Credit Institutions and Investment Firms

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

I am simply highlighting the anxieties felt across the City, the financial service sector and by many hon. Members, who are worried that we are stepping into a new set of financial service regulation structures domestically within the UK that are far away from those bodies we need to be influencing, steering and having our voices heard by. It may well be that we are stepping in the wrong direction. That is the anxiety I am voicing today.

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

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to interrupt his characteristically thoughtful speech. Given what he is saying, does he think that this would be a very good, if not ideal, area in which to repatriate powers?

[Chris Leslie]

I do not think it is wrong to try to have some level of co-ordination on financial services regulation across the EU. This is a global industry, and that is broadly sensible. However, we now know very well how those supervisory institutions of the EU are to be structured, and yet we are designing new arrangements for the post-Financial Services Authority world that do not match very suitably with those. There may be different approaches to how we can make the fit more effective and improve Britain’s voice. However, there is genuine concern that even though we knew about these arrangements 18 months ago, the Government have not yet provided the capability to adapt the regulatory reforms to ensure that we do not lose influence—and, in fact, build our influence.

As regards the capital requirements directive, it is clear that for the time being we need to resist the Commission’s challenge to proper subsidiarity and give our reasons for retaining national discretion to have safer and higher standards for financial regulation here in the UK.

We support the motion but hope that Ministers will take the opportunity to think more strategically about how best to address the structural mismatch between their proposed reforms and the European arrangements, because that risks marginalising the UK’s voice time and again.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin). I agreed with practically every word she said.

I want to focus on subsidiarity in relation to the bank capital requirements. It seems to me that those capital requirements must rest with the lender of last resort, because the organisation that will be best informed about the requirements of banks within its system will be the bank to which they report. This regulation might therefore be an area where it is suitable for the eurozone to have a single regulation, but where those outside the eurozone ought to have regulations referring to their own currencies and central banks.

That works both ways. There has been much concentration on the need to raise bank capital rates when an economy is booming, as part of efforts to calm down an economic expansion, and that is obviously true: had bank capitalisation rates been raised during the last boom, the effects would have been lessened, the degree of gearing, particularly in the Royal Bank of Scotland, would have been lower and the problems that followed would have been fewer. However, it is equally important, when an economy is turning down, that bank capital requirements might need to be lowered, and that might well be the case now.

When banks face large amounts of bad loans and write-offs, we might need our central bank to say, “Well, at this point, we cannot enforce a high bank capital adequacy ratio because, if we do, our banks will not be able to continue in business, or they will not be able to make loans to good-quality borrowers now coming forward.” The key argument of subsidiarity, therefore, is that bank capital adequacy regulations have to relate to the currency at issue, and that comes back to the central bank at issue—in our case, of course, the Bank of England. Those ratios must be flexible beyond international agreement, because if the lender of last resort is willing to lend to a bank with low capitalisation in a time of crisis, that is a decision for that central bank and its risk-taking decision makers; it does not need to be decided at an international level.

My final point is the one made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash): there is a danger, under the qualified majority voting system, of regulations entirely suitable for the eurozone being passed through for the whole of the EU. Her Majesty’s Government need to be alert to that and to make every effort to prevent such regulations from being forced upon us. I hope, therefore, that this motion, when passed, will be taken seriously by the EU, and that we will be allowed to regulate our banks in our way, as appropriate.

Jobs and Growth

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Wednesday 12th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ed Balls]

I will make some progress before giving way again. I am always very happy to take interventions. It is clear that the Chancellor has a good whipping operation in place today, although good whipping is something he knows quite a lot about.

A year ago, we warned that a global hurricane was brewing and that it was exactly the wrong time to rip out the foundations of the house but the Chancellor disagreed and recklessly decided to raise taxes and cut spending further and faster than in any other economy. The evidence is clear that his plan has not made the British economy better able to withstand the global storm and that by going too far and too fast he has left it badly exposed. Families and businesses up and down the country are asking how many more businesses must go bankrupt, how many more families must see their living standards fall, how many more young people will have to lose their jobs, how much more unemployment and misery and rising child poverty must we see. How much more evidence do the Government need before they finally change course?

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

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ed Balls]

I will happily give way to my friend over there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the shadow Chancellor for giving way, but I wonder whether he has got it the wrong way round. With a global storm brewing, the right thing to do was ensure that the gilt market was secure and that we could carry on borrowing cheaply, which has ensured that a recovery will eventually come. He can no doubt find something I said in 1830 and quote it back to me, but that is not really the point.

[Ed Balls]

I am not sure about 1830, but if the hon. Gentleman was in the House in 1930—he might have been—he will know the dangers of very low bond yields accompanied by rising national debt, rising unemployment and economies locked in stagnation. I do not know whether he was around at the time, but some forefathers and foremothers certainly were. Let me quote the director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, the think-tank of the year, who said:

“The reason people are marking down the gilt yields is because they think that the economy is weak.”

That is the truth.

Let me make a prediction. I do not expect the Chancellor to announce a change of course today, but will we hear him repeat his boast made this time last year that the British economy’s recovery is on track? I doubt it. Will he repeat the Prime Minister’s deeply complacent boast that Britain is out of the danger zone? I doubt that, too. Will he describe Britain as a safe haven that is immune from the global storm? Will he repeat his naive forecast that cutting public jobs will boost private confidence and create more private jobs? Even this Chancellor cannot fly in the face of the facts. Employment has fallen in the past 12 months. On the day when unemployment has risen again, will he give any indication that he understands at all how hard things are for families up and down the country? Is he so out of touch that he really believes that a £1.40 a week council tax freeze can compensate for a £9 a week rise in VAT?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Sovereign Grant Bill (Allocation of Time)

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I am—

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

Going back to 1066.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am not going to go back to 1066, but I am not sure whether it was auspicious to schedule the debate for Bastille day. Debating the monarchy today of all days might not have been wise, but to limit the debate so much is not necessarily as constitutional as it ought to be, and perhaps Her Majesty’s Government might like to bring the Bill back, as the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) suggested, when we can have a little bit of time for a proper debate on Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Sovereign Grant Bill

Sovereign Grant Bill

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2011 Commons Chamber

One important change in the Bill, which was referred to in the debate on the time resolution, is that we will no longer require Parliaments—I hope future Parliaments—to pass primary legislation within six months of the arrival on the throne of a new monarch, which is the case under the civil list arrangements. We are trying to establish arrangements that are not to do with the current personality of the monarch, but that endure beyond that and allow the royal household to plan for the future with certainty.

