European Union (Finance) Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Kelvin Hopkins

Tuesday 23rd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

There are great advantages to having small, family owned farms, but we need an efficient agricultural system that provides the food and produce the country needs. I do not think one should be unduly sentimental for agriculture against other industries. As a lover of the countryside and of our rural traditions, I am tempted to fall in line with the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant). The constituency was called Central Fife when I stood there—unsuccessfully, just for the record. However, although I am sympathetic to his point, I think it is important to have efficient agriculture first when spending other hard-pressed taxpayers’ money. It ought not to be entirely about sentimentality.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). Before I turn to the main part of the my speech, I would like to comment on what he has just said. Some 34 years ago, my then 11-year-old son had a discussion at his primary school about what was then called the Common Market. He was asked about the common agricultural policy, which he knew a lot about because he listened to me at home. His teacher asked him, “What is the CAP?” He said, “It’s the common agricultural policy.” His teacher asked, “What is that about, then, Daniel?” He said, “It’s a way of subsidising inefficient small farms,” and 34 years on, the hon. Gentleman has raised exactly the same point. Some things do not change very much. I think my son is the same age as the hon. Gentleman.

It is also a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), who sits on the Front Bench, and support two of her new clauses and her amendment. On new clause 3, I am pleased that she has acceded to the sensible point made by the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, of which I am also a member. I will, however, support my hon. Friend in the Lobby later on her other new clauses.

I have spoken probably 100 times in European debates in this Chamber over the past 18 years. I have said some of what I am going to say today a number of times before, but in order to make an effect in politics I think we must sometimes repeat messages over and over again, hoping that, in time, one’s colleagues, particularly those on the Front Bench, will listen, agree, take note and act accordingly.

I was also much taken by the hon. Gentleman’s comment that when he rebelled he was trying to help his Front-Bench colleagues. That is a splendid idea. If ever I am moved to rebel in future, I shall tell my Whip that I am trying to help our Front-Bench colleagues and I hope she will accept it in that spirit.

The most interesting new clause is new clause 2, which is about expenditure. I have said many times that I believe that the common agricultural policy ought to be repatriated to member states for them to decide how to subsidise their own agriculture, and that the CAP’s structures should be dismantled. We would certainly benefit from that financially in more than one way, including by not paying in so much. We could subsidise at exactly the same level and possibly in exactly the same way, but still be better off because we would not be paying into something where we are net losers.

European Commission: National Parliaments

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Kelvin Hopkins

Tuesday 10th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful, Mr Speaker. I was worried when you said that I was making liberal reference to the Chair; I hope that I was making Conservative reference to the Chair. Other than that, I am much obliged for your helpful reminder of the Standing Orders of the House.

I do not want to go on for too long, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) has an important debate that will follow this one. In that context, I note that when I sit down before the full time for the debate is complete the Government will once again say that the debate did not run for its full time and that the desire for such debates is therefore not as great as we might think, so they do not need to give them in future.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I know that the hon. Gentleman is being respectful to the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), but the obvious solution would be for him to spin out his speech to the end of the time. I would certainly enjoy listening to it.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I would hardly have begun my speech if I were going to go through all the intricacies it might be necessary to cover, but I do not want to upset my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester, who has a serious matter to discuss that concerns my constituency.

The Government must bear in mind the fact that the debate is truncated thanks to the good nature of members of the European Scrutiny Committee and the Whips scurrying around asking whether we would be kindly. It has not been truncated because there is not a great deal to discuss. When the answer comes back that we are not interested as we do not take the full time, that will be an untruth. I am glad to see that the Minister for Europe is looking in my direction and notes that, because he never says anything other than the truth. I have great confidence in his intellect, if not always in the answers that come from it.

Proportionality and subsidiarity are of considerable importance. I am slightly suspicious of subsidiarity because, as the shadow Minister the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) has said, it comes from the teaching of the Catholic Church. The holy mother Church, to which I belong, is a great, illustrious and historic institution, but if it is known for one thing other than its piety, it is its centralisation of power. It therefore strikes me that, if subsidiarity has been thought up by the holy mother Church, it is more likely to be to do with reinforcing the authority of the Holy See and of the papacy in particular than with spreading it far and wide. I happen to think that, in the case of the Church, that is a thoroughly good thing.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Kelvin Hopkins

Tuesday 1st April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

That does not follow. It is like looking at the weather forecast on the BBC and saying that it is the fault of the newsreader if the weather then turns out to be different. The two are not the same. The forecasts were made in good faith, based on what was known of the global economy at the time. But of course, things change and responses are different. The global economy continued to be relatively sluggish, but the figures that have been achieved by the Government are enormously respectable. There has been economic growth pretty much since 2010 and, most importantly, in the past couple of years. Everyone knows that economic policies have a long-term impact. If a Government come to office in May 2010, we cannot expect the figures in June 2010 to be the result of that Government’s policies—there is inevitably a lag. The effects, as we have seen, have been positive; the economy is now growing, and growing increasingly strongly.

