Northern Ireland Executive Formation

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Chris Heaton-Harris

Wednesday 31st January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Yes, I absolutely can.

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

May I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) for his important endorsement, which is encouraging? May I ask my right hon. Friend about paragraph 145 of the Command Paper? Can he give an example of the circumstances in which a Minister might say that there would be an effect on the internal market and what that might restrict in practice?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Off the top of my head, I cannot give an example, because I have not yet needed to do that in the PBL—parliamentary business and legislation committee—as I have stated. The practical effect is one of transparency. I am aware that there are many Select Committee Chairs in this place. We want to ensure that when a Bill potentially has a substantial adverse effect on GB-NI trade and we are making those decisions, we are transparent about it and we tell people about it. The best way to do that is to inform this House through a written ministerial statement.

European Union (Finance) Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Chris Heaton-Harris

Thursday 11th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Excellent. If we are going back in history, I guess I should share with the hon. Lady the fact that from 1999 to 2009 I was not in this House, but in the European Parliament. I sat on the budget and budgetary control committees, watching Labour Members of Parliament and Labour Ministers at the time not particularly bothering at all about EU spending, so I am delighted with the change of heart, because there is a need for focus on this area.

I do not intend to speak for too long because I know that a number of hon. Members want to make their maiden speeches. Small though the Bill is, it is, however, important and it deserves to have a decent amount of scrutiny by the House, which I am pleased to see that it will receive. The sole purpose of the Bill is to approve and implement the EU’s own resources decision, setting into legislation how the EU budget is to be funded, including the EU rebate. That is a big deal for us, because we stick in a massive contribution to the European Union. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s March 2015 economic and fiscal outlook report gives the net contribution figures for our country to the European Union. I had a debate in the Tea Room with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), who thinks that the figures are downplayed slightly, but they are the ones that I have to hand at the moment.

The net contribution for 2013-14 from Great Britain to the European Union was £10.2 billion; for 2014-15 it was £9.2 billion; and for 2015-16 it was £9.9 billion. Those are significant sums of money.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I wonder whether my hon. Friend thinks it is right to use the net figure, or the gross figure after rebate, because with the net figure the spending that is netted off is spent according to the requirements of the European Union; it is not necessarily spent in the way that a British Government would wish to spend it.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

My hon. Friend is completely right about that, so I thought I should also share with the House the gross contribution figures given by the Office for Budget Responsibility in its March 2015 economic and fiscal outlook report. The gross contribution figures were £14.1 billion for 2013-14, £14 billion for 2014-15 and £14 billion for 2015-16. We are talking about massively significant sums and this Bill therefore needs some scrutiny, because it is the one that tells us how the EU budget is funded.

European Commission: National Parliaments

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Chris Heaton-Harris

Tuesday 10th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend and I was coming on to that.

The heart of the matter is the question of where we think democracy lies in the European Union. Does it lie in the Commission? The answer, in fairly short order, is no. Every country has a commissioner and, as the hon. Member for Luton North has said, commissioners from very small countries sometimes get very important briefs. It was the Maltese Commissioner who finally decided whether neonicotinoids could be legal across the whole of the European Union. Malta has a population of about 250,000—which is tiny in proportion to ours, let alone that of the whole of the EU—and it was someone representing them who made a decision for all of us without any democratic accountability because the Council could not come to a decision.

There is no election for European Commissioners—they are appointed by their home Governments. The President of the Commission represents Luxembourg, which is hardly the great bulwark of population and importance for which one might hope. It is not exactly the Texas, or even the Illinois, of the European Union. Relatively minor figures from their own domestic functions are put forward as commissioners, with no support from, or knowledge of, the people living in the other member states. Before he became a commissioner, very few people in the United Kingdom could have named the former Prime Minister of Luxembourg. There is no democratic accountability in the Commission.

Perhaps there is democratic accountability in the European Parliament, but, if there is, it is of a most extraordinary kind. The d’Hondt system for electing people is most unsatisfactory and means that most people have no clue who their MEP is. It is very difficult to seek redress of grievance through the European Parliament in the way our constituents can seek redress of grievance through this House. Indeed, one of my concerns about the whole European project is that it denies our constituents that proper redress of grievance that they can get through the House of Commons.

Crucially, the European Parliament cannot have democratic accountability because it does not represent a single people. When the issue of unemployment in Greece, Spain and Portugal came up in yesterday’s debate, it was absolutely instructive that there was a complete lack of concern for unemployment in the other member states of the European Union. There is not a feeling that somebody unemployed in Greece is as important as somebody unemployed in Newcastle. Until we have that fellow feeling—the feeling that they are one people with us—there cannot be a proper democracy. The jargon, clearly, is that without a demos there cannot be democracy and there is not a single European people. Therefore, even if the European Parliament had Members who anyone knew about, and even if it was elected on a system that anyone thought was a reasonable system to elect people on, it would still not have proper democratic representation because it does not represent a single people.