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

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in the theoretical circumstance that a new monarch decided to keep the Crown Estate revenues, it would be open to such a monarch to do so?

[Mr Osborne]

I think that that is pretty unlikely and pretty theoretical, to be honest. Since 1760, it has been an established precedent that the monarch hands over the revenues of the Crown Estate to the Government of the day. There are many powers that we vest in our monarch. The Queen has wisely, like her predecessors, chosen not to use those powers. As I say, I think that that question is pretty theoretical.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn]

One example of many of royal spending was a trip by Prince Charles and Camilla from Buckingham palace to Balmoral for which the taxpayer—[Interruption.]

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

On a point of order, Mr Evans. I wonder whether you would rule on the correct way of referring to Their Royal Highnesses the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I think that respect for members of the royal family is warranted and it would therefore be appropriate to show proper respect in referring to them in the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

That is another debate and it is difficult to quantify what the hon. Gentleman says is brought in. I do not just look at this in terms of money, but take the more fundamental view that we have a Head of State and should support her in the work that she does on behalf of this nation. What I am saying is that we need to be clear about what that costs. We should be honest about how much it costs, even if it costs more than £34 million, and not hide the way in which moneys are spent.

I broadly welcome the thrust of the Bill, but I hope that the NAO report looks not just at how royal expenditure is spent on the sovereign grant, but at other moneys that are paid to the royal household. It might suggest, for example, that the money that comes from the Ministry of Defence should not come out of defence expenditure.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The shadow Chancellor concluded his remarks by saying that he had looked up the Commons Journal for 1760. He is, of course, a very modern man. I went a little earlier and looked up the Commons Journal for 1575. I thank the Library for its assistance in helping me to find what I was looking for. I was looking for the behaviour of the House towards a Mr Peter Wentworth, a man who represented a Cornish seat and had the temerity to criticise the then sovereign, Elizabeth I. He said that

“none is without fault, no, not our noble Queen”.

For this “prepared speech” and

“divers offensive matters touching Her Majesty”

he was taken prisoner to the Tower and held there for a month at the insistence of the House of Commons. I must say that I think they knew how to behave in 1575, and it is a model for us today.

I want to come on to who really owns the Crown Estate, because that is important in this discussion. That is why I intervened on the Chancellor, and I am grateful to him for taking my intervention. It is important to remember that the Crown Estate is the property of the sovereign in an ultimate sense, though gifted for a reign. The importance of that is that the sovereign therefore has a right to ask for money. One might think that they would get the money anyway, but sovereigns have been promised money by Parliament that has been stopped. One just needs to go back to Charles II, who handed over all his feudal dues to the Government for £100,000 a year in perpetuity for all his heirs and successors. I am not sure that that £100,000 has been paid once in the last three hundred and some odd years. The Crown, by virtue of owning the Crown Estate, can guarantee that it is entitled to a revenue. The fact that at the beginning of each reign it could theoretically demand the Crown Estate back is important reassurance and a reassertion of that right.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Is my hon. Friend conscious of the fact that at the time of the secret treaty of Dover in 1670, the Crown would not recall Parliament because Louis XIV insisted that we should do what the French and the rest of the Europeans wanted, in return for which he would give enough money to Charles II to keep him in with his mistresses and the royal household in the manner to which he felt he should be accustomed?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I remember the secret treaty of Dover well, although I was not an active participant. However, it is not particularly relevant to this debate. It has to be borne in mind that Louis XIV did not deliver the cash, which is always a slight problem in such negotiations.

The Crown Estate belongs to the sovereign. Any other great landowner who has inherited land owns that property outright and is free to pass it from generation to generation. The Crown Estate is in that position. We have discussed before whether, because it is exempt from death duties or because it used to be used to pay for Government expenditure, it is in some sense different and the nation’s. I would argue that that reasoning is not accurate. In the same way that the feudal duties that fell upon other landowners were abolished as time went on, so the Crown Estate would in all normal circumstances have become the Queen’s outright.

I therefore go back to my point, which the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) dislikes, that the Queen pays an 85% tax rate. There would be £200 million or more in income for the Queen every year, but in fact there will be only about £30 million. So Her Majesty is the highest-paying taxpayer in this country. Members of Parliament might like to think that we could do a deal with the Government, hand over our salary and be given £9,000 a year back.

[Mr Davidson]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that there is a distinction between the monarch as an individual and the monarchy as an institution? The Crown Estate is the property of the state, inasmuch as it is the property of the monarchy as an institution, not the monarch as an individual. It is therefore untrue to say that the monarch as an individual is paying 85% tax.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I think it is immeasurably confusing when we start trying to divide the Queen up in that way. Her Majesty is our sovereign, full stop. She is one person, indivisible. She is not the trinity—Her Majesty the Queen, Her Majesty Mrs Windsor and Her Majesty the third party of the trinity. It does not work like that. She is one sovereign individual.

The next point that I want to make is one on which I agree, as I often do, actually, with the right hon. Member for North Durham. [Hon. Members: “Honourable.”] I am so sorry, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). It is in Her Majesty’s gift, of course, to promote him, and perhaps she might have looked more favourably on that if he had been a bit more loyal in his comments. However, I agree with his point that we have to pay for the constitution that we have. The Queen is not here to bring in tourism and things like that. She is here as an essential part of our constitution. That is why it is worth the military taking on the costs of sending attachés and so on and so forth. The military owe their loyalty to the Crown, not to politicians, senior generals or people who could abuse that power to change how this country is run.

Our constitutional settlement, which works extraordinarily well and has worked well for hundreds of years, is worth paying for. On that basis, we get stability as a nation and the effective operation of our constitutional system. The judges owe loyalty to the Crown; the military owe loyalty to the Crown; we, as Members of Parliament, swear an oath to the Crown. It is the Crown that is at the pinnacle of our constitution, outside and above politics and a defender of our liberties. Indeed, as Charles I said at the scaffold, he died the martyr of the people, because he had been defending the liberties of the people, as the Queen has done now for jolly nearly 60 years. We must be willing to pay the right price for our constitutional settlement, and I think that should be a generous price.

