Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Wednesday 15th March 2023 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), and I agree with her and my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) that it would be very good to sort out the VAT issue for goods that are going to be exported.

Listening to the debate and looking at the documents, I have been struck that I have made a mistake. I used to think that a phantasmagoria was a forerunner of a moving picture—the sort of machine that I might go home and watch on a quiet Wednesday evening—but it turns out that it is, in fact, our current approach to economic policy making.

I refer right hon. and hon. Members to page 131 of the OBR’s report, which says:

“Since the OBR was established in 2010, the Government has had six different fiscal mandates.”

That means that the OBR comes up with forecasts that are wrong to meet a Government mandate that will change, so the value of the exercise on which we are basing our economic policy is not right. It does not serve the purpose of what we are trying to do, which is to achieve economic growth and to increase the standard of living of our constituents generation by generation. Instead, we are taking a theoretical approach that does not work in practice, which is why we have not been achieving growth, because we have not been willing to make the necessary decisions.

Today, we have heard some things that are welcome, but they have been picked out of a jar of sweeties. For example, we have picked out the sweetie on pension reform, which is great, as it happens—the Toblerone with a Swiss marker on it of sweeties—because it could really encourage investment. It could make people think that pension investing is a long-term opportunity, which it has not been in recent years, as long as the reform remains and we do not find that next year, a new limit is brought in or the £60,000 annual investment limit is tweaked. In recent years, we have had such confusion in pension investing that one wonders why anyone has bothered. It was brought into the sharp light of day only by the fact that people were retiring from the public sector because the pension system had become so lunatically punitive in the high marginal rates it charged. This is a welcome aspect of the Budget as long as it is stuck to.

The deregulation of childcare, again, is a good thing. I have pointed out that if somebody such as me is allowed to be left in charge of six children, which is perfectly legal, even without any Government intervention or Ofsted inquiry, it seemed surprising that people much more capable and better trained could look after only four. I am glad that the number is being increased. I am also delighted that the fuel duty is being frozen. As the Mayor of London wishes to savage the motorist and put them into penury, I am reassured that the Conservatives continue to be on the side of the motorist.

Those are some of the sweeties that we have been able to pick out, but it is not all sweeties, because a number of things that were not mentioned in the Budget will continue. For example, everybody will have a real-terms increase in their tax because of the failure to uprate thresholds. That will mean that people will come into the higher rate of tax who, particularly if they live in London, are not actually that well off.

We are therefore getting a big tax rise, which is where I return to the phantasmagoria. By failing to think through economic policy in a way that will actually work, and by thinking of it on a theoretical basis, we have seen the tax rate rise. Let us look on page 80 of the OBR report at what happened in the Thatcher era. For the record, I think the OBR is a useless body that gives bad forecasts that are consistently wrong, but some of the historical data in the document are perfectly respectable.

Importantly, the OBR says that between 1981 and 1995, which we might call the Thatcher era, the tax burden fell from 33.9% of GDP to 27.4%. Once the socialists got in, it started rising, but I would have thought that since the Conservatives got in again in 2010, it might have come down a bit. Not a bit of it—it has gone on rising, which seems to be the problem that we are facing. We have a rise in corporation tax now, but we salami-slice it with some capital allowances to pretend that it is not much of a rise, which is not a good approach to tax policy. The best approach to tax policy is low tax rates with few exclusions.

The Budget sets up a tax avoidance scheme—the other side makes powerful arguments against tax avoidance—that companies are asked to carry out because the Government think businesses might spend money in a way that the Government approve of. But who actually knows best how to spend their money—businesses or the Government? Businesses. What we want is low rates, rather than investment being distorted to go in the way that the Government currently think is fashionable.

That is why I think we should be cutting corporation tax and looking at what has happened in the Republic of Ireland. This has been mentioned before, but the figures are stark. I wonder if those on the Treasury Bench are aware that, in the Republic of Ireland, corporation tax raises more money than value added tax, and it has a very similar VAT base to the one in the UK: €22.6 billion in corporation tax and €18.6 billion in VAT. In comparison, the UK raises £82 billion in corporation tax and £162 billion in VAT.

Lower taxes raise more money. Let us for once move away from the old-fashioned—from the phantasmagoria —and update ourselves to a modern age with tax cuts and economic growth.

Scotland Bill

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr MacNeil]

I know what they wanted, but it is clear from that answer that the right hon. Gentleman did not take their advice. He had no influence on that Government, but he is now telling us to take their advice. He has a very different agenda. If he had accepted our amendment four years ago, we would already have had control, because the Scottish Government would have given it to us. In fact, he was a blocking force and an obstacle to progress for Scotland four years ago, as he still is. As for his colleagues who were here at the time, as a result of that very attitude, they are gone. Instead, I am one of 56 Scottish National party Members, rather than the mere five last time. I should thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland for his intransigence four years ago, because it was that very intransigence that led to this raft of colleagues beside me, together debating the Scotland Bill.

The Crown Estate has tremendous control over areas of life in Scotland. It takes millions out of salmon farming each year, and we want more control over what we are doing there. We could stimulate growth and activity in different areas. If we control the taxes, we can do what we feel like. We could do something about revenues from marine renewable energy going south and ensure that they stay within Scotland. We could also ensure that no development is hampered because of the money demanded by the Crown Estate—rentiers’ money that it is lucky to be getting. Years ago, it got nothing from the seabed, but a lucky windfall has now come its way in the shape of offshore renewables.

