NHS (Charitable Trusts Etc.) Bill

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Friday 6th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Maggie Throup]

I thank my hon. Friend, and I completely agree that every doctor and nurse, and every NHS worker goes beyond the call of duty—not just at Great Ormond Street, but in hospitals throughout the country. We owe a great debt of gratitude to them for the work they do.

J. M. Barrie made a very generous and powerful donation when he gifted the rights from “Peter Pan” to Great Ormond Street Hospital Children’s Charity. I am sure the renowned author would be cheering from the Gallery, if he could, to hear that his wishes are to be continued through the mechanisms of this Bill.

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

Mr Barrie had better not cheer from the Gallery; if he did, he would be ruled out of order.

[Maggie Throup]

I bow to my hon. Friend’s greater knowledge of this place.

It is only right that every effort is made to ensure that the moneys available through the rights are used for the original intended purpose. I am sure that the parents and patients at this world-leading hospital will be backing this Bill, as they can see and experience first-hand how important additional charitable donations are to the workings of this hospital. The Bill provides for much-needed changes to legislation, and I will support it in the Lobby today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Much has been said about the importance of a work of literature with the status of the novel “Peter Pan”. We are, of course, entering the panto season. My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) told us earlier about the number of performances of “Peter Pan” that would be taking place around the country, and I note that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, are wearing the ruby slippers of Dorothy from “The Wizard of Oz”. The Epping Forest Empire Theatre will doubtless present a sterling performance at some point during the Christmas season.

I support the Bill, and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on introducing it. Underpinning its proposals is, of course, the Government’s commitment to localism and devolution. Many of us who have read the Bill will probably have been rather surprised that the opportunity to appoint trustees is a reserved power of the Secretary of State for Health, because one would automatically assume that trustees who are involved in their local hospitals would be drawn from the local community, and appointed by people with local knowledge and expertise. In that respect, the Bill is a very important measure.

The safeguard that I sought to draw out from my hon. Friend in an earlier intervention is crucial. In no way does this newfound independence of appointment allow trusts to move away from their core and original purpose. They cannot all look at the Racing Post and decide that Lucky Lad in the 3.10 on Saturday is the favourite, and the fact that the horse has only three legs and the jockey has a withered arm is neither here nor there—they are going to put all the trust funds on Lucky Lad. That cannot happen, which I think is a very important safeguard.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Simon Hoare]

At the very mention of Lucky Lad, I give way to my hon. Friend.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is giving an excellent explanation of what the Bill would do. Ordinary charities are not, of course, allowed to put money on Lucky Lad in the 3.10 at Uttoxeter, or wherever it may be. I hope that that is not a widespread problem, but if it is, my hon. Friend should bring it to the attention of the Charity Commission.

[Simon Hoare]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for clarifying the role of trustees. As a trustee of a charity myself, I shall ensure that my copies of the Racing Post— well thumbed as they are—are not brought into any more trustee meetings. It is also important to point out that the Charity Commission will continue to have oversight. I think that that addresses the rather waspish comment made by the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) in an intervention on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson).

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a great pleasure to rise in support of this Bill and in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), who fills a seat that was taken by a most distinguished predecessor. Richard Shepherd was a wonderful Member of Parliament and a great parliamentarian. He believed so much in this institution, and we should all rejoice at the fact that my hon. Friend now takes his place and is showing herself to be a serious parliamentarian, committed to the processes of this House.

You, Madam Deputy Speaker, were not here last week when a new tradition began, which I would like to continue. It is that of congratulating the Chairman of Ways and Means on the brilliant way in which he carries out the ballot so that my hon. Friend should have come high enough up it for her Bill to come fourth. He carried out this draw with such characteristic efficiency and in such a workmanlike fashion that her Bill came out low enough down to be high enough up for it to be debated today. That is a very considerable achievement.

[Simon Hoare]

rose—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I give way to my hon. Friend.

