Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2016 Commons Chamber

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

In broad terms, the Budget is extremely welcome. It continues the extremely sensible policies that the Chancellor set out as long ago as 2010, the essence of which is on page 127 of the Red Book, which sets out receipts and expenditure as percentages of GDP. Tax receipts will run at 35.7%, 36.3%, 36.9%, 36.9% and 37% of GDP over the next few years, which is in accordance with the normal long-run averages. Only in the highest years of tax receipts, going back to the 1970s, has taxation in this country managed to get as high as 38%. That sets out a limit for public expenditure if there is to be a balance, which it is obviously important to achieve when the economy is going well. We therefore see that public expenditure will be managed in line with the receipts that will come in, so that expenditure will be less than receipts by the end of the period.

That is absolutely what the Chancellor promised all those years ago when he said that he would mend the roof when the sun was shining. A glimmer of sun has come through the clouds of international crisis and the Chancellor has been busy on his ladder fixing the roof with his nails, his hammer and his wood. The process is now nearing completion, for which he deserves a great deal of credit.

Turning to the details of the Budget, the Chancellor also deserves much credit for his reforms of corporate taxation. It was Napoleon who first called us a nation of shopkeepers, and I noticed that the Chancellor quoted Napoleon in his speech. That may say something about his European ambitions, with which I am in less agreement, but we are indeed a nation of shopkeepers. Reducing the burdens of rates, VAT and bureaucracy is only to be welcomed and is thoroughly desirable. Ensuring that multinationals pay taxation according to law is also desirable, but it is always worth remembering that tax avoidance is perfectly legal. If tax is being avoided, it is for this House to change the law so that tax must be paid. It is not some moral virtue to pay more tax than the law requires, so removing loopholes is to be much commended.

I fully support the broad thrust of what the Chancellor is doing. He has got it right, and most of his tax measures are welcome, particularly his changes to personal taxation, an area in which I would like him to go further. Having made £8 billion from cutting the top rate of income tax from 50p to 45p in the pound, he should go further in an exuberant, Laffer-like fashion and cut it back to the rate at which Gordon Brown had it throughout his period as Chancellor.

The area with which I find the most disagreement is found on page 19 of the Red Book, which sets out the economic opportunities and risks linked to the UK’s membership of the European Union. [Interruption.] I am delighted that the nationalists, who so crave independence for themselves, none the less wish to be shackled to the European Union—it is one of their idiosyncrasies that many of us find so charming. If I may, I will deal with that extraordinarily tendentious page, strewn with errors, overstatement and over-egging the pudding. Let us start with the very first line, which states:

“Membership of the EU has increased the UK’s openness to trade and investment”.

That is entirely disputable. In fact, all our membership has done is put us in a customs union with very high levels of regulation and a high external tariff. The tariff on dairy products coming into this country is 42%, much to the disadvantage of our friends in New Zealand. So EU membership has not made us more open; it has closed us to some areas.

Page 19 continues with the statement:

“The UK’s full access to the single market…clearly increases the openness of the British economy”.

There is a word for that, and it is “balderdash”. What access to the single market does is put the dead hand of regulation on the 95% of British businesses that never trade with the continent. They are suffering from that regulation, and their business is made harder to do. This has nothing to do with openness; it is to do with burdens.

Then we get to a bit that I think shows the Chancellor’s wonderful and sophisticated sense of humour. He says:

“At the February 2016 European Council, the Prime Minister secured a new settlement for the UK in a reformed EU.”

It has to be said that the EU was most certainly not reformed at that Council, and our settlement in it was so small as to be hardly noticeable. At the same time it gave away our ability to veto any treaty for fiscal union to follow the monetary union. We said we would do nothing to obstruct that, so we gave away our strongest negotiating hand for nothing—for thin gruel.

[Jim Shannon]

It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. Gentleman’s contributions in the House—we enjoy them very much. Does he agree that one thing the Prime Minister did not secure was anything for the fishing sector, and that he also secured very little for the farming community? Does he agree that the Prime Minister should have tried to get a settlement with those two things at the forefront of his agenda, to try to achieve things for those sectors? Those were just two sectors that he neglected.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely that fishing and farming—the common fisheries policy and the common agricultural policy—are two of the great disasters of the European Union. The fact that they are not reformed and take so much of the budget—40% in the case of agriculture—is a considerable disgrace.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I was listening to my hon. Friend and waiting for farming to come up. Is he aware that the National Farmers Union in Shropshire and the NFU nationally want to remain in the EU, believing that being an active member of the EU is actually very good for British farming?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Oh the great panjandrums, all with glee, merrily gather to support the Government, in the hope of their knighthoods, their peerages and so on. But when I speak to Somerset farmers, the finest farmers in the land, I see that they value the independence of their nation above a cheap ride from Brussels. Furthermore, we pay into the CAP almost double what we get out, so our farmers could have more money if we were independent.

[Mark Pritchard]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I will not give way again, because I do not get a bonus minute for doing so and I need my minutes in this particular debate.

I want to get on to the third paragraph on page 19 of the Red Book, which talks of the “profound economic shock” that would be created by leaving. There is the over-egging of the pudding to which I was referring. The OBR is characteristically measured, saying that in the timescales with which it deals it is not possible to model any changes from leaving the European Union, but the Red Book says otherwise. It states that there will be years of uncertainty, but that assumes that our partners in Europe will lie and cheat. But they are our friends, or so the Government will have us believe, and article 50 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union provides for a very straightforward two-year process for extracting ourselves, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said he will exercise if Brexit is successful. Again, what the Red Book says is exaggerated, wrong and bordering on the hysterical. It then goes on to talk about the single market in services, but that has still not been completed. It was something the Prime Minister was arguing for and did not get in the rather hopeless renegotiation he tried in Brussels not so long ago.

The final paragraph of page 19 states:

“Remaining in a reformed EU will make the UK stronger, safer and better off.”

[Interruption.] The Solicitor-General cheers from a sedentary position, as he has cheered these points since he was speaking to Edward Heath many years ago and thought that that was the way forward.

The EU fails in all that it does: it fails in the common agricultural policy; it fails in the common fisheries policy; and it fails in migration policy. The euro has been ruinous for those member states that have joined it. The idea that we are richer and securer with this disastrous project is cloud cuckoo land stuff. It is broad sunlit uplands for the UK economy if we deregulate, if we trade with the rest of the world, and if we look beyond this narrow European focus.

You will remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, that when Gordon Brown was Chancellor of the Exchequer, Conservatives complained that the Red Book, instead of being the austere document that set out the facts of the economy, was used to spin the Government’s view of the world. What a pity it is that this Red Book is following the Gordon Brown model of Red Books, rather than that higher tone that previous Tory Chancellors have followed.

I want to finish with one point on which I disagree with Her Majesty’s Government even more than I do over Europe—[Hon. Members: “Surely not!”] Surely, yes. I am talking about the outrageous proposals to bring my county of Somerset under the yoke of Bristol in this devolved metro Mayor system that none of my constituents want. We admire Bristol. We think Bristol is a fine and fabulous city, but it does not need to have Somerset money to subsidise it. It can live off its own. We tried all this with Avon. What Avon meant was that Somerset paid and Bristol spent. I am glad to say that the unitary authorities of the west of England area—what used to be known as Avon and will be Avon again if the Government have their way—will each individually be able to vote down this proposal. I will urge councillors in north-east Somerset—I know that councillors in north Somerset have previously rejected the same idea—to stand firm and not be bullied by the Government. They should not be seduced by £30 million a year, which is considerably less divided by four than the cuts that they have successfully implemented over the past six years. They must be bold and independent. I want independence for my nation, and I want independence for my county.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Join us!

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am not Scottish; otherwise I hate to think what I might be saying in that regard. I am a Briton, and I am for the Union because my country is the United Kingdom. I want freedom for the United Kingdom and freedom for Somerset. I say no to devolution and no to European tyranny.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I know that Russia Today is the favoured channel of the Labour leadership, but this is Treasury questions. We are raising with the European Union—this is another example of where being part of a bigger club helps—the possibility of getting a pan-European agreement for country-by-country public reporting so that we can see what multinational companies are paying in different countries. Of course, our ability to achieve that is amplified by being part of the EU.

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

If my right hon. Friend’s rather apocalyptic view of our leaving the European Union is correct, was it not irresponsible and inaccurate of the Prime Minister to say that he ruled nothing out prior to the completion of the most unsatisfactory renegotiation?

