Shale Gas Extraction

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Barry Gardiner

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I regularly have conversations with the Secretary of State for Scotland.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

This cannot be justified on environmental or economic grounds. The investment allowance will give gas producers 91p in every pound invested in new frack pads. Warwick Business School calculates that fracking could produce 330 billion cubic metres at a maximum—about 100 billion therms. At today’s spot price, from about 20 minutes ago, that would be £289 billion. Given that the taxpayers are covering nine tenths of the investment, why should they not get nine tenths of the profit?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is making the argument for fracking. If there is that amount that we can get out, we should get it out as quickly as possible, and then we should ensure that it is distributed properly so that the people who are affected benefit, so that the companies that have invested benefit, and, yes, so that the taxpayer benefits. The oil and gas we get out of the North sea has been an enormous benefit to the taxpayer and has helped us have energy security. It is a beneficial thing to do. As regards the economics, it is straightforward: private companies will not invest if it is not a good deal. That is the basis of economics, and it is the right basis of economics.

Energy Prices: Support for Business

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Barry Gardiner

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Of course, that depends on what the hon. Lady means by “energy companies”, because the domestic suppliers have not been making enormous amounts of money. Indeed, many of them have gone out of business over the last few months, so they have not been making vast amounts of money.

Some businesses have been making a lot of money; they pay very significant amounts of tax already. It is important that we do not assume that there is some honeypot of businesses that can be raided—there is not. We need long-term investment in this country to maximise the exploration and production of oil and gas to ensure that we have lower prices and sustainable businesses. That is not aided by putting taxes on at every opportunity, which the socialists always want to do.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The domestic scheme is based on a loan to be repaid out of future bills. If the business scheme is to be repaid in the same way, why would businesses not regard it as a deferred tax rise? If it is not, does the Secretary of State really expect it to be repaid out of general taxation by the rest of the taxpayers? “Tax, tax, tax” is what he is saying.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Economic growth, economic growth, economic growth.

Business of the House

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Barry Gardiner

Monday 21st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The right hon. Lady is absolutely right to thank the Clerk and the staff of the House, who were all absolutely magnificent. I reiterate what I said before: every member of my private office volunteered to come in on Saturday, and I think that is simply an example of the commitment to the House of Commons that we see from all our staff. It is really rather wonderful that so many people who work here appreciate and value the Houses of Parliament and have the historic understanding of what a privilege it is to be here.

I join the right hon. Lady in thanking the police for the escorts home they provided, including to me. I have had many kind inquiries about my son. He is a 12-year-old boy. He found nothing more exciting than being escorted home by the police—I am not sure he should have found it so exciting, but he did. On a really serious point, it is very important that right hon. and hon. Members should be able to come and go from the precincts of Parliament feeling safe. We must think about whether we need to do more and whether sessional orders might be helpful in that regard. All right hon. and hon. Members are representing 70,000—sometimes more—constituents and must be able to come and go without feeling under any pressure from any group outside Parliament.

The right hon. Lady refers to my point of order on Saturday. As she will know, there is a long-standing precedent for this, including one example by my late godfather, Norman St John-Stevas, in 1980. More recently, there was one by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) and one only in September by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I am sure she is aware, as are you, Mr Speaker, of page 408 of “Erskine May”, which gives the Speaker the discretion to turn a substantive point of order into a statement if he so wishes. Mr Speaker did not so wish and therefore I made two points of order to help the House to understand what the business would be today, with of course the promise of a full statement today, which is exactly what is happening. There will be occasions when business changes in response to votes. That is a perfectly normal system within the House.

Yes, of course we will come back to the Queen’s Speech, but we do have a deadline of 31 October, which is set in law, for dealing with our departure from the EU, and we need to have the legislation in place by then. The alternative is that we leave without a deal.

The right hon. Lady asked about the Bill. [Interruption.] I am sorry; speak up.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend asked why you left the Chamber.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Barry Gardiner

Monday 14th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner]

The Secretary of State makes a bewildering point, because I did not talk about being ill informed about the triggering of article 50, but he makes his own point and perhaps he understands what he means.

