European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Alex Salmond and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 7th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alex Salmond]

The hon. Lady makes a very astute point, but I think the issue is even more fundamental: we have to know what happens when we say no before we go ahead at the present moment.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alex Salmond]

Not just now.

We make an effort to solve the problem in new clause 180, which we call the reset amendment. It asks the Prime Minister to seek from the European Council an agreement that if this House and the other place refuse to agree the terms negotiated, we will reset to our existing membership of the European Union on the current terms and try again. We would then approve a deal only once we believed its terms were in the interests of this country. The Prime Minister should be prepared to present us not with a bad deal or no deal—not a bad deal or World Trade Organisation terms—but a deal that we know is in the interests of our constituents and the country. That is fundamental to this debate.

I know and understand the exigencies of political leadership, but the date of the end of March came about at the Tory conference because Brexiteers were beginning to get a bit flappy about whether the Prime Minister was a born-again Brexiteer or still a secret submarine remainer. I cannot understand why people think—even on the Brexiteer side, because presumably the Brexiteers want success for this country and its economy—that it is a good idea to invoke article 50 before we know what the destination will be. Similarly, I cannot believe that it is a good idea to leave the European economic area, which is governed by different agreements and instruments, until we know what the alternative is. Instead of giving these points away and putting all the negotiating power in the hands of those we are negotiating with—they are our partners now, but in any negotiation there is a tension between two parties—any negotiation depends on the cards in your hand. If the other side know that after two years the sword of Damocles comes down, it puts them in a much more powerful position in the negotiation.

Tax Credits

Debate between Alex Salmond and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder what you will do to remind their lordships of our declaration of privilege from 1678, declaring that all financial matters pertain to this House, a privilege that the House of Lords has now ignored only three times since 1860. As our mouthpiece, will you bring that to the attention of their lordships in no uncertain terms?

[Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)]

rose—

European Union Referendum Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Debate between Alex Salmond and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Monday 7th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Alex Salmond]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I always think that it is marginally to my advantage to speak when I am trying to persuade hon. Members to support my cause. Many people have argued to the contrary —that silence could be golden in the circumstances—but looking at the programme motion, I do not think the Government should succeed. Only six weeks have passed since we were here discussing the European Referendum Bill. Of course I understand the Government’s anxiety to progress the business while the Labour party is concerned about other matters, but the motion on the Order Paper strikes me as hardly adequate for reasonable discussion.

Those of us who were present during the Committee stage will remember, among many other events, a last-minute starred amendment allowed relating to the timing of the referendum; the Government facing defeat on the issue of purdah; and the absolute confidence with which the Leader of the House and the Minister told us that the question to be put in the referendum was already more or less accepted by the Electoral Commission and that we did not have to worry about that process.

Now we come to Report stage, and we find that we are to have two and a half hours to debate the issue of purdah. We also find that a Government amendment—new clause 10—was tabled so late that you, Mr Speaker, have allowed a manuscript amendment to that new clause. I have absolutely no idea what the Government were doing during the six weeks of recess that they were only able to table a new clause so late as to allow a manuscript amendment to it. That will cause considerable controversy, and I imagine that debating it will take up the full two and a half hours.

That brings us to the second two and a half hours allowed to us, in which we have to discuss the

“Entitlement to vote, impartiality of broadcasters, party spending limits, the referendum…campaigning…financial controls…further provisions about the referendum”

and, crucially,

“the question on the ballot paper”.

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

If we do not pass this amendment to the timetable, we finish at 10 o’clock, so we would have less time than is currently proposed. If we support the right hon. Gentleman, we cut our nose off to spite our face.

[Alex Salmond]

The hon. Gentleman will be able to exercise his best judgment on whether to support the motion, but I think it is reasonable to state the inadequacy of the time allowed. There is little or no chance that all these matters will be adequately and properly discussed, and the hon. Member—the right hon. Member—knows it.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

indicated dissent.

[Alex Salmond]

I beg the hon. Gentleman’s pardon. These things take time. A few years ago, if someone had said that I would be a right hon. Member, I would have shaken my head as well, but who knows what will happen to him.

