Shale Gas Extraction

Debate between Jeremy Corbyn and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend asks a very important question. It is important for the national interest that we have secure supplies of gas—that is important across the House to all constituents—but this will affect some residents much, much more than others. Therefore, it is only right that they are compensated and receive some financial benefit for the inconvenience. The majority of the inconvenience comes not from the extraction of shale gas, but from the building of the shale gas well in the first place and the associated lorry movements. It is important that people benefit and are rewarded for doing something that is in the national interest.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

What studies has the Secretary of State undertaken of the effect on aquifers where fracking has taken place, which are deeply polluted and run well beyond the local communities he is seeking support from to reintroduce fracking to this country? Surely, he must understand that the dangers will be here for decades to come—long after whatever small amounts of gas have been extracted? It is future generations who will suffer because of this policy.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is no surprise that I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. I refer him to the 2012 report, which went through that and through what had happened in the United States for comparison purposes. First, it found the evidence on the pollution of aquifers was not actually any good: most of the stories were invented or were scare stories. In addition, the UK has a very good regulatory regime. The combination of ignoring the scare stories and decent regulation means that one can be confident that aquifers will not be damaged.

Business of the House

Debate between Jeremy Corbyn and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Wednesday 30th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I quite like one question, too—it makes it easier to answer—but I will do my best to answer both questions. With regard to the recess, I cannot agree to what my hon. Friend says. We have the right number of staff and the right level of expertise. We cannot duplicate such fine figures as the Clerk of the House. That is one person and to have the in-built redundancy of a spare Clerk of the House would be enormously expensive and, I think, very inefficient. We have to recognise that our staff are absolutely fantastic at taking on the extra load when that is necessary, but we must not burden them when it is not necessary.

As regards the Trade Bill, one of the interesting things about the past few months and the way in which we and the Lords have operated is that in our mainly physical presence we have managed to get through business rather quicker than their lordships, so it would be wrong of me to speculate as to when their lordships might have chewed through the Trade Bill.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) [V]]

Before the corona crisis, there was already a rising mental health problem in Britain, with unprecedented numbers of people trying to access mental support, which was often inadequate and they did not get any, and an increasing number of suicides, particularly among young men. The corona crisis has thrown this up and made the situation even worse, with many not getting the support they need, many left isolated, and 1.5 million children going through a profound mental health crisis or stress. I ask the Leader of the House to speak to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government about consulting local health authorities and local government to see what we can do to increase support for people going through mental health crisis, and to consider what can be done to alleviate isolation through the appropriately managed opening of libraries and indoor sports facilities. That would give people in my constituency and many others some space beyond the very small and overcrowded flats in which many of them have to live, and which make their stress levels worse and worse. This is, I hasten to add, a very serious crisis, and if we do not deal with it now, it will be even worse when we finally come out of the corona lockdown.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The right hon. Gentleman is so right to raise this issue, and I think this concern is shared by Members from across the House. The stresses of covid have exacerbated the problem, and people who are living in accommodation that is small or does not have outside space must be finding this particularly difficult.

I can say what the Government are doing in terms of overall funding, with £13.3 billion in 2019-20. There will be the largest expansion of mental health services in a generation, with an extra £2.3 billion by 2023-24 to support 380,000 more adults and 345,000 more children. I am glad to say that the Mental Health Act 1983 will be updated; that was a manifesto commitment of the Government, and work is going on towards that. We must all make a great effort to ensure that there is proper care and proper concern for people with mental health difficulties, because, as the right hon. Gentleman says, it is a serious problem, which has been getting more serious.

Financial and Social Emergency Support Package

Debate between Jeremy Corbyn and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Wednesday 25th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. If I may respond immediately to the point about what I knew earlier, I will be indiscreet and confess to this House that, after I said that the proposals would be brought forward in 48 hours, when I got back to my office, I was told that they thought I had said rather more than I was briefed to say, because at that stage it was not certain when the proposals would come through. It is being worked on as quickly as possible, but it is not yet ready. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary is not able to make a statement because the plans have not been completed. What has been announced, and what was announced by the Prime Minister at his press conference, is that the plans will be announced tomorrow and they will be completed in time for tomorrow’s press conference.

