European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Helen Goodman

Monday 27th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Since the hon. Gentleman seems so concerned about big money in politics, why is he supporting the Government on the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I almost always end up on the same side as the hon. Lady. She makes the point that I was just moving on to, so I am deeply grateful to her. It seems to me eccentric of Her Majesty’s Government to go to so much trouble to pass the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill, which I support thoroughly, to control the spending of third parties in our elections, when—suddenly, lo and behold—the European Union, whose law is superior to British law, can come along with a whole pile of money for groups outside the control of the British Parliament or the British people and can unlevel, unbalance and skew the playing field in favour of one side, particularly in a referendum vote. Indeed, that has already happened.

We know that 60% of the programme goes to the advancement of the European ideal, but that ideal is perverted to include even the most modest things, such as twinning. For a charity to be able to spend any of that money, it has to sign up to the political objective, so however harmless it is in any other respect—however modest its aims, and however apolitical it is—it has, in one respect, to be a pro-European charity to apply for the money. The programme goes a stage further, however, in that it hands out money directly to participants in a political process, and that undermines what we as democrats are trying to do in this House.

I tabled amendment 3 to try to prevent that from happening, if it is really the Government’s wish to push ahead with the programme. If the Government have any sense, they would abandon the whole scheme. They should remember that they have a veto, and they should try to find some backbone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman]

If the hon. Gentleman will allow, I will come on to that point and ask the Minister some questions about the process and scope for amending the regulation.

Hon. Members should find article 2 of the regulation encouraging. Its aim is to

“encourage democratic and civic participation of citizens at Union level, by developing citizens’ understanding of the Union policy making-process and promoting opportunities for societal”

and intercultural

“engagement and volunteering at Union level.”

That is not the vision some Government Members are presenting.

I turn now to amendment 3, which was tabled by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). I think he did some philosophy at university. He is trying to prove a negative here. There is no way the Government can say whether a piece of expenditure would influence elections to the European Parliament. It is logically impossible to do what he asks. It is important to remember that the money is not for political parties.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Will the hon. Lady therefore explain the European Movement putting out a leaflet specifically attacking UKIP in an election period? That is party political funding from the EU.

[Helen Goodman]

With the information available to him, the hon. Gentleman cannot show that money from the European Parliament funded that leaflet. As he knows, the European Movement has a whole array of sources of funding.

European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Helen Goodman

Monday 13th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Helen Goodman]

The hon. Gentleman’s remarks are rather ungenerous. It is obviously important for people to understand what it is they are voting for. They are being asked to elect candidates and they need to know what powers the institutions have. I would have thought that could be shared across the House. I was struck by the energetic twinning arrangements in Oxfordshire.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Following on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), the programme says that strand 2 will spend 60% of the money and that

“It will give preference to initiatives and projects with a link to the Union political agenda”,

so there is an underlying political agenda. I agree with my hon. Friend that to spend the money before the elections could have an improper influence on them. It would be unlikely to give money to the UK Independence party, for example.

[Helen Goodman]

The money will not be given to political parties in any case, so the hon. Gentleman’s concern about unfairness is somewhat misplaced. The fact is that the money will not be spent before the European elections.

How will the money be publicised, so that we in Durham might benefit from it as much as people in Oxfordshire evidently have? How will people apply? It is crucial to the success of the project as a lever in raising people’s participation that it involves not just the same group of organisations that have a long-standing interest and involvement in European projects, but goes wider than that.

I hope the evaluation is not too onerous, because as much could be spent on the evaluation as the sums of money that are being given out, which would not be efficient. What steps has the Minister taken to ensure that the arrangements are open and straightforward?

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Helen Goodman

Tuesday 10th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

It is a great pleasure to speak while you are in the Chair, Sir Edward, on the feast of St Pulcheria, who died on this day in 453 AD. It is the 1,560th anniversary of her death.

[Helen Goodman]

Having read the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, I wonder whether he is trying to take us back to the politics of those years.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Even this Parliament did not exist under the benign reign of the Empress Pulcheria, so I am afraid that I am unable to propose doing that.