[Mr Osborne]

We have secured a renegotiation that I think addresses the principal British concerns about our membership of the European Union, and now we can advocate membership of this reformed EU. I think we will be stronger, safer and better off in that European Union.

Electoral Law

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd February 2016 General Committees

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

May I say what a pleasure it is to be serve under your chairmanship for the first time in the new year, Mr Howarth?

The proposed Council decision, which is, I am glad to say, subject to unanimity and ratification by member states, aims to harmonise certain aspects of the conduct of European Parliament elections in member states. Initiated by the European Parliament on the basis of article 223(1) of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, its more significant measures include common deadlines for establishing lists of candidates and electoral registers; making members of regional parliaments and legislative Assemblies ineligible for election as MEPs; proposals concerning the gender equality of candidates; proposals on electronic and postal voting; some mandatory 3% to 5% thresholds for winning seats; proposals relating to voting by EU mobile citizens and their data; incorporating the spitzenkandidaten process, under which there is a pretence of electing the Commission President; and making provision for detailed implementing rules. However, it does not include aspirational proposals, only set out in the European Parliament’s resolution, such as a common minimum voting age of 16 and a common voting day.

On 13 January, the European Scrutiny Committee recommended a reasoned opinion on the proposed Council decision. The reasoned opinion procedure, introduced by the Lisbon treaty, allows national Parliaments to object to a draft legislative act if they consider that it breaches subsidiarity. That principle requires that decisions should be taken as close to the citizen as possible. National Parliaments have eight weeks from transmission of a proposal to submit a reasoned opinion. If such opinions represent one third of all votes of national Parliaments, they constitute a yellow card. The initiator of the proposal, in this case the European Parliament, must review it. The EU Committee in the House of Lords has also decided to recommend a reasoned opinion. The Government have expressed some subsidiarity concerns, saying that some aspects of the proposal are best decided at national level. Their main concern appears to be that uniform practice for European parliamentary elections would be inconsistent with domestic electoral practices, making it difficult for the UK to hold European parliamentary and local elections at the same time, resulting in further reduced turnouts for European parliamentary elections.

The European Scrutiny Committee concluded in its reasoned opinion that there is no detailed subsidiarity statement in the draft legislative act, so the European Parliament has failed to comply with an essential procedural requirement; there is, in any case, insufficient substantiation in the resolution and the European “added value” assessment; and the proposal’s objective of creating a uniform electoral procedure to enhance the European Parliament’s democratic legitimacy through electoral equality is undermined by harmonisation at a level of detail which divorces the European Parliament’s electoral procedure from well-established and recognised domestic procedures. Bearing that in mind, the European Scrutiny Committee has raised specific objections questioning the European Union’s “added value” benefits of all of the significant measures outlined, excepting the measures on spitzenkandidaten and implementing rules.

The European Scrutiny Committee was not assisted greatly in this task by the Government’s inadequate subsidiarity and financial assessment of the proposal for the reasons set out in paragraphs 1.7 and 1.8 of its report, and so asks the Minister to comment on that.

[Chair]

I call the Minister to make an opening statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We have until 10 am for questions to the Minister. I remind Members that they should be brief. It is open to a Member, subject to my discretion, to ask a related supplementary question.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I have only one question for my hon. Friend and neighbour. The proposal before the Commission is subject to unanimity. Will the Government undertake to veto the proposal?

[John Penrose]

I am not sure of the formal status of our reasoned opinion, but as I plan to state later on, we disagree with large chunks of the proposal, so I cannot see that we will approve it in any form.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Caerphilly. Like him, I am a convinced European, but I am convinced about it as a geographic entity, rather than as a political one—I have rather more suspicions than him about that, and those suspicions are highlighted by the documents that we are considering.

The text adopted by the European Parliament is something to which all hon. Members should pay careful attention, because it sets out with great clarity and honesty the ambition of the European Parliament: how it views itself, and what it wants to get out of the process. It is a fascinating document, because although the view it expresses is the opposite of mine, that is the reality of where the European Union aims to go. It is clear in the document that the European Parliament sees itself at the forefront of creating a single European state.

Looking at the 35 reasons for why this proposal is necessary which are set out by the European Parliament, a common thread runs through them of our fundamental nature as citizens not of the United Kingdom but of a state called Europe. I promise that I will not go through all these points. Although the time is available, it would try the patience of hon. Members. Point B states that the aim is to,

“reinforce the concept of citizenship of the Union, improve the functioning of the European Parliament and the governance of the Union, make the work of the European Parliament more legitimate”.

It is about giving the European Parliament more power and more authority because of this concept of citizenship. Point E addresses voters’ lack of interest, with a particular concern for younger voters, stating that,

“voters’ lack of interest in European issues is posing a threat to the future of Europe, and whereas there is therefore”

—that is a particularly ugly construction, even considering that it must have been translated from several languages. I hate to think what the Finnish might be for “whereas there is therefore”—

“a need for ideas that will help to revive European democracy”.

I do not believe in European democracy. I believe in the democracy of the United Kingdom and of France and of Germany coming together as nation states, not in this broader concept. However, the European Parliament is quite clear about it. The document continues with a statement, as the hon. Member for Caerphilly said, of the power of the European Parliament, which,

“now has equal status as co-legislator with the Council in most of the Union’s policy areas”.

The European Parliament’s competencies have been gradually increasing, so it has got a long way towards what it wants to achieve with these advancing competencies. Point K sets out that the concept of citizenship of the Union,

“includes the right of Union citizens to participate in European and municipal elections”.

This focuses on the creation of citizenship of a single state, with the concern that electoral campaigning remains national. In this country it is entirely national, and there was hardly any mention of what was going on in continental Europe during our last European Parliamentary elections. That is because we believe in the nation state. The European Parliament is pushing again and again towards the creation of a single state. Point M states that,

“European political parties are best placed to ‘contribute to forming European political awareness’”.

Well, I am a member of the Conservative party, as people may have realised, or, if hon. Members prefer, the Tory party—that may in some ways be more suitable for me. It is technically a European party. It has a function within the geographic continent of Europe, but I must confess that I have never thought it was my role to contribute to forming European political awareness except as something to object to. The European Parliament has adopted a European awareness about Europe as a single state. This is made clear in point U, which states that,

“establishing a common European voting day would better reflect common participation by citizens across the Union, reinforce participatory democracy and help create a more coherent pan-European election”.

It is trying to create a legitimacy that is certainly not there at the moment for their scheme to create a single federal state. This is of the greatest importance. Point AI, which is the last point to which I shall refer and indeed the last point in the document, refers to,

“the principle of degressive proportionality”.

Again, I do not really know what “degressive proportionality” means. This is one of the problems with European documents. One has to get into the interstices of these documents to try to find out what they might mean in plain English, and then reveal that as far as one can in these Committees. It continues,

“the principle of degressive proportionality enshrined in the TEU has contributed significantly to the common ownership of the European project between all Member States”.

We all know what that European project is. It is about the advance to a single state in which the European Parliament is the Parliament of the European Union and we become a mere assembly within it, perhaps somewhere between a county council and the Scottish Parliament but not a proper national assembly. This document shows the route of travel of the European Union. That is where the current context is so important, because the Government are trying to paint a picture of it going our way—that over there, they are not as ambitious as they once were and they accept that closer European integration was yesterday’s story. We hear it again and again—with magnificent renegotiation, we are finally halting the tide of pro-Europeanism.

Then we have an unnumbered European document, a European Parliament resolution of 11 November 2015 on the reform of the electoral law of the European Union, that gives the game away. This is a usurping and pretending Parliament that seeks to take powers from us and is looking towards fulfilling its ambition of a single European state. The Government must oppose it by veto and we must send forth our clear concern about subsidiarity, but most importantly—above and beyond all the technicalities that we get from reading these papers—we must understand what is happening, what the aim is and what the ambition is. If we quietly discuss it in a Committee of a dozen people, and we do not make sure that it is more widely known that this is what is happening, we will find—regardless of renegotiation or referendum—that we are in a greater European state.

[Wayne David]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important to keep things in perspective? What we have here is a view from the European Parliament, expressed—I suspect—by just a few MEPs who happened to get together in a Committee. It does not reflect the view of member state Governments or the people of Europe.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is brilliant, and it is always a pleasure to take his interventions and hear his wonderful exposition of how this is all fine. He says it is a very mild document from the European Parliament, and that the European Parliament does not really matter. I am sure that he did not say that when he was sitting in Strasbourg or going back and forth between Strasbourg and Brussels.