[Michael Ellis]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that each sovereign since 1760 has been asked by successive Governments to sign over the proceeds of the Crown Estate, in and of itself, proves that the estate belongs not to the country but to the person of the sovereign?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is of course right.

It is often said that Her Majesty is the golden thread that binds our nation together, and the key part of that phrase is the word “golden”. Her Majesty is not the cotton thread, or the silver thread, or the woollen thread, she is a golden thread that binds the nation together as one unique, great and noble nation.

[Paul Flynn]

rose—

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

It is always an honour to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Paul Flynn]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way before he goes into hyper-rant. Does he realise that the fantasy that he is describing has been changed by the fact that many hon. Members, who are forced to say an oath—they have no choice—put a preamble to that oath that alters its meaning? The process of a decision to go to war was changed when the House decided to vote on wars in 2003, and probably on all future wars.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

There is a completely separate question, outside the remit of this debate, on the prerogative powers. It has well been established that the prerogative can be bound by legislation, and legislation comes from this House. However, that has very little to do with the Crown Estate and the financing of our sovereign, which, as I said, is something that we should do properly.

We then have the question of scrutiny and the Public Accounts Committee. I make no bones about it, I think it is inelegant, ungallant and improper to look at every biscuit that Her Majesty wishes to buy. I think Her Majesty should have as many biscuits as she likes, and if they are chocolate Bath Olivers rather than Rich Tea, so be it. I just do not think it right for a Committee of this House to look into that.

Civil List

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), who is the current Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. Under my chairmanship and hers, the Committee has for many years fought a relentless campaign on this issue, but I never thought this day would come. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has risen to such distinction, but I remember his being a member of our Committee when he was a very new, young Member of Parliament, and he may recall a visit we made to Kensington palace together. The trouble with dealing politically with royal family matters—I know this from my many years of chairing the Public Accounts Committee—is that whereas an incredibly worthy report about tens of millions of pounds, or even hundreds of millions of ponds, being wasted in the Department for Work and Pensions will end up only on page 15 of the Financial Times, if we are lucky, something involving the royal family gets much more interest. I think that the visit we made to Kensington palace was on pages 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Daily Mail. There is enormous public interest where the royal family is concerned.

My right hon. Friend is to be commended for being the first Chancellor of the Exchequer to have the guts to take this issue on and deal with it. As I said, I thought this day would never come. When we started this campaign and really tried to gear it up, we were looking at three areas in which we thought that parliamentary accountability was absolutely vital: the royal family and all aspects of royal finances, the BBC and the Bank of England. Those three great institutions stand without Parliament and we were told for all sorts of reasons why it was quite inappropriate for the National Audit Office to crawl all over their accounts. It has been like pushing water uphill, but I think that after many years and many bloody battles we are going to drag the BBC to full accountability—and not a moment too soon. That is quite right. Again, I commend the Chancellor for what he is doing. The Bank of England is a more difficult issue and we are still struggling on that, but we have a great victory today. For the first time since this modern settlement was made in 1760, Parliament will, through the Public Accounts Committee, be able to scrutinise all aspects of royal finances.

Although there has been great resistance to this proposal, I have to say that in all my many conversations with the royal household I never detected any resistance from it. I think it has been Governments who have worried about certain republicans on the Public Accounts Committee crawling over the royal finances. I should like to pay tribute to a great and wonderful parliamentarian, who has not been mentioned yet and who is a personal friend of mine—Mr Alan Williams, a former Father of the House, who served with great distinction for many years on the Committee. We all know that he gave the royal finances a good going over. Unfortunately, another personal friend of mine, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson), is not here, but I am sure that if he were still on the Committee he, too, would be giving the finances a good going over.

This will be tough for the royal household—there is no doubt about that—and there will be strong questioning in the Committee, as there is on all these subjects, but that is absolutely right because that is what we are about: accountability. I think they have absolutely nothing to fear. As the shadow Chancellor made clear—we do not need to labour this point, because we all know it so well—the Queen has throughout her reign acted with incredible grace and wisdom and with such enormous constitutional propriety. We know all that, but what is not so well appreciated—certainly not by the general public and perhaps not by many Members of Parliament—are the enormous strides that the household has made in delivering efficiency savings and cutting costs. I am pretty confident that when the Committee, working with the National Audit Office, is allowed to crawl over the accounts, it will find a first-rate, modern institution.

It is unfortunate that up to now the Committee has been able to deal only with royal travel and palaces and not with the rest. That seemed a strange state of affairs. We managed to save the royal train, by the way, which is, in terms of modern accountability, a fantastically wasteful but noble instrument of royal travel. [Interruption.] It is necessary. It is so old that it can only travel at night.

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

rose—

[Mr Leigh]

I give way to an ornament of the constitution.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend and his colleagues saved the train but unfortunately not the yacht. Is there any chance that for the diamond jubilee we will get the yacht back?

[Mr Leigh]

Well, some stingy previous Government, whom I will not mention by name, got rid of the royal yacht. What a tragedy. It is not the working part of the constitution but it is an important part. As for the royal train, it is quite right that this wonderful elderly lady should sometimes be allowed to sleep on the royal train so that when she visits Newcastle or Manchester she can wake up and perform her duty refreshed, and not be forced out of bed at 5 am to take a plane. We saved the royal train; that, I think, is something that the PAC achieved.

The PAC, then, will not cause any unnecessary trouble. Although I cannot speak for the new Committee, I have great respect for the right hon. Member for Barking, and I know that she will handle the matter in an effective and completely non-partisan way. I am sure that the Committee will do a wonderful job.

Before I finish, I want to say something about royal palaces. We paid that visit to Kensington palace, and we visited Buckingham palace. We found a lot of peeling wallpaper there—there was a lot of under-investment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis]

The hon. Gentleman may not, but others may choose to do so. In fact, I happen to think that the 1760 arrangements were an historic injustice to King George III and his heirs and successors. There is every reason to say that if the hon. Gentleman is not happy with the arrangements being proposed, perhaps the royal family could sustain having 100% back.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Hear, hear!

[Michael Ellis]

I see that that idea is getting agreement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacShane]

The hon. Gentleman, from a sedentary or kneeling position, asks why not—

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr MacShane]

Of course.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

It seems a little bit mean to object when the royal family employ someone, and then object when they save a bit of money by taking a free flight. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can have it both ways.

