Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Simon Hoare

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 24th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

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

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

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

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 They ought to have been looking at which things we could put in it that people already know need to be repealed.

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

[Simon Hoare]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

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

[Simon Hoare]

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

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ban on Fracking for Shale Gas Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Simon Hoare

Wednesday 19th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Not at the moment.

We want to ensure that the consultation considers the views of regional Mayors and local authorities, as well as the immediate concerns of those most directly affected. I also want it to consider the views of MPs, as well as the use of local referendums, as I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb). We will consult on the mechanism, but I can assure the House that any process of evidencing local support must be independent rather than directly by the companies themselves, and if evidence of appropriate local support for any development is insufficient, that development should not proceed. Local communities will have a veto, so I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) that if the people in his constituency do not want fracking, they will not have it.

[Simon Hoare]

Could my right hon. Friend confirm, for clarity’s sake, that the moratorium will remain in place while the process of consultation is agreed and that it will remain in place until it is approved by a positive vote in this place following a debate on the Floor of the House? Can he also confirm that the Government will indeed press their amendment today to a Division, if time allows and such circumstances are created?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I would like to make it absolutely clear that we need local consent before anything happens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Let me be absolutely clear: local communities will have a veto. If fracking does not get local consent—what form that local consent must take will be consulted on, and it could be, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton asked, by local referendum. That is what the consultation will be about. If local consent is withheld, that is a veto and it will not be overruled by national Government.

[Simon Hoare]

In fairness, the Secretary of State is trying to address the serious concern that he knows exists on these Benches, and many of us are grateful to him for that. I think he said this in response to my earlier intervention, but I would like him to clarify this point. When he brings back the local consent process, the tick-box programme, if the House votes against it, the moratorium on fracking by its very definition will remain in place. Will he confirm that point for absolute clarity, and say that today is not the end of the matter?

[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.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Simon Hoare

Wednesday 30th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

What an excellent idea, shouted out from the back! Bring back the 10 shilling note! I think that is a little old-fashioned, even for me, but it is reassuring that some Members are even more antediluvian than I am.

On the important question of the Historical Institutional Abuse (Northern Ireland) Bill, I note what the right hon. Lady says about what is happening in the other place. We need to wait and see what happens there, and we will then be able to come to a decision on what can be done in this House. It will, of course, mean that there will be another business statement from me. That is becoming a daily occurrence at the moment.

The hon. Lady mentioned the business statement tomorrow, which will be a statement on tributes to Mr Speaker. The questions that arise will of course be whatever Mr Speaker rules orderly, so I think that Members will be careful to work out what is orderly in that respect. I am really pleased to have been able to announce that right hon. and hon. Members who are standing down will have the opportunity to make their valedictory addresses on Tuesday in the form of the Adjournment debate. That is a debate that I am very much looking forward to responding to, as it is an important opportunity not only for people to say their farewells but for their service to this House—in some cases, over many decades—to be acknowledged. I hope that that answers the hon. Lady’s questions.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

May I briefly underscore what the shadow Leader of the House said to the Leader of the House about the Historical Institutional Abuse (Northern Ireland) Bill? It has cross-party support in this place, as my right hon. Friend knows, and the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs has looked at it in great depth. I will not labour the point, but I know my right hon. Friend is aware of the pressing need for the delivery of justice and the start of closure. I am pretty certain that the legislation could be dealt with in 35 minutes to 40 minutes on Monday following discussions through the usual channels. If he will be so kind, I urge him to find the time to make that important step forward, because the wait has been far too long.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee is absolutely right to highlight the importance of that Bill, and the Government are committed to bringing it forth as soon as possible. I congratulate him on his service to the people of Northern Ireland and to the people of Dorset—something that he carries out with great distinction. I am biased, of course, because he is one of my oldest friends in this Chamber, so I do listen to him particularly carefully. I have absolutely heard his message, as I have heard the message from the shadow Leader of the House. Let us see what their lordships do. The normal processes will then grind through, and we will see what can be done.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Simon Hoare

Monday 28th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As the Prime Minister has said, and as Lady Thatcher memorably said, advisers advise and Ministers decide. Therefore, everything that is decided is the responsibility of Ministers, and that is as it should be. [Interruption.] I am glad that this is creating such hilarity on the furthest reaches of the socialist Benches.