What is required is for the powers to go to the Government in Edinburgh and for that Government to decide what happens with the community of the realm in Scotland. That is where power and sovereignty rests—with the community of the realm and the people of Scotland. It is for them to decide exactly what they want. Yes, the powers should be devolved. As the Secretary of State said four years ago, the idea of the SNP was to devolve at any cost. He did not listen then, but by goodness, he is listening now.

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

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

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

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

[Alex Salmond]

rose—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

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

[Alex Salmond]

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

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

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

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

[Mr MacNeil]

rose—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

And it is, of course, an even greater honour to give way to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar.

[Mr MacNeil]

I am also grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has described giving way to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar as a greater honour than giving way to the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond). I wanted to repeat that for the purpose of my own amusement.

May I return to the hon. Gentleman to the quip that I made at the beginning of his speech? I said that he had contributed to this debate four years ago, on 15 March 2011. Times have changed since then, but it clear that, in another sense, times have not really changed, because the argument that he was advancing then—the argument that the Crown Estate was the property of the monarch—is the argument that he is advancing now. Indeed, in many respects it is an argument that has been advanced for hundreds of years. It is time to move on. It is time for the royal windfall to end, and for royalty to end its control of local people. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows—because we have been friends for a number of years—I say that as a staunch monarchist myself.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman really cannot have it both ways. He teased the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for being inconsistent, because four years ago he had been against the devolution of the Crown Estate and today he was in favour of it. Now he has objected to my being consistent, in that I opposed it four years ago and continue to oppose it today. Either the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is right to have changed his mind, or I am right not to have changed mine. Both cannot be true.

[Mr MacNeil]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his consistency, and, similarly, I congratulate myself on mine. I want this power to be moved to Scotland so that the most democratic forum in Scotland—the Scottish Parliament—can decide, in consultation with the people of Scotland, exactly what happens to the Crown Estate.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The problem with that view is that it does not respect the rights of property. The Crown is entitled to protection of the rights of property as much as—indeed, some might say more than—anyone else in this country. If even Her Majesty’s property, the property of the sovereign herself, is not sacrosanct and protected, but can be taken for the benefit of the people—whatever that means—no one’s land is safe.

[Mr MacNeil]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) for having a word in my ear.

In Scotland, the people are sovereign, whereas here, as the hon. Gentleman will of course know, the Treasury already controls the vast majority of the revenues of the Crown Estate, and gives pocket money—albeit a tremendously large amount of pocket money—to the monarch.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I find the concept of sovereignty coming from the people very attractive. I do not dispute the concept of sovereignty rising from the people to this Parliament, with our sovereign Lady the epitome of it, the symbol of it, the very pinnacle of our society and of our nation. Within that concept, however, all subjects, and Her Majesty herself, have rights of property, and those rights should not be arbitrarily taken away. It worries me that clause 31 is going in that direction in deciding that Parliament can allocate a property right without having established that that property right belongs to Parliament, and that it is for Parliament to dispose of it in the first place.

[Mr MacNeil]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. He is being very generous, as are you, Mr Crausby.

The hon. Gentleman speaks of the personality of the sovereign. He says that the sovereign cannot choose to whom to give the estate, and that it will go to the next sovereign. The important difference between England and Scotland is that in Scotland the people are sovereign. As the hon. Gentleman knows from his history books, there was Mary Queen of Scots and there was Elizabeth of England. There were the people, there was the country, and there were two different nations.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am well aware of the difference of terminology in relation to Mary Queen of Scots and Elizabeth I, the “English Queen”.

[Mr MacNeil]

The Queen of England.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Queen of England. The two were different, in a sense, and there is a conception of popular sovereignty in Scotland that may differ from that in England—although it is perfectly possible that the reference to “Mary Queen of Scots” may have been due to concern about having a woman as monarch, and to the fact that in earlier times people were happier to have a King of Scotland than to have a King of the Scots. I am not entirely sure that the hon. Gentleman might not be more in tune with the late John Knox and his “blast of the trumpet”. I myself am not sure that I want that particular trumpet to be blown, because I think that it is a trumpet that sounds a rather wrong note. For once I am sounding more modern than the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar! I think that the issue of property rights is fundamental, and I also think that the Crown is indivisible.

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

I am surprised that such an ardent and professional monarchist as the hon. Gentleman is unaware that the Crown Estate is divided by jurisdiction, and there are other jurisdictions within the Commonwealth in which Crown property is managed separately. For instance, there is a receiver general for the Crown properties in Jersey. If the Scottish people wished to continue with the monarchy, it would be perfectly sensible for the Crown Estate to be managed separately rather than property being divided, as the hon. Gentleman has suggested.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman has been more helpful to me than he may have realised. I think that the symbolic importance of this division is that it is symbolic of independence for Scotland rather than further devolution. I think that the indivisibility of the Crown in one nation is such that the Crown Estate ought not to be divided.