[Simon Hoare]

I asked my hon. Friend to give way just to give the House pause to recalibrate itself as it gets used to the idea of him welcoming anything that is new.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point; occasionally there are innovations that are welcome, and this is one of them. For those who do not know, I should add that in the draw No. 1 used to be done first but now No. 20 is the Bill done first. It is like a game show: it brings more tension and atmosphere into the proceedings. That is how it has worked and how the Bills have come out in the way they have.

This is a superb Bill. It is the reason why private Members’ Bills exist, because it is deregulating. It is such a wonderfully Tory Bill. It is a properly Conservative Bill, because it takes—[Interruption.] I am so sorry, but I could not quite hear what the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) was saying from a sedentary position. I am happy to give way if he wishes to intervene.

Why is it such a wonderfully Conservative Bill? It is because of its fundamental deregulatory nature. We have built up a state where more and more powers have been gathered to the centre, where Whitehall has the rule over all it purveys. It tells people what they must do. When it says jump, people have to say, “How high?” It was of course a Labour Cabinet Minister who said, “The fact of the matter is the man in Whitehall really does know best.” It has to be said that that was in 1947, but the fundamental principle underpinning what the socialists believe remains the same: that control should be centralised; that if instructions and diktats come from on high, the government of the country will be better run; and that individuals are not the people who can best take charge of this.

We, as Conservatives, reject that fundamentally, and it is this philosophy that underpins the Bill. We take the view that the millions of random decisions taken by individuals over how they should lead their lives means better decision making, better allocation of resources and a more contented and unified society overall. By taking power away from the Secretary of State—removing appointments from his control—the Bill allows every charity across the country that is involved in supporting the health service to set out what is appropriate for its community, for its region, for its county and for its area. In Somerset, we may well want different approaches from that which is suitable for the centre of London. Different approaches will be wanted in Dorset, Devon, Sussex and Surrey. Even in Gloucestershire they may have some thought as to how they wish to approach these things. [Interruption.] And in Hampshire, that fine county. Hampshire, one of the great counties, which was on the right side when Alfred beat Guthrum, is always to be admired in these contexts. These charities will decide what is appropriate and suitable for them, how they appoint and whom they have.

One of my colleagues speaking earlier, I believe it was my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), was talking about the risk that people would be appointed for nefarious political purposes, and of course that is what has always happened. In the 18th century, it was called jobbery. I always thought that was a good word because it so nicely encapsulates what happens as we get that corruption of baubles. The Government are the owner and disperser of baubles, and there is a corruption built in, as they give those baubles, initially, not to their friends specifically, but merely to those who are not opposed to them. In the case of somebody who is opposed, it would be “going too far” to allow an appointment to be made by the Secretary of State. It really “would not do” to appoint somebody on the other wing of politics.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

My hon. Friend shares my dislike of overweening Executive action. Does he agree that sometimes in this place, particularly on Report, too little time is given to Members to allow us to discuss the kinds of thing that the Executive wish to impose on us centrally?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I have great sympathy with what my hon. Friend says; it is so important that we have enough time. It is why Fridays are such a pleasure, because there is time to discuss a Bill in full and in the round, and to consider the principles underpinning it, the details of it, and what would happen to it if it were to be brought into effect. That is proper parliamentary procedure. I have such admiration for those great heroes of the 19th century—[Interruption]—talking of which I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart).

[Bob Stewart]

I thank my great and hon. Friend, an advocate of the 16th century, for giving way. Does he consider appointments to the House of Lords to be the modern version of 17th-century baubles?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Madam Deputy Speaker is giving me one of her looks. As much as I would like to discuss reform of the House of Lords, I would be ruled out of order. If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I must get back to jobbery, because jobbery and avoiding jobbery are at the heart of the Bill.