The right hon. Lady asked specifically when the Bill would appear. The Bill will be introduced and published tomorrow. It is extremely short, simple and limited in scope: to have an election on 12 December to ensure that this House can come to a decision—something that it has failed to do on Brexit. It has reached a point of stalemate. It has voted to have an election, but not by a sufficient majority to ensure that the consequences of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act are met, and this seems the best way to ensure that the business that the country wants us to get done can be done.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

May I ask the Leader of the House what we are to say to constituents and others about the fact that we may be able to find time for a five to six-week general election campaign and then the rigmarole of forming a Government and yet not for bringing back the withdrawal Bill? That is despite the fact that, against all the odds, including my expectation, the Prime Minister played a blinder. He got a new deal and secured for the first time in this House a cross-party majority for it. My hunch is—my fear is—that many people in the country will be slightly perturbed by the course of events that my right hon. Friend has set out before us.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I do not think my hon. Friend’s point is really the right one to be making on this occasion. The withdrawal agreement Bill did indeed achieve its Second Reading, and then lost its programme motion. My hon. Friend will be aware that without a programme motion, or an allocation of time motion coming forward subsequently, the Bill remains simply in limbo. But the reason for not bringing forward an allocation of time motion is that the House has made its mind clear: it does not want to deal or engage seriously with the withdrawal agreement Bill. That means that the only sensible option remaining is to go back to the British people to see what they have to say—to trust the people and democracy, and in so doing ensure that we can stop this stalemate.

NHS (Charitable Trusts Etc.) Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Simon Hoare

Friday 6th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Much has been said about the importance of a work of literature with the status of the novel “Peter Pan”. We are, of course, entering the panto season. My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) told us earlier about the number of performances of “Peter Pan” that would be taking place around the country, and I note that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, are wearing the ruby slippers of Dorothy from “The Wizard of Oz”. The Epping Forest Empire Theatre will doubtless present a sterling performance at some point during the Christmas season.

I support the Bill, and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on introducing it. Underpinning its proposals is, of course, the Government’s commitment to localism and devolution. Many of us who have read the Bill will probably have been rather surprised that the opportunity to appoint trustees is a reserved power of the Secretary of State for Health, because one would automatically assume that trustees who are involved in their local hospitals would be drawn from the local community, and appointed by people with local knowledge and expertise. In that respect, the Bill is a very important measure.

The safeguard that I sought to draw out from my hon. Friend in an earlier intervention is crucial. In no way does this newfound independence of appointment allow trusts to move away from their core and original purpose. They cannot all look at the Racing Post and decide that Lucky Lad in the 3.10 on Saturday is the favourite, and the fact that the horse has only three legs and the jockey has a withered arm is neither here nor there—they are going to put all the trust funds on Lucky Lad. That cannot happen, which I think is a very important safeguard.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Simon Hoare]

At the very mention of Lucky Lad, I give way to my hon. Friend.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is giving an excellent explanation of what the Bill would do. Ordinary charities are not, of course, allowed to put money on Lucky Lad in the 3.10 at Uttoxeter, or wherever it may be. I hope that that is not a widespread problem, but if it is, my hon. Friend should bring it to the attention of the Charity Commission.

[Simon Hoare]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for clarifying the role of trustees. As a trustee of a charity myself, I shall ensure that my copies of the Racing Post— well thumbed as they are—are not brought into any more trustee meetings. It is also important to point out that the Charity Commission will continue to have oversight. I think that that addresses the rather waspish comment made by the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) in an intervention on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson).

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a great pleasure to rise in support of this Bill and in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), who fills a seat that was taken by a most distinguished predecessor. Richard Shepherd was a wonderful Member of Parliament and a great parliamentarian. He believed so much in this institution, and we should all rejoice at the fact that my hon. Friend now takes his place and is showing herself to be a serious parliamentarian, committed to the processes of this House.

You, Madam Deputy Speaker, were not here last week when a new tradition began, which I would like to continue. It is that of congratulating the Chairman of Ways and Means on the brilliant way in which he carries out the ballot so that my hon. Friend should have come high enough up it for her Bill to come fourth. He carried out this draw with such characteristic efficiency and in such a workmanlike fashion that her Bill came out low enough down to be high enough up for it to be debated today. That is a very considerable achievement.

[Simon Hoare]

rose—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I give way to my hon. Friend.

[Simon Hoare]

I asked my hon. Friend to give way just to give the House pause to recalibrate itself as it gets used to the idea of him welcoming anything that is new.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point; occasionally there are innovations that are welcome, and this is one of them. For those who do not know, I should add that in the draw No. 1 used to be done first but now No. 20 is the Bill done first. It is like a game show: it brings more tension and atmosphere into the proceedings. That is how it has worked and how the Bills have come out in the way they have.

