Ban on Fracking for Shale Gas Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Yasmin Qureshi

Wednesday 19th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am almost coming to an end and lots of people want to speak. I have taken a vast number of interventions, including three from the Opposition, but I will give way to the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi).

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he seriously consider two aspects of fracking? First, it is unsafe in a country like the United Kingdom, which has a very small landmass and a large population. It might be safe somewhere with thousands and thousands of miles of barren land, but not in a country like ours. Secondly, does he really want to see applications for disgusting hydraulic fracturing across our beautiful country?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who is always a great contributor to this House. She is right to raise the issue of safety, which will be fundamental to any proposal for the extraction of shale gas.

The world has changed and our energy policy needs to recognise this. This Government will make the difficult but necessary decisions to secure the nation’s energy supply. Exploring our potentially substantial shale gas reserves is potentially an important part of that. But this must not be looked at in isolation, which is why we are exploring all avenues available to us, including solar, wind and nuclear, but we cannot ignore the importance of local gas production. However, let me reiterate the commitment—I reiterate this particularly to my hon. and right hon. Friends—that there is an absolute local consent lock. Any process to determine local consent must be run independently, and this House will vote on any scheme that we bring forward.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Yasmin Qureshi

Thursday 2nd December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

GB News is marvellous. I went on it with Mr Farage. The programme was called “Have a pint with Nigel” or something, and I took along my own cider, which we both enjoyed. I would encourage people to watch GB News, and to go on it. I think that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) would be a star performer, and I hope he will take people from GB News up to his farm so that they can watch his lambing in the spring, for which we have specially dedicated recess times that are convenient for him. The question of the licence fee is, of course, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Digital, Media and Sport, and I urge my hon. Friend to lobby her enthusiastically with his views.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

I refer Members to my chairmanship of the all-party parliamentary group on oral hormone pregnancy tests. The Leader of the House is aware that I have been campaigning for a number of years on behalf of the victims of the drug Primodos. The noble Baroness Cumberlege, a former Conservative Health Minister, produced a review in which she found that there was no excuse for not having withdrawn the drug many years earlier, that harm was caused to the victims and that they should have redress. That report was produced a year and half ago, but to date the Department of Health and Social Care will not engage with us on the matter. Will the Leader of the House please use his endeavours with the Government to ensure that these people get justice after so many years? There was an argument that this was a legal issue, but Baroness Cumberlege was aware of that fact. This is a question of getting redress for those victims.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on the work that she has done on Primodos. I was also a member of her all-party parliamentary group, and I saw at first hand the incredible work that she did tirelessly over many years to bring this issue forward. Without her hard work and effort I do not think that the Cumberlege report would have looked into it. I am very sympathetic to what she says, and I note that she asks for the Department of Health and Social Care to engage with her and discuss the matter. I will certainly do my best through my own office to ensure that there is engagement, because she is arguing for justice and right. The Cumberlege report was an important step in that direction.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Yasmin Qureshi

Thursday 22nd July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) [V]]

May I add my thanks, as you did, Mr Deputy Speaker, to everyone in the House who has kept us going throughout the pandemic, with all the challenges that we have faced? My thanks go to everyone. Yesterday, the Government sneaked out their response to the Cumberlege report in a written statement. In that response, the Government have refused to implement many of the report’s recommendations, most importantly those relating to redress for those affected by Primodos, sodium valproate and mesh. The Leader of the House is well aware of Primodos, as he has been a long-standing supporter of our campaign. Does he think it fair that, despite the Government apologising for their wrongdoing, they will not compensate those families, who continue to suffer and struggle through life? Will he convey to the Secretary of State for Health that this is not acceptable, and that we will not let go of this until we have justice for those victims?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I begin by congratulating the hon. Lady on receiving an honorary doctorate from the University of Bolton? That is a well-deserved accolade for a most impressive constituency Member of Parliament and campaigner on the subject of Primodos. As she rightly says, I was a member of her all-party parliamentary group on oral hormone pregnancy tests when I was not in government, and the campaigning that she has done has been absolutely formidable. Working alongside her was, to me, one of the really important things that I have done as a Member of Parliament. There would never have been the Cumberlege report without the hon. Lady’s campaign, and there would never have been the written ministerial statement without the work that she has done. I will pass on what she has said to the Secretary of State for Health, and I will add a little note pointing out that the hon. Lady is a very effective campaigner.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Yasmin Qureshi