[Mr MacShane]

I am trying to choose my words carefully, because this is a serious matter. Serious questions would be asked if any Government Minister, acting on behalf of the nation, were to start hopping around in oligarchs’ planes—

--- Later in debate ---

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

I know there is a great wish to debate Epping forest, a matter of enormous interest, so I will try not to be unduly long-winded.

So far in the debate, we have missed a crucial point. We have just focused on the cost of the monarchy, but our sovereign represents the greatest institution in our land; it is that bit that makes us British, and we do not want a mean monarchy. We want a proper and well-funded monarchy, not a bicycling monarchy, even if riding the Mayor of London’s bicycles.

The subject of this debate encapsulates the connection the monarchy gives us to our history. What did the Commons spend its time debating in the 16th century? It spent its time debating that the King should live of his own: that the King—Henry VIII for much of that era—should be able to use his own resources to provide for all he needed to spend. This debate returns us to that same principle.

The Crown Estate provides an extraordinary link with our history. We could probably find some acre of the Crown Estate somewhere—probably in Somerset—that was the property of Alfred the Great, but we would certainly find that there was property in the Crown Estate that came with William the Conqueror and from the dissolution of the monasteries. St James’s palace started as a leper colony founded by Queen Margaret in, I think, 1118. It was then part of the endowment of Eton college, which was, very tactfully, given back to the Crown by Eton when Henry VIII said, “If you don’t give it back, I’m going to dissolve you.” [Interruption.] That was a missed opportunity, I think some on the Labour Benches are saying. The Crown Estate is an extraordinary link with our history, which is what makes us the country—the United Kingdom—that we are. Some attack that and say, “We want a good value monarchy.” That makes Her Majesty sound as though she is something to be bought off the top shelf at Tesco, and it really cannot be how we wish to approach our constitution. The Crown is an essential element of that constitution; everything of importance that happens is done in the name of the Crown.

The hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) said that he wanted the royal family to be treated as any other family but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) pointed out, if they were any other family they would not be paying such a high tax rate. Given the 15% provision, Her Majesty will be expected to pay an 85% tax rate, which is more than the 50% tax rate that many of us hope will go over the course of this Parliament.

[Paul Flynn]

Over the years we were kept in ignorance of the royal tax rates and it was only as a result of a campaign in this House about 12 years ago that we were given any information at all about this. I would welcome it if the hon. Gentleman is asking for full transparency on the royal taxes, but I am not sure that that is part of the suggestion before us today.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I clearly have not asked for full transparency on the royal tax affairs. Indeed, I would argue for the precise opposite, because I do not think it is particularly sensible to be investigating in close detail how the royal family spend their money. I recall a line about motes and beams; we have had quite a problem with our own expenditure in this House and I am not sure that we have got things entirely right. Before we start criticising the monarchy and looking over every biscuit that the Queen buys, we should make sure that we have our own house in order.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The hon. Gentleman would not be suggesting that a way of controlling the royal household would be to have the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority running it, would he?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I would most certainly not be recommending that IPSA comes anywhere near our sovereign.

When the Crown Estate was granted in 1760 by George III, at the same time as he gave up his claim as King of France, the monarchy was in deficit and it needed extra money to fulfil the functions that were being fulfilled. Some of those functions were greater than those now paid for by the civil list. That is all certainly true, although Parliament would vote excess resources to pay for things such as the Army, so my hon. and noble friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) was not entirely fair on the point about paying for the Army.

Now the Crown Estate is in substantial surplus and I think that the Chancellor, in his proposals, which in many ways are very good, may be being somewhat canny, because the next sovereign would be able to cancel this arrangement and say, “I should like £200 million a year, thank you very much.” There is no requirement on a new sovereign to agree to hand the Crown Estate over in return for a civil list. The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) said that this is taxpayers’ money and not the Crown’s money, but it really is the Crown’s money because, on becoming King, the Prince of Wales or any other sovereign could simply rescind the agreement and claim it back. The Crown Estate is the sovereign’s property, which the sovereign gives to Parliament to help to pay for the costs of the nation; it is not taxpayers’ money that is being handed over. [Interruption.] Does the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) want me to give way?

[Ed Balls]

indicated dissent.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

No, he is going to let me carry on. As a result of what I have described the Queen is paying a higher rate of tax than anybody else. We should remember that and I hope that the Chancellor will be generous. I would like the 15% provision to be increased because we want to have a glamorous monarchy that befits the status of our nation. We are a great nation, a noble nation and a nation that has had power across the globe in the past. We have one of the finest histories of any country in the world. When I see the coronation coach being pulled through the streets of London, I want to see it being pulled by the finest horses that money can buy and I want to see it gilded with the finest gold that can be bought. I want Her Majesty to have as a jubilee present the finest window that can be funded by Members of Parliament. That is the status of monarchy that we want and I urge the Chancellor to remember that. Even though I know that we are in this time of austerity, that we are all in it together and that the Opposition spent all the money, maxed out the credit card and so on, we should look after Her Majesty.

Eurozone Financial Assistance

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Kate Hoey]

Yes. I am a supporter of the People’s Pledge campaign, and any other campaign that I see on a referendum. I would like those campaigns to work together more.

Even in the House today, we are going to end up being unable to have a clear vote on this issue because of the way in which the procedure works and because of the way in which the Government—like previous Governments—are in a nice, cosy little group with all the pro-Europeans to ensure that we never have a real vote on these matters. I am not sure whether all those Members who have signed up to the Government’s amendment knew what they were signing up to. I cannot believe that they do not support the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless). Looking at the amendment, we see that they accept the motion up to and including the point that the EFSM is “legally unsound”. If something is legally unsound, the Government should automatically oppose it. I am sure that the European Union will be quivering when it hears that the Government’s amendment proposes that the Government

“raise the issue of the EFSM at the next meeting of the Council of Ministers or the European Council; and supports any measures which would lead to an agreement for a Eurozone-only arrangement.”

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

rose—

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I should love to agree with the hon. Lady on that—so I will.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Is there anything to prevent us from requiring the European Court of Justice to rule on whether this use of the mechanism is legal?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I honestly do not think so.