The purpose of my amendment, which I think fits very well with the clause, which I support, is to limit the ability of people in receipt of public funds to intervene in elections, particularly general elections. In this country we do not have state-funded political parties. We have Short money and Cranborne money to help the parliamentary activities of Opposition parties, but we have consistently decided that the state would not fund political parties and that they would instead be funded by private donations, trade union donations and business donations. It therefore seems to me to be completely wrong for third parties that might depend on subventions from the state for a large part of their income to be able to campaign as third parties in general elections.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Again, I am in disagreement with the hon. Gentleman, who, surprisingly, I often agree with about many things. The amendment does not change in any way the definition of election expenditure. It leaves it as it is set out in the rest of the Bill. As I have said, that definition leaves unchanged the situation for people hosting hustings meetings. What I am doing makes not one iota of difference—not one jot of change—to the Church of the England. It will still be able to host meetings in churches and it would still be in difficulties if it decided not to invite particular candidates. That is quite right, because at the heart of democracy is the notion that candidates should be treated equally.

[Helen Goodman]

The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that British Telecom, Arriva, Stagecoach, Heathrow, Virgin Care, Tata Steel and farmers in his constituency are all in receipt of large amounts of public money. Is he really saying that none of them may make statements that could be taken as interventions in a general election?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady is ignoring the detail of the Bill and carrying on with the absurd scaremongering to which we have been listening for more than a week. A farmer in my constituency who is in receipt of subsidies would have to register as a third party and, according to the terms of clause 27, spend more than £5,000 to be in any way affected by my amendment. If only the farmers in my constituency were so rich that they were scattering £5,000 hither and yon, my own campaign might be the beneficiary of such largesse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

As an established candidate before I was elected in the last election, I did not receive any help from British Telecom. I had no idea that British Telecom was funding the campaigns of candidates up and down the country. If that were a purely commercial activity, it would be mistaken in doing so because it would alienate half its customers who would dislike the party that it decided to support.

We have heard throughout these debates Opposition scaremongering about all these third parties lined up waiting to support individual candidates, with the question of whether that is against charities law or constitutionally improper being cast to one side. That is being brought back in the context of this clause. It is absolutely clear from the Bill, from what the Minister has said and from the law as it currently stands that these bodies—charitable bodies, in particular, but also firms such as British Telecom—are not going to be third parties because they do not and, indeed, should not intervene directly in the election of individual candidates or in supporting individual parties.

[Helen Goodman]

I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman is talking out of his hat. The fact is that a lot of large private-sector businesses are donors to political parties, and that is an intervention. Is he saying that if they had been in receipt of public money, they should not be making these interventions? When they give money they are also making statements, not only about individual candidates but about parties.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady is wrong to say that I am talking out of my hat because if I did, Sir Edward, I would be out of order and you would therefore not allow it to take place. Third parties that merely donate to other political organisations are not third parties under the terms of the Bill. To be a third party under the terms of the Bill one needs to be campaigning in such a way that one is advancing the campaign of an individual in a particular constituency or a political party across a number of constituencies. Under the terms of the Bill, giving £10,000 to the Conservative party does not require registration with the Electoral Commission as a third party. All it requires is for someone to register their donation and be a legitimate British company, as covered by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The Bill is limited in scope. It cuts the amount that third parties may spend, and my amendment would ensure that people receiving Government funding do not become third parties. That seems not only reasonable but something that the Opposition in particular should support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman]

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. There is public support for candidates in this country. We have a mixed economy because we all get free delivery of our manifestos to households in our constituencies.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady is right that there is a free post, but parties are not publicly funded. They receive no cash for the free post; it is done without any cash transfer to parties, and they have no control of the money that comes to them. My point that parties are not funded by the state is right. There is Short money and Cranborne money, which I mentioned, but that is specifically for parliamentary activities, not campaigning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman]

What about the British Legion?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The British Legion will not become a third party in a general election because it is against charity regulations for it to do so. It would be an outrage if one of the most admired and apolitical bodies in this country suddenly started saying that people should vote Conservative—let alone say that people should vote Labour, heaven forfend! Charities are not there to intervene in general elections. They have specific tax benefits and their ability to fundraise is dependent on them being charitable, not political, and there is a clear difference. There is no question of the Royal British Legion becoming a third party in a general election. That is the classic scare story that we hear again and again from the Opposition, who wish to obfuscate and confuse matters because they are worried that their trade union masters will, under this clause, have the amount they can spend reduced. They hide it; they camouflage it under this complaint on behalf of the Church of England, the Royal British Legion, and so on.

We should be concerned about third parties spending money in a way that is less regulated than political parties themselves, or having the ability to spend more and with lower effective limits on what they are able to do. The clause succeeds in doing that and would make no difference at all to charities or the Church of England. My amendment would further tighten the clause. As I have said, the Opposition should be enthusiastic about it, because it is wrong for Government money to be used by third parties when they have received it not for political activity but for their general activities of whatever kind.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The Government and the taxpayer hand out very large amounts of money to third parties. Therefore, those parties should say either, “We will not take those funds,” or, “We want to be free to campaign.” They have the choice.