2nd reading & 3rd reading
Thursday 1st July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

In my business life, I have spent a lot of time going back and forth to the United States for business purposes to see investors, so I completely understand the importance of the issue that my hon. Friend raises. The Prime Minister and President Biden have made it clear that this is important and look forward to bringing about the return of safe transatlantic travel as soon as possible. The newly formed joint UK-US expert working group is now under way, and we are working closely with our US allies on delivering on this important goal. Entry into the United States is, of course, a matter for the United States, but there is a clear business case for the need to solve this issue as quickly as possible for both the United Kingdom and the United States.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) [V]]

I have had emails from constituents who wish to seek exemption from hotel quarantine on the grounds of the serious ill health of themselves or their family members. They have mentioned the difficulty of booking a quarantine hotel, the splitting up of families and the substandard food and accommodation. Further, when I have written to the Department responsible for the exemptions, I have not had the courtesy of a reply. Will the Leader of the House allow time for a debate on this issue in Government time? Will he also pass on my observations to the Secretary of State for Transport and ask him to meet me to discuss this issue, as I am not getting an answer from his Department?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

If Members from either of the House are having problems getting answers from Departments, I will always use my office to try to facilitate an answer as soon as possible. In the cases to which the hon. Lady refers, getting answers urgently is obviously important, and I can give her the assurance that she asks for.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Yasmin Qureshi

Thursday 16th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

There will obviously be an opportunity for the hon. Lady to raise this matter at the Adjournment debate pre-recess, but with regard to care homes it is worth reiterating that every death from this virus is a tragedy. Care homes have worked incredibly hard under very difficult circumstances. The Government have set out their comprehensive plan to support adult social care in England throughout the coronavirus outbreak. They have provided £3.7 billion to local authorities in un-ring-fenced form, plus £600 million for infection control. They have overhauled how PPE is delivered to care homes. Considerable efforts have been made under difficult circumstances to help the people running care homes, who have done incredibly well under the most trying circumstances.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) [V]]

The Cumberlege review said that the Primodos drug should have been taken off the market in 1967, that the harm caused to the victim was “avoidable” and that a discretionary financial scheme should be set up for all three affected groups to help them cope with life, so imagine my disappointment when the Minister, whenever she was asked about Primodos last week, quoted legal privilege. The Government can set up a discretionary scheme, with a clear caveat that that does not constitute an admission of liability. Will the Leader of the House ask the Minister to come back to the House to make a statement as to why she has taken that view and why a discretionary scheme cannot be set up? The Leader of the House knows I am not giving up on this.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady gives me the opportunity to congratulate her personally, or as personally as one can in this virtual setting, on the work she did in regard to Primodos and the Cumberlege review, and the comfort she has brought to thousands of families across the country, who knew that something had gone wrong and now have a report that accepts that what they were saying was true and that it should have been known by the powers that be. The work she has done is admirable and a model of how an MP should hold Parliament to account. She knows my sympathy with her, because I served on her all-party parliamentary group. I will therefore more than happily take the matter up directly with the Minister and try to get her a fuller response.

Hormone Pregnancy Tests

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Yasmin Qureshi

Thursday 13th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes that an Expert Working Panel Group Inquiry was set up by the Government to investigate and assess evidence on children born with serious deformities due to hormone pregnancy test drugs taken by expectant mothers between 1953 and 1975; further notes with concern that the terms of reference as set out by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency do not clearly allow for an investigation into the systematic regulatory failures of government bodies at the time; notes the conflict of interest of some panel members; further notes that all evidence must be presented to expert panel members as set out in the term of reference; calls on the Inquiry to ensure that all evidence is presented to the expert panel with sufficient time for due consideration; further calls on the inquiry to guarantee thorough background checks on all panel members; calls for the terms of reference to be amended to include an investigation into the conduct of the Committee on Safety of Medicines; further calls on the Government to ensure that the inquiry has the trust and confidence of the victims for whom it was set up; and believes that, unless these changes are made, the ability of the Inquiry to achieve a fair outcome will be significantly compromised.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate—the second on this issue, which I started to campaign on five years ago. Just under two years ago, I asked the Backbench Business Committee for a debate about a drug called Primodos, which was prescribed to pregnant women in the 1960s and 1970s. It had 40 times the strength of oral contraceptives prescribed today, and we know what they were devised for. It is estimated that at least 1.5 million women may have taken this drug, and thousands of families suffered. In answer to a written parliamentary question, the then Minister assessed that 3,540 women may have suffered effects. We think that the actual figure is much higher.