That brings us to the Commission, which I think is the closest we get to democracy in the European Union. The Ministers represent their Governments and those Governments have to command majorities in their respective Houses of Parliament. That brings us back to exactly where we want to be: the democratic rights of Parliament and what Parliament should be able to do within the overall system and context of the European Union. Ultimately, democratic accountability within Europe—that thin thread of accountability that exists—is through the Commission to Parliaments.

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

I hate to interrupt my hon. Friend in mid-flow, but I believe that he is talking about the European Council, not the European Commission.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am so sorry. I do indeed mean the Council. The Council has that thin thread to the Parliaments, which provides that democratic accountability.

We then look at what those Parliaments can do. They can have a limited amount of scrutiny but, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter) said, that mainly comes after things have been decided; the European Scrutiny Committee gets to look at things that have already reached a far stage in the approval process within the whole European system. It is very hard to stop anything at that point, so we then move on to yellow cards.

European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Chris Heaton-Harris

Monday 27th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

As the hon. Gentleman says, we have the cream of the Opposition here. The Opposition’s economic policy would be much more interesting if the hon. Members for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), and for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer), were on the Front Bench, not the Back Benches.

You will be pleased to know, Mr Gray, that Confrontations Europe has a youth initiative called YES-EU!—Young Europeans Supporting EU!—and is engaging in a campaign aimed at the upcoming European parliamentary elections. We are talking about a budget line that pays for people to try to influence, with their pro-EU stance, the parties standing in those elections.

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

Will my hon. Friend remind us whether it would be possible for anybody who promoted the individual nation states to get money from that pot?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Unfortunately, regulations prohibit those perhaps Eurosceptic organisations that are pro-nation state from bidding for money; they would be ruled out of order.

Under the last multi-annual financial framework, Confrontations Europe got about £1 million from the Europe for Citizens programme, just to support its running costs—not to carry out any programmes, for which it also bids for money.

Why is this important? I have helpful analysis in a letter that the Minister submitted to the European Scrutiny Committee back on 24 April 2012; I know that he remembers every single word of it. On the structure of the Europe for Citizens programme, he says:

“some 60% of the funds would be allocated to democratic engagement in the European institutions”—

that is, to European federalist propaganda lines. Some 20% would be

“for remembrance activities (mostly concerning the victims of World War II); 10% for the analysis, dissemination, and evaluation of results; and the remaining 10% for programme management.”

My amendment would therefore be quite a big ask at European Council level; it would take the 60% that goes to organisations that I am not particularly keen on—I am sure that many in this House are not, either—and put it towards future remembrance activities.

I have a question for the Minister, because the next paragraph of his letter troubles me slightly:

“We would seek to maintain the prioritisation of civic participation over remembrance”.

I wonder whether that is really what we are meant to do, at this time, in our negotiations at Council level. If we were not even trying to change the budget line at the time when it was being discussed, I would have concerns, especially considering the importance of this year and what we are remembering. Perhaps it is a civil servant thing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

It is not good progress at all—it is miserable progress, as we have a veto, so we can say, “No, no, no.”

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I had a horrible vision for a second of my hon. Friend in drag, dressed as a former Prime Minister saying exactly those words. However, we can do exactly that and, realistically, I believe that we should do so.

European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Chris Heaton-Harris

Monday 4th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak on a matter European where there is general agreement across the House and no time limit on the scoreboard. I shall go on for only a couple of hours, and I have already issued my press release saying I was “speaking to a packed Chamber.” As long as the few Members here keep quiet about it, I shall be fine.

I thought it might be wise to explain why it is important to discuss these matters. As the European Union Act 2011 has brought today’s debate forward on the basis that Parliament is required to pass an Act to approve the relatively low-level EU decisions in clause 1, it might look as though those decisions are of no consequence and do not need to be talked about. As both the Minister and the shadow Minister said, however, these are quite important matters, and some other member states find them amazingly important.

The German Federal Constitutional Court talked about article 352 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union—the flexibility clause that has caused so much excitement in the past—on which these proposed decisions are based. It considered that article as part of its 2009 judgment on the constitutionality of German basic law and the Lisbon treaty when Germany was seeking to ratify the treaty. Specifically, it considered the question of whether the article, which gives the European Union sweeping legislative power, was compatible with democracy as enshrined within German basic law.

The court had already found that, to have democratic legitimacy, the powers of the EU must be rooted in a democratic decision of Germany’s national Parliament to confer those powers to the EU. The German court said:

“Article 352 TFEU not only establishes a competence of action for the European Union but at the same time relaxes the principle of conferral.”