[Helen Goodman]

The hon. Gentleman reveals to the Committee that he does not understand how voluntary sector finances work. Voluntary sector organisations have restricted and unrestricted money. When organisations such as Shelter get money for public sector contracts, it is restricted and must be used on the service. The money used for campaigning comes from voluntary donations.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady is not entirely accurate. If she were to trouble herself to look at the NCVO accounts, she would see that the largest contribution of non-allocated money—£500,000—is from the Government. When the NCVO spends unrestricted money on campaigning, there is a very good chance that it is Government money, which seems improper. I am well aware of the distinction between restricted and non-restricted money. Unfortunately, many Government grants are not sufficiently restricted and therefore can be used to lobby the Government. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) challenged me on that—I am concerned about that too, but it is not the specific point I am making.

Housing Benefit (Under-occupancy Penalty)

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Helen Goodman

Wednesday 27th February 2013 Commons Chamber

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

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) and to have listened to this debate. When the nationalists have an Opposition day, it is always a reassurance to those of us who are Unionists, because by their presence in the Chamber they show how much better off we are together than separate. I should like to thank them for their contribution to our parliamentary democracy and hope that they will stay with us for ever.

I am pleased to be able to speak in support of the Government’s position, which is fair, measured and just. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) put it rightly when he said that we have to think about our constituents who want social housing because they have a family and need an extra bedroom, but whom we cannot help because there is a house being lived in by one person, who has too many rooms, and there is no pressure on that person to move. We hear a lot from Opposition Members about fairness for one side of the equation, but nothing about fairness for the other side, which is avoided and cast aside. When housing is controlled by the state, we must be fair to everybody, whichever side of the equation they are on. There are those who have large families, live in small accommodation, or are living in the private rented sector, and cannot get into social housing or council housing because of the problem of under-occupancy, which, we have discovered from the Government, amounts to 1 million bedrooms. Just think how many of our constituents could have better housing if only those bedrooms were freed up.

The Government’s position is also measured, because they have put in discretionary powers to look after people who will be in particularly difficult circumstances. Discretion is very important; the Government have got that spot on. If we were to say that every house that had been adapted in any way for a disabled person were to be exempt, we would find that a property with a little ramp, or one handrail, was suddenly exempt, and the whole policy would be removed. By applying discretion, however, we get the overwhelming majority of the benefit of the policy, without putting a heavy burden on that small number of people who genuinely ought to be exempt and protected. The same applies to the £5 million that has been made available to families who foster. If fostering had a general exemption, everybody in receipt of social housing benefit would suddenly go off to the council and say that they wanted to be on the fostering lists, so that they would not have to give up their extra bedroom, but would then refuse any child who was sent to them. If broad exemptions are used, people will try to fit the categories of exemption provided, whereas using discretion ensures that people must bring forward a reasonable case to encourage those who have the discretion to accept that they ought to be allowed to receive the extra funding to maintain their current position.

The Government’s position is also just, because we must ask ourselves what benefits are for. Are they there to allow people perpetually to remain in dependence on the state—

[Helen Goodman]

The hon. Gentleman displays a total ignorance of this policy area, and I am sorry about that. First, the bedroom tax applies to people who are in work as well as to those who are out of work. Secondly, it applies to people on benefits who cannot work.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but even if people cannot work, they can take in a lodger, and can get £20 coming in without any effect on their benefit, so they can be better off, because the average that would be lost for one room is £14. The Government have a policy that makes people who are not in work potentially better off, and those who are in work can also be better off, because they will similarly be able to take in lodgers, but they might be able to move to cheaper housing, which they can afford to pay for themselves, rather than being dependent on the state.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I would be very happy to take in a lodger myself. Indeed, in my earlier life I had lodgers in my house, which helped to pay the bills.

[Helen Goodman]

Would the hon. Gentleman care to share with the House, and with the nation, how large his house is and how many spare bedrooms he has? We are talking about asking women in their 50s, who are suffering from chronic conditions and living in two-bedroom flats, to take in strange men. Is that realistic?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady. It had not been my intention to tell anecdotes about my personal circumstances, but my house in London has four bedrooms with seven people living in it, three adults and four children, so I think that I meet the requirements for maximum occupancy and would not be expected to give up a single room. I am grateful to her for allowing me to illustrate my relatively straitened circumstances, which I had not expected to be able to do.

