Shale Gas Extraction

Debate between Peter Grant and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House is present, and I think that was very much a business question. I would say that I will make sure it is passed on to her, but I hope that she will feel that it has been passed on in any case.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I have been listening to Members on both sides of the House gradually teasing out what the Secretary of State really meant when he said that “compensation and consent” are

“two sides of the same coin.”

Why does he not just come clean and tell it as it is: the Government intend to change the payment of bribes for planning consent from a criminal offence to the official policy of His Majesty’s Government?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is a wise and good man, but that point is completely fatuous. Paying people for inconvenience is a perfectly reasonable and commercial thing to do.

Energy Prices: Support for Business

Debate between Peter Grant and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think we have covered most of that already, and the answer is broadly yes.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

The Secretary of State admitted a few minutes ago that we have all known for at least six months that urgent and major Government intervention would be needed. Why has it taken so long? To call on his experience and knowledge of the way things work from his previous post as Leader of the House, who should the House demand come to the Dispatch Box to apologise to our constituents for six months of unnecessary delay?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Most energy is used during the winter. We have plans ready for the winter.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Grant and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 31st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is a particular champion for coastal communities—especially for Waveney—and has been since we entered Parliament together in 2010. East Suffolk Council is working with local businesses and the community on its £24.9 million town deal for Lowestoft. We are no longer bound by burdensome EU state aid rules, so assisted area status will be replaced by new a subsidy control regime. The Subsidy Control Bill, which was introduced to Parliament in June 2021, provides the framework for the new UK-wide regime. It is back under our control and, under the Subsidy Control Bill, we will have a new system. Through the new regime, public authorities throughout the United Kingdom will be able to award bespoke subsidies that are tailored to local needs.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

The Minister just claimed that the Government are cutting £1 billion-worth of red tape as a result of Brexit, but the Commons Public Accounts Committee, which has a majority of Conservative MPs, says that Brexit red tape is costing businesses £5 billion per year. Does the Minister accept that finding?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman is joining thousands of readers of the Sun and of the Sunday Express in pointing out ways in which we can cut red tape further. There is more joy in heaven over the one sinner who repenteth than over the 99 who remain pure.

Business of the House

Debate between Peter Grant and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 20th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

We would have to set aside far too much time if we were to debate the many virtues of my noble Friend Lord McLoughlin, who is a former Transport Secretary. I do not know whether the rumours are true—I have not seen the report—but to come to this House and complain about the giving of a job in transport to a former Transport Secretary, one of the best informed people in the country about transport, is, in a word, eccentric.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Earlier this week I received notification that the Carleton post office in my constituency, which had previously been described as temporarily closed, is now permanently closed. Residents in Woodside join a long, long list of communities in my constituency who have had this vital service withdrawn from them. The biggest single reason is that the business model that the Post Office insists on simply does not make sense to retailers of any size. Can the Secretary of State, who owns the Post Office, be brought before this Chamber to give a statement about what he is going to do to address this crisis, before there are no more post offices left to shut?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Government are committed to a UK-wide network of post offices, which is why we have set the national access criteria. Those require that nationally, 90% of the UK population should be within one mile of the nearest post office branch, and that nationally, 99% of the UK population should be within three miles of the nearest post office branch.

While post office branch numbers can fluctuate between areas and regions, the Post Office works hard with communities to ensure that service is maintained. That can include solutions such as mobile or other types of outreach services when necessary. There is a policy to deal with this, and the Government take the issue of access to post offices very seriously.