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is clearly right. The Act of Union created the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, and therefore, in so far as the Crown Estate is concerned—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Grieve]

The Union of the Crowns happened 100 years before, but in my view it is clear that the constitutional union came about as a result of the Act of Union, and that therefore the Crown Estate is indeed indivisible. The fact that it may be subject to a different jurisdictional framework in Scotland is neither here nor there, and to that extent the example of Canada or Jersey is not relevant to the debate.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend, who I think is absolutely spot on. The indivisibility of the Crown within the United Kingdom is central to the Unionist case, and I think that if a Unionist Government are willing to divide the Crown, that is a very dangerous step. I would rather give the Scottish Parliament other powers—some of which are the subject of other amendments—than give it this very important power relating to the Crown, which, as has already been pointed out, has been indivisible for longer than the Parliaments have been united. It brought the two countries together, and that was then established firmly in law.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Of course I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr MacNeil]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his incredible generosity. He said that the Crown property was indivisible, but of course the United Kingdom itself was not indivisible, given that it was divided in 1922. Although most people do not realise it, the United Kingdom is not yet 100 years old. I think that Doris Day is older than the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. However, the question that is puzzling me is not that of Doris Day’s age, but what happened to the Crown properties that were once held and are now in the Republic of Ireland.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My assumption is that they were devolved to the Government of the Republic of Ireland, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do when one is abolishing the monarchy. If SNP Members were, in fact, closet republicans—which, given the other arguments that we have heard recently, I do not think they are—it would be perfectly rational for them to argue that the estate should be confiscated from the Crown and should go to an independent Scotland. However, that is not the argument that we are having today. Today, there seems to be broad acceptance in the House that the monarchy should remain part of the Scottish settlement—as well as the settlement for the rest of the United Kingdom—come what may, even if Scotland were to become independent.

[Mr MacNeil]

I think that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. What today’s debate is about is whether the monarch’s estate—the Crown Estate—should be controlled by Her Majesty’s Government here, or by Her Majesty’s Government in Scotland. My colleagues and I are suggesting that Her Majesty’s Government in Scotland would be a far better Government to control Her Majesty’s estate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

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

[Alex Salmond]

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

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

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

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

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

[Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that his amendment is completely at odds with section 1(2) of the Crown Estate Act 1961, which gives unfettered management to the Crown Estate. This amendment would remove that.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

No, all my amendment is seeking to do is ensure that at the beginning of a new reign the Crown Estates are returned entire. It is about a

“permanent alienation of the rights of the Crown.”

That does not mean that one property may not be sold for another property; it means that the assets must be retained within a single pool and that they must not be disposed of without receiving counter-value in return. It is a permanent alienation of the rights, not of specific properties, which is why I phrased it this way, rather than relating it to specific properties or the seashore or any of the other elements of the Crown Estate. It is about preserving entire that which does not belong to this House to give away. It would be wrong of this House to exceed its authority and risk giving away something that is not its.

I accept that it is highly unlikely that a future sovereign will exercise his right to have the Crown Estates returned to him, but the fact that it is unlikely does not mean that we should abandon property rights lightly.

Amendment 126 addresses the pro rata payments under the Sovereign Grant Act 2011. I was delighted that the First Minister of Scotland was clear that she did not wish to see any reduction in the Sovereign Grant Act. The Crown estates are 3.9% funded from Scotland; that is the percentage of income that comes from the Scottish Crown estates. That feeds through to the 15% that is received by the sovereign to pay their expenses. This would merely provide a protection for that.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

The Crown Estate is public land and its commissioners are a statutory corporation, and the Crown Estate revenues are paid directly to the UK Government Treasury. It has no direct role in paying for the Queen or the royal household. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that that is contrary to the position he is trying to put forward?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

No, I do not agree. I enjoyed participating in the Sovereign Grant Act debates, when I thought Her Majesty ought to get rather more than the measly 15% that was being proposed. It is based on the income of the Crown Estates and it is conceivable that if the Crown Estates were managed in a less than efficient way, the total amount raised would be reduced and therefore the grant from the Consolidated Fund would be reduced in a pro rata manner. This amendment is putting in a protection.

[Drew Hendry]

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree, however, that, as the Chancellor himself has said, there are other mechanisms for paying? The Crown Estate just happens to be one such mechanism.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Crown Estate was a brilliant way of settling the issue. It is of course just one way, and we have tried other methods, but the civil list, for instance, ended up failing as a method of paying for the Crown because of inflation. It had historically been set for the lifetime of a sovereign and was done once in a reign, but inflation bit into that and the amount granted to the Queen in 1952 became so small 20 years into her reign that it needed to be increased. The great advantage of the Sovereign Grant Act is that it took the detailed petty politics out of ensuring we have a monarchy that is funded to do what we want our monarchy to do.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

Is it not the case that the reduction in subsidies to onshore wind and other renewable energies is likely to have a bigger impact on the setting of the sovereign grant than anything we are likely to do in Holyrood?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Hon. Members may have got the impression that I am a monarchist; I think there are few things more important in this nation than the monarchical system that we have. None the less I am consistent in my capitalist views; I do not want even my sovereign to benefit from subsidies that are paid by the Government and fall on the backs of hard-pressed people in North East Somerset who cannot afford their energy bills. I am not that much of a monarchist.