This is a document that has been approved by the European Parliament. The European Parliament is one of the three pillars of the European Union, alongside the Commission and the Council. The idea that this is a quiet paper put forward by a few MEPs on the European Parliament equivalent of an all-party parliamentary group, to be read in a village hall in Surbiton—if it has one—is absurd. This is a really serious document that has gone before the Council and is now a Council proposal. It is within one unanimous vote by the Council of being adopted as law across the European Union.

Fortunately, the Government have a veto and have indicated that they will use it. That is extremely good news, but it is a wonderful concoction to suggest that the document is something mild that can just be ignored. I wish it were so and that the European Parliament could be so easily dismissed, but regrettably it has become a major player in the development of the European project—understandably, because MEPs want power for themselves. That is probably why they stand for election and, as the hon. Gentleman said, Parliaments are always looking for more powers. But since Lisbon, it has a lot of them and this is a further push. What is so important about it is that it shows the reality of what is aimed for in the EU—the direction of travel has not changed. We may go down the road at a slightly slower pace—we may be on a bicycle when other members of the European Union are in Ferraris—but the destination is the same.

Financial Conduct Authority

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2016 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) and to learn the phrase, “Couldn’t run a ménage”, which I hope will replace, “Couldn’t run a whelk stall”. I have always thought that was probably rather difficult anyway, so “ménage” is a better term.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) on bringing forward this debate and on his amazing achievement in getting some redress of grievance not only for his own constituents but for many of our constituents, mine included. The Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation behaved quite disgracefully towards one of my constituents. It sold an interest rate swap that was larger than the loan outstanding—it was a condition of the loan taken out —and then, when interest rates fell, it revalued the loan to say that his loaned value was beneath the required level. It therefore put him in special measures and started to impose penal interest rates, and then when I got in touch, it said that under data protection it could not talk to me. The whole story was really quite disgraceful and not what one would expect of a major banking corporation. We are all very grateful for what has been done to get some redress for this.

I must refer to my declaration of interests. I am regulated by the FCA and have been for many years. I was regulated by its predecessor body, the FSA, and before that, going back to the mid-1990s, by IMRO—the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation. I do not think I have Stockholm syndrome, but I have to tell the House that I cannot support my hon. Friend’s motion. That is not because I do not think there have been errors of regulation—there have. We know only too well that the tripartite system of regulation prior to the crash in 2008 was a failure—nobody knew precisely who was in charge of what aspect of regulation and how it was to be managed, and in the end nobody was doing it at all. The FCA, however, was only introduced in 2013 and a lot of the problems to which hon. Members have referred predate its creation. This House legislated in the previous Session to try to deal with the problem, so this motion has been tabled much too early, because the FCA has not had the chance to prove that it is different from the FSA. The FSA undoubtedly failed, which is why this House abolished it.

[Guto Bebb]

I appreciate the points my hon. Friend is making—they are entirely reasonable—but I think that the difference between the FSA and FCA is being over-emphasised. The people who were FSA officers when the all-party group on interest rate swap mis-selling was established were the same people as the FCA officers who attended our first meeting after the FCA was established. I think that the degree of change is being overstated.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I do not agree with my hon. Friend on this occasion. Inevitably, some employees remained the same. It would have been extraordinary if all the regulators at the FSA had been fired and sent off to the great regulatory house in the sky. The powers and the responsibilities of the FCA were changed and, indeed, it has carried out an investigation.

The FCA has to be judicious and bear in mind that some people took out swaps knowing full well what they were doing. Not every swap that was sold was mis-sold. Interest rate swaps are a very important safeguard for people who are uncertain of the direction of interest rates. Indeed, with interest rates at their current lows, many people may feel that it is prudent to protect themselves by taking out an interest rate swap. It would be wrong to so overtighten regulation or to be so sensitive to what happened in the past to make beneficial financial instruments unavailable because of historical mis-selling. Each case needs to be looked at on its merits.

When I first took out a mortgage, I did so at a fixed rate because I knew I could afford to pay that rate but was uncertain about whether I could pay a higher rate. That is a prudent and sensible thing for people to do when engaging with the financial sector. The FCA had a big job of work to do in a quasi-judicial role. It could not just arbitrarily decide that all cases were mis-sellings and therefore they all had to be compensated for.

This House, too, needs to be judicious. The motion is really serious. It says that we have no confidence in an arm’s length independent regulator that this House established just three years ago. If we really mean that, we ought to be legislating to create a new one. We should not simply pass a motion; we should say that the body has failed, that it will be abolished as of 1 April and that a new one will be created.

This motion represents an intermediate step whereby the House faces one of two risks. One is that it is passed this evening and, like many other Backbench Business motions, absolutely nothing follows from it. This House would then look foolish. It would look as if whatever we say makes no difference and we would have no future power to bring our authority to bear on independent regulators when things may be more serious.

The other risk is that the chairman of the FCA feels that he has to resign and take responsibility, because there is no chief executive of the moment, which makes this a very strange time to be holding this debate. If the chairman falls on his sword, what would we achieve? One person would go, but the organisation would remain intact because we have not legislated to replace it.

This House should be proud of its constitutional standing and recognise the extraordinary power it has. We can summon people to the Bar of the House if we are sufficiently annoyed with the way they conduct themselves. We can make them answer to Select Committees, and indeed we do. However, if we use that power without due consideration, without being certain and without having every fact at our fingertips that this body, not its predecessors, is the one in which we have no confidence, we undermine the standing of the House of Commons and its ability to do that in future when our case may be better founded.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a typically powerful speech and I agree with much of his argument, but does he not accept that we are here primarily to represent our constituents and that the reason so many Members are upset with the FCA is that it is not giving redress? The time it is taking is so frustrating and the motion puts pressure on it to provide redress.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because I think there is a difficulty with time. Reference has been made to the HBOS report, which took a long time to come forward. Again, it started under the FSA, and the failures were of the FSA, not of the FCA. For a body that has been going for only three years, such a timespan is perhaps not that unreasonable, given that for two of those years it was making a specific investigation.

We have made huge progress, thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy, in achieving redress of grievance. That is enormously important, and it is right to do that. However, a vote of no confidence is the nuclear weapon of Parliament. It is something that brings Governments down. If we pass the motion, it ought to lead to fundamental change at the FCA and resignations, but I fear that we are trying to fire this gun before we have loaded it with gunpowder, and that therefore it will misfire. In that respect, I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw the motion, because I think it has had its effect through the debate.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am sorry to say that we are now going down to five minutes, because of interventions. I call George Kerevan.

Charter for Budget Responsibility

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

I will in due course.

It is increasingly clear that the charter and the fiscal mandate are not economic instruments, but political weapons. This is not an economic debate. It is about the politics of dismantling the welfare state, the closing down of the role of the state, and the redistribution of wealth from the majority to the minority. Austerity is not an economic necessity; it is a political choice.

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

The hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his speech that he wanted to reduce the deficit, but whenever any cut is proposed, he is against it. What would he cut? What would he do to balance the books?

[John McDonnell]

If the hon. Gentleman bears with me, he will discover the answer. He is renowned for his patience.

Tax Credits

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is shocking that a Government who profess to care about democracy should be so afraid of scrutiny.

Today’s changes are substantial and highly controversial, and we oppose them.

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

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Seema Malhotra]

I will in a moment.

These cuts in tax credits will hit working families in every constituency, and they were to be sneaked in through the back door. Indeed, when asked directly during the election campaign whether the Government would cut child tax credit, the Prime Minister said:

“No, I don’t want to do that.”

His statement was repeated on “Question Time” on 1 May. Today’s debate is about a political decision made by the Chancellor which is set to see more than 3 million families lose an average of £1,000 a year.

[Seema Malhotra]

I will in a minute.

This measure is ideologically driven, it is cynical, and it will directly increase levels of poverty in Britain.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[James Cartlidge]

If the measure is passed, will it be Labour’s policy to reverse it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Seema Malhotra]

I will give way in a moment.

Effectively, these regulations, which come into force in April next year, will lower the level at which working tax credit starts to be withdrawn from £6,420 to £3,850, and increase the taper rate at which tax credits are withdrawn from 41% to 48%, meaning that for every £1 earned over the threshold there will be a 48p reduction in the level of tax credit entitlement. As a consequence of these changes to working tax credit, the level at which child tax credit begins to be taken away is lowered from £16,105 to £12,125. This change was not announced in the summer Budget, but is a consequence of steepening the taper for working tax credit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

I will not give way.

