Psychoactive Substances

Debate between Lord Mann and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Monday 11th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[John Mann]

Thank you for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am constructing an argument to demonstrate precisely how the European Union has got itself into this absurd situation of what might be called a caterpillar race between the European Commission and the British Government over who can be the slowest to deal with the problem of legal highs. Frankly, my constituents’ problem is that this Government are doing nothing—

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Mann]

I dare not digress.

Like the Government, the European Union is doing nothing other than create an excuse for allowing the growth of legal highs without criminal sanctions. Some European Union countries think exactly the same way as this Government think. They are saying, “The more we create illegal drugs, the more criminality there will be; the less we spend on police, the more that criminality will grow, and the public will not like that.” That is the problem that the Minister should be addressing. I put it to him that he should go back to look at the origins of this proposal and withdraw the Government’s policy of going around these legalising countries to see what we can learn from them. Instead, he should be looking at the problems in areas like mine.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am so grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way in his brilliant speech, but I have a worry that he is confusing caterpillars with snails. It is snails that are notorious for their slowness, not caterpillars.

[John Mann]

rose—

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Lord Mann and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 10th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Even this Parliament did not exist under the benign reign of the Empress Pulcheria, so I am afraid that I am unable to propose doing that.

The purpose of my amendment, which I think fits very well with the clause, which I support, is to limit the ability of people in receipt of public funds to intervene in elections, particularly general elections. In this country we do not have state-funded political parties. We have Short money and Cranborne money to help the parliamentary activities of Opposition parties, but we have consistently decided that the state would not fund political parties and that they would instead be funded by private donations, trade union donations and business donations. It therefore seems to me to be completely wrong for third parties that might depend on subventions from the state for a large part of their income to be able to campaign as third parties in general elections.

[John Mann]

Will the hon. Gentleman let us know what he has against the Church of England, because this brutal amendment would particularly hurt the Church in its desire to host election rallies, hustings and so on?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

It would not in any way affect the Church of England and, anyway, should the Anglican Church intervene in elections, that would be a constitutional impropriety. It has long been the case that it is thought improper for peers to involve themselves in general elections. Members will recall that Lord Salisbury would not intervene for that reason; he let others campaign for him. It would not be constitutionally right for bishops to intervene in general elections. The Church of England is not affected by my amendment and it is not, as a general rule in its putting forward of the gospel, getting public money.

[John Mann]

I am sorry to disabuse the hon. Gentleman, but if the Church of England or other religious bodies host any kind of hustings and exclude, say, a fascist from them, they will be caught not only by the Bill, but even more so by the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, because those bodies receive public funding. Local church buildings were given specific amounts in the last Budget.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. We heard during the debate on the previous clause that if a third party invites some but not all of the candidates to a hustings meeting, that may be part of the election expenses of the people involved. The Bill makes no change to that situation. It has always been a difficulty. It is an issue at every election and rightly so, because it would be entirely arbitrary for third parties to decide which party they liked and which they did not.

[John Mann]

Remarkably and unusually—perhaps uniquely—the hon. Gentleman has not done his homework. This Bill expands the definition of what constitutes expenditure and his amendment worsens it further and particularly and brutally picks on the Church of England more than any other organisation by hitting it with bureaucracy and the inability to host political events.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Again, I am in disagreement with the hon. Gentleman, who, surprisingly, I often agree with about many things. The amendment does not change in any way the definition of election expenditure. It leaves it as it is set out in the rest of the Bill. As I have said, that definition leaves unchanged the situation for people hosting hustings meetings. What I am doing makes not one iota of difference—not one jot of change—to the Church of the England. It will still be able to host meetings in churches and it would still be in difficulties if it decided not to invite particular candidates. That is quite right, because at the heart of democracy is the notion that candidates should be treated equally.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am more than happy to say that this is the tip of the iceberg and that as the Titanic steams towards that iceberg, it is about to emerge to cut a swathe through its side. I firmly believe that it is absurd for the taxpayer to dish out money that is then spent paying lobbyists to lobby the Government. That is not why hard-pressed taxpayers pay income tax, VAT and other duties.

[John Mann]

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is relatively new to the House. Let me point out to him that British Telecom provides assistance to the established political parties that it does not provide to independent candidates. Passing clause 27 with his amendment would therefore mean that British Telecom would be caught by the provisions of the Bill.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

As an established candidate before I was elected in the last election, I did not receive any help from British Telecom. I had no idea that British Telecom was funding the campaigns of candidates up and down the country. If that were a purely commercial activity, it would be mistaken in doing so because it would alienate half its customers who would dislike the party that it decided to support.