That is the principle that powers must be conferred on the EU by member states under article 352. The court continued:

“action by the European Union in fields set out in the Treaties is intended to be possible if the Treaties have not provided the specific competence necessary…The provision can thus serve to create a competence which makes action on the European level possible in almost the entire area of application of the primary law”

across the EU treaties.

The court ruled that

“As regards the ban on transferring blanket empowerments or transferring Kompetenz”—

the competence for the EU to decide its own powers—

“the provision”—

that is, article 352—

“meets with constitutional objections because the newly worded provision makes it possible to substantially amend Treaty foundations of the European Union without the mandatory participation of legislative”—

national—

“bodies beyond the Member States’ executive powers”.

Essentially, the court said that the German Parliament would have to examine these matters again.

It is good that we are at least mimicking the German Parliament, albeit a few years later. We are here to discuss relatively important issues, as has the German Parliament. It could perhaps be argued that the German public may be a tiny tad less Eurosceptic, because their Parliament talks about these matters sensibly and regularly, and that they therefore may understand them slightly better.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I knew that I was going to provoke some reaction.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am very concerned that our speaking about these matters will make the country more pro-European. I want to encourage people in their Euroscepticism, so I think that we should perhaps talk about them less.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I think that all scepticism should be based on reality. We should talk about things with decent facts in front of us. This is a very good forum in which to discuss the facts, so let us do that.

The Bill has been produced as a result of the requirement of the excellent European Union Act 2011 to approve the three EU decisions that have already been mentioned. Under the Act, before a United Kingdom Minister can give final agreement in the Council of the European Union or the European Council to decisions proposed on the basis of the EU treaties being used in these cases, the proposed decisions must be approved by an Act of Parliament. That is what we are doing today. Although certain proposals based on the EU flexibility clause are exempt from the requirement for an approving Act of Parliament, those exemptions do not apply in these cases. I will happily go into the details if Members want to know what they are. The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) is obviously keen to discuss them; perhaps we will do so afterwards, over a beer.

Under the EU treaties, EU decisions of this kind require unanimity in the Council or the European Council, which means that without the UK’s support they cannot be adopted, at least to cover all member states.

Members have already listed what the proposals would achieve. There is an EU regulation enabling the electronic rather than the printed version of the Official Journal to take EU legal effect. There is an EU decision that would set out the broad areas of work of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights between 2013 and 2017. There is also an EU decision on the number of European commissioners.

Although the first two proposals may not seem to be hugely important, they are based on the flexibility clause, which gives the EU sweeping powers to adopt laws when the treaties have not otherwise given it the power to legislate. It has been used to adopt significant EU measures in the past, such as the creation of the EU bail-out fund for non-eurozone member states. It was therefore thought to warrant parliamentary control, and that thoroughly good idea was introduced by the European Union Act.

The two proposals dealt with by clause 1 are being introduced under the flexibility clause: they are article 352 decisions—flexibility decisions. As I said, the flexibility clause has been used to co-ordinate national social security systems for the benefit of all member states’ nationals when moving within the EU; to provide for measures against the counterfeiting of euro coins that apply to member states outside the euro; and for the bail-out fund. We are talking about significant measures.

The Bill deals with the EU Official Journal, which is not exactly the most exciting document in the world but, as the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) said, it contains striking elements of importance to the functioning of the single market, and to EU business and UK business in general. I have a small problem with it, because everything has to be translated into each of the official languages of the European Union. This is not a debate for now, but that approach means that everything that is said in the Official Journal has to be translated into, for example, Gaelic, and that is perhaps not the best use of money.

European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Chris Heaton-Harris

Tuesday 27th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I think the amendment is excellent, worthy of the whole Committee’s support. Although enlargement is a very good thing—I agreed with the Minister when he set out the advantages and confirmed that bringing new member states in has been beneficial to the United Kingdom—countries need to be ready for it. We know, however, that some countries that have acceded have not been ready: their criminal justice systems have not been ready; their procedures against corruption have not been fully thought through; and the independence of their judiciary could not be guaranteed. With Croatia, there are even questions relating to the independence of the police, and some difficulties in passing legislation to ensure that the police are politically independent.

I therefore view it as a good thing that Parliament should have a further opportunity to approve the Bill before it is enacted. I know that there are other ways of doing that. It is, I suppose, a gratifying thought that the Bill could be vetoed and that the Queen could exercise her ancient power not to approve it. I say that as we approach the 300th anniversary of when that last happened. It would restore an historic precedent if the Government were to decide that Croatia was not ready to join and that the Bill should be vetoed. I think that the Norman French would be “la Reine s’avisera”, or the Queen will take advice—words that have not been used since the reign of Queen Anne—and this would allow further deliberation on the Bill.

