Ban on Fracking for Shale Gas Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Steve Brine

Wednesday 19th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

rose—

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

How can I not give way to my neighbour from Somerset?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) wanted to intervene, and I will happily give way to him.

[Steve Brine]

That is very kind of the Secretary of State. I am not concerned about the threat that local consent will go the wrong way in my constituency, because I do not believe for a minute that my constituents would give consent to fracking in our area. The shadow Secretary of State took an intervention about the Planning Inspectorate, and the Secretary of State said that local people will have a veto over that issue. Will he be clear that the Planning Inspectorate will not have a veto over local people?

[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.

Energy Prices: Support for Business

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Steve Brine

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman might like to apply to the Backbench Business Committee for a debate on the subject.

The reason we are going for a cap on the wholesale price is so that the market should remain as open as possible, and therefore there should be opportunities for discussions with companies as to the right level of price at the retail level and all that goes between the wholesale and retail level for the non-domestic sector. I hope that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

May I ask the Secretary of State to clarify a point about park home owners in Winchester, who obviously live under one business owner—the park home owner—and people who live in homes of multiple occupation under one business owner? They were left wondering for a long time about the £400 rebate previously announced by the Government. Where do they stand in respect of this new energy price guarantee? Are they being treated as businesses? If so, they are being treated as business units, not domestic units, which is of course what they are.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking an important question on something that constituents of all of us will be concerned about. We will legislate to ensure that the cut in prices is fed through to residents. Therefore, people running park homes or mansion blocks will have to pass on the benefit. That will be a legal requirement. As we look to the review, I think that it is very straightforward to assume that park homes and mansion blocks will be at the forefront of those who need continued support, because they are residential rather than business users.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Steve Brine

Thursday 11th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I note the hon. Member’s request for 25 March and for time when available. Of course, 25 March is the feast of the Annunciation, so it may be an opportunity to have a debate on the importance of the Annunciation in the general development of our nation. I appreciate that he would like other days to be available too.

I understand that one in 1,000 lateral flow tests are false positives, so it is a rare occurrence. The circumstances that the hon. Member outlines are therefore usual, but he makes a good point about the secondary test not being authoritative, and I will take that up on his behalf with the Department of Health and Social Care.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con) [V]]

Now that we have a road map of sorts for the House of Commons, what are my right hon. Friend’s plans for proceedings in the Chamber, including for voting, by which I mean what does he see as temporary and what does he see as permanent? Put another way, with reference to his earlier quote, will he be channelling his inner Elizabeth I with respect to this place?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Yes, but I encourage my hon. Friend to come to the Chamber to make his brilliant points, because there is no restriction other than the numbers within the Chamber. MPs have a right dating back to 1340 to come to this House, and I encourage them to exercise that right now that schools are back.

The return of MPs and staff gradually to the estate was approved by the Commission earlier this week, and it broadly mirrors the national road map. Many of these matters are for the Commission and Mr Speaker, and some of them are for decision by the House. However, the measures were agreed by consensus on the basis that they were temporary. If people want to keep some of these measures permanently, they must make the case for them and bring them in at some later date, but we must restore the status quo ante first, because that was the basis on which people agreed to the changes, and they would feel cheated—and rightly so—if anything else were done.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Steve Brine

Monday 2nd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave some moments ago.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

Further to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), I think the Government will regret holding a 90-minute debate on Wednesday. I appreciate the Standing Orders, but the Government are the Government and could make changes if they wanted to.

The Leader of the House mentioned duty, and our duty is to be here. It is about being not just here in the Chamber but in the Committee Rooms and in Westminster Hall, and the conversations that are had that allow us to do our jobs and hold Ministers to account. The Prime Minister said a lot today about next-generation tests—quick turnaround, 15-minute tests. If we can do it every week for premier league football clubs, given the importance of this Parliament sitting and doing the job that the Leader of the House rightly outlines, have he and the Commission examined the idea of weekly tests for Members of this House?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I would have enormous sympathy with those calling for more than a 90-minute debate if we had not already had so much time for debate. The overall time needs to be taken into consideration, given our challenging and full programme. I assure my hon. Friend that there will be more time to debate the issue over future weeks, and no doubt more statements by my right hon. Friends.

As regards testing, I hope it is not indiscrete of me—I look at my opposite number, the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz)—to say that the Commission did have a discussion on testing and we did have a presentation, and that it is something that is under consideration. We would, though, have to look at what other demands there were on the capacity.