[Mr MacNeil]

rose—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is more of a monarchist than I am.

[Mr MacNeil]

I certainly am, it would seem, and I can hear the timbers in Buckingham palace quivering as we speak: we have now found limits to the hon. Gentleman’s loyalty. We are talking here about the Queen and everyone else in the country getting the benefits of onshore wind. If the monarch still had the power to shout, “Off with his head,” I would fear for the hon. Gentleman tomorrow morning.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

One has to be careful of onshore wind turbines if one is at risk of losing one’s head; I believe the heads of bats get regularly cut off by the turbines.

Subsidies are a different point, but I would certainly not want the sovereign grant to benefit from state subsidies. I think that is a very bad method of funding almost anything. The Government picking winners tends not to work and tends to increase costs.

Amendment 126 would merely ensure that the pro rata amount would remain the same, and amendment 125 would mean the scheme agreed by the Treasury and the Scottish Parliament could not be altered to the disadvantage of the Sovereign Grant Act.

As I have said, the Sovereign Grant Act is an extraordinarily good way of funding the monarchy. It means Her Majesty is the highest marginal tax rate payer in the country. The Queen pays a tax rate of 85% whereas nobody else pays more than 45%. The Crown Estates are taken from the Queen at the beginning of the reign and the revenue is then taken to the Government. So the Queen subsidises her own Government throughout her reign. That is not an unreasonable situation, but the Sovereign Grant Act returns it, and that should be protected in any development of devolution.

[Mr MacNeil]

Everybody subsidises the Government through their taxes, and we in Scotland particularly subsidise the Government having paid more tax per capita every year for the last 31 years.

Incidentally, the hon. Gentleman might be pleased to know that Doris Day’s birthday is 3 April 1922; I thank the ever-vigilant SNP press officer Stuart Easton for that piece of information.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I wish Doris Day many happy returns, albeit somewhat belatedly, but the hon. Gentleman is not right that all these Scottish taxpayers have paid more tax for 31 years, because some—very distinguished—SNP Members of Parliament are not 31 years old, so certainly have not been paying tax for that long.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

My hon. Friend is giving a very fine Tory speech, not one from the Whiggish camp as we have been hearing from others, but I wonder whether in the deepest recesses of his soul he is a Jacobite, and thinks that if there had been a different settlement we may not have had this problem. The serious point, however, is that we must allow the Public Accounts Committees of both Parliaments to look at the royal finances properly, which they cannot do at the moment.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think that that is a terrible Jacobean, rather than Jacobite suggestion. Although this is not immediately relevant to the debate, I do not think the Public Accounts Committee should be looking at the royal finances. Her Majesty should be allowed some privacy on that, but that is a side issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Salmond]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

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

[Alex Salmond]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scotland Bill

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Monday 15th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The hon. Gentleman can vote for my new clause, if that is what he believes. That scenario is on offer tonight, and he can vote for it. As a No. 10 spokesman said helpfully over the weekend—it is not often that No. 10 spokesmen have supported my new clauses, but I am grateful to him—the new clause

“is the acid test for the SNP over whether they will back their own policy”.

A Labour party spokesman helpfully said over the weekend, “They can have full fiscal autonomy by 10 o’clock tonight if they want to vote for it.”

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

Those of us who have a Eurosceptic point of view, as my hon. Friend does, have always been very cautious about fiscal autonomy without monetary autonomy. Would his amendment also enable the Scottish Parliament to have monetary autonomy?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

As my hon. Friend made that point last week, I was waiting for it. If he will be patient for a moment, I will finish a couple of sentences and come directly to him, because this is the kernel of the matter.

Under my proposals, the Barnett formula would be scrapped and an alternative formula based on need would be created. In the modern world—in modern finance—we create formulas based on need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Full fiscal autonomy results in full responsibility. That is what real Parliaments do.

Responsibility for bereavement allowance, bereavement payment, child benefit, guardian’s allowance, maternity allowance, statutory maternity pay, statutory sick pay and widowed parent’s allowance will all remain reserved and administered by the Department for Work and Pensions. Why? The Smith commission further proposes a complex system for sharing responsibility for income tax. Why? That is all affected by an oscillating block grant. As I have said, how can SNP Members promise lower taxes in an election or higher spending unless they are masters of their own fate?

What are the objections to full home rule? What are the real objections to full fiscal autonomy, apart from the fact that we appointed a Lord Smith—with lots of no doubt very worthy people—to produce a report, which has been overtaken by events? We are told that full fiscal autonomy will result in tax competition within the Union. What is wrong with that? That is what keeps the American states vibrant and competitive with one another and continually innovating. Do we not insist that our taxes in Britain compete with those of Europe? We are told that tax competition would create downward pressure on taxes. Well, I am sorry about that. Why should the Scottish Parliament not be able to lower or raise air passenger duty? It can do whatever it likes. I know it has had that power and it will be allowed it under Smith, but if that power is allowed, why not powers for other things?