As I have been sitting here, my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has said that he—and this is typical of other Ministers—is always willing to brief his opposite number and to ensure that correspondence is going on so that people are kept informed. Ministers are indeed willing to do teleconferences, to keep Members up to date. It is important that we keep everybody informed and that we work on a cross-party basis. We are keen to do that, but we cannot bring announcements to the House before they are written.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. A very clear request was made by my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor that we get embargoed copies an hour or half an hour—whatever it happens to be—in advance, as we do with ministerial statements, so that informed comments can be made by Opposition parties. We fully understand all the difficulties of getting this package together by tomorrow morning, but I do think we should be informed as to what is in it so that we can make what may well be helpful and informed comments. We, too, represent deeply stressed constituents at the moment.

Business of the House

Debate between Jeremy Corbyn and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Wednesday 25th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The right hon Lady rightly sends the House’s good wishes to the Prince of Wales—God bless the Prince of Wales—and, indeed, to the Queen. We will come back on 21 April, which is, of course, Her Majesty’s actual rather than official birthday, so let us hope that affairs are in a better state by then.

The right hon. Lady referred to tests, and I reiterate what my right hon Friend the Prime Minister said earlier: there is an absolute determination to increase testing as fast as possible. That is of great importance, and it is being worked on.

The Government are extremely grateful for the co-operation from Opposition parties. When Opposition parties co-operate with the Government, it is not always seen because what they achieve is done behind the scenes, but the Opposition parties have contributed considerably to the Coronavirus Bill and to ensuring its passage through the House. I thank them for a model way of working in very difficult times.

On the voting issue, Mr Speaker, you came up with proposals for how we would vote had we voted this week, which I think were sensible, but, yes, there is more work to be done and we will have to discuss working practices when we get back, depending on how affairs look on 21 April or shortly before. The right hon Lady referred to the written statement on the Boundary Commission. When we get back, there will be opportunities for normal scrutiny once we are back fully operational.

I am delighted to see that the Leader of the Opposition is back in his place, so I, too, may pay tribute to him. I perhaps have a particular admiration for him, which may surprise him—

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

It already has!

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Indeed. When I was first elected to Parliament, there was a distinguished figure who sat at the far end of the Opposition Benches. He was in Parliament the whole time, he spoke regularly, and he was a very committed parliamentarian. Then he became leader of his party. As a new MP, I sat on the far side of my Benches, observing affairs, and although I do not have the right hon. Gentleman’s level of ambition, I too ended up on the Front Bench. It seems that those corners are good ones to sit in.

But there is a principled point behind this. Those of us who sit in the far reaches of the House are often very independent minded. We have a great commitment to public service, which the right hon. Gentleman unquestionably has, and strong principles about how we think this country might be better governed. It is no surprise to anybody that the principles held by the right hon. Gentleman and by me are different, but we are both committed to ensuring the good government of this country. The model that he has shown of how a Back-Bench Member may make an enormous contribution over many years, and then lead his party with distinction, is one that should be remembered. Principles in politics are fundamental to how we do what we do, and how we achieve it. I pay a most sincere tribute to the right hon. Gentleman, and I note what he said to the Prime Minister earlier: this is not retirement; he is merely moving to a different part of the Front Bench in a few weeks. [Interruption.] I understand that that is what has been asked for— “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find.”