These measures will hit families with children the hardest and impact on child poverty at a time when the Government are also abandoning their commitment to eradicating child poverty by 2020, and effectively abolishing the child poverty watchdog. The Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission’s remit will now just be social mobility. Tax credits have played an enormous role in tackling child poverty. I hope that Government Members will think twice before they go through the Lobby tonight.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Seema Malhotra]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Hon. Members]

Hurrah!

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way and I congratulate her on her promotion and her new appointment. She is now more than quarter of an hour into her speech, but we still do not know where the £3.4 billion would be saved from, if not from this measure? The Opposition cannot be credible if they are still going to go for further deficit spending.

[Seema Malhotra]

The hon. Gentleman’s constituents will certainly be pleased to hear him raising their concerns about the likely impact of these changes on their incomes. I hope that he will engage—[Hon. Members: “Answer!”] He has heard the answer before from the Labour party. We certainly would not give tax cuts to the very wealthy in this country, which his party has had a good record of doing over the past five years.

Around 10 million people—a sixth of the population—will be affected by these changes. Every Member in the House represents some of those who will be hit—around half the working families in our constituencies. However, it is heartening to read in media reports today that at least five Members on the Government Back Benches are planning to vote against the changes. We have also heard reports, cited by the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, that the Chancellor spent yesterday talking to anxious Tory MPs and urging them not to defeat him in the vote today, after they took him at his word when he said that the Government represented low-paid workers. I am sorry that Conservative Back Benchers feel let down by their Chancellor, but it is not too late for the Government to change their mind.

It is disappointing that the Government have failed to tackle the real drivers of welfare spending—notably, low pay and the high cost of rent. That failure caused the Department for Work and Pensions to overspend by £25 billion over the last Parliament. The Chancellor has slashed entitlement to housing benefit, including through the bedroom tax and the benefit cap, yet the number of working people being paid housing benefit has still risen by 400,000 since 2010 because working people are not bringing home enough money to pay the rent. The number of people paid less than a living wage has risen by 45% since 2009, with 4.9 million workers today being paid less than the living wage.

This week the Government also launched the most sustained attack on rights at work in 30 years. The Trade Union Bill amounts to a suppression of the democratic rights of ordinary people, and the Government’s cuts to tax credits are a disgraceful attack on the incomes of families up and down the country. Labour would bring down welfare spending not by punishing the most vulnerable but through supporting a higher wage economy, introducing a real £10-an-hour living wage, tackling high rents by addressing the housing crisis, and supporting trade unions to ensure fair pay.

The proposed changes arguably represent the largest single cut to family incomes ever implemented by a Government. I hope that Conservative Members will search their consciences on this issue and vote with their hearts and their heads by joining us in the No Lobby today.

EU general budgets for 2015 and 2016

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2015 General Committees

[The Chair]

Does a member of the European Scrutiny Committee wish to make a brief explanatory statement about the decision to refer the relevant documents to the Committee? Mr Rees-Mogg, do you wish to speak?

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

indicated dissent.

[The Chair]

No. I have on my notes “likely to be Jacob Rees-Mogg”. As we have an outbreak of good humour, I call the Minister to make the opening statement. You have no more than 10 minutes, Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

May I put it on record that I am grateful to see the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South in her place? I hope we can continue to debate this and other matters in future. I am also delighted to see the hon. Member for Scunthorpe in his place, and I hope we will continue to debate Treasury matters.

First, in terms of our position on the EU solidarity fund, the Government support the objectives and principles of the fund in providing assistance to member states affected by serious natural disasters. However, the Government also take the view that the Commission should always look first to reallocate funds from within existing agreed budgets to meet in-year pressures, rather than coming to member states to request additional money. Past examples show that the Commission is able to find reallocations—for example, when programmes are delayed or take-up is slower than expected.

In terms of the budget more widely and the need to prioritise areas relating to jobs and growth, the Government’s record is clear. As I made clear in my opening remarks, the best way to put pressure on inefficient spending is to cap the overall expenditure. The deal negotiated by the Prime Minister in February 2013 was the first real-terms reduction in the EU budget, and such budgetary restraint is very important. As the Prime Minister said at the time, EU spending reform is a long-term project, but the deal that he secured represents important progress, including on common agricultural policy expenditure. While spending on CAP was cut by 13%, spending on areas of pro-growth expenditure increased and now accounts for 13% rather than 9% of the overall budget.

It is also worth mentioning wider budgetary reform. The UK welcomes the objectives of Vice-President Georgieva’s “budget for results” initiative, which aims to develop a more performance-orientated budget that delivers tangible results for EU citizens. We are working closely with the Commission on that and see it as an important opportunity to help improve the value and efficiency of EU spending and to increase transparency about it for taxpayers. The Chancellor made our position clear at ECOFIN earlier in the year. We have held discussions with the Commission and offered technical assistance, and we are keen to drive this agenda forward.

On migration funding and our response to the crisis, the UK is of the view that a great impact can be made in conflict regions, which is why we are the second largest bilateral donor to the Syrian relief effort. We will continue with our significant efforts to ease the burden on front-line member states by providing practical, on-the-ground support. In line with the Prime Minister’s announcements, we will also take forward plans to resettle up to 20,000 Syrian refugees over the course of this Parliament.

With regard to funding of Frontex, to which we contribute not via the EU budget but through a separate bilateral contribution, we will match increased EU funding as proposed under draft amended budget 5. I hope those points are helpful to the Committee, and I will be happy to answer any further questions.

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

May I say, Mr Walker, what a great pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship for the first occasion in this Parliament? I did so many times in the previous Parliament when you were chairing, with great élan, the Procedure Committee.

To begin with, what are the Minister’s expectations for our rebate? It has gone up this year, which is good news, but last year we obviously had the problem of suddenly discovering that we owed the EU a great deal more money. Does he think that that will be a recurring problem or will the good news on the rebate be the more important part?

[Mr Gauke]

In terms of the rebate and the surcharge, which, as my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, emerged last year, the first point is that he is right that the rebate has increased. The effect of that is that the net additional contribution, as a consequence of revisions to our gross national income, has fallen by something in the region of €100 million. It is worth saying that the draft amending budget before us confirms this; that is an important point. On the wider question of whether we are likely to see any repeat of what happened last year, it is worth remembering the negotiation achievements that were reached last year by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, ensuring that no country is bounced into having an additional liability in the way that occurred last time.

When it comes to the revisions of GNI that have an impact on the calculation of contributions of member states, as far as the UK—or, indeed, any member state—is concerned, until all revisions have been done by all member states, it is not possible to make an assessment of precisely what additional sum is likely to be made.

Finally on this topic, let me make it perfectly clear that under this Government the UK rebate is safe. The rebate will continue to be calculated on an unchanged basis. There was no change to the formula and no change to the types of EU expenditure that we get a rebate on. The UK abatement remains fully justified due to continuing expenditure distortions in the EU budget; it is simply a matter of fairness. In terms of the surcharge issue, which is a separate but related one, we cannot yet say whether the UK will make a payment or receive a repayment from the EU later in the year until all calculations have been completed.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Minister said that the external aid budget will go up by 22%. Do our contributions to it that go through the European Union but are not co-funding operations with the European Union count towards our 0.7% target for overseas aid?

[Mr Gauke]

Perhaps the safest thing I could do is write to the Committee.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I do have another question, and the Minister might get inspiration.

[Mr Gauke]

I may get inspiration on that point and I am always anxious to hear subsequent questions from my hon. Friend.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Very often in these European debates on the budget, we look at the smaller issues, but subheadings 1 and 2—economic, social and territorial cohesion, and sustainable growth and natural resources—cover about €111 billion of expenditure. Those terms seem to be vague and woolly. Will the Minister give us some more guidance as to where the money really goes? What is economic, social and territorial cohesion, other than building a fence in Hungary? What is sustainable growth and natural resources? I do not think that we are not doing a lot of mining in the European Union.

[Mr Gauke]

On my hon. Friend’s previous question, I can confirm that the contribution to the EU budget that is spent on overseas aid is included in our 0.7% official development assistance target. I am pleased to be able to provide that clarification.

My hon. Friend makes a wider point about the vagueness of the definitions, but that is perhaps not unique to the European Union. Whether descriptions relate to UK expenditure or various UN conventions and expenditure, they are not always as clear as they might be. There have been issues in trying to explain to the general public how we spend money within the UK, and such terms can be a little vague. I support my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for greater transparency in this area. The Government introduced UK taxpayers to tax summaries setting out where expenditure goes so that they can be better informed about how public money is spent.