It is perfectly proper and reasonable to state that this is an inadequate timetable and to appeal to the best judgment of the Foreign Secretary to tell us that he has been persuaded by this eloquent speech to allow a proper length of time for discussion of these hugely important matters.

To facilitate the House finishing before midnight, Mr Speaker, I shall leave matters there—[Interruption.] Well, I could move past my introduction to say a few things more, but I shall say only that this is not a proper way to discuss a matter of such import. The Government have lost control of the timing of the referendum, they have lost control of the conduct of the referendum and they have been overturned on the referendum question, all in the space of the last few weeks. Their attempt to rush the Bill through this House has not served them well, and even at this last ditch, I think they would do well to consider coming back with a more adequate timetable. The Government might thereby serve the interests of the House, and probably their own interests, rather better than they have been doing.

Question put.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Alex Salmond and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Monday 6th July 2015 Commons Chamber

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

Thank you, Mr Crausby—[Interruption.] I did not hear that interruption by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), which is always a great loss because his interventions are some of the most amusing that we ever hear. On this occasion, however, I am going to disagree with him. I do not like clause 31 at all; I think it is fundamentally misconceived. I have tabled a number of amendments, which I hope will improve it—if it is possible to make a silk purse out of sow’s ear.

Let me start by explaining why I do not like the clause in principle. I think there is a danger that it is attempting to give away something that does not actually belong to the state. The Crown Estates belong to the sovereign and are given in trust to the Government at the beginning of every reign. This started at the beginning of the reign of George III and has been recommitted by every monarch subsequently. However, the Crown Estates must return entire to a new sovereign at the beginning of a new reign. It is not possible—it is not right; it is not proper—for the Government to give away the Crown Estates or to put them in such a state that an incoming sovereign could not take them back in their entirety. I therefore have concerns about the underlying principle of clause 31 in that it is seeking to divide the Crown Estates, which ought not to be divisible because of the unity they are required to have at the beginning of each reign.

I also do not like it symbolically because, although I am very sympathetic to the demands of the SNP for more government in Scotland and for more rights for the Scottish Parliament, I think the Crown is more important than the union of Parliaments.

[Alex Salmond]

rose—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is an honour to give way to the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond).

[Alex Salmond]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is familiar with the phrase “the land belongs to the people”. Surely that applies to the foreshore as well—except the bit that belongs to Caledonian MacBrayne, I suppose.

Does the hon. Gentleman regret jumping at the bait from the metropolitan press? I refer to the silly, foolish, extraordinary story that appeared three weeks ago suggesting that the Crown’s income would be damaged by the devolution of the Crown Estate. Does he regret jumping so quickly at that bait on a hook, and associating himself with such a scurrilous rumour?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s characteristically helpful intervention. What was so wonderful about that bait was the outpouring of patriotic royal fervour that it elicited from my friends in the Scottish National party. I must confess that I was thrilled and surprised when a party that I had thought to have republican leanings turned out, to a man and woman, to contain some of the staunchest monarchists in the land. That is desperately reassuring—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman —I was about to say “my hon. Friend”—is bold enough. What he should say, and what I, in logic, would be bound to accept, is that if that is to be determined by one Government, it could be argued that it should be determined only by the Scottish Government in relation to the whole Crown Estate. However, that would not be my argument.

[Alex Salmond]

I am able to help the hon. Gentleman with a precedent. It turns out that in 1923 the Crown Estate was given to the Irish Free State Government to be collected. The pertinent point is that in 1923 southern Ireland was under the Crown, as the hon. Gentleman will recall, so we now have an exact precedent for doing what he says is impossible to do.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am terribly sorry to say that we do not have an exact precedent. We have exactly the wrong precedent, and the right hon. Gentleman is making my argument: we should be very nervous of doing this because it would lead inexorably to a division between the state—we divide the Crown, and we divide the state. There we are: I am finding a good deal of agreement between my position and that of SNP Members, but neither of us is in perfect harmony with those on the Treasury Bench, who seem to want to put this forward with the view that it does not risk a fundamental division in the Crown. That is what worries me; it is why I think it is a mistake, and why I have tabled a number of amendments that I hope will meet with universal approbation. Indeed, I am very surprised that many SNP Members, after all their protestations of loyalty to the Crown following the suggestion that the sovereign grant might lose a bit of money, did not add their names to my amendments. I was hoping for that, but I hoped in vain.