Now that the Prime Minister has finally brought her deal back to the House of Commons, it is hardly surprising that Members on both sides do not believe it to be in the best interests of our country. I know that she is now reaching out to her rather unlikely new-found friends in Unite and the GMB, and even to Opposition Members, but colleagues will recognise that this is a paradigm of too little, too late. Workers’ rights and environmental standards and protections are a vital part of Labour’s concern about the future relationship. We cannot agree that the UK should be in a situation in which we might fall behind our EU counterparts. The principle of non-regression from current levels makes it almost impossible to take action against the loss of a specific right but, as the TUC has made clear, what is required is not vague assurances but the binding long-term guarantees that working people need. These are not, even now, being offered.

On 10 December, the Prime Minister called a halt to the first part of the debate. She acknowledged that the package of the withdrawal agreement and the future political framework, as it stood, would not gain the support of the House. She undertook to change it and to come back with legally binding assurances on the backstop after listening to Members’ objections. Indeed, the Secretary of State for International Trade went as far as to say:

“I think it is very difficult to support the deal if we don’t get changes to the backstop… I’m not even sure if the cabinet will agree for it to be put to the House of Commons.”

Well, here it is, and here he is, but the only thing that has changed is that the Prime Minister has lost yet more votes, and more of the confidence of Members and of the country. The letter from the EU that she has brought back is a long way from the significant and legally effective commitment she promised last month. It is a reiteration of the EU’s existing position. She has delayed proceedings in a futile bid to run down the clock but, once again, nothing has changed.

Before the intermission in our debate, when the Prime Minister was trying to press her Back Benchers to support her, she claimed repeatedly that there was no possibility of renegotiation, but then, when defeat seemed inevitable, she scrambled back to Europe in a vain attempt to do precisely that.

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

You are criticising—[Interruption.] I do apologise, Mr Speaker; Even Homer nods. The hon. Gentleman said that the Prime Minister told us that she could not renegotiate, but now criticises her for coming back saying she could not renegotiate, as she said. That seems a little unfair.

[Barry Gardiner]

The hon. Gentleman is extremely courteous and always punctilious about the truth of what is said in this Chamber. I simply stated the fact that the Prime Minister had said it was impossible to renegotiate but that, when she faced defeat, she tried to do what she herself had said was impossible.

The Government could have used some of this time to respond to the Treasury Committee by providing proper economic assessments containing an analysis of the Northern Ireland backstop and setting out the short-term economic impact of the Prime Minister’s proposed deal. On 11 December, the Committee published its report on the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration. It concluded:

“The White Paper scenario, which is akin to the Chequers proposal, represents the most optimistic and generous reading of the Political Declaration, insofar as it is consistent with it at all. It does not represent the central or most likely outcome under the Political Declaration. Therefore, it cannot be used to inform Parliament’s meaningful vote on the Withdrawal Agreement. The information provided includes no analysis of the Backstop, and there is no short-term analysis of any of the scenarios, including on public finances and on regional and sectoral job losses and gains. The Government has only provided long-term analysis, which does not show how the economy will transition to a new trading relationship, or the path taken by inflation and unemployment”.

The Chair of the Committee, the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), commented:

“The aim of this report is not to recommend how MPs should vote, but to ensure that MPs are as informed as possible when it comes to choosing a division lobby. Yet the Government has made this difficult to achieve. The Committee is disappointed that the Government has modelled its White Paper, which represents the most optimistic reading of the Political Declaration, rather than a more realistic scenario. The Committee is also disappointed that the Treasury has not analysed the backstop and fails to include short-term analysis of any of the scenarios, including impacts on public finances and on regional and sectoral job losses or gains.”

In the Chancellor’s letter responding to the Committee, he revealed that

“there is not yet sufficient specificity on detailed arrangements for modelling purposes, and therefore the provisions of the backstop have not been included in the analysis.”

Indeed! Members are being asked to take one of the most important decisions for our country on the basis of inadequate financial information, and it is precisely this lack of specificity that has left Members across the House unable to have confidence in the Prime Minister’s deal.