In the most basic terms, voting for the original motion will not mean that we are no longer liable to contribute to bail-outs via the EFSM. Worse than that—as I have said—because the Government signalled they were not likely to accept the original motion, it would in all likelihood have fallen, and therefore, far from this House having put its foot down, it would not have had a view at all. My amendment merely recognises that reality. It does not build up false hope that we can simply stop being involved in these matters, but it does send a message to Government that I hope will be reflected in the ongoing debates on them: that this House wants there to be a eurozone-only arrangement in the future.

Too regularly in this place and elsewhere, those of us who question various aspects of our relationship with the European Union march our supporters to the top of the hill only to find that we are outnumbered and outfoxed, and are then valiantly and gloriously defeated. We need to get real.

Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

At the moment, the directive is in such a rough draft that it is not exactly clear in what shape it will end up. Important questions are already being asked not only by the UK but by countries such as the Netherlands and Sweden, and by some smaller and newer member states such as Lithuania. They are asking whether there is a problem that needs to be solved in the first place and whether the European Commission’s hypothesis about why a common consolidated corporate tax base is required is correct. The second debate that is starting to happen in earnest across Europe is about whether this solution is the best solution to solve that problem. The Government’s position is that we do not believe that the problem exists in the form that the European Commission articulates, and that this solution would not be the right solution to that problem, even if it did exist.

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

rose—

[Justine Greening]

Perhaps if I make a little more progress, it will help hon. Members to understand the Government’s position in a little more detail and where we are in the proposal’s development, which it is important to understand. It is also important to understand Parliament’s role in the process, which is the whole point of this debate.

A number of issues need to be addressed in the policy substance of this proposal. Those issues will have to be discussed among all 27 member states. That is why we have committed to engage in the ongoing EU discussions on this proposal. It is important that the UK participates fully in the negotiations, so that we can seek solutions that meet the interests of the UK and the EU as a whole. Although the issues of subsidiarity and proportionality are fundamental, we need to be ready to engage fully in the negotiations that are starting in Brussels. We need to engage not only in Brussels, but with our fellow member states to ensure that we influence them.

For example, member states will need to consider the implications of the proposal for companies operating across the UK, particularly if it were taken forward through enhanced co-operation. We should also seek to ensure that a common consolidated corporate tax base does not undermine UK competitiveness or create opportunities for tax avoidance.

Such considerations will involve examining some of the specific issues raised in the European Scrutiny Committee’s helpful report, such as the potential implications for the tax treaties and the risk of creating additional administrative burdens on business. Of course, one of the European Commission’s arguments is that the proposal will reduce burdens and provide simplification, but, like the Committee, the Government simply do not accept that argument.

I turn to some of the specific concerns that the Committee raised in its report. First, I will address the proposal’s legal base. Article 115 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union provides for EU legislation that directly affects the single market. In strict legal terms, it is possible to make a case that that article is an acceptable legal base for a proposal such as that which we are discussing, but the Government have broader reservations. We do not believe that a common consolidated corporate tax base is necessary for the internal market to function effectively, and we do not accept the assumptions that appear to underpin the Commission’s proposal. At present, we are therefore not convinced that the proposal is consistent with either subsidiarity or proportionality. In this instance, we think it difficult to separate the two, because both centre on whether such an EU mechanism is necessary to achieve the objectives set out by the Commission.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Establishing the legal base is absolutely crucial before the Government engage in negotiations about the form of the directive. May I draw the Economic Secretary’s attention to conclusion 2.12 of the European Scrutiny Committee’s report? It clearly states that the ability for the single market to have taxes refers to turnover taxes and VAT, and not to the type of tax included in the directive. If there is no legal base for the tax, is there any point in having further discussion?

[Justine Greening]

Our assessment is that it is possible to make the case that because article 115 of the TFEU relates to the effective functioning of the single market, it is relevant to consider whether the proposal would affect the single market. There is also the question whether there is any problem that needs to be addressed. We do not accept that there is, but if there were, we would have to ask whether the proposal was the right solution. That is what I mean when I talk about proportionality. We must also consider subsidiarity, and we do not believe that the two can simply be separated, because they go hand in hand.

For the Government to be reassured that the proposal complies with the fundamental principles of proportionality and subsidiarity, we would require far stronger justification from the Commission. We would need evidence that the existence of 27 different tax systems is a significant barrier to the functioning of the single market—we do not believe it is, or that the evidence is there to support such a conclusion—and directly results in all the specific tax obstacles that the proposal claims to address. We would also need evidence that the proposal is the only, or the best, way to address those tax obstacles. We will continue to raise those points with the Commission during our discussions, and we will continue to engage proactively and constructively with other member states on the important issues of policy substance, including those highlighted in the European Scrutiny Committee’s report.

As I have said, we are not the only member state that has raised significant concerns about the proposal, and we will continue to talk to others about their concerns and ours.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

I call Jacob Rees-Mogg.

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

rose—

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

He’s up off his chaise longue.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Indeed; thank you so much for that sedentary intervention.

It is very interesting that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) was saying, between 1688 and 1972, taxation could not be levied without the permission of the House. Since 1972, tax rates have been changed at the whim of the European Union. What is more, it happens to use duties levied on imports in exactly the way that James II would have been familiar with—it takes the same anti-parliamentary approach. James II called them tonnage and poundage; the European Union calls them anti-dumping measures but it changes them with arrogance as it sees fit.

I want to talk about the legal aspects of this issue, because they are the absolute crux of it. I raise this point with my hon. Friend the Minister because there is no point in negotiating for months if there is no legal basis in the first place. The Government should be very clear and rigorous about this and should take it, if necessary, all the way through to the European Court of Justice. That might be a Court in which many of us do not have a great deal of confidence and it might be a Court that is in principle a federalist Court, but none the less it is there and its procedures should be used.

Let me read out paragraph 2.12 of the European Scrutiny Committee’s conclusion on this issue:

“The draft Directive is concerned with direct taxation. The legal base cited for it is Article 115 TFEU. This article allows EU legislation to approximate national legislation which directly affects the operation of the single market, but”—

this is the key point—

“this provision is expressly ‘without prejudice to Article 114’. Article 114(2) TFEU provides that Article 114(1) TFEU ‘shall not apply to fiscal provisions’. Article 113 TFEU, the only provision referring to the harmonisation of taxation, is limited in its scope to ‘turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation’. There is therefore no express provision in the Treaty for the harmonisation of direct taxation.”