It would probably be better in this more democratic age, compared with the reign of Her late Majesty Queen Anne, to have a parliamentary process that would be the final authorisation of the ratification of the treaty under our normal constitutional processes, as set out in the European treaty. That would be preferable to using a rather antiquated, if perhaps romantic, way of delaying the Bill’s coming into law. No doubt the Government will say that they could delay handing in the instruments of ratification of the treaty to the European community, but again that does not seem to me to be an ideal way of proceeding. If doubts remain about Croatia’s readiness to join, the decision should be a parliamentary one rather than a prerogative one. Failing to hand in the instruments of ratification is in many ways much the same as vetoing the Bill outright. It is using the royal prerogative rather than a parliamentary procedure.

I therefore think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) has come up with an excellent amendment—much better than the one I tabled, which was tabled out of a concern that Croatia will change the way the budget of the European Union operates. I wonder whether it is sensible to allow a new member state to join when we are using roll-over budgets. It strikes me as a risk that by the middle of next year, we might have an unstable procedure of financing the European Union—one that relies on the fall-back position set out in the treaty rather than on an new multi-annual financial framework—which would put a strain on the EU’s ability to meet the commitments it has made to Croatia by allowing it to become a member, and would leave confusion and dissatisfaction on all sides. It would be better to have the multi-annual financial framework in place before the formal ratification of the treaties went through.

I hope that the Government will think carefully about the amendment and about the process they are going to adopt. The amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North would allow this House and, indeed, the other place to reconsider the eligibility of Croatia to join the EU and whether it was suitable under the circumstances prevailing at the time—if, for example, the multi-annual financial framework had not been agreed or, indeed, if there were some other problem. Between now and next May, who knows whether Greece and possibly even Germany along with Finland and all sorts of countries might have left the euro, deciding that it was kaput—a German word, I believe, which I occasionally use in this Chamber, as allowed by “Erskine May”, which grants the odd quotation of foreign words? We could find that we have agreed this magnificent Act of Parliament, written on the finest vellum, signed in the finest ink, but that it proves ineffective because circumstances will have changed and there is no fall-back position other than a rather heavy-handed use of the prerogative power to prevent the instrument of ratification that we have approved going further along the line, leaving us having approved Croatia’s membership when there are all these other factors that might make it unsuitable.

The European Scrutiny Committee was looking at whether Croatia is, in fact, ready to join. I am not the greatest admirer of the European Union, and allowing countries that are a little bit corrupt and a little bit fishy to join gives me an opportunity to criticise the EU a bit more and to say, “Look, we are letting in dodgy types and corrupt Governments”. We could be letting in people with judicial systems that are not right, yet still benefit from the European arrest warrant. I am thus speaking against my own interest as a critic of the European Union, but it shows how broad-minded and sympathetic I am to the Government in supporting the amendment. It secures and provides ballast for the Government, allowing them to proceed with confidence and panache in getting Croatia to become a member, making it certain that when the documents are finally lodged, everyone is happy that Croatia will fit in with the EU—like the final piece of the jigsaw that people fear they lost behind the sofa but has finally been found, rather than one that is a bit dog-eared and bent that needs to be pushed or squeezed in. I hope that the Government will, in their wisdom and thoughtfulness, accept the amendment because it will protect and help them.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

My hon. Friend is making a strong case for changing the way in which we deal with a country’s accession. I assume that he is keen for the amendments to be adopted and to govern the way in which we deal with future accessions that could be far more controversial even than Croatia’s.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is important to set a precedent in this instance. I do not usually like new precedents; I think that they are rather dangerous. One always wants to find an historic precedent to which one can refer. On this occasion, however, it may be right to set the new precedent of securing the certainty that a country constitutes that smooth piece, with its corners just so, which can be inserted into the jigsaw that is the European Union.

It seems to me that a Government who are as good and as great as this Government—a coalition Government who see these matters in a broad and rounded way—will want to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North, because surely it is very important that when Croatia joins, Croatia is ready to join. We have found before when we have let countries join early that it is much, much harder to solve the problems when they are in than it was before they were in. Once they are in, they benefit from all that comes from the European treaties. Before they are in, they are of course supplicants, and the power rests with the European Union to decide whether to admit them. It is unquestionably sound and prudent to follow the recommendation of my hon. Friend and to put this final brake on the process, so that it goes ahead only when we are comfortable that the Croatians have really got their act together.

It might be sensible to delegate consideration of this matter to the European Scrutiny Committee, so ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who would be able to bring all his knowledge and wisdom to the decision on whether Croatia had met the tests set by the European Union. Otherwise, we shall sow the wind and reap the whirlwind. We shall once again see a European Union that is fiddling its own rules to get what it wants. We shall say “Look what this European Union does: it sets down these rules, it sets down these conditions, it sets down these terms, but once they become inconvenient, it casts them aside and forgets them in order to be able to do what it wanted to do in the first place.”