On the EU budget headings, my hon. Friend referred to sustainable growth. This includes common agricultural policy pillar two spending, which focuses on rural development that is environmentally sustainable. That is part of heading 2 spend. The EU budget spend contributes to financing through various programmes. For example, Horizon 2020, which I touched on earlier, is perhaps one of the less controversial areas of EU expenditure, as are cohesion funds for sustainable development within the EU.

I hope that I have provided some information for my hon. Friend about the relevant headings, but if he would like more, I am happy to set that out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My initial point is that we should always remember that when the EU budget talks about “own resources”, it means our money, which was the point that Margaret Thatcher made so forcefully all those years ago to get our money back. The EU does not, in fact, have any of its own resources. It has money that it squeezes out of the British taxpayer, and it gives us a little bit back in return, but it does not have its own resources.

I am concerned about the size of the budget that is spent on things about which we know very little, except the common agricultural policy, which I fear is used to subsidise inefficient continental farmers and damages the interests of our farmers, because it is biased in favour of small, inefficient farming units whereas so many of our farmers have consolidated. That is a particular problem when dairy prices are so low because our farms, have become much more efficient, in many cases quite painfully.

My neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome, and I have large rural constituencies with a lot of dairy farmers who suffer because the CAP is focused away from British farmers to less efficient farmers—and we pay for it. That seems to be the worst of all possible worlds. It will, as the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South said, go down to representing 35% of the EU budget, but that is still an enormous amount to be paying in agricultural subsidies. If we look at the experience of New Zealand and how competitive it has become after weaning itself off subsidies, the lesson is quite clear. We want efficient, larger farming units that are able to compete globally, not to have the principles of the 1960s applying to farming.

It is also difficult to know where the money is going, which was why I asked the Minister about the €110-odd billion in the main parts of the budget. We often argue about the rise in administrative expenses. They are important, but they are 6% of the budget, and that 6% of the budget ought to be reduced. An administrative cost of 6% is pretty high in the context of other Administrations but if we save money there, we are talking about hundreds of millions, whereas if we save money in the major part of what the EU is doing, we can talk about saving billions. It really is a question of going through this line by line and seeing whether the money is being spent reasonably.

Perhaps Parliament does not take the whole issue of European spending seriously enough because we hand the money over and that is it, whereas we spend four days debating the UK Budget, as well as the autumn statement and so on. However, we are having a two-hour debate with not many participants on a quiet Monday afternoon in which we are discussing the very large European budget, the inefficiencies that go with that, and the aspects of the spending that may not be in the British national interest.

I am fully supportive of what the Government have done on the MFF—it was an absolute triumph. I did not think that it would be possible to get the European budget cut. It worries me that outside the MFF, the process is subject to qualified majority voting, so our ability to limit things is seriously curtailed and, as the Minister suggested, we have to find allies in like-minded countries that do not want spending to go up. The question is whether the use of this money is wasteful and in the British national interest. The reminder is, as always, that this is our money—our taxpayers’ money.

Scotland Bill

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

I agree, but if air passenger duty were zero in Scotland and the same as it is now in Newcastle, Scotland would clearly have an advantage. I do not want to get on to how much Scotland is able to devote to its tourism promotion budget, something that we need more of in the north-east.

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

The hon. Gentleman seems to be setting out the most attractive form of tax competition. If Scotland gets rid of air passenger duty, there will be real pressure on the Chancellor to abolish it for the rest of the United Kingdom, and the whole economy will grow. It is marvellous to see the whole House moving in such a right-wing direction in its economic debates.

[Mr Jones]

On this very rare occasion, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I would abolish APD altogether; it is a tax that, as the Scottish Government have recognised, stifles economic development. A PwC report says that the number of overseas visitors would grow by 7% if we abolished it altogether and that more money would come in from other taxes.

Scotland, for her own, sensible reasons, could halve and then abolish APD, leaving Newcastle at a great disadvantage. That would cost jobs; it has been anticipated that up to 1,000 jobs could be lost by 2025 if the situation remained the same, along with £400 million gross value to the economy of the north-east. One of the poorest regions in the UK cannot afford to be at such a disadvantage.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) said, there seems to be a bit of confusion over the Government’s approach. He read out the Chancellor’s comment at the Treasury Committee sitting. The Chancellor seemed to be sanguine, giving the impression that if Scotland reduced its APD, airports such as Newcastle could happily soak up a 10% loss in traffic. I am sorry, but I have been a director of the airport and I know the management team well—I know how hard they have to work to attract every single flight and new route to Newcastle. A clear 10% loss would not be acceptable. My hon. Friend mentioned another point. The Chancellor also said that his personal view was that tax competition should be allowable. If that means putting the north-east at a disadvantage, the Government have to address that.

There has been some confusion. During the general election, the Prime Minister was asked by a local newspaper about unfair competition affecting Newcastle airport and—we should not forget the other airport in the north-east —Durham Tees Valley airport. He was questioned about reducing rates of APD for north-east airports to match the reduction in Scotland, as the Labour party in the region had been arguing. He said that that could be a positive suggestion.

What we need now is clear action. We have a new Minister for the northern powerhouse, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton). I understand that his constituency includes Durham Tees Valley, so whether he can persuade the Treasury to do something about the effect of the clause on the north-east economy will be an interesting test of his power. We hear a lot about the northern powerhouse. Those of us in the north-east think that it ends in Manchester.

It is important that the effect of the clause is addressed. If it is not, this unfair tax will not only cost jobs in one of the poorest regions of the UK, but stifle one of the few economic drivers in the north-east in Newcastle airport, which can grow not only business, but competition. As I said in an earlier intervention, Newcastle airport is important not only for passengers, but for cargo revenues. It enables companies in the north-east to export around the world. The direct flight to Dubai has meant that a lot of local businesses have been able to export products there directly and to grow.

I am interested to know the Government’s approach to this issue. If the clause is passed, we cannot have a lag that leaves regions such as the north-east being hit by the tax competition which the Chancellor seems to think is acceptable, but which the Prime Minister clearly wants to do something about. The ball is firmly in the Government’s court to ensure that this anomaly is put right.

European Union (Finance) Bill

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Barbara Keeley]

Indeed we could. Let me go on and make a few more points about the proportion that is allocated to that very important priority of competitiveness for jobs and growth. In 2014, only around €15 billion will be spent by the EU on that budget priority compared with over €41 billion for market-related spending and direct payments for agriculture. There is no sense in a system that takes that vital priority—vital for every part of the EU—of competitiveness for jobs and growth and spends so little on it. Out of the €6.3 billion of European Union funding allocated to the UK in 2013, only 23% was spending on jobs and growth compared with 63% on agriculture. It is the balance that we are calling into account.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North said on Second Reading, although the proportion of the budget for agriculture has been falling, there has been a fairly significant increase in money terms over the past eight years. As long as this balance seems wrong to people, it will be very hard for many of us to explain on the doorstep why we are spending only 23% of European Union funding in the UK on jobs and growth but 63% on agriculture. Some hon. Members might find such an explanation easier in their constituencies than others, but it is a difficult argument.

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

I am very sympathetic to what the hon. Lady is saying. My one concern would be that if there are reforms, they do not disadvantage some farmers in North East Somerset and other rural constituencies to favour spending on the continent. Reform is quite right, but it needs to be fair for the United Kingdom’s farmers.

[Barbara Keeley]

The more reviews that we carry out of those priorities, the more that we develop our understanding of where the money is going. Earlier, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) called for these matters to be discussed in a language that his constituents could understand, and I do not think that they are discussed in such a way. Having ploughed through very many debates and very many documents in relation to the Bill, I do not think that those matters are understood. The hon. Gentleman is quite right.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury said she accepted that expenditure on the CAP is

“still too high both in absolute terms and as a proportion of the overall budget.”—[Official Report, 11 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 1426.]

If that is what the Treasury team currently feel—that it is still too high, both in absolute terms and as a proportion of the overall budget—what are we doing to understand that better, to review it and to change it?

It is my assertion that previous reviews have not led to the level of reform that we want to achieve. It was our purpose in tabling new clause 2 to keep focus on that vital issue. When most member states are finding it necessary to make very difficult decisions—clearly, we are in that position ourselves—about their own budgets and spending, the European Union must ensure that expenditure is efficient and focused on addressing the major concerns that member states face. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) said in the October 2012 debate:

“The next seven years of the EU budget should prioritise jobs, growth, infrastructure and practical programmes that rejuvenate fragile economies.”