On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset said that a single currency requires fiscal and monetary union, with the implication that that is proved by the Greek experience. Surely he is not suggesting that the Scots are Greeks, or that the Scottish economy is as different from England’s as Germany’s is from Greece’s. No; Scotland can thrive with full fiscal autonomy because Scotland has the will and the skills to do so. It has universities, research, manufacturing, logistics, light manufacturing, oil and gas, food and drink and a flourishing creative sector. [Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] Vote for my new clause.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I agree with all the wonderful things my hon. Friend has been saying about Scotland, which are so clearly and self-evidently true. The point I was trying to make is that if a country has fiscal autonomy and issues debt in a currency other than its own, it may well get squeezed in the way seen not only in Greece, but in Italy and Spain, and in countries across Asia during the Asian financial crisis in the 1990s. For a country to have fiscal autonomy without its own currency is a recipe for economic failure. To go back historically, the same was true of the gold standard in the 1930s.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

That is a very fair point. I agree that that is a matter for debate. I have already made the point that Scotland’s situation is very different from that of Greece. I am actually suggesting that we remain a United Kingdom, with a sharing of the national debt. Nothing is more debilitating in this whole debate than saying, “That bit of the national debt is yours, or this bit is mine.” We are back to the same dreary arguments about who is responsible for spending and when. My hon. Friend makes a serious point. If we achieve full fiscal autonomy, which I believe is inevitable—whether it happens now or in five years time, it will happen—the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government will have to act responsibly and live within their means. I have confidence that they will do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Hosie]

Yes, a future SNP Government would increase it, decrease it, keep it the same and use the amount raised in an intelligent way. I know the hon. Gentleman thinks he has asked a really clever question, but we have just had the 2015 election and I am not going to write the 2016 manifesto today.

To answer a little more clearly, we have argued for targeted reductions in corporation tax in order to promote investment in key industries. We have highlighted for many years the relatively low private sector research and development spend in Scotland. However, given that R and D tax credits can be claimed only by companies liable for corporation tax, in order to develop a comprehensive, joined-up approach to encourage more innovation, we need to move to full fiscal autonomy, including the devolution of corporation tax and all related allowances, in order to be able to use that lever.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman said that Government Members are not in favour of tax competition, but I am thoroughly in favour of tax competition. It would be an excellent idea for both Scotland and Northern Ireland to have control of their corporation tax, because I think they would suddenly discover the virtues of the Laffer curve and reduce taxes quite sharply.

[Stewart Hosie]

Our friends in the Labour party have criticised us for understanding the Laffer curve just a little too well.

We also want to see continued downward pressure on the cost of employing people. That is one of the reasons the SNP proposed in our manifesto to increase the employment allowance from £2,000 to £6,000 per business a year. We cannot do that at present, but we would be able to do so with the devolution of national insurance as part of a package delivering full fiscal autonomy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Hosie]

First things first: the central bank does not guarantee debt. It sets the base rate, but the gilts are issued by the UK Government. It would be UK debt, which is precisely why we need an agreed fiscal framework within which we operate. I would have thought that that is just common sense.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stewart Hosie]

No. I have been very generous. I think I will stop being generous now.

In order to deliver full fiscal autonomy, amendment 89 would allow the Scottish Government to remove the reserved status of certain key areas, and allow that Government to have legislative competence over them. It would do so at an appropriate time, ensuring that the systems and the framework under which full fiscal autonomy would operate are fully in place.

We know we need full fiscal autonomy. We know how full fiscal autonomy will work. The Scottish people have voted for maximum powers, and we are here representing that view. Amendment 89 is the way forward to deliver the fairness, the justice and the economic levers that the Scottish Government need. I hope there will be huge support for it tonight. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Scotland Bill

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

No, I have already taken an intervention from the hon. Gentleman.

Instead of the devolution of VAT, the Smith commission recommended that half the VAT revenues raised in Scotland should be assigned to the Scottish Parliament, thereby further linking Holyrood’s funding to the performance of the Scottish economy. The more the Scottish economy grows, the greater the revenue from VAT that Holyrood will be able to keep. That is an incentive to achieve growth.

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

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[David Mundell]

No; let me make a little progress.

The devolution of income tax on earnings and the assignment of VAT revenues, when taken together with the devolution of air passenger duty and the powers under the 2012 Act, mean that the Scottish Parliament will have important decisions to make. The Scottish Parliament is now responsible for raising about only 10% of what it spends, but under the Bill Holyrood will be responsible for raising more than 50% of what it spends. It will truly be one of the most powerful devolved legislatures in the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell]

I did not know that that was the policy of the Labour party. I had understood that it supported the Barnett formula, and I can reiterate the continuing support of Government Members for it.

One issue closely linked to the fiscal framework is the much talked-about issue of full fiscal autonomy. This issue was raised a number of times today and during the general election campaign, and some SNP Members have talked tirelessly about it. My party and the Government have made it clear that we will strongly oppose full fiscal autonomy for Scotland. As the analysis by the independent and respected Institute for Fiscal Studies told us, full fiscal autonomy would leave Scotland with a £7.6 billion black hole in its finances this year and almost £10 billion by the final year of this Parliament. This Government will never support a policy that leaves one part of the UK in such a perilous financial situation: we are members of a social union, too. However, given that the SNP set such store by the issue in its election campaign, I look forward to SNP Members bringing forward amendments on full fiscal autonomy in Committee. That is to be welcomed, because apart from anything else, such amendments would mean the people of Scotland might actually get to see what the definition of full fiscal autonomy is.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Is not the lesson of the euro that fiscal autonomy needs to go with monetary autonomy, and that if Scotland has fiscal autonomy it must also have its own currency?