It is the British Government and the British people who have the backbone and the strength of mind to ensure sure that the European Union is held properly to account, and to ensure that we have a chance to make it do what it says it is going to do, rather than wandering off on the path of allowing countries that are not fit to join to join early.

Draft European Union Budget

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Chris Heaton-Harris

Thursday 12th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Yes, indeed.

I am very keen that the Government get their principles in line and their priorities straight. I want to explain why the amendment tabled by the Opposition is complete rubbish and to give the Minister a feel for why many Conservative Members think that we need to be doing slightly more, in a slightly stronger way, to achieve the aims that I think we all agree on, given that the European budget is way too high.

This year is important in budgetary terms because 2013 is the last year of the current multi-annual financial framework. The work that is done now on the 2013 budget will hold firm for next multi-annual financial framework, within which the Commission is bidding for a lot more money. That is significant for the United Kingdom.

The Commission raises this money in a number of ways: direct payments from national Governments based on each country’s gross national income, a levy on each national Government that takes a slice of their VAT income, customs duties on various imports from outside the EU, and levies on sugar production. That accounts for about 99% of the budgeted income of the European Commission. To put that into scale, in 2010 the UK’s gross contribution to the EU budget was €14.66 billion and we received back €6.75 billion, equating to a net contribution of €7.91 billion.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend mentioned the repatriation of funds to the UK. The net figure that he cites assumes that the European Union spends money in the UK in a way that we would like, but that is not a fair assumption.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

That is a correct assumption. A number of those projects would not have been financed by this Government or by previous Governments, so the money is being diverted into different things. That is why the last Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, mooted the idea of repatriating those moneys.

Finance Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Chris Heaton-Harris

Monday 2nd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

rose—

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I give way to my hon. Friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Does that not make the point? If there was this anger, thousands of people would not queue in lines to get their season ticket for Manchester United at the beginning of each season and millions of people would not be watching on television, because the strength of anger that Labour Members seem to want to articulate would mean that people would boycott these disgraceful sports and pursuits.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and he has hit the nail on the head.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

In 1979, when the hon. Gentleman had a real socialist Government, that figure was about 8%. One can see that massive expansion in the burden of tax falling on the richest in society—the ones who can bear that burden—comes when the rate is lower. That is an excellent part of this Budget; perhaps the best part.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I thank my hon. Friend for being so generous in giving way. If one could possibly take the politics out of tax, surely one would want to hit the tax rate that brings in the most revenue, in order to pay for hospitals and everything else. If that tax rate was proved to be lower than the higher tax rate, one would like to think that common sense would prevail and that Ministers would choose the tax rate that would bring in the money.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that there are studies that show that that rate would be 36p in the pound. I hope that the Minister is listening and that we can look forward in the next Budget to the rate being lower still.

We have heard discussion about the morality of tax rates, and I dispute that there is morality to tax rates, but there is a perniciousness about taxing for the sake of it and about taxing for the sake of envy, because people do not like the rich or because they wish to crush the income earners in society. That is not the type of envy that we have on these Benches. Even our Liberal Democrat friends do not suffer from that type of envy; they recovered from it after their experience in 1909.

We Conservative Members have never had that type of envy. We recognise that if the maximum amount of revenue is raised, it is better for everybody. We heard our Prime Minister giving an invitation to our friends in France, saying, “Come and join us. The weather here may be rainy, but the tax rate is only 45p in the pound, compared with the 75p that you may have to pay.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am always grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s thoughtful interventions, but one of the greatest mistakes that Governments make is to have this merry-go-round of taxation and benefits, whereby we tax people and then pay them back their own money in benefits, with a cut taken for administration in between. It is much more sensible to take people out of tax altogether. I would like the threshold to be raised considerably higher, basically towards average earnings, so that the bulk of people do not pay tax at all on what they earn, but do, of course, pay in other ways, through other taxes—through indirect taxation. That takes away the major disincentive to go into employment, and lets people benefit from the fruits of their labour. That is an important proposal that has come forward, and it is popular throughout the country, though I would not say that there was literally cheering in the streets.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

My hon. Friend talked about the recycling of money through the system. In May 2010, nine out of 10 families were able to claim some sort of tax credit. Surely it is completely wrong if everybody —or 90% of people—is relying on the state to give them money back in some grandiose scheme. Surely taking people out of tax is the right way to get rid of that problem.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am in entire agreement with my hon. Friend. We want to get people out of the tax and benefits system as much as possible so that they can stand on their own two feet. That is what people want.