This is a superb Bill. It is the reason why private Members’ Bills exist, because it is deregulating. It is such a wonderfully Tory Bill. It is a properly Conservative Bill, because it takes—[Interruption.] I am so sorry, but I could not quite hear what the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) was saying from a sedentary position. I am happy to give way if he wishes to intervene.

Why is it such a wonderfully Conservative Bill? It is because of its fundamental deregulatory nature. We have built up a state where more and more powers have been gathered to the centre, where Whitehall has the rule over all it purveys. It tells people what they must do. When it says jump, people have to say, “How high?” It was of course a Labour Cabinet Minister who said, “The fact of the matter is the man in Whitehall really does know best.” It has to be said that that was in 1947, but the fundamental principle underpinning what the socialists believe remains the same: that control should be centralised; that if instructions and diktats come from on high, the government of the country will be better run; and that individuals are not the people who can best take charge of this.

We, as Conservatives, reject that fundamentally, and it is this philosophy that underpins the Bill. We take the view that the millions of random decisions taken by individuals over how they should lead their lives means better decision making, better allocation of resources and a more contented and unified society overall. By taking power away from the Secretary of State—removing appointments from his control—the Bill allows every charity across the country that is involved in supporting the health service to set out what is appropriate for its community, for its region, for its county and for its area. In Somerset, we may well want different approaches from that which is suitable for the centre of London. Different approaches will be wanted in Dorset, Devon, Sussex and Surrey. Even in Gloucestershire they may have some thought as to how they wish to approach these things. [Interruption.] And in Hampshire, that fine county. Hampshire, one of the great counties, which was on the right side when Alfred beat Guthrum, is always to be admired in these contexts. These charities will decide what is appropriate and suitable for them, how they appoint and whom they have.

One of my colleagues speaking earlier, I believe it was my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), was talking about the risk that people would be appointed for nefarious political purposes, and of course that is what has always happened. In the 18th century, it was called jobbery. I always thought that was a good word because it so nicely encapsulates what happens as we get that corruption of baubles. The Government are the owner and disperser of baubles, and there is a corruption built in, as they give those baubles, initially, not to their friends specifically, but merely to those who are not opposed to them. In the case of somebody who is opposed, it would be “going too far” to allow an appointment to be made by the Secretary of State. It really “would not do” to appoint somebody on the other wing of politics.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

There was an urgent question on the matter, and I do not think that there is any more for me to say on it.

Jobbery is a real problem. It comes more when a party is in office for a very long time. The system gets accustomed to appointing people who belong to routine consensus political views, and they are the ones who get the baubles.

Many of these charitable baubles are unpaid, but they come with a great deal of status in their communities, so there is a benefit to the person receiving them. It is right that such decisions should be more independent of the Government. It is right not just because of the ability to get away from jobbery, but because many people—those on the Treasury Bench will be shocked to hear this—do not trust the Government.

[Simon Hoare]

Shame!

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I know. The Minister in his seat is looking appalled at that suggestion, but it is true. Many people think that if there is any possibility of the Government getting their grubby paws on a little bit of money, those grubby paws will dart out and the money will be raked in. There is of course a history of Government doing that. For example, hypothecated taxes have been introduced for particular purposes. When the Government run a bit short of money, or find that too much is being paid in the hypothecated taxes, they dehypothecate them—they put them to another purpose. I am thinking of national insurance, which was introduced as an insurance scheme, and of the road fund licence, which was introduced to build our roads. Both of those were syphoned off by Governments, arguably for very good reasons, which I will not go into because they are too broad for this Bill. I merely wish to illustrate the point that charities need to be robust in spending the money on what it has been given for, and not on any other thing, and if they cannot spend it on that which it has been given for, they should give it back to the people who gave it in the first place. The reason that that is important is partly that we believe in the rights of property—this is a Tory Bill. If property belongs to a specific designated purpose then that is what it is there for; it is not there to be used for any random purpose that someone thinks is a good idea at some later stage. There are many good purposes, and there are many charities that some people think do less good things than the good purpose that they have thought up, so there is always pressure to reallocate resources in the way that a Government, or some authority, think is preferable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend really is a truly radical parliamentarian in the train of her predecessor, because she has been involved in a consultation that has actually listened to what people have said. This is a very dangerous precedent, and I cannot believe that the Government ever do anything of that kind. They always wait for the answer that they hoped for in the beginning. What a brilliant thing she has done, and I entirely agree with the point she makes, but it makes so much sense to reinforce the independence of charities and to ring-fence the money, because there are inevitable, inexorable pressures on NHS budgets. If there is a couple of million pounds sitting around at the end of the year and a waiting list and the hospital could do with a bit of cash, it could easily try to claw in the money. That is why ring-fencing and independence are so important to ensure that it is put beyond doubt that charities will do what they have been set up to do. That reassures people and will make them more generous.