Business of the House

Debate between Peter Grant and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 2nd December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point and, obviously, I am sorry for the delays in replies. I have noticed in terms of my own constituency correspondence that the replies from the DHSC have got much better in the past few weeks—they have become much more prompt. I hope that that is a common experience. She asks for an important debate. I suggest initially that that should be an Adjournment debate to raise the specific questions that she wants to raise, and then she could look to the Backbench Business Committee. This is an issue of great importance. The Government do devote money to investigating cures for childhood cancers, but she is so right to raise the issue.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Last week, in a written statement, the Government ended 31 years of cover-up and admitted that, in August 1990, the Government of the day had sufficient time to warn British Airways not to allow flight 149 to land at Kuwait airport, which was then being over-run by Saddam Hussain. The Government failed to give that warning and, of course, we all know that the passengers and crew were seized and subjected to unspeakable mistreatment for a lengthy time before finally being released. While the written apology last week is welcome, does the Leader of the House not agree that these matters are serious enough to merit at least an oral statement and, ideally, a lengthy debate in Government time, so that the full facts of that dreadful affair can finally be made public?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

This matter has been raised in the House before. Governments should always try to put right mistakes that have been made by their predecessor Governments. This Government cannot take responsibility for what was done by Government 31 years ago. However, as we were discussing with Primodos earlier, when Government make mistakes there is no point in a successor Government trying to pretend that it was not a mistake. However, what is done has to be practical and have reasonable effect, so one needs to investigate what would be the benefit of this to work out where to go next. But I think Adjournment debates are a suitable way of starting as specific an issue as this.

Business of the House

Debate between Peter Grant and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 18th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady raises something that has been of concern. Steps have been taken to help people with energy bills, including contributing £140 to the energy bills of 2.2 million low-income households. I accept that there is uncertainty when energy suppliers go out of business and how that is handled. If she has any specific requests for information for constituents, I would be happy to help her to meet that.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I advise the Leader of the House that I was here on Tuesday for the Finance Bill. The debate was well subscribed on the SNP Benches. There was precisely one Back-Bench contribution from the Conservative party. I counted the contributions three times just to make sure I had not got it wrong. I will be speaking later this afternoon on the Critical Benchmarks (References and Administrators’ Liability) Bill. Can the Leader of the House explain why it is necessary to complete its entire passage through this House in a single day? Unusually, I do not think the total debate time of six hours is an issue, but the lack of a Public Bill Committee and of an opportunity to call expert witnesses are serious problems. At the moment, the House has not been told why the Bill has been timetabled in this way. Will the Leader of the House explain why, and say why the Government did not follow their usual practice of explaining their actions in the explanatory notes?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

There has been a great deal of pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill to ensure that it is widely understood and accepted. The Bill is technical in nature.

Not a single amendment has been tabled to the Bill today, which indicates that there is widespread consent across the House. The most open form of debate and scrutiny is a Committee of the whole House, where every Member is able to be involved. I am afraid I disagree with the hon. Gentleman; I think it is a sensible way to proceed with a piece of legislation that has been very thoroughly considered and that ensures that the technical operations of the City of London in relation to interest rates and critical benchmarks can go ahead properly.

Business of the House

Debate between Peter Grant and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 21st October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very concerned to hear what the hon. Lady says. It is obviously important that people receive their pension on the correct date. She, like many other Members of Parliament, is providing a useful service to her constituents by getting in touch with the DWP. I will pass on what has been said, but this is something that should happen correctly as a matter of routine.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Fife Council is one of over 90% of local authorities in Scotland that have given firm commitments of provision of housing for Afghan nationals and others who have had to be evacuated from Afghanistan recently. So I was very concerned to read a few days ago that a Minister in the Home Office, during a private press briefing, had said that the figure in Scotland was just over 50% and that only 18 or 19 out of 32 councils had given that commitment. Can we have a statement from the Home Office, first, to update Members on the fantastic work that has been done across these islands to support those who have been evacuated from Afghanistan, and, in particular, to put the record straight on just how comprehensive the support from Scotland’s local authorities has been?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I obviously do not know what was said in private meetings that I was not at. I would never put too much weight on gossip from private meetings; it is not always accurate. We should be proud of what councils have done. Having had a pop at Bath and North East Somerset Council earlier for making driving in Bath completely impossible, it has been extremely good as a council in terms of immediately volunteering to help take Afghan nationals and that is, I think, a spirit that has arisen across the land.