Drugs (Roadside Testing) Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Chris Heaton-Harris

Friday 10th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

My hon. Friend is correct: the saga continues. A game of table tennis seems to be going on between the Home Office and the Department for Transport. The public, and I, would like to see some action. Approval should be given for detection devices for use by police officers in testing. They have been developed, and a number of them are in existence. We ought to get our bureaucratic processes sorted out, so that we can have them available for use across the police forces of the United Kingdom.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North detailed the Department for Transport’s consultation document on road safety compliance back in November 2008. Produced just a handful of years ago, that paper stated:

“We could explore the viability of creating a new offence to target those who drive after taking illegal drugs—those that are controlled by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971—which can impair a user’s ability to drive. The public rightly perceive”—

this had already been spotted—

“users of these drugs who drive as a danger to road safety”

and to everybody on the roads. The public wanted action to protect themselves.

People who drive under the influence of drugs increase the number of accidents on our roads, and they increase the cost of insurance for all those drivers who drive innocently and honestly on our streets. As we have heard, the human cost of the accidents that they cause can be massive.

The Labour party issued a consultation, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North detailed, and it asked the right questions and got the right answers. Sir Peter North’s consultation was very good and was received well on both sides of the House, although the final report was not published until 16 June 2010. The main recommendations of the North review relating to drug-driving were that police procedures enforcing current drug-driving laws should be improved and that there should be early approval for saliva testing and a device that can do that. Both those recommendations have great cross-party support.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I agree with my hon. Friend that there is great support for such a measure in broad principle, but is it possible to have a machine before we have clearly set out the limits?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

That goes back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North. In England, the law concerns itself with impairment to your ability to drive. You might be impaired three days after you smoked a joint—it is down to the individual. I do not mean you, Mr Deputy Speaker—a member of the public might be impaired.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I hate to think that we would think it more likely for a member of the public to take drugs than a Member of the House. Surely our electorate do not do such things—not in North East Somerset at any rate.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I am sure that my hon. Friend is completely correct—[Interruption.] Let us not go back down that route; I will stick to where I was going.

It is impairment of an individual’s ability to drive that we are seeking to identify—there is a line that one might cross, and different individuals’ bodies will metabolise drugs, as they do food, in different ways. We have already accepted that with regard to alcohol, so let us make a bold leap. Why not introduce tests for the five main types of recreational drugs—those listed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North—that tend to be found in individuals who have caused an accident to which the police are called? This hinges on getting approval for a device, and that is the bureaucratic nonsense behind it all. Having accepted the principle of introducing a level—I would push for a zero level, as in Sweden, because that is much easier for everybody to come to terms with—why should we not bring forward such devices?

In his review, Sir Peter North said:

“The focus should be on public safety”.

The protection of our constituents from those who take drugs and then decide it is fine to jump in a car is one reason why we are all interested in this debate. Such drivers might not feel that their ability is impaired, and even if they do, they probably do not care too much for the other individuals concerned. Sir Peter continued:

“Any new offence should therefore focus on establishing levels of drugs in the blood at which significant impairment—and therefore, risk to public safety—can reasonably be assumed, as is the case now for drink-driving.”

That is a fairly simple statement. We have accepted levels for alcohol, so let us accept them for some of the more commonly used recreational drugs, and get the type review device approved by the Home Office and out on the streets, adding to the deterrents that we have.

Under schedule 7 of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003, the police have the power to conduct roadside drug tests, so there is no problem with that side of the argument. Guidance was issued back in December 2004 on the conduct of the preliminary impairment tests detailed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North. There is a host of reasons why we should put more pressure on the Government to get on with this job.

Having had private conversations with the Minister, I think he understands that there is a great deal of anxiety about how long the process has taken. The crime is relatively new, but it is also one of the crimes most on the increase. As my hon. Friends have detailed, the problem is the scientific ability of drug-screening devices to detect what we would like them to identify.

For about a decade, the Home Office has been developing a type approval specification for a “drugalyser” that would help police at the roadside to detect the presence of drugs. The Metropolitan police took part in a trial between January 2001 and January 2002 which, although reasonably successful, was—according to the official phraseology—“hampered” by the fact that testing had to be voluntary at that time.

In their February 2007 review of road safety, the Labour Government stated that the first devices developed to specification could be available at the end of that year, and that the Home Office was already developing a prototype device which could both screen and analyse samples and was likely to be ready in two to three years. In February 2008, the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), then a Minister, told the House that the Home Office’s

“Scientific Development Branch… in consultation with the Department for Transport, continues to discuss possible improvements to the field impairment test currently used by the police… continues to investigate a possible impairment measuring device through established contacts working in this area. Opportunities for partnership with a suitable university or other outside agency continue to be sought.”—[Official Report, 19 February 2008; Vol. 472, c. 582W.]

Clearly there has been no lack of work, and that work has been carried out for a host of years. However, someone sitting in the beautiful village of Flore in my constituency as traffic rattles along a road that desperately needs to be bypassed, and fearing that one night, on one of the bad bends, a person who has had far too much of a good time and used illegal drugs will pile into the side of their house, may feel that, given the length of time for which this deterrent had been talked about, a Government of any colour should have acted much earlier.