I wish to raise one point with the Minister, however, that comes from a constituency experience. It relates to the independent charities using the trademark of the national health service. A constituent of mine runs a charity that has put defibrillators across the country, and he has done so in co-ordination with the NHS. The numbers needed to open the boxes are given out when people dial 999. The charity is supported by ambulance trusts, which have said that they want their logo put on the boxes. Now, some random bureaucratic body in the NHS protects its logo, and it has decided in its wisdom that the charity must spend some money removing all the NHS logos from a system backed by the NHS, operated with the NHS, but not formally part of the NHS. That seems to me the worst type of bureaucratic folderol imaginable. It is a stubborn refusal to allow something sensible to happen for no good reason other than that a rule must be rigorously enforced. The whole purpose of the boxes is to support the NHS, to make its job easier, and no one can open the box without having got in touch with the emergency services in the first place, and, as I say, the ambulance trusts want this to happen.

It concerns me that, if the charities are made formally independent, that same bureaucracy will be jumping up and down in a few weeks’ time and saying, “Well, you’re now an independent charity, so you can’t use the NHS logo because it will damage the NHS brand.” That is a perfectly ridiculous point of view to take. I could not have less sympathy for how that body is approaching the issue, rather than using the good common sense that is another Tory value and principle and allowing something that benefits everyone to happen. I hope that that will not be a problem emerging from the Bill. Perhaps an amendment can be inserted in Committee to say specifically that charities linked with the NHS are entitled to use NHS logos and trademarks. I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically on what I am saying about the charity in my constituency that is doing something really wonderful—it is saving hundreds of lives—but some petty bureaucrat is getting in the way. So I hope that an additional benefit will come from the Bill.

I have been saving up talking about J.M. Barrie and “Peter Pan” because I remember when the Bill—introduced by the late Lord Callaghan, a former Prime Minister—was passed in 1988 to extend the copyright on “Peter Pan” indefinitely, and I do so because I remember the late Lord Charteris starting a speech by pointing out that Captain Hook was an old Etonian. Lord Charteris was then the provost of Eton, and that was therefore immediately relevant and of interest to him, but it is also of interest to me because it has to be said that there are all sorts of old Etonians. There are the great and the good: the greatest figures in the land—our Prime Minister is an old Etonian, and he is one of the good lot—but we have at the other end the rogues’ gallery of old Etonians, where Captain Hook stands proud, along with people like Lord Lucan. Hon. Members know exactly what I mean. Captain Hook is there in that role to frighten the children, to keep them well behaved, just as Bonaparte was used in earlier times to frighten badly behaved children. I am rather proud of the fact that an old Etonian fills that role. It rebalances the scales so that we do not mislead people into thinking that all old Etonians are wonderful fellows. One or two of them are in the rogues’ gallery, but there is a balance: only in the past week, the new James Bond film has come out, and James Bond is, of course, another old Etonian. We have some good historical characters, as well as some villains, who are there to remind people that Eton is a serious school that produces people who will take all sorts of different sides in various cases.

What is happening with “Peter Pan” and Great Ormond Street hospital is a great combination of good sense and generosity. J.M. Barrie’s generosity was remarkable. He left his royalties to various people. He left them to Great Ormond Street hospital. He left some to Westminster school, and, where I must declare an interest, he left some to the Garrick club. Since the “Winnie-the-Pooh” money came into the Garrick club, the wine list has improved very considerably. So we all have a lot to be grateful to J.M. Barrie for, either directly or indirectly.

[Simon Hoare]

rose—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I give way to my fellow Garrick member.

[Simon Hoare]

I hate to contradict my proposer to the club, but I think that A.A. Milne gave his royalties to the Garrick, not J.M. Barrie.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I was confusing my authors of children’s literature. I got “Winnie-the-Pooh” right; I was just attributing it to the wrong man. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that correction. So I do not have an interest to declare. I must de-declare my interest in relation to the topic on which I was talking.

Leaving such a legacy is a wonderfully generous thing to do, along with the flexibility in allowing the copyright law to be adapted so that one play can provide resources for a hospital, where the two come together. We all know the story very well. The childhood story of Peter Pan, ever-youthful—Madam Deputy Speaker, as I look at you, I see the ever-youthful Deputy Speaker—is a great one to combine with a children’s hospital, which is there to care for children at their weakest time, not just those from London, but those from across the country, as we have heard.