Business of the House

Debate between Peter Grant and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Wednesday 30th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because she touches on what I and others have been trying to do since we rose for the Easter recess in March. It is so important that Parliament operates, and I take this opportunity to thank the shadow Leader of the House, who has been very supportive in ensuring that Parliament could operate, and, obviously, Mr Speaker and the Clerks. It is reassuring to know that Members across the House are so enthusiastic for our proper business to carry on. Early on, people wondered whether a functioning democracy was actually an essential part of the nation’s activities. We always felt that it was and that we had to ensure that democratic representation went on, because the best Governments are the ones that are well and effectively scrutinised.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) [V]]

If the Leader of the House thinks that the current arrangements represent a covid-secure Parliament, he must have been attending a different Parliament from the one I attended in the last four weeks before Christmas, and if he thinks that that represents a functioning democracy, he must be living on a different planet from most of us.

My Trade Agreements (Exclusion of National Health Services) Bill is due to receive its Second Reading in early January—in fact, there may be a decision of the House on that later today. A large number of MPs have told me that they would be keen to speak in that debate, and it would be perfectly easy to allow them to do that remotely, but the Leader of the House is determined that they must instead travel from all over the United Kingdom to Westminster, inevitably creating an additional risk of spreading the virus. Will he agree to reconsider his dogmatic and irrational opposition to allowing full participation in all proceedings of the House so that MPs who want to speak in support of our NHS can do so without themselves running the risk of placing an extra burden on our health services?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am a bit puzzled, because I irrationally and dogmatically brought forward a motion earlier today that allows exactly what the hon. Gentleman wants.

Participation in Debates

Debate between Peter Grant and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Monday 16th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the point she makes and for her attendance at the House. I recognise that the issues she raises are problems for right hon. and hon. Members. Where I disagree with her is in the view that our constituents are not also having to do that. Our constituents who are key workers do have to travel and go to different places, and that is why there are not travel restrictions on key workers. That is of fundamental importance. That is why it is right that she is here and why it is important that other Members are here. As I said earlier, democracy is not a nice-to-have bauble; it is essential to the governance of the country.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) [V]]

I am astonished that the Leader of the House continues to insist that anyone who is a designated key worker is having to work normally. That is simply not the case. Key worker status has nothing to do with whether someone has to attend work. It was invented at the start of the pandemic to provide prioritisation for key workers who needed, for example, childcare arrangements so that someone could look after their children while they went to work. The Office for National Statistics estimated last year that about one third of the workforce would be categorised as key workers.

If the Leader of the House is suggesting that one third of the workforce should be going about their normal day-to-day work as if nothing had happened, that is surely a recipe for disaster. He does not understand what “key worker” means; he does not understand the fact that Select Committees have already seen their meeting schedules torn to pieces by the restrictions on broadcast capacity within the House; he does not even understand the statement from his own Prime Minister, because the Prime Minister said that anyone over 60 should minimise contact with others. It would take out about 140 Members of the House of Commons, including me, if we followed the Prime Minister’s advice.

May I suggest to the Leader of the House that he goes and finds out the facts of what he is talking about and then come to the House with a proposal that allows anybody who has a legitimate reason for not being able to travel to the House to play a full part in the proceedings by video call—by remote means—in exactly the same way as the national Parliaments in Scotland and elsewhere are able to work perfectly satisfactorily?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

If anyone looks around the Chamber, they will see that we are not working normally. It is not a question of working normally: we see the markings on the floor, the tape, the stickers, the “no entry” signs where prayer cards normally go. The House is not working normally; Perspex screens have been put up. This has been done to make it a covid-secure workplace. I do not think there is any question that all key workers are working normally, but it is important that they are at work, and most need to be at work, as we do. That is the point that I would make, but is it normal here? No, and the issues the hon. Gentleman raises about Select Committees are absolutely right. Of course it has been difficult to make Select Committees run in the same way as they did before the pandemic. The issues have applied in Westminster Hall, too, where the numbers who can attend are limited, and Members are not able to intervene in the way they normally would. That is true; we are not working normally, but we are continuing to work.