As I mentioned on Second Reading, this is much needed when we still have 735,000 16 to 24-year-olds in the UK looking for work. That should be our focus—those young people.

We need a better balance of funding and we need the European Union to provide a better framework and strategy to achieve growth and jobs. Looking deeper into the detail, and the spending commitment to the EU’s smart and inclusive growth priority, only a quarter of that is spent on competitiveness for jobs and growth, and three quarters on the EU’s cohesion policies, including structural funds. It probably is not appropriate today to open up further debate about the use of structural funds. That is often discussed when we are discussing EU finance, but as my hon. Friend also said:

“Savings can be made on aspects of EU structural funds that…are too often committed in a haphazard manner and depend on outdated commitments rather than future priorities. Unless structural funds contribute to positive economic development, they cannot be justified.”—[Official Report, 31 October 2012; Vol. 552, c. 304.]

The Opposition say strongly that the proportion of the EU’s smart and inclusive growth expenditure that goes towards securing competitiveness for jobs and growth is too small. That important area of spending accounts for around a quarter of the EU budget in 2014, but that rises to only 27% across the whole six-year period.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Salmond]

One of the reasons we do so incredibly badly in many European programmes as regards funding is that the Treasury’s interest, when looking at additionality, as it calls it, is always to minimise EU expenditure. Although it is perfectly acceptable for the Government to defend the rebate, it is less acceptable to look at every European programme and try to minimise expenditure on it, because in doing so, we lose some of the alternative opportunities that the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South talked about. If the Treasury looks at every European programme and says, “How do we minimise spending?”, what follows as a natural consequence is that our share of that spending is also diminished. In the case of the common agricultural policy, it is possible to make a direct connection with the negotiating stance of the right hon. Member for North Shropshire, who was trying to abolish farm payments altogether and got the miserable, unfair and inequitable distribution of support that has been the end result of the CAP negotiations.

The Minister—I am not sure if it was a dead bat, a glorious drive through covers, or a catch at slips—rather evaded the direct question of what is the Prime Minister’s negotiating stance on the budget. The Minister said, after being passed a note, that the Prime Minister’s stance was to cut the whole budget and to protect the UK rebate. Let me point out that that has been the Government’s stance and policy since they took office in 2010; it is not a particular stance for these renegotiations. What the Minister is being asked—we really would like an answer—is whether the Prime Minister has a specific target in mind in renegotiations for changes in the EU budget or the UK contribution to it, and if so, what it is. Failure to answer that question throughout the debate adds to the no doubt unworthy, but considerable, suspicion shared across this Chamber that the Prime Minister is adopting this nebulous approach to what are his negotiating aims so that whatever he comes back with can be announced as a fundamental achievement. That does not stand scrutiny in this Committee, but even more importantly, it is a particularly poor campaigning argument in favour of the European cause.

I hope that the Minister—the last man in—will rise to the occasion by confirming that he is in favour of more equitable distribution of land ownership in Scotland and by giving us an insight into the Prime Minister’s true negotiating hand in the coming arguments and discussions in the European Union.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The speech by the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) is tremendously important and gets to the heart of one of the issues we have with the common agricultural policy, although, not surprisingly, I look at it in a different way from the question of socialism and land holdings that the SNP is going for.

The issue, as has been discussed in the European Scrutiny Committee, is that over the years our farmers have increasingly become so efficient and large that there has been a good deal of consolidation. That applies very much in my constituency among dairy farmers. The number of dairy farms has reduced significantly and they are bigger farms proportionately, but European subsidies tend to go to smaller farms disproportionately. Therefore, we find that British farmers are disadvantaged. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that if, under a system of farming subsidies and a competitive framework, that means that people are getting handouts from the European Union, British farmers—farmers in the United Kingdom—do not get the equivalent subsidies to farmers on the continent, they are disadvantaged because their cost base is automatically higher and their profitability is reduced. Therefore, when we are arguing for careful consideration, overview and oversight of expenditure in the European Union, and reductions in the common agricultural policy, we have to ensure that the cuts are made in a way that is fair to the UK farmer. Even if our end objective is the entire elimination of agricultural subsidies, it must be done in a way—

[Jim Shannon]

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is well aware, the farms in Northern Ireland are smaller. They are greater today than they were, say, 20 years ago, but they are still not big in comparison with those on the UK mainland. Does he agree that there needs to be consideration for the farms in Northern Ireland, particularly in my constituency of Strangford? He seems to be referring to farms that are very large. In Northern Ireland, we have farms with an average of 150 acres.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very sympathetic to farmers and I ought to declare an interest as I have a little land in Somerset, although sadly not a great deal and I do not farm directly. If I did, I would certainly count as a very, very small farmer. In the past a slice has been taken from the biggest receivers of European subsidies, so the farms that have been the most consolidated and efficient lose subsidies at a faster rate than other farms. I think that protection is already in place—

[Alex Salmond]

That is why the protection built into the agricultural settlement of €196 per hectare is so important, and why it is so disadvantageous that it is almost half that figure in Scotland. That is why the minimum per hectare is so important.

[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.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). Before I turn to the main part of the my speech, I would like to comment on what he has just said. Some 34 years ago, my then 11-year-old son had a discussion at his primary school about what was then called the Common Market. He was asked about the common agricultural policy, which he knew a lot about because he listened to me at home. His teacher asked him, “What is the CAP?” He said, “It’s the common agricultural policy.” His teacher asked, “What is that about, then, Daniel?” He said, “It’s a way of subsidising inefficient small farms,” and 34 years on, the hon. Gentleman has raised exactly the same point. Some things do not change very much. I think my son is the same age as the hon. Gentleman.

It is also a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), who sits on the Front Bench, and support two of her new clauses and her amendment. On new clause 3, I am pleased that she has acceded to the sensible point made by the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, of which I am also a member. I will, however, support my hon. Friend in the Lobby later on her other new clauses.

I have spoken probably 100 times in European debates in this Chamber over the past 18 years. I have said some of what I am going to say today a number of times before, but in order to make an effect in politics I think we must sometimes repeat messages over and over again, hoping that, in time, one’s colleagues, particularly those on the Front Bench, will listen, agree, take note and act accordingly.

I was also much taken by the hon. Gentleman’s comment that when he rebelled he was trying to help his Front-Bench colleagues. That is a splendid idea. If ever I am moved to rebel in future, I shall tell my Whip that I am trying to help our Front-Bench colleagues and I hope she will accept it in that spirit.

The most interesting new clause is new clause 2, which is about expenditure. I have said many times that I believe that the common agricultural policy ought to be repatriated to member states for them to decide how to subsidise their own agriculture, and that the CAP’s structures should be dismantled. We would certainly benefit from that financially in more than one way, including by not paying in so much. We could subsidise at exactly the same level and possibly in exactly the same way, but still be better off because we would not be paying into something where we are net losers.

European Union Referendum Bill

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

Let me make a little more progress. I hope that my hon. Friend’s constraint will stop him leaping up too frequently; I will give way in due course.

I do not believe that there is any bad faith anywhere. Everyone wants those who campaign and the public to feel that the referendum has been conducted with absolute fairness. I am surprised, therefore, that, in these opening days of the European referendum process, so much passion is being excited by procedural issues. I will not describe them as footnotes, but, although they are important, none of them will make the faintest difference to the result on the day of the referendum. If we asked most of our masters—the public—whether purdah was followed properly during the campaign, they would not have the first idea what we were talking about. So my first plea is for a sense of proportion.

My plea to my right hon. Friend the Minister—I do not think I need to make it because I have seen the letter, which did not get to me either; I have just been shown it—is to live up to his undertakings. It is right to bend over backwards to reassure my right hon. and hon. Friends that there is no conspiracy, that they must not leap into paranoia, and that the intention is to hold a referendum in which the British public will be able to reach a view on balanced presentations. It seems to me that Ministers have started doing this straight away. I got the impression from the Second Reading debate that my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench were as surprised as I was at the sudden excitement about the rules in what should have been a fairly routine Bill paving the way for the referendum.

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

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

[Mr Clarke]

I will give way in a moment.