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

In that quote, my hon. Friend used the word “approximate”. What is the legal import of the meaning of “approximate”?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend leads me away from the essential point, which is that the EU does not have any authority over direct taxation, whether it is approximating it or not, so the approximation is irrelevant in relation to direct taxation because the treaties do not provide for that. If the treaties do not provide for it, then the EU cannot provide for enhanced co-operation without a specific treaty amendment, which would of course be a separate veto-able activity under the treaties as they exist.

We often complain about European law, and I do not like the fact that laws made by this Parliament can be overturned by the European Court, but as that is the world in which we live, when European law is on our side we ought to use it. So I reiterate my plea to the Minister in the European Councils to say that we are uncertain of the legal base and that we would like a clear legal judgment from the European Court of Justice before we proceed with further negotiations.

Now there is also a fall-back position, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) said. If the European Court of Justice were, as a federalising court, to invent a legal base, we could then come back to the point of subsidiarity, where this debate is so relevant and important. We are putting the argument to Europe and saying, “You have put these fine protections into the treaties. You have used these grand-sounding words—not as clear as the 10th amendment to the United States constitution, but none the less words that are supposed to protect the rights of sovereign member states. Let’s now see if you mean it. Let’s now see if you, the Commission, will accept the argument for subsidiarity, and if you won’t, whether the court will back it up and whether the proposals will fall on that basis.”

If all this fails, then I accept the Minister’s position. I must confess that it is a reassurance to those of us on the Eurosceptic wing of the party that it is the Minister who will be conducting the negotiations, because at least we know that it is not, as some on the Opposition Benches would have said, a woolly Liberal negotiating. It is somebody who wields a handbag in as fine a way as the great lady—[Interruption]—the blessed lady, so we have confidence that the Government’s negotiations will be tough.

It is fair enough to go through a process, if that is where we end up, but ultimately the response must be no, not least because tax competition is a thoroughly healthy thing.

[Chris Ruane]

If the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has forced the Minister’s hand, and has forced a veto, should he be known as Danny DeVeto?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I heard that joke when it was made from a sedentary position. I thought it was funny five minutes ago, and it has got better by being shared with the whole House. It is a shame that all the sketch writers have gone home, or the hon. Gentleman would have had a lead in the papers tomorrow.

Let me conclude on this point: tax competition is healthy. It is good for nations and benefits Europe, companies and, ultimately, Government tax revenues. So we have a Minister battling for us who has three things that she can say. First, the draft directive is illegal under the treaties as they stand; secondly, the House of Commons believes that it does not meet the requirements of subsidiarity; and thirdly, it is a dreadful idea anyway and it ought to be binned.

Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

There are several factors underpinning the German economy. The Germans do not pursue the same degree of hard and fast austerity that we are pursuing, they have a different approach to productivity, and they are achieving higher levels of growth. Our economy needs a pro-growth strategy. I do not say that as a whim—it is a hard-headed credible necessity for reducing the deficit and getting the economy moving again. Without growth, the Treasury will be losing revenue.

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

When the hon. Gentleman talks about a pro-growth strategy, does he mean spending? If so, where on earth is the money coming from?

[Chris Leslie]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the paradox of austerity and of an anti-growth strategy is that it costs more in the long run. I quite understand that many Government Members do not understand the causes of the deficit. It is therefore improbable that they are the right people to solve the deficit. If they understood its causes, perhaps I would accept their rationale on how to solve it, but they do not.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I do not know how long I have before we move on to the wind-ups, if indeed we are having them.

[Mr Hoban]

indicated dissent.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

We are not having them, so I have 11 minutes—this is very exciting. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker for calling me last—it does sometimes happen that the first will come last and the last first.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Like under AV.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

That is a good point.

I had not intended to speak until we heard so eloquently from the shadow Minister about the virtues of reckless spending—it is tremendously important to stop that view of the world. We have to get back to some of the debate we had yesterday, which is why it is worth supporting the Government’s financial outlook position and policy. The reason for that is that the situation will be increasingly difficult. The economy was left to us in a terrible mess, in terms of not only the public finances, but private sector debt. The idea that this will easily be recovered by getting people to borrow again or banks to lend again is simply wrong.

The hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), who is an hon. Friend on European matters but an hon. Gentleman on other matters, talked about getting more people to spend and taking money off the rich so that it can be spent by poorer people, who have a greater propensity to spend. That might be fine when the banks have money to lend, but we need to get the loans-to-deposit ratio for the banks as a whole in the United Kingdom below 100%, so that the banks have the liquidity to lend. Until we are able to do that, the idea that we can have debt-fuelled re-growth is simply mistaken.

On Government debt, I wish to return to a point made yesterday by the shadow Chief Secretary on Ricardian equivalence. She does not believe in Ricardian equivalence and I do not think that many people do in exactly the terms that Ricardo spelt it out. None the less, his underlying point was completely sound: the debt of Governments will ultimately have to be paid back through tax income raised. Intelligent electors realise that and know that if the economy is growing on the basis of Government debt, that will eventually be a charge to them. It might not affect their behaviour over one or two months, but over one, two or five years it certainly does. Economies that run indefinitely on debt find that their growth levels are neutered, and anybody who doubts that should look at the Japanese economy.

If we look at what has been going on in Japan since 1990, we see that the Japanese have increased their public sector debt from next to nothing to 200% of their GDP and that in that period they have had absolutely no growth—their economy has been stagnant. Their tax revenues were lower in 2010 than in 1985, because the level of growth in the Japanese economy has been so low.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Would my hon. Friend like to bring things up to date and comment on the US economy and the fact that the Americans decided to pour a lot of money in, found that that did not work and are now considering very strong austerity measures?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

It is relevant to look at the United States economy and at the gold price, which is up at $1,500 and not because more people are getting married and want wedding rings—although I congratulate my hon. Friend on his forthcoming nuptials and I am sure he is buying a large piece of gold for his future wife. The gold price has been so strong because the financial markets have lost confidence in the US dollar and because the American political forces—the President and Congress—have not been willing to tackle the deficit in the way that Her Majesty’s Government have done. The gold price in sterling terms has not risen by anything like so much, because people have confidence in what the Government are doing.