Business of the House

Debate between Peter Grant and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 17th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right in what he says about the UKIM Bill strengthening our hand. We left with a deal in January, and planning for the end of the transition period is well under way, co-ordinated by the XO—Exit Operations—Cabinet Committee, to make sure that we are ready to seize the great opportunities of being outside the single market and the customs union. With the Bill going through Parliament, I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government will have full legal ability to maintain the sovereignty of our nation and the integrity of our internal market. We have launched a comprehensive communications campaign to make sure that people and businesses know what they need to do to prepare for the end of the transition period. That remains a central priority of the Government and Departments.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) [V]]

May I first correct the Leader of the House’s assertion, which he repeated again this morning, that those of us who are working from home are somehow not at work? That will certainly be news to my wonderful constituency team, who dealt with a fourfold increase in casework this year without having to set foot in our office.

The Leader of the House says that he wants Parliament to be a safe place for people to work. He must know that some Members of Parliament are making it a more dangerous place by deliberately flouting safe distancing requirements in the Chamber, the voting queues and elsewhere. What steps is he taking to ensure that all MPs set a good example by complying with health and safety requirements in the House, and by being polite to members of staff whose job it is to help keep everybody safe?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman’s very last point is of fundamental importance. Mr Speaker, both you and I have made it clear to all staff of the House, particularly the Doorkeepers and security people, that they are allowed to remind Members, and all other people on the estate, of the need to maintain social distancing. It would be quite wrong for any Member to be high-handed when asked to remember the requirements of social distancing. I do not think one should be too critical because inevitably, human nature being what it is, things will not always be perfect, but the work that has been done to make this a covid-secure workplace is terrific. There are markings on the floor, things are spaced out and the seats in the Chamber have been limited to ensure that we are covid-safe. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might like to come down and see how well it is working.

Business of the House

Debate between Peter Grant and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I know that the hon. Gentleman has suffered personally from skin cancer and I reinforce what he is trying to do to ensure that more people know about it, so there is greater awareness and so that treatment can be faster and quicker. I therefore think it is a very suitable subject for debate, because Westminster Hall debates do have the effect of raising awareness, and I wish him extraordinarily well both in his personal health and in this campaign. However, he knows procedures of the House better than I do, and he is aware that Westminster Hall debates and Adjournment debates are organised, assuming the House is sitting, before recess motions are taken, and that they then get changed. Government business in Government time is not announced unless a recess motion has been either not taken or sorted out. So it is routine for Westminster Hall to have an announcement for next Tuesday, regardless of tomorrow’s motion.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

May I reveal to the House that the Leader of the House unintentionally learned some guid Scots words more than 20 years ago when he was knocking doors in my constituency, and that what he referred to was not a constitutional coup but a constitutional cowp, which I think well describes the position the Government have got us into. May I ask him, even at this late stage, to think again about the necessity to close down Parliament in order for the Conservative party to have its annual conference? I do not think anybody is suggesting that it should be cancelled, because it has been pointed out that that would have serious economic implications for Manchester, among other things, but this will be the fifth year in succession that members of the Scottish National party in this House have had successfully to manage the fact that we are expected to be here as Members of Parliament at the same time as our party members want us to be at our party conference. This year, the conference is in Aberdeen, which is more or less twice as far from here as Manchester is. The Queen’s Speech is right in the middle of our conference, yet we will manage that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) has had to make some extraordinarily difficult and tortuous journeys to combine both duties. If 35 SNP Members can manage that every year, surely almost 300 Conservative MPs can manage it just this once. Let the conference go ahead, but let us have Members of Parliament in the House doing the job they have been elected to do.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman reminds everybody that I stood in his constituency many years ago, in1997. Standing in Glenrothes was a great honour and privilege, and the people of his constituency are fantastic people—[Interruption.] They did not vote for me, but that is a separate matter. That does not stop them being good people. I am not so exclusive in my view of good people. I was very touched on becoming Lord President of the Council to get a letter of congratulation from Elizabeth Scott, who in 1997 was chairman of the Conservative Association in Glenrothes—a small but perfectly formed Conservative Association.