Proceedings During the Pandemic (No. 4)

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Steve Brine

Wednesday 2nd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)]

I am extraordinarily keen that the House should get back to normal operation. Hon. and right hon. Members may remember that when we reduced the hybrid Parliament on 2 June, it was perhaps not the most popular motion I have ever brought forward to this House—that there was at that point considerable reluctance to limit hybridity. But I thought it was fundamentally important that we set the lead for the nation. We have in fact been back at work in this place since the beginning of June, and we have been primarily physical from that point; and I think that has led the way.

I would encourage hon. and right hon. Members to look at what the motion actually does, rather than what they fear it does. We have the limitation on Members sitting in the Chamber, being physically present, but that is under a motion that says, under “Participation in Proceedings”:

“The Speaker…may limit the number of Members present in the Chamber at any one time”.

That does not set the number at 50; the number is not set in stone. These arrangements—the little cards that replace our prayer cards—are not under Standing Orders; they are at the discretion of Mr Speaker, on the advice of Public Health England. The Commission discussed with Public Health England, the last time they visited us, how we could change that; how, with the change to three and a quarter feet, we could have more people in the Chamber, and the Commission said we could do that, on the advice of Public Health England, if we made our speeches sitting down and wore masks. Now, I must say to this House that my personal opinion is that it would be far worse to allow a few more people in here, and to sit down with masks on our faces to try and orate, in a most ludicrous fashion.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) is one of the most distinguished orators in this House, and I think he did himself a disservice when he said that his speeches were received now, in this Chamber, as if it were a very quiet Adjournment debate. I think that, with 50 in the Chamber, Members can have an effect on the mood of the House. Yes, it is not the same as that packed and bustling Chamber that we get for the Queen’s Speech and Prime Minister’s questions, but look around: here we are, on a Wednesday afternoon, and the House is not full. There are spare seats, even with social distancing. Many of the people who watch our proceedings know that actually, with a few exceptions, this is broadly as full as the Chamber usually is. It is not that all the 400-odd seats are taken every day; it is that there are a few occasions when the Chamber is full, and those few occasions, I absolutely accept, are less exciting than they normally would be. But it does not mean there is no holding to account. It does not mean there is no representation of our constituents.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

I am listening to the Leader of the House and of course he is right to talk about this Chamber—this House of Commons—and it is about this House of Commons, but I wonder whether he would address the point raised by the hon. Member for Westminster Hall, otherwise known as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), about Westminster Hall, about the Backbench Business Committee, about the Petitions Committee, about the tapestry of debate in this place. Having been a Minister—a Public Health Minister, who spent most of his life in Westminster Hall answering debates—I know that is what keeps Ministers honest. That is what means that you have to be on top of your brief. Parliament is missing that tapestry, and therefore it is missing scrutiny—and not just on covid. There are many other issues that this place is missing out on because we have hobbled this place, and we are living a lie to the public at the moment. We have never worked harder, but we are not working hard here in SW1.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I gave the good news to the House at the last session before the recess that Westminster Hall will be coming back in October, and I believe that private Members’ Bills will be coming forward next week, so we are getting back to the normal pattern. I do not wish to pre-empt my statement tomorrow by indicating thoughts about Backbench Business days, but Members should listen carefully, as there may be good news on that.

We are back at work in this place. Many of us, I among them, have brought our staff back into the office from 1 September. Mr Speaker has rightly asked that we limit that to two members of staff, and I encourage Members to follow that, but we are back at work in SW1 and the opportunities for holding to account are there. Let me point out that when we brought forward the earlier proposals that we are now renewing, or in the emergency debate afterwards, I took more than two dozen interventions, if my memory serves me right, from Members concerned about what was happening. If that is not scrutinising Ministers at the Dispatch Box, I do not know what is.

Proceedings during the Pandemic

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Steve Brine

Tuesday 2nd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I have obviously looked at the equalities considerations in relation to this, and the Government and Parliament are completely in accordance with them, because it is necessary for us to meet here physically to do our business. That is in line with the Government’s guidelines. Which Bill does the hon. Gentleman not want us to have? Does he want to give up on the Domestic Abuse Bill? Does he want to give up on the Fire Safety Bill or the Northern Ireland legacy Bill? Are we going to get these Bills through?