I was explaining how jobbery, when it starts, is not a deliberate corruption. It is merely the recognition that it just would not do to appoint somebody on the other extreme of politics. We can hear Sir Humphrey going to the Secretary of State and saying, “It would be a little brave, Minister, to appoint such a person who is on so different a wing from you.” The next time an appointment comes up, there is the thought, “Well, if I couldn’t appoint someone who was actively opposed, perhaps I should really only appoint people who are on my side”—in other words, our mates and friends. Thus we get to the heart of jobbery. Appointments are made purely because of somebody’s political colour and context.

In the primary care trust in Bath and North East Somerset which preceded the current organisations a local Conservative had a judicial review against the previous Labour Government to get himself appointed as its chairman, because he was the most qualified person and had been refused only on the basis that he was a Conservative. Therefore, the idea that jobbery has completely left the system is false, and so too is the idea that Governments are so high and mighty and Olympian in their decision making that they do not descend to mere political jobbery.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

My hon. Friend might like to know that examples of jobbery abound in Wales. It might be useful to look at some of the appointments made by the Welsh Government to the various public bodies.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I must remind the hon. Lady for the sake of good form—I appreciate that she has not been in the House for very long so I am not reprimanding her—that she must address her remarks not to the hon. Gentleman, but to the Chair.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend makes an absolutely brilliant and crucial point. We want to get away from jobbery wherever it happens, and it is most likely to happen in areas where one party is in government for a very long time.

[Paul Flynn]

There is a current example of grotesque jobbery in the appointment by the Prime Minister of the Conservative Members of the Council of Europe, and three splendid Members, including the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), have been—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I really have tried to give as much leeway as I can this morning to this debate, but I cannot reconcile Great Ormond Street hospital with the Council of Europe. I am quite sure that, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to bring some kind of analogy from “Peter Pan”, Never Land and the Council of Europe, he can do so, but I must warn him that it will have to be really quite narrow.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

There was an urgent question on the matter, and I do not think that there is any more for me to say on it.

Jobbery is a real problem. It comes more when a party is in office for a very long time. The system gets accustomed to appointing people who belong to routine consensus political views, and they are the ones who get the baubles.

Many of these charitable baubles are unpaid, but they come with a great deal of status in their communities, so there is a benefit to the person receiving them. It is right that such decisions should be more independent of the Government. It is right not just because of the ability to get away from jobbery, but because many people—those on the Treasury Bench will be shocked to hear this—do not trust the Government.

[Simon Hoare]

Shame!

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I know. The Minister in his seat is looking appalled at that suggestion, but it is true. Many people think that if there is any possibility of the Government getting their grubby paws on a little bit of money, those grubby paws will dart out and the money will be raked in. There is of course a history of Government doing that. For example, hypothecated taxes have been introduced for particular purposes. When the Government run a bit short of money, or find that too much is being paid in the hypothecated taxes, they dehypothecate them—they put them to another purpose. I am thinking of national insurance, which was introduced as an insurance scheme, and of the road fund licence, which was introduced to build our roads. Both of those were syphoned off by Governments, arguably for very good reasons, which I will not go into because they are too broad for this Bill. I merely wish to illustrate the point that charities need to be robust in spending the money on what it has been given for, and not on any other thing, and if they cannot spend it on that which it has been given for, they should give it back to the people who gave it in the first place. The reason that that is important is partly that we believe in the rights of property—this is a Tory Bill. If property belongs to a specific designated purpose then that is what it is there for; it is not there to be used for any random purpose that someone thinks is a good idea at some later stage. There are many good purposes, and there are many charities that some people think do less good things than the good purpose that they have thought up, so there is always pressure to reallocate resources in the way that a Government, or some authority, think is preferable.