We have heard throughout these debates Opposition scaremongering about all these third parties lined up waiting to support individual candidates, with the question of whether that is against charities law or constitutionally improper being cast to one side. That is being brought back in the context of this clause. It is absolutely clear from the Bill, from what the Minister has said and from the law as it currently stands that these bodies—charitable bodies, in particular, but also firms such as British Telecom—are not going to be third parties because they do not and, indeed, should not intervene directly in the election of individual candidates or in supporting individual parties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I would be shocked if Atos wanted to campaign. The idea that it should become a third party and campaign in seats is a monstrosity. Atos would be covered if it wanted to register as a third party, which is highly unlikely.

[John Mann]

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, if he attends and is photographed at a garden party hosted by a landowner who is also a farmer receiving public funds during an election period, the expenditure will be caught by the amendment and the Bill?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman has a wonderfully vivid imagination and conjures up increasingly absurd scenarios that will obviously not be caught by the Bill.

[John Mann]

The hon. Gentleman would have been caught by his amendment. Is it not the case that he took great pleasure in being photographed repeatedly at such events held by major landowners when fighting, quite legitimately, for his seat? Those who host such events would be caught by the amendment, so his proposal is almost suicidal.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman assumes I have a much more salubrious social life than I have. I wish I constantly enjoyed a round of garden parties during general election campaigns. I am sorry to disappoint him that that is not how life is in North East Somerset. I am afraid that the picture he conjures is false. That situation does not arise under the Bill. Ingenious though his vision is, it does not get away from the fundamental point that Governments have a duty to spend taxpayers’ money carefully. They also have a duty of trust to ensure that taxpayers’ money is not misspent on purposes for which it was not intended. The Government, who are very powerful when in office, have a particular obligation not to fund their friends who can then use the money they receive to support the Government’s efforts to remain in office. That is a risk that the Opposition have pooh-poohed, but it is a real risk.

Jobs and Growth

Debate between Lord Mann and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Wednesday 12th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Having listened for an hour and a half to the two Front Benchers, I suggest that we put them in a ring in Westminster Hall the next time we debate the economy—we could charge the public a little fee, which would be a modest contribution to deficit reduction—and allow the rest of us a little more time to discuss the economy.

First, I want to make some points that might be of particular interest to Labour Front Benchers—I trust that they will be noted in detail. I congratulate Labour Front Benchers on two major changes in the past three weeks. I mentioned the first change earlier—the change of policy on VAT. The previous policy, which I disagreed with in the Chamber, was that the Labour party was in favour of a permanent VAT reduction. Now, the policy is for a temporary reduction—from what the shadow Chancellor said, it appears that there would be a 12-month temporary reduction.

The figures are huge. Just in the next Parliament, that change in policy will mean that £50 billion will be available to a new Labour Government from revenues to the Exchequer. In the context of a snap election, potentially £20 billion extra would go into the Exchequer in the next three years. Those are major sums, and I therefore congratulate Labour Front Benchers on that huge change in policy.

That is not the only change in policy—I would recommend the second policy change to the Government, and I should like to hear in the winding-up speeches whether they are prepared to adopt it. Labour’s policy now is that all moneys from the privatisation of the more recently part-nationalised banks will go 100% to offset the debt. That ought explicitly to be the policy of the Government. I trust that they are not thinking of creating youth unemployment now to delay for give-away Budgets just before the election. The electorate, as well as business, will not forgive them for that.

This Government have adopted an economic policy of Japanisation. They are adopting the Japan Government’s approach, and anyone who wants to see precisely where they are going needs to look at the economic history of Japan over the past 20 years.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

It is not the Japanese approach. The Japanese Government have enormously increased their national debt, while we are going to reduce it.

[John Mann]

On inflation and monetary policy, this is precisely the Japanese model, but it does not work, which is why there is already £46 billion in additional debt. The lesson from Japan is that we cannot deal with the debt without growth. That is the lesson that the Government are not listening to. I recommend that Members on both sides of the House read up on the economic history of Japan.

I say to the Labour Front-Bench team that we need to be more specific about the cuts that we would make. I realise that on welfare, for example, we cannot be specific. Like the Government, we are in favour of major change, but we do not know whether that will be successful. The fact is that the state will shrink over the next few Parliaments—there is no other way to pay for our deficit reduction plans or the Government’s less coherent plans. We have to pay back the debt. The Government want to pay it all back now, while we are saying, in essence, “No, we wouldn’t pay back as much now, but it would be paid back in future years.” That is the key difference. Either way, it means that the state will have to shrink in future years, and I can suggest some things that we should be stating.

What about Government Departments? Housing costs nine times as much in London as in Bassetlaw. I am not suggesting that a major Department should move to Bassetlaw—although we have the land—but there are Sheffield, Leeds, Nottingham and many other places. Let us see the Department for Culture, Media and Sport shifted to Manchester with the BBC. Let us see the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills shifted. Let us see the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs shifted. Let us see huge Departments, in their entirety, shifted out to the regions of England. That would give a boost to economic growth and bring permanent savings to the Exchequer. That ought to be part of our policy.

