All 2 Debates between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Jack Dromey

Amendment of the Law

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Jack Dromey
Thursday 22nd March 2012

(12 years, 1 month ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jack Dromey Portrait Jack Dromey
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I give way to the hon. Member for Downton Abbey.

Jacob Rees-Mogg Portrait Jacob Rees-Mogg
- Hansard - -

I am extremely grateful for that substantial promotion in my class standing. Will the hon. Gentleman explain why, when tax rates were cut in 1979 and again by Nigel Lawson, that led to more revenue coming in? This point has been ignored by the Labour party.

Lawful Industrial Action (Minor Errors) Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Jack Dromey
Friday 22nd October 2010

(13 years, 6 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Jacob Rees-Mogg Portrait Jacob Rees-Mogg
- Hansard - -

My hon. Friend is spot-on. We had a discussion about that on this side of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) elucidated for us what was meant by “substantial”, and said that in law, it meant an 80:20 level. I am not lawyer, but I was interested by that.

Jack Dromey Portrait Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The hon. Gentleman’s knowledge of members is presumably that of the Carlton club and his knowledge of the shop floor presumably that of Fortnum and Mason. Does his knowledge of the law lead him to understand the jurisprudential concept of de minimis non curat lex?

Jacob Rees-Mogg Portrait Jacob Rees-Mogg
- Hansard - -

I am so grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, which is one that I made to the Minister myself, when sadly he was not present. Indeed, the Hansard reporters asked me to spell it out, so the hon. Gentleman will notice that it is in Hansard tomorrow. De minimis non curat lex is, of course, a right and just principle, but it is in existing law. The question of what is “substantial” is the important one, and an 80:20 test is deeply unsatisfactory, because it simply allows too much impropriety to take place.

For the benefit of the hon. Gentleman, who is interested in my clubs—I believe that I am allowed to answer this point, Mr Deputy Speaker, as it was raised in an intervention—I should add that I am not a member of the Carlton club, although I think it is in a very fine building and has an excellent membership, and that I think that Fortnum and Mason is a very fine shop, and would be very happy to place that on record.

I would like to return to the Bill.