[David Mundell]

That is a very good point and I think my hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) will be able to spend hours debating it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angus Robertson]

There was I being hectored and accused of being frit and not taking interventions, but when Members are put on the spot as to whether they support their own colleagues in the Scottish Parliament, they run away.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way on the extremely important issue of a veto. An ordinary reading of clause 24(4) shows that it clearly says that “such agreement” is

“not to be unreasonably withheld.”

That means that it is not a veto and that it would be justiciable in front of the courts if an unreasonable decision were made by the Secretary of State.

[Angus Robertson]

The key point is that it does not have to be given. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt make contributions during the Bill’s Committee stage, but I ask hon. and right hon. Members across the House: have they read what their colleagues in the Scottish Parliament have concluded, and will they act on it or not?

Public Sector Pensions

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Hywel Williams]

So did the hon. Gentleman, before he jumped. I know him very well. He is a very nice man and is trying hard to be a nasty curmudgeon, but he is failing entirely.

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

Does that not prove the general point that there is more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repenteth than over the 99 who remain unrepentant?

[Hywel Williams]

It depends on whether they are going up or down.

Returning to the comments made by the NAHT, I refer to the written question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) on 21 November. In his response, the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), said:

“The latest valuation of the teachers’ pension scheme was published in November 2006. This was the actuarial review of the scheme as at 31 March 2004.”—[Official Report, 21 November 2011; Vol. 536, c. 87W.]

In other words, there has been no formal published valuation since the 2007 changes were introduced, so how can the Government claim that the scheme is unaffordable?

The NAHT also says that contribution increases are all about plugging the deficit, not about making pensions affordable. Teachers are already doing their bit: they have a pay freeze, and below-inflation pay increases to look forward to. In respect of the higher pension age, they recognise the implications of the population living longer, as we all do. That must be debated, but we need to be sensible. Teaching, the NAHT says, is physically and emotionally demanding, and expecting people to do it at 68 is “an ask too far”. That is also the view of other unions that I have consulted. Shane Price, my local Fire Brigades Union representative, asked me:

“Would you want, or expect, to be carried out, coughing and spluttering from a blazing building by a 68 year old fireman?”

Clearly not. In any event, says the NAHT, the changes will distort the age profile of the profession. There is a need to ensure a throughput of young people, and that will be jeopardised. Younger teachers will be affected most by the proposed pension scheme, and they may opt out altogether, as we have discussed.

The NAHT says that this is an attack on education. It wants to attract the brightest and the best—that is what pupils deserve—and while the salaries are not great given the demands of the job, the professional rewards are enormous. We cannot afford for people to discount those professional rewards because their conditions of service are dramatically reduced. These are serious, responsible points. They are made, it is true, by people who are looking after their own interest, but uppermost in their mind is the future of our children, the future of education and of the teaching profession in general.

Scotland Bill

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I am sorry not to be able to support the new clause moved by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), who is in many ways a walking advertisement for the Union. It would be a great loss to this Parliament if he were not here and were prevented from coming here by a division between our two great countries. I am deeply concerned about his new clause. It is partly creeping republicanism, partly an attack on property and partly a subsidy to Scotland from the poor, hard-done-by English taxpayer, who has had enough of this and wants a little bit of money to creep back south of the border from time to time.

Let me start with that sad day in March 1603, when our beloved sovereign of blessed memory, Elizabeth, died. When she died, James VI was hailed as James I of England, and we saw a mystical union of the Crowns: a mystical union that has remained true through not only world wars but civil wars, and has brought our people together. We have come together as peoples in the Crown, and as a result of a further development in the Act of Union 1707, we have come together as a Crown in Parliament. Anything that attacks the Crown, that undermines the Crown, is something about which we, representing one part of the Crown in Parliament—one part of the great system of government that we have—should always be careful.

[Mr Weir]

The hon. Gentleman’s history lesson is very interesting, but I am not sure why he sees the new clause as an attack on the Crown. The Crown Estate’s money does not go to the Crown; it goes to the Treasury. It was signed over to the Treasury many years ago in exchange for the civil list. The new clause attacks not the Crown but the way in which the money is used, and is intended to secure a better deal for our coastal communities.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for an extremely helpful intervention. It missed a key point. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman may wish his hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar to withdraw his new clause.

The Crown Estate’s income was not given away in perpetuity in exchange for the civil list; it is given reign by reign. That started in the time of George III, who was a bit hard up at the time. He needed the money. Parliament had, and of course still has, tax-raising powers. In exchange for the Crown Estate’s income, George III accepted the civil list. That continued during the reigns of George IV, William IV, Queen Victoria, Edward VII and George V, the brief reign of Edward VIII and the reign of George VI, and it continues during the reign of our present most glorious sovereign. However, it is not a permanent settlement.

Any step that undermines or changes the Crown Estate should be taken with the greatest caution. I hope that the day never comes, but if we were to have another sovereign, that sovereign would be entitled to claim the Crown Estate for himself. If we had introduced measures that took it away, we would have broken the bargain that was made in the reign of George III and has been renewed in subsequent reigns. We should be extremely wary of interfering with a system that has worked so well.