This all started in 2011, when I met my constituent Nichola at her home. She was born with life-threatening internal congenital deformities to her stomach, spine, heart and womb. She had her first operation was when she was seven days old. Since then, her life has consisted of visiting hospital, as an in-patient and an out-patient, and going through various procedures. Another of my constituents is Bridget Olive.

When I met Nichola at her home, I saw boxes and boxes of documents, some of which had been leaked by various pharmaceutical companies and other bodies. I had a brief look through some of those documents, and it was at that point that I decided that the issue needed more than mentioning, or raising; we needed a real investigation and an inquiry on what happened. I am not exaggerating or being over-emotional, but, applying my legal knowledge in my capacity as a barrister, I am prepared to say that there was deliberate criminal, negligent oversight by the then Committee on Safety of Medicines as regards this drug and its usage, and the fact that it continued to be prescribed for years, despite most of the medical community knowing that it had caused adverse consequences for the women who took it.

At the end of the first debate on this subject, the Minister agreed that there would be an expert panel inquiry on the issue. He agreed, in and outside Parliament, that the inquiry would look at all the available documents, including those that we would provide, or had come across, and those in the archives. The Minister went further and ordered that all the documents held by the current equivalent body, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, should be revealed. The inquiry was to look at all the documents and assess what had happened. I will come on to what the inquiry has produced, but this debate is more about how the inquiry has progressed. An inquiry that becomes a whitewash is pointless and a waste of time and money.

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

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this incredibly important debate, and I reiterate and agree with what she says. When at the heart of the matter there is a regulator who took eight years to act between 1967 and 1975, and many years later is investigating what it had done, it is crucial that that inquiry is seen to be independent and full.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I shall come on to the issue of the independence of the inquiry and the members of the panel.

The Minister indicated that the inquiry would be carried out by an independent panel of experts and said that it would look at everything that had happened and the lessons to be learned. Our present concern is about what happened, who did what and who failed to do what, and what compensation and apology victims will receive.

I shall briefly highlight some of the evidence that we have uncovered, which shows what happened in the 1960s and 1970s.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Yasmin Qureshi

Thursday 30th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his helpful clarification. The problem is that deportation is part of the punishment. The logic of the argument of the Member for Brent Central is that if someone’s punishment had an effect on their children that led not to “manifest and overwhelming harm” but to either manifest harm or overwhelming harm, it would be fundamentally and in principle unfair on the children, so that part of the punishment should not be carried out. Surely, however, it might equally be said that someone’s imprisonment would have an effect of manifest but not “manifest and overwhelming” harm on the children. If such an argument was accepted, the whole criminal justice concept of punishing people who have committed offences would become extremely difficult. Deportation is therefore simply a reasonable part of the overall punishment for someone who commits a serious offence.

I listened with great interest to the debate about the status of new clause 15 in European and UK law. A principle that we should always state and restate in this House is that, by its very nature, Parliament cannot pass a law that is illegal. We can pass laws that contravene international obligations or that we may decide our diplomatic relations require us to remove or repeal, but Parliament cannot pass an illegal law.

That point is important to remember, because there is a tyranny of lawyers. They give people advice stating that they think x or y, but until it has been judged by a court, that is no more than advice, which may be right or wrong. If my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been advised by the Home Office lawyer that the new clause does not meet the requirements of the European convention on human rights, that does not question the right of this House to pass it into law: it is our right to do so, and then to consider the judgment that may or may not be made by the European Court of Human Rights. That of course leaves open the question of whether the Home Secretary can sign the declaration that the Bill is compatible with the European convention on human rights. I am delighted that she is returning to her place as I say that.