I am very conscious of the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. It is a long-standing problem that the SNP conference takes place when the House is sitting. What I would say to him in relation to the Conservative party conference is that we have had no notice of this change, whereas the SNP was aware when booking its conference that the House would be sitting. I therefore do not think that the two are exactly comparable, but I am certainly sympathetic to the situation that he and his party find themselves in.

Legislating for the Withdrawal Agreement

Debate between Peter Grant and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Monday 10th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

We can be more generous. I am in favour of generosity to people who are legally here and who have made their lives in the United Kingdom. There must be some point at which, if they separate their lives from the United Kingdom and have not applied for British citizenship, the status might not be perpetual, but they should be looked after and protected, and we should always remember that they came here legally and that we are not a nation of retrospective legislation.

Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), I think that other continental countries will reciprocate, because they are civilised nations. We are dealing with allies and friends, so this should never have been a topic of negotiation. We should simply have set out our stall and said what we would do. I am glad that it is now clear that in the event of our leaving on WTO terms, we will protect the rights of EU member state nationals who are living in this country. That is the first point on legislation on withdrawing from the European Union, and I am all in favour of generosity.

The second point is law, which was covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who has great experience in these areas. We were lucky that the Henry VIII clauses in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 were, by and large, removed, as they would have allowed all European law to have been brought back through the back door. It would have gone out through the front door and returned through the back door. Now, primary legislation will be needed, but that primary legislation is dubious, because it will produce a vassal state—Gulliver tied down by the Lilliputians; this great nation state tied down by petty bureaucrats, running all over us, tying us down with ropes—because we will have to do whatever the European Union says during the implementation period. Our senior law will be made by a foreign body in which we have no say and no vote, and with which we have no association. Our money will go to—

[Peter Grant]

Which Europe are we dealing with: the one that is all friends and civilised countries that would never knowingly do anything bad to us; or a lot of miniature people who want to tie us down and, presumably, leave us to drown when the tide comes in? Or does the hon. Gentleman have a way to prevent the tide from coming in?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is confusing me with the much-maligned late King Canute, who was accused of trying to hold the tide back when, in fact, he wanted to show that it was not possible to do so. The bureaucracy of the European Union is something to which I am strongly opposed, but that does not mean that I do not admire the individual member states and think of them as great countries and friendly allies. The two are completely different. Even if they were the same, while I may have a great friend, I would not want him to rule my life. There is no logical connection.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As so often, the United Kingdom is leading by example. To paraphrase that great quotation from Pitt the Younger, we have saved ourselves by our exertion and we will save Europe by our example. We should always remember that as we make this great exertion—this worthy and noble exertion.

To have a period of 21 months, however, during which our senior law in this country cannot be stopped and our senior court is the European Court of Justice is a great mistake. It is an aspect of the legislation for which I, for one, will find it extremely difficult to vote, because there was another way—an alternative route. In terms of the courts, it is what we do with our own courts in relation to human rights challenges.

If the domestic court—the Supreme Court—decides that a bit of primary legislation fails to meet the requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998, there is a fast-tracked way of amending legislation through statutory instrument. That means, however, that if the House of Commons is against the change and wills to make the move that is against the Act, it is free to do so. That maintains control under our democratic processes, and that is how the Government should be proceeding in relation to judgments of the ECJ—or the CJEU, if you prefer—during the implementation period. We would, in the normal course, want to accept them, because we would still have treaty obligations, but they should come to Parliament to be passed into our law by statutory instrument. That would give us a straightforward reserve power not to act it if we felt that the proposal was not the right thing.

Equally, the same should apply to new laws. New laws being made by the European Union, over which we will have no say, could do specific damage to areas of our interest. There could be laws affecting the City of London, in which I have certain interests—I draw people’s attention to my relevant declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. They are not just my interests, however; they are the interests of the nation at large, and we want to protect them and to prevent unfavourable legislation over which we have no control from being passed.