I also want to deal with the attack on property rights, which are the fundamental basis of a free society and the rule of law. I know that some hon. Members like me to dwell on history occasionally. We know that rights of property have been established in this country since 1189—

[Stewart Hosie]

Which country?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

This country, England, which is where we are now. Those rights of property, established in this country, England, were passed to Scotland by virtue of the Act of Union. It is well established that the combination of Parliaments that resulted in the inheritor Parliament—this Parliament—merged the benefits of the two earlier Parliaments. The rights of property that we enjoy are the foundation of our free society.

[Ann McKechin]

I declare an interest as a member of the Law Society of Scotland. Scotland has always had a very distinct property law system. It was the first in the world to involve a public register, and it remains distinct to this day.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I entirely accept that Scotland has its distinct characteristics. They are, in many ways, extraordinarily admirable and worthy, and they have the full support of those who support the Union. We do not want an homogenised United Kingdom. I have never been a great believer in homogenisation, whether it be of cultures, nations or, for that matter, milk. However, it is important to recognise the rights of property. The new clause seeks to confiscate the revenue that would come to the Crown Estate and take it for local communities—whoever they may be.

[Mr Reid]

The new clause does not do that. It merely transfers the power of direction of the Crown Estate from the Secretary of State for Scotland to a Scottish Minister, and that is why I consider it defective. It does not take the property that is in the seabed and give it to local communities.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, and he made clear that his intention was to undermine the rights of property. That is why the new clause is so dangerous. The money that comes from any wind farms that may be established offshore in Scotland belongs to the Crown Estate, and the Crown Estate’s income is used for the benefit of the whole United Kingdom. To pinch it and say “We will have it for Na h-Eileanan an Iar”—or for some similar part of the country, or for communities within Na h-Eileanan an Iar—would, in my view, be wholly inappropriate, and would constitute a fundamental attack on the property rights of the Crown Estate.

Once one attacks the property rights of the Crown Estate, whose property rights will one not attack? If one attacks the property rights of the highest in the land, what protection will there be for anyone else? What protection will there be for the person in his humble cottage? If one attacks the Crown, the person in his humble cottage will feel the threat. He will feel the hot breath of rapacious socialism bearing down upon him. He will feel not the least bit safe on the land that he owns.

[Stewart Hosie]

The hon. Gentleman is making an extraordinary speech. I have received an e-mail from a colleague who has been watching it and who describes it as “epic”. It certainly is, in an 1842 kind of way.

However, I have a question for the hon. Gentleman. He talks of “rapacious socialism” and of the seizing of land. The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, which came into being after the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, allows those on estates to buy the land on which they live. Would he wish it to be repealed to protect what he views as the property rights that he is defending?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Had I been a Member of Parliament at the time, I would have opposed leasehold reform. I thought that it was an outrageous attack on property rights, and I would have taken the same view had I been a Member of the Scottish Parliament. I think that property rights are of overwhelming importance, and that the new clause is genuinely dangerous in seeking to undermine them.

As I was saying, my three reasons for opposing the new clause are the attack on property rights, the attack on the Crown—that mystical union of Crowns that we have had since 1603—and the loss of revenue for the English. I feel that I must stand up for the people of North East Somerset. They do not benefit from as much spending per capita on the health service, the police or education as those north of the border. I accept that, because I believe in the Union and I think it a price worth paying, but the price must be fair. The revenues that are ultimately the revenues of the state must come centrally, and must be shared out proportionately. When the Scots start asking “Why do we not have Crown Estate revenue for the territory and the sea around Scotland?”, I may respond by asking why people living in London do not say “We will have the revenues from the Crown Estate in London, and we will not allow any subsidy to be given to Scotland.” That, I think, would make the Scots rather upset. A good deal more money comes from places such as Pall Mall, which is owned by the Crown, than from the seashore.

[Mr MacNeil]

I had not taken the hon. Gentleman to be a fan of Scottish independence. I will clearly have to review that, given his latest utterances.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I said earlier that I was against Scottish independence, because if we had it we would not benefit from such helpful and informative interventions as the one that we have just heard from the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Reid]

I think that the hon. Gentleman has miscalculated. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr McNeil) is being principled. He believes in Scottish independence. Transferring the Crown Estate in its entirety would be disadvantageous to Scotland, because only 6% of the profits are generated there. That is less than Scotland’s current share of public expenditure. The new clause ought to appeal to the hon. Gentleman in financial terms.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I think that those of us who support the Union are also being principled. These tax revenues—these forms that generate income for the state—must be preserved in their entirety. Once we start cutting them up bit by bit, we end up making calculations and saying “Actually, Scotland is receiving rather too little from the Crown Estate rather than too much.” I do not think that that argument works. I think that the Crown Estate must be viewed as a whole, as an indivisible part of an indivisible Crown. That is what I want to see: the traditional constitutional position which this country has enjoyed and which has made it such a great nation. Let us have no more attacks on private property or the indivisibility of the Crown, and let us have a reasonable settlement in taxation between the people of England and the people of Scotland, not to mention those of Northern Ireland and Wales, who also deserve their fair share of the total pie of economic wealth.