My right hon. Friend has the right to go to another lawyer. When given legal advice that they do not like, many people see whether they can find one who gives different advice. Amazingly enough, when they pay a better lawyer, they sometimes get better advice. I hope that even in an era of austerity Her Majesty’s Government may seek out some better lawyers who can give improved advice that is more in line with what my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton said.

The question is therefore only one of incompatibility, not of legality. I hope that the Opposition Front Bench team will also think about that. Whether the new clause is accepted and passed into law is not fundamentally a legal decision, because the legal position is as yet unproved—it has not been tested in the courts—so it is a political decision or a political statement about what hon. Members on both sides of the House think is the right way to treat people from foreign countries who have committed serious crimes. I would take the political decision that it is right to expel them from this country, and that it would be wrong to do so only if extraordinary factors meant that they ought to have the right to stay.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

It is on exactly that point that some Opposition Members have concerns about new clause 15. As the hon. Gentleman says, there may be exceptional circumstances that mean a decision should be made not to deport somebody, but the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) would take away exactly such discretion, because it says, “If you get one year’s imprisonment, you’re out.”

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

As always, the hon. Lady makes an excellent point, but it is a question about which bit of discretion would be taken away. The courts would retain discretion if there was a threat of harm or a threat to life and limb, as my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton pointed out. Discretion would be circumscribed only in very specific cases relating to article 8, and that would be done because the courts appear to have made some quite eccentric decisions. What has really brought this to the attention of the British public is the huge backlog of deportations—4,000 people are apparently waiting to be deported—and the fact that a very high number of challenges are brought purely on the basis of article 8 rights, which cannot therefore involve people in fear of torture or of harm to life and limb. I do not think that anybody in the House wants to deport people at risk to life and limb. As a nation, we believe in offering refugee status to people genuinely at threat, but we are not in favour of the exaggeration of spurious rights.

As I have said, the decision is a political decision, not a legal one. It is for this House to make a political choice about how our criminal justice system works, what rights belong to people who have committed very serious crimes and how far such rights should go. If it became a legal decision—if it were taken to the courts—we would find out at a later stage whether the European Court of Human Rights thought it was compatible with the convention. The House would then make a second choice, which would be whether to maintain today’s political decision or reverse it to be compatible with the convention. That is not the choice before us today. This is a routine exercise of parliamentary sovereignty in adding to a Bill a provision that may become law and be justiciable at a later stage.

I know that a lot of other Members want to speak, so I will be brief on new clause 18. I have some concerns about it. I am perhaps rather romantic in my view of what it means to be a British subject. I always thought that Palmerston got it right on the Don Pacifico affair—the “Civis Romanus sum” principle. Once any one of us has a passport that says we are British, we are as British as anybody else, whether they were born here or got their passport five minutes ago. It is incredibly important that there is equality before the law for all Her Majesty’s subjects who are living in this country and have right of residence here.

I worry that if we give the Government the ability to take passports away from a certain category of British subject but not from others, it will create a potential unfairness and a second category of citizen. There are Members of the House who were born abroad and have been naturalised and, on occasion, they may vote against the Government, which I hope the Whips will not consider serious enough reason to remove their passport. The fundamental underlying principle of equality of all Her Majesty’s subjects is important. I am always nervous about giving the Executive relatively arbitrary powers, because they are the ones that can be most misused. Once a passport is in somebody’s hands, they ought to be no different from anybody else in any legal respect.

Crucially, there may well already be laws that could deal with the problem in another way. If people have committed an offence so serious, important and threatening to the life of the nation that their passport should be confiscated, surely they have committed some other crime for which they could be charged, dragged through the courts, perhaps found guilty by a jury and then sentenced accordingly, with the penalty handed down in the right and proper way and their rights and liberties as subjects being maintained. They may have committed treason if they have done something so serious that they are to have their passport removed from them.

I will not oppose the new clause, but I wished to raise those concerns. I understand that the approach has been agreed because it will not affect many people. That is fine—I am glad it will not have widespread application—but what message does it send to the nation at large?