Finance Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Barry Gardiner

Monday 2nd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner]

From a more-than-sedentary, almost recumbent position, he says, “Hear, hear! Let’s go to 20%!” Does he really think that there is not a limiting point at which the argument tips? Does he really think that there is not a point below which, instead of more revenue coming into the Exchequer, there is a dramatic loss of revenue? Of course there is.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I do indeed think that there is a point at which revenue would drop off, if rates got low, and the Laffer curve shows such a point. However, as a general point, I think that the lower the rates are, consistent with raising the revenue that is needed, the better, and that we have not tested the argument properly to see how low we could go.

[Barry Gardiner]

Well, there we are: the Great British public are being treated to an experiment. “We want to test how far the Laffer curve theory can go.” Is that really the Government’s policy? Is it really their policy to see how low they can get tax before the economy collapses?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way once again. Sadly, I am not Her Majesty’s Government. He must address his comments to those on the Treasury Bench, rather than to me.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am sure that it is only a matter of time. In so far as the hon. Gentleman seeks to speak for his party—

Finance (No. 4) Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Barry Gardiner

Monday 16th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I agree with my hon. Friend that VAT is a tax of immense complexity. However, it is an essential tax for the revenue-raising that this country needs and it has to include in it things that all of us like and would rather not be taxed. Equally, it will include things that some of us do not like, do not particularly wish to eat and do not mind how heavily taxed they are. If I am put the question, I would choose a sausage roll over a pasty, but I know that others have different views.

I also want to mention briefly the freezing of the threshold about which the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) spoke interestingly. Again, the Government were right. Because the big step is being taken to raise thresholds altogether, it makes absolute sense, at no cash cost to any current pensioner, to freeze this level and allow it to even out so that we have one threshold. Every time we have variance in tax levels, be they rates or thresholds, we simply employ more people at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, we have a more expensive cost of collection and we fail to achieve the objective of simplicity across the tax system.

This has been a great Budget and I wish to finish by speaking briefly about this terrible question of tax avoidance. I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) when he cited that notable judge with his phrase about allowing the taxman to take the biggest shovel. If people avoid tax, that is legal because we, as Parliament, have allowed them to do so. The following clauses in part 1 of the Bill allow legal tax avoidance: 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 38, 39, 40 and 44. All those clauses in the first 50 allow tax avoidance of which the Government approve. We will all approve of some of them, because they allow MPs £30,000 tax free when they leave Parliament, allow cars that must be made secure because people are at risk to be tax free and allow people in particular situations and circumstances to pay less tax than they would in normal circumstances. The enterprise initiatives under clauses 38, 39 and 40 allow investment that the Government want to encourage. Those are all examples of tax avoidance that is liked by the Government.

We have to be fair to taxpayers. We can only expect them to follow the law of the land as it is written—the black letter law of the land. We cannot expect taxpayers to look at their affairs and say that the Government might like them, if they are feeling kind, to pay more tax than they are being asked for. None of us has an obligation to do that and it is wrong and dangerous to elide tax avoidance and tax evasion.

[Barry Gardiner]

Does the hon. Gentleman therefore disagree with the Chancellor, who said on Budget day that he wanted the approach to be applied not simply according to the black letter of the law, as the hon. Gentleman puts it, but according to the spirit of the law?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I do not believe that the law has a spirit; that is unduly philosophical for my view of tax law. Tax law is what Parliament passes and I have grave doubts about a general anti-avoidance principle. I do not think that we can reasonably expect people to pay tax on the basis of what Parliament might want, as they can only do it on the basis of what Parliament has passed into law. To undermine that is to undermine the rule of law on which we all depend, and it is fundamentally unjust to elide tax avoidance and tax evasion.

Although I know that I have unlimited time and that people are gathering for the excitement that the winding-up speeches hold in store, let me reiterate that this is a great Budget and a good Finance Bill. The criticisms have been fundamentally trivial but the basic point is that we will have—as Tories always have and as they always have had when they have come in after Labour Governments—sound money.