The Prime Minister has announced that he will suspend the rules of collective responsibility and that members of the Government will be able to campaign on whichever side they choose. We now have the letter giving an undertaking that the Government will depart from section 129. People seem to think that there is something magic about 5 May 2016, so we will not hold the referendum on that date. I have sympathy with Ministers; they are being derided. The moment they make concessions to all these impassioned pleas, they suffer the fate of all Ministers and are immediately accused of a humiliating U-turn and held up for ridicule.

Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends and perhaps others in the Scottish National party are difficult to calm down and reassure. I ask them to accept, as I accept, that every effort is being and should be made to satisfy fears about the propriety of the campaigning period.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend is obviously free to take legal opinion of his own, but if he looks again at the wording of section 125 and applies it to the conduct of EU business, he will find that there would be very serious problems in carrying out day-to-day business in the national interest at EU level if the section is left untouched.

We believe that applying the section would be inappropriate because the referendum is taking place as the result of a clear manifesto commitment to negotiate the terms of the UK’s relationship with the European Union and to put them to people in a referendum. Section 125 could make it impossible to explain to the public what the outcome of the renegotiation was and what the Government’s view of that result was.

The Government must be able, and legitimately should be able, to offer their views, including up to the day of the referendum. However, as I have said, the Government are not a campaign: it is not the Government’s job to supplant the role of the lead campaign organisations during the referendum campaign, and it is certainly not our intention to act in that way. We recognise and understand the strength of feeling that exists on this issue, and I am grateful for the constructive and courteous tone in which the debate has been conducted both this afternoon and in private conversations outside the Chamber.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend said that the Government may not be able to give their view on the outcomes of the renegotiation. Surely that cannot be true. It cannot be the case that the renegotiation will only be finished within the purdah period.

[Mr Lidington]

What I am saying is that the Government will need to be able to say why they have come to the conclusion and recommendation that they have reached.

As the Foreign Secretary said and as I repeated on Second Reading last week, the Government will exercise restraint during that period. We have listened to what colleagues in all parts of the House have said and are therefore committing ourselves to table amendments on Report to write into the Bill measures that will provide reassurance on that point. I accept completely the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) that it is vital that the British public and both sides in the referendum debate accept that the referendum is being conducted fairly and therefore feel able to accept the result.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I find myself in a surprising degree of agreement with what he is saying, but there is a chance that the sinner repenteth, because similar amendments may come forth on Report.

[Alex Salmond]

As I understand it, and I am open to correction from Sir Roger, the sinner may get a chance to repent even before that. Amendment 11 has still to be called in our proceedings, so the sinner may get a chance to repent on Report, at the eleventh hour or at 7 o’clock this evening. Let us all hope that the sinner does repent whenever they choose to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

That is a very civilised remark from a very civilised Member, who together with me champions the cause of the sixth-form colleges. He and I have the finest sixth-form colleges in the country. Mine is slightly better than his, but there we go.

This debate in Committee is important. If we do not refine the detail in every possible manner, compatible with what my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench know has to be done in order to comply with the law and so on, we have Report stage, when things can be sorted out. However, it must be made crystal clear that we will not have the European Commission interfering in that referendum in the United Kingdom in any shape or form. Amendment 10 gives us the vehicle to send the clearest possible message to Brussels that that is something up with which we will not put.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in today’s debate, Mr Howarth, and to welcome the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), as the Minister responding. The constitution is always in safe hands when it is in the hands of Somerset, so it is reassuring that he is here to respond.

I want to follow on from what my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) said about amendment 10, on EU funding, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), and to which I have added my name. The appearance of fairness within the referendum is at the heart of what the Government must try to do. The Government, like Caesar’s wife, must be above suspicion. It would be wrong if there was any feeling that the referendum was being held improperly, that undue pressure was being brought to bear, or that funding was directed to one side rather than the other—I say that as somebody who supports the Government’s position—but it would be most wrong if British taxpayers’ money funnelled by the European Union ended up being used to campaign for us to remain subject to the European Union.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is a delight to give way to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil).

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman’s pronunciation is as impeccable in this Parliament as it was in the last one. I congratulate him once again.

The hon. Gentleman mentions the nonsense and unacceptability of British taxpayers’ money going through the European Union and back again. He will be aware, and perhaps bemused and baffled, that there is much amusement in Scotland that Scottish taxpayers’ money funnelled through the UK Government was used in our referendum to campaign succinctly and definitely on one side. I am thinking of Sir Nicholas Macpherson and many others along with him.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to listen to an excellent debate on that very subject yesterday, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), but I think I would be in trouble if I went through the question of full fiscal autonomy for Scotland in relation to amendment 10 to the European Union Referendum Bill, so I want to stick to the subject at hand.

The European Union has a budget for this. Indeed, we passed a Bill in 2013 that allows for the European Union to engage in political activity and the promotion of the cause and objectives of the European Union. That money flows to institutions within the United Kingdom and that money comes with strings attached. It is money that is given on the basis that the institutions receiving that money support the objectives of the European Union.

[Mrs Main]

The objective of the European Union is ever greater union. It is therefore not in its interest to allow a member of that union to drift away in any way, shape or form. It will hug it as close as possible.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It would be against the conditions of receipt of that money to use the money to campaign for a member state to leave the European Union.

Some very influential bodies in this country receive money from the European Union. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) said that the CBI receives money from the European Union. We know that the CBI is in part funded by Europe. It is therefore under an obligation either to return that money or to support the objectives of the European Union. When the director-general of the BBC came before the European Scrutiny Committee, he was asked about the money the BBC received from the European Union and the strings that that may have attached. Even the most impartial and highly regarded bodies in our establishment receive money from the European Union, and they take on certain obligations in return.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer) made a very good point about what happens to farmers in receipt of subsidies that have come from the European Union. Are they then prohibited from giving money to the Conservative party to campaign in the referendum? No, of course not. He may well be right that the amendment needs improving to ensure that people are not captured by mistake.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman refers to farmers and their obligations. Is he aware that the National Farmers Union in the UK is suggesting to its members that they should stay in the European Union and is asking them to vote accordingly? Does he have concerns, as I do, about that?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I do indeed. I have no idea whether the NFU receives any money from the European Union. If it did, it would be under an obligation to support the objectives of the European Union.

It is a very insidious aspect of how the EU operates. It is why it likes to put its stars up everywhere: to show us what wonderful things Mother Europe is doing to help us and enforcing compliance with its view of the world. We want to make sure that our referendum is held absolutely fairly, without that influence. In terms of that fairness, I want to come on to the debate on schedule 1 stand part. It is schedule 15, referred to in schedule 1 to this Bill, that comes to the issue of section 125, the exemption from which removes the whole purdah question for the Government.

I have every confidence that the Prime Minister will lead the no campaign. He will come back and say that what is in the interests of this country, if the renegotiation is not exceptional, is that we leave. He has indicated that in speeches and I admire him for making his views so clear. When he does that, I do not want him to be helped by legerdemain. I do not want the no campaign to benefit from the Government being able to use all their resources to get me what I am likely to want in those circumstances. The right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) expects the reverse. He thinks, I happen to think naively, that the Government will come back and wish to campaign for a yes vote. He likewise does not wish to see them being able to use all the powers at the disposal of the Government to push for what they want.

Those powers are considerable. The ability of the arms of central and local government to influence the media and public opinion and to use its PR resources, press officers and administrative and logistical machinery to help one side or the other is considerable. Whichever side of the argument one falls on, it must be right to hope that the referendum will be more than just a staging post in the discussion about Europe, and that it will help put our relationship with Europe on a firm footing that can last for decades rather than weeks. We do not want anyone on either side feeling that the result was so flawed, because of how it was carried out, that we need another referendum.

[Stephen Gethins]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about putting us on a basis for years to come, rather than months or weeks. In that regard, does he think the Prime Minister should be pushing for co-operation with Europe in more areas, rather than fewer?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

No, we co-operate in far too many areas already. I have a lot of sympathy with the SNP’s position in many ways, because it is not entirely different from mine. I want my country, which I view as the UK, to govern herself, and SNP Members want a smaller part of the UK—Scotland, which they view as their country —to govern herself too. It puzzles me that, having got self-government, they want to hand it over to Brussels, but that is a question for them.

[Mr MacNeil]

My first quibble—the first mistake the hon. Gentleman has made—is that the British Union is not a country, but a union. Secondly, he fails to realise that we only want to change our relationship with London. Our relationship with Brussels would stay the same, under the SNP’s proposals for Scottish independence, which might come very soon.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That is a moot point that was discussed at length during the Scottish referendum campaign and to which I had better not revert.

I want to concentrate on the power, influence and resources of Governments.