[Kevin Foster]

My hon. Friend is bringing his usual fairy dust to this debate. Does he agree that this is about people having confidence in the independence of the trustees, and believing that donations will be used exactly for the purpose of the charity? Furthermore, it is about removing any sense that those donations might be filling in for taxpayer funds.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am extremely grateful for that intervention, because that is exactly the point. It is one of those occasions where rigour really helps. If donors feel that their money will be used properly, they are more willing to give. It is fascinating how charity law has developed in this direction in recent years. Historically, if people gave money to charities, they gave it to the charity for its general purposes. Then they discovered that the general purposes of charities included all sorts of jolly things, such as lunch at the Ritz, so increasingly they have given money for limited purposes, and the funds can then only be spent on those purposes, even within a single charity. For example, if people viewing this debate wish to make donations for the renewal and restoration of this Palace, that money could only be spent on the renewal and restoration of this Palace; it could not be used for other purposes. Charity law has gone that way because it encourages people to give, as they have confidence in how the money will be spent. That is crucial for NHS charities, because there is this large pool of Government money, but it is never quite enough. We hear of deficits, and hospitals and doctors wanting more money, and all of that is a constant pressure on the health service.

[Wendy Morton]

The reason behind the Bill and for removing the Secretary of State’s powers to appoint trustees stems from a consultation with the charities. The move to independence is something that the charities want, and it is a key part of the Bill. We are recognising that donations must be kept entirely separate from the money that comes from the Exchequer, and that it is also accounted for separately.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend really is a truly radical parliamentarian in the train of her predecessor, because she has been involved in a consultation that has actually listened to what people have said. This is a very dangerous precedent, and I cannot believe that the Government ever do anything of that kind. They always wait for the answer that they hoped for in the beginning. What a brilliant thing she has done, and I entirely agree with the point she makes, but it makes so much sense to reinforce the independence of charities and to ring-fence the money, because there are inevitable, inexorable pressures on NHS budgets. If there is a couple of million pounds sitting around at the end of the year and a waiting list and the hospital could do with a bit of cash, it could easily try to claw in the money. That is why ring-fencing and independence are so important to ensure that it is put beyond doubt that charities will do what they have been set up to do. That reassures people and will make them more generous.

I wish to raise one point with the Minister, however, that comes from a constituency experience. It relates to the independent charities using the trademark of the national health service. A constituent of mine runs a charity that has put defibrillators across the country, and he has done so in co-ordination with the NHS. The numbers needed to open the boxes are given out when people dial 999. The charity is supported by ambulance trusts, which have said that they want their logo put on the boxes. Now, some random bureaucratic body in the NHS protects its logo, and it has decided in its wisdom that the charity must spend some money removing all the NHS logos from a system backed by the NHS, operated with the NHS, but not formally part of the NHS. That seems to me the worst type of bureaucratic folderol imaginable. It is a stubborn refusal to allow something sensible to happen for no good reason other than that a rule must be rigorously enforced. The whole purpose of the boxes is to support the NHS, to make its job easier, and no one can open the box without having got in touch with the emergency services in the first place, and, as I say, the ambulance trusts want this to happen.

It concerns me that, if the charities are made formally independent, that same bureaucracy will be jumping up and down in a few weeks’ time and saying, “Well, you’re now an independent charity, so you can’t use the NHS logo because it will damage the NHS brand.” That is a perfectly ridiculous point of view to take. I could not have less sympathy for how that body is approaching the issue, rather than using the good common sense that is another Tory value and principle and allowing something that benefits everyone to happen. I hope that that will not be a problem emerging from the Bill. Perhaps an amendment can be inserted in Committee to say specifically that charities linked with the NHS are entitled to use NHS logos and trademarks. I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically on what I am saying about the charity in my constituency that is doing something really wonderful—it is saving hundreds of lives—but some petty bureaucrat is getting in the way. So I hope that an additional benefit will come from the Bill.