As we know, The Times reported in 2008 that the Home Office was “preparing to approve” hand-held drug-screening devices, and that

“Philips…announced yesterday that it will start deliveries to police”

early in 2009. I wonder where those deliveries have got to. There is a problem somewhere, and I hope that, in his considered reply, the Minister will tell us how he is trying to unblock the channels that seem to be blocked.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend, in his opening remarks, put it extremely clearly that the courts should determine these matters, but I do not agree. The courts should not determine the levels. They can determine the individual case. They can say, “Yes, we accept what the police are saying, yes we accept that that person was unable to hold his leg 6½ inches off the ground for two hours”—or whatever it is—“and that therefore he was affected by drugs.” However, it would not be right for the courts to establish the broad principle that 1 nanogram of some substance was the limit, or 2 nanograms. I could keep counting up to one full gram; on another occasion, Mr Deputy Speaker, I may find it advisable to do so, but not today. This should be decided by Parliament, because that is what we are here for—to determine the principles that are then applied by the courts.

I worry when we give either too little or too much discretion to the courts, because it depends so much on the area that is covered. When it comes to the appropriate sentence, we should set the maximum, and possibly the minimum, but we do not want to set the finer details. With quantities of drugs, likewise, we want to set the minimum and the maximum for legality, but we do not want the judges to develop their own precedent that gives them a power that rightly belongs to Parliament. That is why the Government are right to consider this. I have not suddenly decided that I am in favour of bureaucratic dithering, because it is not bureaucratic dithering; it is a right understanding of the very difficult issues that exist.

I move on to the question of what is legal and what is illegal. I thought of quoting Coleridge:

“In Xanadu did Kubla Khan a stately pleasure-dome decree”.

That was written under the influence of what would now be an illegal substance. Coleridge had been taking opium for some time beforehand, and he wrote out his poem until interrupted by a gentleman from Porlock, which is notably in the county of Somerset. Taking opium was perfectly legal at the time. He was not committing any offence by doing so, nor are some people today who are prescribed opiates for the relief of pain. If somebody is prescribed an opiate for the relief of pain and is driving perfectly well, is it conceivably reasonable to say to them, “We’ve found a nanogram of this substance in you and therefore you’ve committed an offence and must be banned from driving for a year”? It is not the same with alcohol, because very few people absolutely need to take alcohol. That is not entirely true, as I knew a man who was prescribed gin and tonic by his doctor towards the end of his life, but that was for more complex reasons than as a curative—I think it was more of a palliative. Some people need these serious and otherwise illegal drugs for good and proper medical reasons, and therefore a blanket test could be a very unfair and unjust way with dealing with them. That is why the Government are right to consider this thoroughly and properly so that ultimately we can not only set the limits but differentiate as regards where the limits ought to be set and what we are trying to include and to exclude.

Beyond the drugs that are illegal in certain circumstances and legal in others, there are the drugs that are always legal but can, in certain quantities, create an impairment. That leads to a balance of advantages. Lots of people suffer from hay fever, for example. If someone is driving along and has a fit of the sneezes, that is quite dangerous, as they could drive into a ditch, or something worse. If they take a more old-fashioned type of antihistamine, they may find that it makes them feel a little sleepy if they have that type of reaction to antihistamines. Are we suddenly going to say that someone who takes an antihistamine cannot drive because it is better that people should have a fit of the sneezes? Would it show up in the test anyway?

The broad problem that, I am afraid, often comes up on Friday mornings is that the laws that we look to pass are about motherhood and apple pie. They are saying, for example, “The world is simple and it’s all very straightforward—we’ll have a nice test, and bingo, we’ve got the drug dealers and the drug users off the roads.” But it is not quite like that; the situation is much more complex and nuanced, regarding not only the levels but the legality and the illegality, and then some of the broader general principles.

I want to return to the piece in the Daily Mail on coffee earlier this week. I was astonished to read that anybody who has five cups of coffee a day is likely to hallucinate. I should think that I have had at least five cups of coffee every day since I was a young teenager, and I have never, to my knowledge, hallucinated; it may be that one does not notice these effects. I would be very reluctant to see the Government introduce some hand-held device to test Members of Parliament as they drive out of New Palace Yard to see whether they have too much caffeine in their system. After some of our sittings that last until 4 in the morning, quite a lot of Members have a lot of caffeine in their system, not to mention some who might have other things in their system. I would not think it right for the police officers on duty to ask us to spit at them, as I mentioned earlier, which would be most unpleasant and improper. There are real issues and difficulties in how we deal with legal and illegal drugs, and the measuring of them.