There are other smaller things that we could do. What about the British Council? What a nonsense of an organisation to sustain! We could take some of that money and give it to British universities to do English-language training abroad and build their business base in emerging markets. At the same time, that would reduce costs. What about unitary authorities? Of course, many Members, being ex-councillors, do not want to get rid of unitary authorities. What nonsense! There are 27 press officers in Nottinghamshire and 10 chief executives, with head offices all over the place. Scrap them! Scrap large numbers of councils! What about the police? We cannot merge the police, but we can merge their headquarters. We could rationalise NHS buildings across the county. There is a vast array of things that we could do. There are the British Army bases in Germany. We could reduce the size of the base in Cyprus. We should be levying at least 5% on the UK Crown dependencies to which we provide security. We should offer a permanent reduction in national insurance for small businesses to get young people into apprenticeships and back into work.

European Union Bill

Debate between Lord Mann and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 1st February 2011 Commons Chamber

[John Mann]

I am approaching my conclusion, when I will do that, but first there is another factor that ought to be re-stressed. There has been a lot of talk about what the people think. I will tell the Committee what the people think: the people think it is an absolute disgrace that, when the health service is being cut to ribbons and maternity units across the country are being destroyed, time is being taken up constantly discussing the Conservative party’s obsession with the European Union rather than major issues.

New clause 11 should address whether what the Conservative party signed up to under Margaret Thatcher and John Major, in the spirit of Edward Heath, which allows unfettered labour migration into this country, is the way forward, or whether there should be restrictions that protect the jobs and livelihoods and standards of living of workers in this country. That is the debate that this Government are scared of, and that is why they like to pander to the pretence that there could be some debate about whether the country is in or out of Europe. This Government should be held to account for their failure to negotiate properly in Europe on that and on bankers’ pay. They are wholly miserable in their efforts in doing so. That is what Parliament—

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way in his brilliantly enthusiastic speech, but he is not being his usual even-handed self, because he accuses the Conservatives of allowing people to come from eastern Europe, but it really was the last Labour Government who let in most of them.

[John Mann]

Fair point. That is precisely why, on those demonstrations at Staythorpe with Unite and other unions, I was the only parliamentarian who spoke on behalf of the workers in my constituency and others. However, I know that I am not the only one; perhaps the hon. Gentleman would wish to join me on such picket lines in future, in protecting the interests of British trade unionism and British workers. That is the debate—on what is really needed in the future, in this Parliament and in Europe—that this unholy coalition alliance Government are refusing to allow to take place.

Those Back Benchers who wish to strengthen against the ever-onwards and upwards movement of big business in Europe should also create the opportunity for votes on these things, rather than simply going back to basics. Therefore, I call on them to join in the battle for a real debate on Europe, but not to the exclusion of the cuts in public services that this coalition, with these Liberal traitors, is bringing to this country, because that is the debate that the country wants.

Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

Debate between Lord Mann and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 2nd December 2010 Commons Chamber

[John Mann]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the amount of time that my staff and I have to spend on the system is greater than it was before, but I recall the system as it was before. As we have learnt from what has emerged, in those days a signature would do, and the scandals that followed made it clear that that was not sufficient. No organisation in the country that experienced such a level of scandal related to expenses would not have introduced a requirement for every box to be ticked and every receipt to be monitored. We cannot set ourselves a lower standard than we would expect of any corporation, or any other part of the public sector out there.

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

I would have supported the hon. Gentleman’s amendment had Mr Speaker called it, because I thought its tone admirable. My point concerns the independence of any regulator of a sovereign Parliament. The difficulty is that, although that regulator may be independent in title, what the House of Commons gives by legislation it can take by legislation. Constitutionally, therefore, IPSA cannot be independent of Parliament—and nor should it be, because if it were independent of Parliament, it would be independent of the British people.

[John Mann]

I do not think that that would be an accurate constitutional point if there were a constitution. Parliament has powers to meddle with the courts. Parliament has the power, for example, to meddle with any piece of legislation. The question is whether Parliament should cede authority over the administering of, and the meddling with, such implements.

Parliament could, at some stage, decide to abolish, but my amendment seeks to influence by threatening to abolish, which in some respects is even more invidious than simply moving to abolish. For the House to suggest, six months into a new system, that that system is too onerous to allow Members to do their job properly is absurd. Legitimate criticisms can be made on grounds of both bureaucracy and expense, but we should not reverse the principles of a decision made so recently. I warn the House that if we do, the wrath of our constituents will rightfully fall on us, because we will be saying, “The bad old days were not that bad. We will create the system that we want to fit us.” [Hon. Members: “People are not saying that.”] Actually, people are saying many different things about the expenses system that would suit them and their position best. That is the problem with creating expenses systems: we have different constituencies, and experience different circumstances in different parts of the country.