[David Mundell]

I welcome the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), because I am afraid that our debates on matters Scottish tend to become somewhat homogenous, and it is good to have a different perspective on our deliberations. It was also good to hear again about the threat of the hot breath of rapacious socialism and the harm that it can do in Scotland, because we need to hear that. As we near the forthcoming Scottish Parliament elections, I will urge my colleagues to do their best to repel that threat.

My hon. Friend’s contribution was in marked contrast to that of the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), who again sped through his speech, which was simply a recounting of the usual dogma. Instead of making a coherent case, he simply said that the Crown Estate should be devolved to Scotland because everything should be devolved to Scotland.

Those of us who have been present in the Chamber throughout the deliberations on this Bill noted yet again the strong divergence between what we have come to know as London SNP and Edinburgh SNP. Although the hon. Gentleman launched an attack on the Crown Estate, none other than Jim Mather, SNP Energy Minister in Scotland, has said that the Scottish Government

“greatly value the strong working relationship with the Crown estate commissioners as it helps us all to ensure that Scotland leads the UK in giving wave and tidal energy developers opportunities to harness the power of our seas.”

The characterisation of the Crown Estate by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar was therefore misleading. Although I take on board the points that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) made about the operation of the Crown Estate, and acknowledge that he is a doughty campaigner for change to the estate, I am afraid that I do not recognise the characterisation of the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar. As he knows, the Secretary of State has sought to engage with the Crown Estate, and the estate has moved forward in a number of positive ways, such as through the production of its annual report, and the meetings it has with Scottish Ministers, MSPs, Scottish local authorities and many interest groups.

However, although there are positive aspects to the development of the Crown Estate, the Government recognise that a number of issues have been raised during the progress of the Scotland Bill and following the Calman deliberations, which is why we look in particular to the Scottish Parliament LCM Committee report, which stated that it had identified a number of radical options for the future development of the Crown Estate but that time was needed to consider them. We agree with the Committee when it says that it noted with some interest that the Scottish Affairs Committee in the House of Commons will review the work of the Crown Estate commissioners in Scotland, and that that was an important development. The Secretary of State for Scotland’s positive attitude to this initiative was also noted. That sums up the Government’s position. We greatly welcome the inquiry that the Scottish Affairs Committee has said that it will carry out into the operation of the Crown Estate in Scotland. That will present an opportunity for the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute and others who have strong views about the Crown Estate to set them out, and the Government will look closely at the outcome of that inquiry.

What we will not do is respond favourably to dogma and to a view that the Crown Estate should simply be devolved for the sake of doing so. Although I have no hope that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar will do so, I ask him to withdraw the motion for his new clause.

[Mr MacNeil]

I noted that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) said that coastal communities should benefit, but I was told earlier by a Liberal Democrat that they would look to mess about with a pretended technicality. Unfortunately, that is the usual stance of the Liberal Democrats: on the one hand it is not enough, yet on the other hand it is too much, and the upshot is that they want to leave it all with London. They will be judged in Scotland, so at least we will probably all be saved from having to listen to their pious words for years to come. In short, their position is that London is best, helping local communities is not on their agenda, and they will be voting for the status quo. Highlanders will know what to do at the May elections: sweep the Liberal Democrats away at the ballot box. Both the hon. Gentleman and Labour talk about local communities, but do nothing about that.

The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), whom I have great respect for and like personally, pronounces Na h-Eileanan an Iar very well. He did so not once, not twice, not three times, not four times, but five times. All I can say is he must have had a very good teacher. I should tell him, however, that Crown rights in Scotland long predate George III.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

For the benefit of the Committee, I should say that the hon. Gentleman himself was my teacher.

[Mr MacNeil]

I accept any accolades coming my way.

I should also point out to the hon. Gentleman that this new clause contains no republican agenda whatever. In fact, ideas of republicanism were not anywhere near the front, let alone the back, of my mind when I was framing it and making my speech. The new clause addresses the difficulties facing local communities; it is not an attack on property rights in Scotland, and the issue addressed here extends further than the Union of the Crowns, as I have said. Those property rights could be abolished by the Scottish Parliament. It has the powers to do that, although it would be what has been described as the nuclear option. These property rights are controlled by the Scottish Parliament, and they could be gone.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

If it was such a good decision to have the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) as shadow Chancellor, why did the right hon. Gentleman not appoint him in the first place?

Let me just make the point that the absolute key for this country and our economy is two things: we have to deal with our deficit; and we have to help deliver growth from our private sector. I think that the right hon. Gentleman should listen to what the Governor of the Bank of England said last night in his speech. [Interruption.] Perhaps Labour Members will want to listen to the Governor of the Bank of England, who said:

“The UK economy is well-placed to return to sustained, balanced growth over the next few years”.

He said that this was partly as a result of the

“credible…path of fiscal consolidation”.

He continued:

“the right course has been set, and it is important we maintain it.”

I prefer the advice of the Governor of the Bank of England to that of the man sitting opposite.

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

Mr Speaker—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I wish to hear Jacob Rees-Mogg.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Is not the lesson from the noble Baroness Thatcher that, when you have set an economic course, you should stick to it—“there is no alternative”?

[Hon. Members]

More!