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

To introduce another subject, does the Leader of the House have a view about call lists during statements and urgent questions? Right now, it seems to me that they prioritise those who sit browsing MemberHub 24 hours a day, which I have to confess is not for me, to submit a request in a short window to be part of an urgent question or statement, as opposed to being here and persisting to catch the Chair’s eye.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think the system of catching Mr Speaker’s eye is a preferable system, but needs must, because we can have only 50 Members in the Chamber at any one point. However, this is a temporary expedient, and some of the other courtesies and normalities are being suspended.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Steve Brine

Thursday 24th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I can reiterate the point that 20,000 police officers are being employed, and I hope that some of them will end in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Ind)]

The armed forces covenant is incredibly important. I know the Prime Minister agrees with that and wants to bring forward legislation, but I notice that it was not in the Queen’s Speech that we will be voting on tonight. Will the Leader of the House update us?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Gracious Speech is brought to a conclusion by the statement that other measures will be laid before the House, and it is no secret that one of these other measures will relate to the armed forces covenant.

Mobile Homes Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Steve Brine

Friday 19th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Steve Brine]

The all-party group discussed that point this week, and my hon. Friend will want to take that up with the promoter of the Bill. I believe I am right in saying that the Department’s legal advice says that applying the measures retrospectively is not possible, which is regrettable.

One site owner from my own constituency wrote to me this week on the subject of site owners’ involvement in park home sales. For the record, he said:

“Dear Mr Brine…We have read the details of the proposed changes in the Mobile Homes Bill and are most concerned about the change that negates the need for site owner’s approval of purchasers. Solicitors are not normally involved when a home is sold and the only way a purchaser can obtain correct information on their future rights and responsibilities is from the site owner. The site owner also ensures the correct procedures are followed so that the rights are properly assigned. Sellers have a vested interest in omitting and even misrepresenting the facts and it is not practical for a purchaser to rely on civil proceedings…once the seller has his money and has left the park (and is often not traceable)…If the proposals become law, we can foresee a situation where elderly purchasers will pay large sums, for the ‘home of their dreams’ only to find out, at a later date, that they have been cheated by the seller and their rights and responsibilities are not as envisaged. Major problems will occur if the purchaser finds they are not able to abide by the Park Rules and as a result, could face eviction.”

I can see that site owner’s point, but I take issue with one line, although some might wonder why I have chosen only one. The line I take issue with is this:

“Solicitors are not normally involved when a home is sold.”

The Bill’s promoter eloquently told us that solicitors are involved in only around 1% of park home sales. That is crazy. Although the Bill does not—and legally could not—demand a change, I suggest in the strongest terms possible that it must change. Many park homes sell for hundreds of thousands of pounds. To make such sales without the involvement of a solicitor is a most unwise move, and the park home community must face up to that inconvenient truth.

I should like to highlight a couple of cases from my constituency that illustrate the extent to which site owners are able to take advantage of residents by significantly raising pitch fees, year after year. In one case, a constituent who happily accepts that pitch fees increase with inflation wrote to me expressing his concern that his pitch fee was rising by £500 per year, well over the rate of inflation. Another constituent who wrote to me on this issue was careful to point out that he had no problems with the site owner—we have heard that before—but did have concerns about how pitch fees were calculated. There is currently little transparency over what expenses are covered by the pitch fees or how increases are calculated. I therefore warmly support clause 11, which amends parts of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 to require a site owner who serves a pitch fee review notice proposing an increase in the pitch fee to provide the resident with an accompanying document that meets the requirements set out in paragraph 25A. That transparency is most welcome.

I am an enthusiastic cheerleader for the Government’s energy policy and the green deal, having served in Committee on the Energy Act 2011—the green deal is one of the best things the Government have done. I asked the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change in March 2011 whether park home owners would be eligible for the green deal, and the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) has said:

“Park homes will be able to apply for the Green Deal as long as they fulfil the same criteria as other types of eligible buildings.”—[Official Report, 25 November 2011; Vol. 536, c. 616W.]

However, it is my understanding—Consumer Focus says this in its report this week—that park homes will not be eligible, because the new green deal assessors will not be able to carry out their standard assessment procedure, and because park homes are exempt from requiring an energy performance certificate.

Green deal finance is also not available to some park homes because, as I have said, owners pay for their utilities through the site owner’s joint electricity Bill. I mentioned that to the Minister earlier, but I urge him speak to his colleagues in the Department of Energy and Climate Change and find a way to make the green deal work for park home owners, because they are among the most fuel poor in our country and they deserve better.

Park home owners deserve better across the board. They deserve better when it comes to buying and maintaining their homes, and better when it comes to enjoying the environment around their homes. They deserve a lot better when selling their homes and, as I have just said, when it comes to staying warm. In short, park home owners should be able to live the dream like anybody else. The Bill will help. It could be a dream-making Bill in some important respects, which is a great thing. I urge Members to join me in supporting it.

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

I beg to move, That the House sit in private.

Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163), and negatived.