walker

Thursday 26th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the importance of the industry to his constituency, and indeed to the entire United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has held an energy roundtable with industry leaders who, of course, included oil and gas industry representatives. I look forward to visiting parts of the industry in Scotland in the coming weeks.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that selling into the single market is far preferable to being a member of it, because it is a highly regulatory, bureaucratic mechanism on which 87% of British businesses—the British economy—are not reliant?

High Cost Credit Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Robin Walker

Friday 12th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The great thing about the Governor of the Bank of England’s eyebrow is that it is not a matter of statute. We have not put it in statute—indeed, I cannot think how that the statute would be phrased—that the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, her Lords temporal and spiritual and her House of Commons have decided that the Governor of the Bank of England’s eyebrow should have legal force. It is not an accountability issue. I must confess that such legislation was rather better drafted under Henry VIII than nowadays. The language used in the section I read out has the greatest attractiveness and beauty, whereas ours is rather more mundane, but even in the 16th century—before the Bank of England was even founded—the Governor’s supercilious qualities could not have been brought into statute law.

Let me move on to one of the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who made an absolutely fabulous speech and covered the issues with the greatest intellectual rigour. He got into the question of supply creating its own demand and demand creating its own supply. There is an important quality about demand creating its own supply and that is that it tends to reduce prices. If we regulate, we find that we interrupt the natural creation of the supply that comes through. Let us look at it this way: if more payday lenders come to the market, they provide excess capital that is available. They want to lend it out and they have it on their books. They then have to advertise and build up the market. They produce the supply available, but others are doing the same. There is then an excess supply in the market and the demand will fill it up, but only if the price falls. If we regulate in such a way as to reduce the supply that is coming on board so that that excess of credit is not made available in the market, the price will increase as there will be fewer people participating in the market.

[Mr Robin Walker]

Was my hon. Friend as surprised as I was, given his point about the availability of supply potentially reducing costs, to hear the Minister celebrating from the Front Bench the fact that people are exiting the market? Would he not agree that we ought to be encouraging people to take part in the market in a more responsible manner rather than driving people out of it?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am in agreement with that. I think we have to be careful, therefore, about introducing new regulation, because new regulation has a tendency to drive people out of the market, or, worse still, favour the largest players, who find it easiest to deal with the regulation, and will then create an oligopoly or ultimately a monopoly, which of course produces the highest pricing possible. I would very much not like us to legislate in such a way that it is hard for new entrants to come in, that existing participants are able to consolidate their positions, and that one or two of them are able to push their prices up even higher. That would be deeply undesirable and would increase the amount of abuse.

The concentration of power in a very small number of banks has reduced the competitiveness of the banking system in this country. If we had a more competitive banking system, we might find that the banks were more interested in making lower-level loans, but because they only need to concentrate on the biggest business, which is the easiest—the least risky—the major banks are not in this area. They leave it to the payday loan companies, which are less well organised; they are organised in a more aggressive way, and a relatively unattractive way compared with the major banks. They are dealing with people who have a lesser ability to protect themselves against the payday lending companies, and they are not so much a part of the full regulated system in the way that the banks are. My hon. Friend is spot-on to say that we should not make it our aim to be able to boast about how many payday lenders we are forcing out of business, because we want an active and competitive sector rather than just having one or two players left in the end.

One aspect of the Bill that has been much praised—including by my hon. Friend, in a speech with which I otherwise agreed a great deal—is the power to enable high-cost credit providers to levy and provide a fund. That is exactly the sort of thing that Parliament should not allow. Moreover, it is in contravention of Magna Carta to allow such a power to be given to third parties. The power to levy fines and taxation belongs, in this country, under Magna Carta, only to courts, and that includes the High Court of Parliament.

[Mr Walker]

I was very interested when my hon. Friend mentioned some forms of regulation of the investment sector and the banks, and argued in favour of the extension of such regulation to the payday loans sector. Does he accept that at the moment, banks and credit unions are paying towards the cost of financial advice, but payday lenders are not? Does he not find that an extraordinary situation—admittedly, one that we inherited from the previous Government, and one that we should try to rectify?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend that it is an anomaly, but not all anomalies are corrected by adding people in to the anomaly. It is much simpler to abolish the anomaly and say that the right to levy taxation is a fundamental right of Parliament. I quoted specifically from Magna Carta, which refers to a court, and we are the High Court of Parliament. It is important to remember that fines should only come through a proper judicial process or through the will of Parliament extracting fees. As soon as we delegate that to other bodies, over which there is no democratic control, we give up something that is fundamental to this House and what it is for. The consent to taxation is what this House has done since 1265. Perhaps the last Labour Government passed it over in a fit of absent-mindedness; they were not known for their love of the history of the constitution and their strictest adherence to it.