It is perfectly reasonable for people to live in a house or flat that is suitable for the number of occupants and to ask for that when paying out benefits. Indeed, it is morally right to do so, because every benefit that is paid is money that has come from a taxpayer this year or, through borrowing, will come from a taxpayer in future years.

People pay taxes on very, very low earnings. Even benefit recipients have to pay value added tax, but people click into national insurance at £107 a week of earnings. Are we really saying to those on low earnings, “You must subsidise for ever people who live in houses that are too big for them as their children grow and go and they find eventually that they are the only person there”? Will that same house be funded for ever on the backs of hard-pressed taxpayers, when in fact there is a perfectly reasonable and sensitive way of dealing with the situation that does not throw them out but gives them choice in the form of the ability to decide for themselves what steps they will take to see whether it is possible for them to live there or whether they are willing to move? Thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of people in this country move house every year, and they do so because their life circumstances have changed. They do not expect the state to say, “We won’t let you move” or “We will prevent you from moving.”

That flexibility is useful. It allows people to move to where there is employment. It allows our hon. Friends the nationalists to move to London so that they can represent their constituents in this great, illustrious Parliament. It is the essential part of ensuring that our economy has a free flow of labour around the country so that people can, in the words of Norman Tebbit, move to where the jobs are. If we have an entirely static housing market we will find that we reduce employment opportunities, undermine growth in the economy, and, worst of all, create deep unfairness for people in large families who can find no social housing and put a burden on the backs of the poorest taxpayers. We should be proud of this Government—proud of a Lib Dem Minister, of all things—for doing what is right, what is noble and what is just.

Finance Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Helen Goodman

Tuesday 6th July 2010 Commons Chamber

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

May I begin by congratulating hon. Members on a series of excellent maiden speeches? My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) spoke. I did not know that area of the country at all before he did so, and I feel much better informed as to its great beauties. The hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) told the House, to its considerable relief, that he is not going to be a pugilist, as one of his predecessors once was, so I am glad to note that, if he disagrees with my speech, I may not end up with a broken nose—[Interruption.] I could not quite catch that, and I expect the Hansard reporters could not, either. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer), as Edmund Burke said of Pitt the Younger, is not so much a chip off the old block, as the old block itself. And finally, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) told us that he was—on the internet, under the same name—a cabaret artist. I may be rare in the country at large, but in this House probably not, in that I much prefer a political speech to a cabaret artist, so I am very glad that we had the wrong website for him.

Let me come to the matter at hand, the Second Reading of this incredibly important Finance Bill. It is, like the one in 1981, of considerable controversy but great importance. We have heard at length, but interestingly, from Opposition Members that, actually, this is not a serious circumstance, and that, if we pay off the debt, though a bit too high, in dribs and drabs, all will be well. Sadly, that just is not correct. The deficit that we have faced has reached levels that in peacetime we have never had, and a key factor about the funding of the deficit last year has been missed. It was that almost all the gilts that were issued were bought by the Bank of England under its programme of quantitative easing. That programme has now stopped.

Even with this Finance Bill, we face an increase in the amount that the Government need to raise from £40 billion to £160 billion, and if we had stuck to the Opposition’s proposals it would have been higher still. Where does that money come from? Who is willing to give this country £160 billion? As it is collected, who finds it harder to borrow? The answer is the very businesses that Opposition Members say find it difficult to make investment decisions. If we borrow and borrow, and the Government use up all the money, we force up interest rates for mortgage holders and squeeze out the investment that private companies need to make.

[Helen Goodman]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

It will be an honour to give way.

[Helen Goodman]

I am trying, but I am having great difficulty following the hon. Gentleman’s train of thought. On the one hand, he says, rightly, that the deficit and the debt stock are too large, but he then connects that with extremely high interest rates. We do not have extremely high interest rates; we have record low interest rates at the moment.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am sorry to say that the hon. Lady left my train of thought at the wrong station. The point I was making was that, if we carry on issuing gilts at an even faster rate, long-term interest rates will rise, and it is on long-term interest rates that mortgages end up being priced. If we look at the gilts market, we see that the very thought—the prospect, the hope—of a Conservative Government saw it rally, therefore reducing the cost of borrowing to people in this country, whether Her Majesty’s Government or private individuals. So yes, we have very low overnight rates, but the long-term rate set by the gilts market is more important for mortgages.