I have been saving up talking about J.M. Barrie and “Peter Pan” because I remember when the Bill—introduced by the late Lord Callaghan, a former Prime Minister—was passed in 1988 to extend the copyright on “Peter Pan” indefinitely, and I do so because I remember the late Lord Charteris starting a speech by pointing out that Captain Hook was an old Etonian. Lord Charteris was then the provost of Eton, and that was therefore immediately relevant and of interest to him, but it is also of interest to me because it has to be said that there are all sorts of old Etonians. There are the great and the good: the greatest figures in the land—our Prime Minister is an old Etonian, and he is one of the good lot—but we have at the other end the rogues’ gallery of old Etonians, where Captain Hook stands proud, along with people like Lord Lucan. Hon. Members know exactly what I mean. Captain Hook is there in that role to frighten the children, to keep them well behaved, just as Bonaparte was used in earlier times to frighten badly behaved children. I am rather proud of the fact that an old Etonian fills that role. It rebalances the scales so that we do not mislead people into thinking that all old Etonians are wonderful fellows. One or two of them are in the rogues’ gallery, but there is a balance: only in the past week, the new James Bond film has come out, and James Bond is, of course, another old Etonian. We have some good historical characters, as well as some villains, who are there to remind people that Eton is a serious school that produces people who will take all sorts of different sides in various cases.

What is happening with “Peter Pan” and Great Ormond Street hospital is a great combination of good sense and generosity. J.M. Barrie’s generosity was remarkable. He left his royalties to various people. He left them to Great Ormond Street hospital. He left some to Westminster school, and, where I must declare an interest, he left some to the Garrick club. Since the “Winnie-the-Pooh” money came into the Garrick club, the wine list has improved very considerably. So we all have a lot to be grateful to J.M. Barrie for, either directly or indirectly.

[Simon Hoare]

rose—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I give way to my fellow Garrick member.

[Simon Hoare]

I hate to contradict my proposer to the club, but I think that A.A. Milne gave his royalties to the Garrick, not J.M. Barrie.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I was confusing my authors of children’s literature. I got “Winnie-the-Pooh” right; I was just attributing it to the wrong man. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that correction. So I do not have an interest to declare. I must de-declare my interest in relation to the topic on which I was talking.

Leaving such a legacy is a wonderfully generous thing to do, along with the flexibility in allowing the copyright law to be adapted so that one play can provide resources for a hospital, where the two come together. We all know the story very well. The childhood story of Peter Pan, ever-youthful—Madam Deputy Speaker, as I look at you, I see the ever-youthful Deputy Speaker—is a great one to combine with a children’s hospital, which is there to care for children at their weakest time, not just those from London, but those from across the country, as we have heard.

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I wonder whether he supports legislation that would automatically extend the copyright of written works when donated for charitable purposes. I referred earlier to various authors, particularly children’s authors, who may now consider with greater likelihood leaving their copyright to hospitals and the like after their deaths. If they knew that the copyright would be automatically extended for the charity’s benefit, it might encourage even more of them to do so. Does he agree?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That is an interesting point, but probably, no, I would not agree. Such an extension should happen in highly exceptional circumstances, rather than made a general rule, because copyright law needs to be simple and fair. If it were used to advance particular charities, it would give an option on copyright that was ultimately extendable to a charity of the donor’s choice and we might end up with strange, effectively, avoidance measures to pass money through generations and extensions that had not been intended in the legislation. The length of copyright is already quite long beyond the author’s death, and that provides plenty of charitable donations in the normal course of events. Although I believe in rigour in what one believes politically and in trying to follow logic through to its end, the fact that “Peter Pan” is such an exceptional play and Great Ormond Street is such an exceptional hospital shows that there should be exceptions that make the system fundamentally more human. Therefore, I am in favour of such an extension as a one-off, but I would not welcome it as a general rule.