I would like to explain my amendments in reverse order, because amendment 127 is perhaps the key one. It states

“The scheme must not include any permanent alienation of the rights of the Crown.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Salmond]

What my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) provides is the Castlebay answer to the Scottish question, to which the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) should listen with great care. It is always put forward with the ultimate good will.

I am in a race against time because I have 3% power left in my iPad and I want to read into the record the following quotation:

“The Scottish Government agrees with the Islands Councils that marine activities in the territorial waters of Scotland adjacent to the islands can have impacts on the community as well as delivering financial benefits to the local economy. The Scottish Government committed in Scotland's Future to ensuring the island communities benefit by receiving more than 50 per cent of Crown Estate seabed leasing revenues.

The marine assets of island communities are key to their future and the wealth that is generated should be reinvested to safeguard that future. The Scottish Government will therefore ensure that 100 per cent of the net income from the islands seabed is passed to island communities.”

That is a clear statement from a document entitled “Empowering Scotland’s Island Communities”, which I launched as First Minister last year with the three island convenors from the three island authorities, and which was broadly supported, particularly because it made the point of support not just to local authorities but to island communities, and it encompassed all the island communities of Scotland.

There was a similar declaration of intent in the principles agreed in the Smith commission. The bona fides of the Scottish Government on this matter, I may say to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), have just been demonstrated massively in the general election in the support that was gained across these communities and in Orkney and Shetland in particular. Given these substantial bona fides, the agreement and the Smith commission, why on earth does he feel it necessary to write into the Bill what the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government should do with powers that are devolved?

There is nothing in the actions or performance of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament, and the massive support that they have received across island communities, that should put anyone in any doubt of the intent, once the Crown Estate revenue is devolved, to make sure that our coastal communities and our island communities benefit in full measure. It is the very antithesis of devolution to write prescriptively into legislation what will be done after the powers are devolved. From someone who admitted in the Chamber today that he could not find agreement, or consensus, as he put it, when he was Secretary of State for Scotland to get the power devolved in the first place, it takes substantial brass neck to put forward the amendment that he tabled.

Speaking of brass neck, although he does it so elegantly, the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) was found out three weeks ago by jumping to the bait of —I was going to say the tabloid press, but the tabloids were innocent in this matter; it was the disreputable press—The Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mail, The Times and so on, added to on this occasion, disgracefully, by The Guardian and Channel 4, which leapt on to the totally misleading, erroneous story that a plot was afoot to cut the Crown revenue. As has been pointed out factually, the Crown revenue does not come from the Crown Estate. It is merely used as a proxy for the level of the royal grant.

The hon. Gentleman attempted to reinterpret his mistake and his charging in to get a few column inches—I had better call them inches in his case, as opposed to centimetres—in those disreputable newspapers, by telling us that it was some elaborate ruse to tempt out the monarchist tendencies in the Scottish Government so that he could ensure that those loyalist noises would come from the Scottish Government, as they were outraged by the very suggestion that any republican sympathies had broken out. The hon. Gentleman would have done himself more credit if he had just said, “The press got it wrong and I got it wrong, and we should all look before we leap where these matters are concerned.”

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The truth is that that did lead to a wonderful outpouring of monarchical fervour from Scotland. That is to be commended. I am just a bit worried that the former leader of the Scottish National party is not as supportive of the monarchy as his successor.

[Alex Salmond]

I was objecting not to the outpouring, but to the suggestion from the hon. Gentleman that he had planned this all along—that this was all part of some dastardly scheme he had dreamt up. That stretched our credulity rather too far.