Normally, I take the view that there are two people in this world who should be obeyed. One is the Holy Father and the other is my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash). When my hon. Friend speaks on European matters, he does so with a degree of infallibility that belongs to only one other living person, although I hasten to add that the remit of the Holy Father does not cover European matters. My views diverge slightly from those of my hon. Friend on one point: I think we should be proud of the document that Her Majesty’s Government are sending because of what the Government have got right. The situation they faced a year ago was desperately serious, needed urgent attention and had to be brought under control by their taking measures that are not necessarily popular.

It is important to emphasise that point because all Governments, when they take tough decisions, face gentlemen such as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie). Over the next year or two, as people see the cuts coming through, it will be very tempting to listen to such voices and to think that perhaps there is an easier way and a land flowing with milk and honey that we have not yet found where we can borrow more money, where the financial markets will turn a blind eye, where we can spend money we do not have and not worry about our children and our grandchildren and where the banks will suddenly miraculously lend to bankrupt people to keep inefficient systems going. That is when those on the Treasury Bench must stiffen their sinews and summon the blood and not give way to those voices. At the moment, that is still relatively easy, because there has not been much coming through in the way of cuts. We have not seen the pain that will come from those difficult decisions. Now, however, we are sending our plan abroad. We are telling people not just in this country but in foreign countries of what we are doing and we should be proud of it because it is right. If we do what is right, the economy will begin to recover.

We on the Back Benches, in particular, must support those on the Front Benches when they do such things and when the critics from the other side appear to be doing well in the opinion polls. That is the point of maximum difficulty. Let us think of the great lady in 1981, when 360-odd economists wrote to The Times—a great newspaper with very fine editors—to suggest that the economic policy was wrong. That was two years in and it was the hardest point and that Government stuck to their guns, which led to the recovery we then had.

[Mr Davidson]

The hon. Gentleman has spoken movingly about the need for cuts and indeed for pain—pain that I suspect will not be felt by him. Pain will be felt by poor people whereas bankers, who are rich people, will feel no pain whatsoever. It is the unfairness of what the Government are doing that is causing so much opposition and bad feeling in the country and that is why the Liberals will suffer so badly in the AV referendum and the election.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The fundamental flaw in the hon. Gentleman’s argument is to think that there is a painless way out of a major crisis. It is simply a question of whether we deal with it now and ensure that the problem is resolved and that the economy can grow again or whether we delay it and have a much worse crisis later. The pain I was talking about was political pain for the Government as people notice the cuts. Our approach will reduce the pain for individuals because it will ensure that the economy is rebalanced sooner rather than later. That is the way to minimise pain—not thinking that there is a never-never land with no pain after we have lived on debt and incompetent Government policies for the past 13 years.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

We hear about fairness from the Opposition, but which does my hon. Friend feel is more unfair: bringing in higher taxes to get us out of this problem or letting the economy run away and allowing interest rates to rocket, thereby leaving thousands of people’s homes to be repossessed?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. This is one of the great virtues of the Government’s policy, which is being welcomed by the gilt market.

It is also worth noting what the late John Maynard Keynes said on such matters. Everyone in opposition quotes him and says that we should follow his policies but one of his policies, to quote the Chancellor, was that Governments should mend the roof while the sun shines and should build up reserves in the good times. My godfather interviewed John Maynard Keynes late in life and asked him, “What happens if Governments do not do this? What happens if they spend money in the good times?” to which Keynes replied, “If they do that I shall make a speech in the House of Lords and that will put them off.” Sadly, he was not here between 1997 and 2010 to make a speech in the other House to tell the other side of the policy failures when the economy was booming, so there was no money when the economy went wrong.

Time is short and I have a point to make about the presentation of the document to Europe. I hope that we have a Division because it will be delayed until after the deadline for sending in the papers. I hope that Her Majesty’s Government will show their independent-mindedness and ensure that the House’s approval comes before the requirements of a foreign international body. It would be a great discourtesy to the House if the document were presented to the European Commission before the deferred Division that we are likely to have on Wednesday.

Question put.

The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 5 May (Standing Order No. 41A).

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2011 Commons Chamber

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

There is more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repenteth than over the 99 who are not in need of repentance, and it has been wonderful to listen to the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), because he made a wonderfully Conservative speech, saying that taxation and over-regulation are fundamentally bad things—bad for the economy, bad for business, and bad for Britain. That is absolutely true, but unfortunately it misses the point that when this Government came into office, the coffers were bare. There was no money left, and therefore tough action has needed to be taken on both spending and taxation. I want to see taxes fall in every possible area—I want taxes on income, capital gains, companies and oil companies all to be reduced—but I only want Her Majesty’s Government to do that when it can be afforded.

We need to look back at the seriousness of the situation we inherited, and at what this Government are doing. Gross debt issuance from 2008-09 to 2010-11 is £540.5 billion. That is money that has to come from savers and from foreigners, and a good chunk of it actually came from the Bank of England: some £205.9 billion—getting on for half the total—was just printed by the Bank of England. That is not a way in which any responsible Government could ever have carried on; to have done so would have been desperately inflationary.

I want to come back to the point made so eloquently by the shadow Chief Secretary about Ricardian equivalence, because that is relevant. No one is saying that every £1 in debt is necessarily going to relate to £1 in future taxation, but the broad principle is right. The electorate understand this; they understand it from their own financial affairs and they see it from the Government’s. They understand that if a huge debt is built up, it has to be repaid, and it will be repaid by them out of their earnings or their assets. We already see not far short of £50 billion a year being spent on interest payments. The British electorate know that that £50 billion is coming out of their taxes, as will the repayments. Indeed, as we get on to the repayments and refinancing, we will have a further gilt issuance of £578 billion between now and 2015. Enormous amounts of money are still being raised on the debt markets even when the Government are implementing a programme of tough cuts and some tax rises, which people do not like, but that is because of the severity of the situation the Government inherited, and if they had not implemented that programme, the confidence of the markets would have evaporated.

That confidence is what allows the Government to finance themselves. This is where the gilt market is so important. The five-year gilt is trading 5% away from its historical real average; that is 500 basis points, which is a gigantic amount in gilt market terms. The five-year gilt is usually at a 2% premium to the retail price index, but it is currently at a 3% discount to RPI. That shows that the financial markets believe that the Government have got it right.