What is Her Majesty’s Government’s best defence of this ability of a foreign set-up to make laws for this land, which is something that I cannot think any country has ever voluntarily agreed to before? Countries have become colonies, but normally that is after a little encouragement, usually at the end of a bayonet, spear or some such. It is most unusual—unprecedented, in fact—to volunteer to allow a foreign organisation to make one’s laws.

[Peter Grant]

Scotland did it.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

No, that is not quite true. The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant)—a great seat for which I once stood, in 1997, although not with enormous success—says that, but Scotland did not do that. Scotland became part of a greater whole, and how many Scottish Prime Ministers have we had who have led this country with great distinction? We became one, rather than simply farming out legislation to somebody else.

What is the Government’s best answer? It is that the EU is so slow—so slothful and sluggish—that in a period of 21 months, it could not institute any new laws and therefore we should not worry our little heads about it. This is a really unsatisfactory answer. It is not impossible for the EU to move swiftly, and it has done so the past. This is a golden opportunity for the EU to legislate in a way that we do not like, and we will have no say at all. I go back to the solution I have suggested for the courts: no new law without a vote in Parliament—and not a scrutiny vote. Although it is a very important Committee, the European Scrutiny Committee has never been able to stop any directive or regulation from coming in, and regulations have direct effect without any vote or scrutiny in Parliament anyway. There needs to be a vote as if for a statutory instrument. It is an abnegation of democracy to allow our law to be changed in this way, and this is a part of the White Paper that must be rejected.

English Votes on English Laws

Debate between Peter Grant and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 7th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very interesting point. I think this is covered in the Standing Order, but it may need further revision. The Standing Order makes provision for the Speaker to certify that where a matter is about to be devolved, it has already been devolved and therefore in the legislation should require an English vote. It therefore follows logically that if a matter is about to be undevolved, because the relevant devolved Assembly cannot come to a decision, the Speaker ought to certify differently. It may be that the Standing Order needs an amendment to clarify that, but it is certainly within the spirit of the Standing Order as currently written. It is ensuring an equality of all Members of Parliament because no legislation can pass without a majority in this House.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who was nearly the Member for Central Fife many years ago. Just to make sure that I have understood this proposal, does it also apply to Member of the other place? Or are we creating a situation in which Scottish MPs who successfully retain the trust of their constituents and get re-elected to this place become disqualified from legislating, whereas former Scottish MPs who get kicked out of here but then get appointed to another place are rewarded for their failure by being allowed to legislate on matters from which the democratically elected MPs are excluded?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me to go down the path of the elected Scottish peers, which there used to be in the other place, but that is not relevant to this debate, which is on the process within the House of Commons and its Standing Orders. He does, however, bring me neatly on to why I think it is so crucial that this is done through Standing Orders, not through legislation.

European Union (Finance) Bill

Debate between Peter Grant and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 23rd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Being more traditional, I prefer a minimum per acre, but otherwise I am broadly in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman. I agree that it is not right to look at the issue purely in terms of the landowner, because that discourages consolidation. As Conservatives, we are in favour of efficiency in all industries, but the subsidy system across Europe not only disadvantages our farmers, but discourages consolidation and efficiency. That cannot be the right approach.

[Peter Grant]

Is the hon. Gentleman telling us that consolidation and enlargement always equal efficiency? Does he not recognise that, especially in agriculture, there are significant community and social benefits to allowing small, family owned farms to continue in existence?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

There are great advantages to having small, family owned farms, but we need an efficient agricultural system that provides the food and produce the country needs. I do not think one should be unduly sentimental for agriculture against other industries. As a lover of the countryside and of our rural traditions, I am tempted to fall in line with the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant). The constituency was called Central Fife when I stood there—unsuccessfully, just for the record. However, although I am sympathetic to his point, I think it is important to have efficient agriculture first when spending other hard-pressed taxpayers’ money. It ought not to be entirely about sentimentality.