I know that the acronym IPSA—the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority—is not beloved in this Chamber, and on coming back to this House I can see why. How on earth have Members managed to order their affairs and deal with goodness only knows what over the past few years? IPSA is not beloved, but IPSO—the Independent Press Standards Organisation—should be beloved. Today IPSO, the new self-regulating press arrangement, delivered a humiliating rebuff to The Daily Telegraph. Although it is printed on the front page in microscopic form, none the less there it is on the front page, a full-scale apology to the First Minister of Scotland for the totally erroneous story that was published during the general election campaign, with which some Members of the House are familiar and some are very familiar indeed, concerning her views on which UK Government she preferred.

IPSO is on a winning run and should now pursue those dreadful papers—right-wing bastions such as The Guardian, and those even further right-wing bastions such as The Daily Telegraph, The Times and the Daily Mail, which published such a dreadfully inaccurate story and tried to muddy the waters of this debate about the Crown Estate and cast aspersions on the monarchical loyalties of our First Minister of Scotland.

It is important that the reason for the overwhelming wish to see these matters devolved is a real belief in the island and coastal communities of Scotland that local management of these resources will achieve considerable benefits overall. It is a question not of reducing revenues, but of increasing economic activity. For many years I represented a fishing constituency, and I can tell Members that the Crown Estate has not been a popular institution among many of our fishing communities. Many of our small harbours in particular found the harbour dues on the foreshore extremely onerous. The only victory I can remember was in the town of Gardenstown in Banffshire, where the harbour commissioners were suffering from the imposition of a very substantial bill from the Crown Estate commission.

We were able to discover a royal deed from Charles II, from a time when he had been crowned King of Scots but was still to assert his rightful throne south of the border. He had a fantastic time one night in Gardenstown as he was gathering an army before the battle of Dunbar and as a result, in a fit of generosity, wrote an exemption from all Crown dues. We were able to produce that deed from the 17th century, and Gardenstown harbour, I can report to the House, is free from the imposition of the Crown Estate revenue, but other communities in Scotland have not been as fortunate. Members will therefore understand full well why there is a general desire to see such resources being applied to the economic benefit of local communities.

My final point applies to other clauses that we are debating and particularly to the speech that we heard from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey). His idea that the devolution of key aspects of labour relations and wage policy will lead to a diminution of standards does not stand up to any examination of the reality of devolution in Scotland. I pointed out to him that the no compulsory redundancy agreement which, uniquely, the civil service unions have was negotiated by the SNP Government. The pensions benefit that the Fire Brigades Union has—a small benefit in terms of the overall imposition on public sector unions, but none the less a benefit that the union values—happened because the Scottish Government were able to negotiate it. Our nursing community—nurses in the national health service—was mentioned. Nurses last year got a pay rise in Scotland because the Scottish Government followed the recommendations of the pay review, whereas the Government down here did not.

Given that experience and given the fact that the Scottish Government are an accredited living wage employer, the suggestion that people sacrifice those benefits so that the hon. Gentleman can get his uniformity, which he seems to think is crucial across the United Kingdom, would explain why there is a divergence opening up between his views and those of the Scottish Trades Union Congress on how best to achieve progressive change in Scotland.

That is a matter of great current interest, because this week we will discuss the Budget, and one of the issues of greatest importance under discussion will be the diminution of in-work benefits. Thousands of people across all our constituencies face the prospect of a substantial reduction in their standard of living as a result of the course that the Chancellor has set. He says, of course, that he wants to end the situation in which huge subsidies are going to a range of private sector employers. One approach that the Scottish Government might take, were we to have control of the minimum wage legislation, would be to increase the minimum wage quickly to the living wage, thereby reducing in-work benefits through the early increase of wages, as opposed to reducing them before any wage increases are forthcoming, which I think is the fate that is in store for workers across our constituents.

The challenge is therefore twofold. First, Members who believe that the right course of action is to increase the minimum wage towards the living wage, or to see the living wage more generally applied, would like to see that as a prerequisite before in-work benefits are cut. Secondly, with regard to the suitable amendments before the Committee, for Members representing Scottish constituents, and for those who are sympathetic to progressive politics, would it not be safer, given all the evidence to place matters in the hands of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government, to achieve that and protect the living standards of Scottish workers?

European Union (Finance) Bill

Debate between Alex Salmond and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 23rd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[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—

[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.

European Union Referendum Bill

Debate between Alex Salmond and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[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.