The right hon. Lady is right to pay tribute to all the people who have kept the House operating. They have done a terrific job. The security teams, the Doorkeepers, the cleaners—as the Leader of the Opposition said—and, of course, the Clerks, have worked marvellously well to ensure that we are operating, and flexibility is being shown to ensure that scrutiny may continue via Select Committees. Finally, the right hon. Lady wished everybody good health. We always ask people how they are, as a normal courtesy wandering about our daily lives. At the moment, when we make that inquiry we really mean it, and I, too, wish everybody good health.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018

Debate between Jeremy Corbyn and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 29th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Military Action Overseas: Parliamentary Approval

Debate between Jeremy Corbyn and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 17th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn]

It is about democracy, it is about accountability and it is about making very serious decisions. That is what MPs are elected to do. It would bind this Government and future Governments to this basic democratic principle on the most serious and crucial issues of public policy that we are ever asked to take a decision on. As I said earlier, all those who were here during the debates on Iraq in 2003 remember them very well, just as they remember very well the questioning from the public about what they did and how they voted. That is why we are elected to Parliament.

I hope that the House will approve this motion on the principle that it is an assertion of the great tradition of the advancement of democratic accountability of this House on behalf of the people of this country.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Debate on the Address

Debate between Jeremy Corbyn and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Wednesday 21st June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am deeply sorry that—

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, said about 10 minutes ago, “In conclusion.” I fear, as time has passed, that he may be in danger of inadvertently having misled the House, and I thought you might want to take the opportunity to set this right.

[Mr Speaker]

No. Some people may think that the hon. Gentleman is fastidious and others may conclude that he is pedantic. You pay your money and you take your choice, but there is no disorder here, although if people persist in raising what they know not to be points of order, that would itself be disorderly, and I know that the hon. Gentleman of all people would not want to stray into such misdemeanour.

Debate on the Address

Debate between Jeremy Corbyn and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Wednesday 18th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I will continue my speech, if I may, Mr Speaker.

As with schools, we would like to see all Ministers being good or even outstanding, but they need the freedom to listen to the public and the people who understand services best, so we look forward to scrutinising the surviving proposals in the Government’s education Bill to ensure that they are better thought through. Just as we have opposed the increase in unqualified teachers in our classrooms, we hope that the Government will get to grips with the £800 million being spent annually on supply teachers because of the recruitment and retention crisis in schools. With school budgets scheduled—[Interruption.] We just agreed to behave with civility in this Chamber. Some Government Members have very short memories. [Interruption.]

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, am I not right in thinking that it is a customary courtesy in this House for people, though they do not have to, to give way in speeches that last over 20 minutes?

[Mr Speaker]

The essence of the hon. Gentleman’s point was encapsulated in that first sentence: customary, but it is not required. There is no obligation. Members may want the right hon. Gentleman to give way, but he is not obliged to do so. I gently say to the hon. Members for Winchester (Steve Brine) and for Sherwood (Mark Spencer) that they can have a go, but if the right hon. Gentleman does not want to give way they will not advance their cause by shouting. That, in itself, is uncivil, of which the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) is never guilty.

ISIL in Syria

Debate between Jeremy Corbyn and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Wednesday 2nd December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I thought I had made it clear, and that the Speaker had made it clear, that at the moment I am not giving way; I am really sorry, but I am not. Okay? The Government’s proposals for—

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Though it is indeed customary that he who holds the Floor decides whether to give way, is it not also customary to answer questions when they are put in interventions? We are waiting for the right hon. Gentleman’s answer on Iraq.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) is a sufficiently experienced parliamentarian to know that he has made his own point in his own way, and it is on the record.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Jeremy Corbyn and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 30th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[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?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point in saying that not many people will be affected immediately, but once one gives a Minister an executive power to deny someone citizenship, who knows how many citizenships will be taken away in future?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The House may be surprised to know that I am in almost complete agreement with the hon. Gentleman, which is rare—I think unique. One should always be suspicious of the arbitrary power of the state. As we saw with today’s proceedings about whether there would even be a vote on new clause 15, the arbitrary power of the state can sometimes be misused. The Executive sometimes have to come under pressure before they give way and allow the proper proceedings to take place. I much prefer a legal process, and I do not want to make the statement that people who have got their citizenship more recently than I did are in any sense lesser citizens. I fundamentally do not believe that. Anybody who is fortunate enough to be a subject of Her Majesty is an equal subject of Her Majesty with all others.