I have one question for the Minister, however, on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. The trade agreement with the United States will look particularly at matters that relate to intellectual copyright. It might be important specifically to exclude “Peter Pan”—along with the French, who are excluding all their dodgy films, but that is slightly by the bye—because I can envisage a Hollywood studio making a film of “Peter Pan” and finding that it had to pay royalties in the United Kingdom but nowhere else, and that might conceivably fall foul of TTIP. I do not want to raise absurd difficulties for TTIP, which is a good scheme and is enormously welcome, but this is such an exception not just to our laws of copyright but to the normal international laws of copyright that it would be a pity if the system were not robust and could not continue. It may not be disastrous, because American film-makers are good, decent, noble people, and it is hard to think that they would be so mean-minded and damage their reputation, which is probably more to the point—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) needs to shout a bit louder—I cannot hear his sedentary interruptions, but they sound fascinating, and I wish he would share them with the House. I am happy to give way if he wishes to intervene. American film-makers would not want to damage their reputation by being aggressive on “Peter Pan”.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that he is damaging his reputation talking this nonsense?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

If I were talking nonsense, Madam Deputy Speaker would rule me out of order under Standing Orders that refer to a speech being both tedious and repetitious. I do not think that I am being either of those, nor wandering—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. For the avoidance of doubt, I do not need the hon. Gentleman’s help to know when nonsense is being talked in the Chamber. If nonsense were to be talked or repetition were to be undertaken I would stop it immediately.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is a side concern, but it is something that everyone in the House wishes to see—

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Sometimes it is difficult for the occupant of the Chair to work out whether an intervention or part of a speech is in order, but the hon. Gentleman has referred specifically to the next Bill, which is not in order. I caution Mr Rees-Mogg to be careful in his response to the hon. Gentleman, and stick to the Bill. By and by we will come to the next Bill.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I have never sought to model myself on Nostradamus, so I am not looking into a glass bowl lit by candles to see what will happen in future. I am concentrating on the here and now—the present—and this important and beneficial Bill. I have congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills on introducing such a sound and wisely based measure that does something for the good of the whole nation and which will encourage the great vein of charitable giving that has provided so much for people across the centuries and shows what can be done beyond the state.

There is a feeling that everything has to be wrapped up and organised by Her Majesty’s Government: that welfare, health and education should come from the Government, and that no other parties should become involved. That is not true. We want to allow the natural charitable instincts of the British people to bloom, and they do. The British people are some of the most generous in the world, not because they are chugged and all those things, but because it is in their nature. It is their instinct to want to support good causes. That is why, across the country, we have wards bearing people’s names which have been built as a result of the generosity of benefactors who want better health care in the United Kingdom. That is why there are organisations such as the Wellcome Trust, which is a charitable organisation that improves the quality of medicine, and why people work from a charitable basis to develop new medicines and care, particularly palliative care, much of which is provided by the voluntary sector. I was a trustee for some years of St John and St Elizabeth, a hospital near Lord’s cricket ground, which provides the only hospice in central London, funded by charitable donations from those who feel that looking after people at the end of their life is a fundamental calling, and is not something that can invariably be done by the state.

Not every charge should go to the state; not every action should be borne by the state or taxpayer. It is right and proper that we allow charity to flourish and bloom, but then we have to put it in a protective envelope and protect it not just from this Government but from Governments to come, who may see that as a useful source of revenue and think that they can cut a few corners. They may find at the end of the year that they are a little short of money, which can be raised by selling off charities as assets. There are Governments who do those things: they run into financial crises and are desperate to do them. The Bill provides a statutory framework to protect charities. When people know that their money is protected they are more likely to give generously. That is something that has underpinned all economic activity in this country for centuries: the certainty that, under the rule of law, someone’s property is theirs to do what they like with, and will be used for the purpose for which they have given it if it is donated to charity.

Reinforcing and ring-fencing that and putting it into a short Bill is a magnificent thing to do. It is one little notch that the axeman is making, cutting down the great oak tree of excessive governmental interference. I hope that we will have more private Members’ Bills of this kind, and that the axeman will swing his axe more vigorously and the cuts—the nicks—become bigger and bigger until the overarching tree comes down and we have a greater and freer society in which individuals can do more from their own talents, their property is protected and the dead hand of the state is removed as far as possible.