There is also the general principle. I have a certain sympathy with the US constitution, and the fifth amendment in particular, which allows people not to incriminate themselves. We have made an exception for drink-driving. The motorist, oddly, is the one person in British life who is not protected from the general principle of non-self-incrimination. The motorist who does not reply to a speeding ticket is guilty of an offence and therefore incriminates himself, and occasionally members of his family. There are obvious questions over the breathalyser, because a failure to provide a sample without good reason is an offence and one incriminates oneself by failing to give one. Already with drug-driving, as I have said, it is an offence to refuse to stand on one leg for the specified time with the other leg a specified number of inches from the ground. That ought to worry us constitutionally.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I know that it is unwise to interrupt his flow of words, eloquent and beautiful as it is, and especially so after five cups of coffee on a Friday morning. There is another group of individuals in the position that he has detailed. Sportsmen and athletes have to report in about where they will be going in hourly or three-hourly segments—I cannot remember which—and they have random drug tests. This is not just something that is proposed in the Bill; we accept the concept that drug testing should be allowed in some circumstances. Surely when a person is pulled over for a road traffic offence and the police suspect that they have been taking drugs, the police should be equipped with a device so that they can test the person there and then.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I think that my hon. Friend’s point is slightly disconnected, because belonging to a voluntary body, the rules of which state that one must subject oneself to a test, is very different from Her Majesty’s Government and Parliament, through legislation, taking away one’s right not to self-incriminate. One does not have to be an athlete—I never could be anyway. It is not compulsory to be a runner or a jumper. It ought to be compulsory to be a cricketer, but sadly it is not. However, if the Government get involved, one may commit an offence by going about one’s ordinary daily life and that is a higher degree of intrusion. The same point applies to the earlier intervention about the Home Office testing the people who work for it with these machines.

Eurozone Financial Assistance

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Chris Heaton-Harris

Tuesday 24th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[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.

Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Chris Heaton-Harris

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[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.

European Union Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Chris Heaton-Harris

Tuesday 8th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3

Decisions subject to special referral procedure in TFEU

‘(1) A Minister of the Crown may not permit the United Kingdom’s participation in the final adoption of a decision to which this subsection applies unless subsection (3) or (4) is complied with in relation to the draft decision.

(2) The decisions to which subsection (1) applies are—

(a) a decision under the provision of Article 48 of TFEU that permits the adoption of legislative acts in the field of social security;

(b) a decision under the provision of Article 82(2) of TFEU that permits the adoption of directives establishing minimum rules in criminal procedure, unless the decision falls under section 9(4);

(c) a decision under the provision of Article 83(1) of TFEU that permits the adoption of directives establishing minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions, unless the decision falls under section 9(4);

(d) a decision under the provision of Article 83(2) of TFEU that permits the adoption of directives establishing minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions.

(3) This subsection is complied with if—

(a) a draft decision is before the Council,

(b) in each House of Parliament a Minister of the Crown moves a motion that the House does not believe the United Kingdom should request the referral of a specified draft decision to the European Council under the provision of Article 48 of TFEU, Article 82(3) of TFEU or Article 83(3) of TFEU, as the case may be, providing for such a request, and

(c) each House agrees to the motion without amendment.

(4) This subsection is complied with if—

(a) a draft decision is before the European Council,

(b) in each House of Parliament a Minister of the Crown moves a motion that the House approves Her Majesty’s Government’s intention to support the referral of a specified draft decision back to the Council, and

(c) each House agrees to the motion without amendment.’.—(Chris Heaton-Harris.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Well, that sounded better to me when I was writing it down. It seemed perfectly logical for this to be a matter for both Houses, and the other place does scrutinise European matters, as we have discussed. It has a depth of expertise on European matters, although it might be completely wrong in its conclusions.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The House of Lords has an absolute veto on statutory instruments and many other things. It is only legislation introduced in the House of Commons on which the Lords does not have a veto. It would therefore have been illogical to have excluded it.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I could not have put it better myself.

Moving swiftly on, new clause 4 addresses the post-2013 financial framework. We are about to enter into very important negotiations about how much money we give to the European institutions over the next financial framework—that for 2014 to 2020. We have had many assurances from the Government that they will seek a very tough settlement, and I thought it would be wise to encapsulate in a new clause this Parliament’s view of a tough settlement. I thought it might be a good idea to spell out the situation if we do not get a freeze on the amount of money we are spending per year in that financial framework at EU level—or indeed a cut, which I hope we might be angling for. I wanted to make it clear that if we failed miserably in our negotiations and had to accept—perhaps for reasons of diplomacy, as I am unsure whether we would have to accept this as we have a veto on these matters—a rise in the amount of money that could be spent in that financial framework, that would also become part of the Bill. In fact, I would like that to be put to a referendum so that people can vote on whether we should give a lot more money to institutions that we do not completely trust. That is the main purpose of new clause 4. I hope its being moved will give the Minister another chance to state on the record exactly what our position will be going into negotiations on the financial framework post-2013.