Most economic decision making takes some years to come into effect, and I must confess that in this regard we have heard a lot of nonsense about quarterly growth figures relating to decisions on cuts taken before any of their consequences had actually come through. It takes much longer than that for economic results to happen, and I would therefore say that the figures for this quarter, the last quarter and the one before that are to the credit of the Opposition, and not as yet to Her Majesty’s Government; it will be to the credit of Her Majesty’s Government when we have got 2.5%-plus growth. The gilt market and the currency market are, however, immediate responders to Government policy, and the response that they have given is a vote of confidence. They know that the Government have broadly got it right. The currency has strengthened, and is continuing to strengthen, against the dollar—an indication, perhaps, that the United States has not got its fiscal situation as well sorted out as we have here.

Let us consider some of the specific things that the Government are doing in this Bill. I particularly welcome, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), the increase in the tax threshold. A wonderful pamphlet produced by Lord Saatchi and Peter Warburton a few years ago asked why poor people pay tax and why we have this merry-go-round whereby we take money out of someone’s pocket and put it back into their other pocket having taken some element of it to finance our bureaucracy along the way. The more the Government can raise the tax threshold, the less of that money will be wasted as the machine churns through and the more people will be taken out of tax.

I will add one point that may not be deemed helpful. My hon. Friend mentioned that over a couple of years 2 million people are to be taken out of tax, but Her Majesty’s Government might like to know that the Chinese Government have just succeeded, by increasing the income tax threshold from 2,000 renminbi a month to 3,000 renminbi a month, in taking 76 million people out of tax. That is something for the Treasury to aim for, because that number exceeds the entire population of the United Kingdom.

The increase in the tax threshold is extremely welcome, as is the reduction in corporation tax. Being competitive on corporation tax is something that the Irish were so clever about, and may we wish them well in their fight against the European Union’s attempts to make them increase it. By reducing corporation tax we attract businesses that could otherwise go anywhere in the world. We know that businesses can move and that WPP is thinking of moving back to the United Kingdom because of the right trend in taxation. In that regard, I encourage Her Majesty’s Government to avoid any of this nonsense about a Robin Hood tax. Robin Hood was not as good as he was made out to be—particularly for the sheriff of Nottingham—but even if such a tax were as heroic as the late Robin Hood, it would still be a very bad tax for this country.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I was just wondering whether my hon. Friend would agree that Robin Hood actually took from the state to give back to the people.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am not entirely sure that that is what he did. I think he also stole from the Church, which is why I have my doubts about him; I am not really in favour of people pinching things from holy mother Church.

The other great thing about this Budget—this is why it should be welcome—is that it recognises the limitations of governmental power. Let us consider what has happened in Japan since 1990. The Japanese Government have tried loose monetary policy and loose fiscal policy, sometimes at the same time and sometimes at different times, and they have managed to take the fiscal debt to 200% of GDP without managing to achieve any growth in this period. Governments cannot command economies in the way that some socialists think that they ought to be able to do. Governments can only set the right terms for business to be done, and that is where the deregulation programme is so important.

If the Government can follow through on that programme and sweep away the burdens that stop business doing business, that is how we will be able to get economic growth. It will not be Government expenditure that leads to the economy recovering rapidly because—let us return to Ricardian equivalence—people will recognise that there is great waste in Government expenditure. It will not necessarily even be very low interest rates that will do that, although I am in favour of a loose monetary policy, because eventually we reach the point where there are no borrowers there to borrow—we may be in that position. The Red Book points out that total private sector debt is 450% of GDP. If that does not make your blood run cold, Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not know what will, because that is an extraordinary level of private sector debt and it is very hard to pretend that an economy can grow by further private sector debt being taken on. So we are back with the real opportunity being a deregulatory one for the Government to push that agenda as hard as they possibly can so that businesses can do business, investors can invest and people can work. That will then lead to the tax coming through at lower tax rates and the expenditure being made that the Government wish to make, and we will be back to the glorious time that we had when Nigel Lawson was Chancellor of the Exchequer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I thank the hon. Gentleman—if I may say so, my hon. Friend—for giving way. Many of us on the Government Benches sympathise with that point of view.

[Sammy Wilson]

I knew from the hon. Gentleman’s speech that he has sympathy with that view. Indeed, I hope that such sympathy will also be found among Treasury Ministers as we discuss these matters.

The problems with the aggregates levy credit scheme are also a result of the land boundary with the Irish Republic. The aggregates levy was designed to encourage the recycling of building materials and reduce the use of virgin stone from quarries. It is good not to waste building materials, and the levy made sense in an area that is surrounded by sea and does not have a land boundary with another country that also quarries stone but does not impose such a levy, so allowances were made for firms in Northern Ireland. The Government are sympathetic to the continuance of the scheme, but as a result of a referral to the EU Commission it has been stopped. I notice that provision has been made in the Bill for a new scheme, albeit an altered one, which can be made available once discussions have been held with Europe. Again, I look forward to that and hope that we will get a positive response from Treasury Ministers.

I very much doubt that there is a great deal of sympathy for my views on the green taxes, but I hope that there will be sympathy and support for the need to look at their distorting impact on a part of the United Kingdom that is up against competition from a country that does not impose the same level of taxation. The Government have said that they want a competitive tax system; we want that. They say that they want to create a situation in which exports and private industry can grow; we want that. I therefore think that cognisance must be given to the points that I have made.

Coinage (Measurement) Bill

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Friday 1st April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nuttall]

In that case the amount from the silver coins would be more than doubled, and there are more of them as well.

Let me turn to the size. On Second Reading I mentioned my disappointment that the coins were to be minted in kilograms, and suggested that they be minted in a multiple of a troy ounce. It was said that the coins are for the international market. If the object of the enterprise is to raise as much money as possible for the Treasury, the coins might be worth even more—with more collectors for them, raising even more money for the Treasury—if they are minted as a multiple of a troy ounce, because of their rarity on the international market.

Mention has been made of the suggestion made in Committee that the coin should perhaps bear an image of my hon. Friend in an athletic pose. He has been very modest today, because he has not mentioned the fact that, as he told the Committee, on the weekend before it sat he did his combat fitness test for the Army, running 8 miles while carrying 25 kg on his back. That is no mean feat, and I am not sure that many of us in the Chamber this morning could do that.

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

I wonder whether the 25 kg that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) was carrying was made up of coins.

[Mr Nuttall]

That is a good point.