[Mark Spencer]

I acknowledge my hon. Friend’s cynicism about the Government taking a view one way or another, but does he accept that the Government could express their view neutrally and thereby help to inform the electorate? It is vital that the electorate are informed and can make a decision based on informed opinion, and surely the Government could have a role in making sure that the Great British public are fully informed in both directions.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

No, I am afraid that I fundamentally disagree with my hon. Friend. There are stages in this process. That is what the Bill and the Minister’s letter are trying to get at. The Government will have their renegotiation and then come back with a package saying it is a triumph, whatever is in the package. It might have three loaves and two fishes, or it might give us complete control of our own destiny—whichever it is, the Government will say it is a triumph. That will be the Government’s answer, and they can tell the electorate what they have managed to do. From then on, however, it will become a matter of straightforward politics whether someone believes the Government and agrees with what they have done. I approve of the adversarial system in this country. We do not develop our arguments and get to the answer we want by getting authoritative documents from the Government. Actually, such documents always contain a bias. It might not be obvious on first reading, but, reading through the detail, one will see the way the Government want people to go, and that will bolster the position they have set for themselves.

[Sir William Cash]

I might be corrected by SNP Members, but, as I understand it, the Electoral Commission put out leaflets during the Scottish referendum campaign agreed between the yes and no campaigns. Even if that did not happen, it might be a way of dealing with the situation. The no and yes campaigns could exchange information and come up with a bottom line, and then that line could be taken and put as a fair choice.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I certainly see no impropriety in that. In the London mayoral campaigns, the views of all the candidates are circulated in a single booklet. That is not improper. Perhaps, however, I am more of a believer in capitalism, in respect of elections as well as the economic structures of the country. I believe that people should campaign for what they want, and should put their own arguments rather than thinking that they could be better put—or even well put—by a nominally independent third party, least of all the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Main]

The stakes are very high. If a Government have nailed their colours to a mast when it comes to a particular vote—in or out—and that vote does not go their way, a Government will then be in power for two or three years with a vote that they do not wish to live with, because it was contrary to the colours that they nailed to the mast.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That is a very important point, which may be worth discussing when we debate other amendments. Ultimately, the Government must accept the will of the people—that is what we all believe in, and that is why we are all here—but they must deal with that fairly.

There is also the question of where the Government should proceed from here. There seems to be a wide consensus that paragraph 15 of schedule 1 is deeply unsatisfactory, and that the removal of the issue of purdah was simply a mistake. I am willing to trust the Government, so I accept that it was an honest mistake, and not a mistake that was made in an attempt to fiddle the referendum result. I believe that partly because I am a simple fellow who is very trusting of the Government, but also because trying to fiddle the result will damage whichever side wishes to do it.

The British electorate will not have the wool pulled over their eyes. If little bits of legislation are squirreled away into the Bill to make things easier for one side or the other, those of us who are on the other side will campaign on that basis. We will say, “Look, we need to act against this, because people are trying to fiddle us over what is happening.” There is a wonderfully contrary spirit among the British people, who will not be cowed by those who try to trick them.

[Sir William Cash]

The explanatory notes relating to section 125 of the 2000 Act were so explanatory that a line and a half said simply, “This is what we are going to do.” For practical purposes, I do not think that my hon. Friend would be entirely right in thinking that the Government got there by mistake, particularly as they had taken counsel’s opinion, which we are determined to ferret out.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I do not know too much about ferreting, or indeed about counsel’s opinion, but my hon. Friend knows only too well that explanatory notes are anything but explanatory. They consist of a complicated a set of notes which, when read carefully in conjunction with a Bill, can shed some light, but I do not think that anyone expects them to be like the Book of Revelation, revealing everything that one could possibly want to know about a Bill. They require Members of Parliament to look diligently at what underlies them.

The Government must examine clause 3 very carefully. They have given undertakings to do so over the next few months, but they need to come back with something that is just as rigorous as what is there already.

[Bob Stewart]

Should there not be a clear gap between the offering that the Government have brought back to give to the people and the start of the campaign, which we may wish to call purdah? During the short campaign before the general election, which could be seen as a model, both sides—I am talking just about Labour and the Conservatives—suddenly started to produce new policies. We cannot have that; we want a clear offering followed by a gap, and then the start of the campaign. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and that point has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone. An uncharacteristically weak argument must have been given to the Minister for Europe to read out—he could not have made so poor an argument himself—when he said that if the negotiations have finished it would be very difficult for the Government not to be able to explain them immediately before the election. It cannot be that we will have the referendum two weeks after the negotiations have been concluded. That would be preposterous. There has to be a considerable period of time beforehand, so that what has happened can be understood, debated and campaigned upon. That must mean a period of a minimum of 28 days, as currently set out, but realistically we are going to need three months at the end of the negotiations before we can move straight to the referendum.

[Sir William Cash]

My hon. Friend is developing an excellent argument, which perhaps brings out the fact that the amendment I have tabled specifies, fully supported by the Electoral Commission, at least a 16-week referendum period, and then it describes how it should be conducted.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am well aware of my hon. Friend’s amendment, and I think the Government need to be thinking along those lines. I am going to support the Government this evening; I am not going to vote with my friends in the SNP on this occasion, or indeed with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, which is more of a break with the habits of a lifetime. There is an important “but”, and I think other hon. Members on the Government Benches share my view: because the Government have made a mistake at this stage, they now need to come back with something better than we would have needed had they not made this mistake. Therefore, the Government’s position of purdah must be a stricter one than they might have been able to get away with had they simply amended the existing restrictions rather than taking them all away and having a completely clean base from which they could have done anything.

[Mark Spencer]

Surely my hon. Friend will recognise that in the period before the referendum our relationship with the EU will still be fluid and there may be matters that need the attention of the Government and that could be crucial to an industry or sector of the economy. If he goes down the route of this period of purdah, the Prime Minister might not be able to do a deal or make an announcement on something of fundamental importance to the economy during that period.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I was making a slightly different point. I was saying that it is going to need to be tougher than the Government would have got away with had they come through with a limited change at an earlier stage. The Government said they would scrap the whole of section 125, and there is now suspicion that there was an ulterior motive for that. To allay that suspicion, the Government have to be very specific about the exemptions they want. It might be an exemption to vote in the Council of Ministers, and that would not be unreasonable, but would I give them an exemption to announce from the hilltops that they had lots of money from the EU to build a new factory in a key swing area of the country? No, I would not; I would think that would be about fiddling the result, if they wanted a yes.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

A lot of nonsense is talked about restricting the Prime Minister in what he can say. I do not remember the Prime Minister being particularly reticent during the general election campaign, and there is no reason why he would need to be reticent during this referendum campaign. If he is leading the no campaign, or more likely the yes campaign, of course he can say exactly what he wants. All we are arguing is that the machinery of government should not be used. We do that perfectly well during general election campaigns, and we know the difference.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is right and will no doubt recall the 1970 general election when Harold Wilson, as Prime Minister, was not allowed to reveal the trade figures that came out immediately after the general election even though he knew them and they would have been very helpful to him. So there have been cases in which Prime Ministers were prohibited from making announcements on the basis of purdah, and I think it would be quite right to follow them in the context of a European referendum.

It was pointed out earlier that the reason the Government are so worried about this is part of the problem—namely, that the EU is involved in so many aspects of our lives that what they are restricted from doing will be much broader than it would be for a normal referendum. That makes it all the more important that this purdah is strictly observed.

We are arguing about whether the situation in which our lives are organised by the EU should remain or whether we should do something different. If, in the month or six weeks before the referendum, popular announcements about the EU were made but unpopular ones were held back—or vice versa—that would be completely improper.

[Dr Murrison]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Executive in this country and the one in Brussels are perfectly capable of restraining themselves for 28 days? Indeed, it happens every year. It is called August.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. The activities of the European Commission come to a grinding halt for at least the whole of August. Perhaps that is the answer to another question—one that I was less exercised about—on the matter of the date. If we were to hold the referendum in the first week of September, the EU would have been shut down throughout August and there would be no great problem with purdah.

I urge the Government to come back with something pretty serious on this. They cannot get away with most of what they want; this needs to be a thorough purdah. I do not know whether they will do this today, but it is open to them—as a sign of goodwill and reassurance—not to proceed with the proposal that schedule 1 be the first schedule to the Bill. Instead, they could bring forward a new schedule to deal with this problem on Report. That would leave everyone content, and there would be no great opposition or need to press amendments.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—