The problem that the Government faced when they came to office was severe. The deficit in 2009-10 was 11.2% of GDP, falling to 10% of GDP in 2010-11. That is not the structural deficit but the actual real money deficit. I happen to think that is a much better figure than the structural deficit, which is to some extent speculative, as economists try to work out what is structural and what is not. If we deal with actual fact, the figure was minus 11.2% in the last year of the socialists, falling very slightly to minus 10% in the first year of the coalition.

The reason the deficit was so high was of course in part the global financial crisis, but it was also because Government spending was simply too high. It had reached 47.4% of GDP in 2009-10, when revenue was only 36.2% of GDP. That latter figure for tax revenue ought not to be any surprise. One of the most remarkable things about this series of figures, going right the way back to Harold Wilson’s prime ministership, is that Governments find it incredibly difficult to get much more than 37% of GDP in taxation. It is interesting that, since 2010, although the Government have increased taxation and the tax take has gone up from 36.2% to 37.4%, the amount has not risen as much as was anticipated. The reason is that it is actually very hard to tax much more than 37% from an economy.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

In Scandinavia, tax receipts in previous years have been much higher than 37%.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Indeed they are in France as well, but in our economy there seems to be a resistance at about that level. It is almost unprecedented to get much over 38%. That has been managed in two years out of the past 40. That may tell us something about our society, about the willingness to pay tax and the incentives when tax rates are set. A realistic Government therefore need to think of public spending levels of around 37%, which is the level that can actually be afforded through ordinary taxation.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Does the hon. Gentleman know how much of that situation is due to the abolition of exchange controls when Mrs Thatcher first came to office, and the fact that we now have an enormous tax gap because of tax avoidance and tax evasion, much of it overseas?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The calculation from the removal of exchange controls is not one that I know or would be able to make. The effect of their removal has been to create a much larger economy for the United Kingdom, so we are talking about 37% of a larger pie rather than getting a higher rate in a closed economy. However, it is worth bearing in mind that in the years before exchange controls were lifted in 1979 we still were not getting a tax take of more than 38% of the economy. The series goes back longer than the abolition of exchange controls.

I part company from the Government to some degree on the question of tax avoidance and tax evasion. It is measurably important not to elide the two. Tax avoidance is perfectly legal—indeed, the Government come up with schemes in every Budget to encourage it. One example is saving for pensions—that is tax avoidance on people’s income. ISAs are a form of tax avoidance, as is duty free. In the Budget and the Finance Bill there are schemes for investing in films and television programmes that actively encourage tax avoidance. Such schemes become part of Government policy for growing the economy.

Governments then get very upset when people use the tax avoidance schemes, which the Government themselves have put into legislation, for purposes that the Government had not thought of. That strikes me as a fault of the legislative process and an incompetence of the legislators—I am sorry to say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it is our fault—for allowing such loopholes. It is not the fault of the taxpayer for using them. Any sensible, intelligent taxpayer will pay the minimum amount of tax that is legally required. To elide avoidance and evasion is, I think, against the rule of law: it undermines the rule of law by pretending that something that is innocent is nefarious.

It is important to crack down on tax evasion, which is rank criminality, but the Government should not take excessive measures against that which is legal. Instead, they should write simple tax law because, to go back to the point I was making, Governments manage regularly to raise 37% of GDP in taxation almost regardless of the taxes they levy—they change a tax here and a tax there, but still get roughly 37% of GDP. Simple tax laws can probably get us to that level without the need for complex anti-avoidance legislation that undermines the rule of law. That is the one part of the Bill about which I have my doubts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Without being too hard on that specific case, I am clear that some of the cases reported as tax avoidance were tax evasion, and HMRC has taken on some of them successfully. I absolutely agree that it is right for HMRC to challenge schemes to see whether they are, in fact, evasion. Most of the schemes that gave extraordinary results seemed to be evasion rather than avoidance, but we must remember that, day by day, honest people avoid tax that they are not required by law to pay.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way yet again. The big losses from tax avoidance and evasion are to do with the corporates. The cosy relationship in recent years between HMRC and some of the corporates, particularly Vodafone, is appalling. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would like to talk about that.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The thing about corporation tax is that a lot of corporations can be taxed almost anywhere in the world. That is why I think the Government are absolutely right to bring down the rate of corporation tax. It will help businesses to be headquartered in the United Kingdom, which is good for the UK in terms of employment and, indeed, tax revenues, by which I mean not just corporation tax revenues, but the other tax revenues paid by companies, namely business rates and employer national insurance contributions, as well as the taxes paid by their employees. We get a larger, more successful economy if we are relatively generous to corporates.

Northern Ireland Members have spoken of the particular circumstances there and the competition Northern Ireland faces from the Republic of Ireland. That is a very good case of tax competition between neighbours and it can be seen very bluntly in Northern Ireland because of the land border. We see less of it on the mainland of the United Kingdom because we do not cross borders quite so easily and we do not necessarily focus on it as much as we should. I think that the Government are absolutely right on corporation tax and that they should continue down that line.

The Government have also been right on the raising of thresholds and I hope they will continue with it. It makes sense, as my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) has said, because it is not logical for people on the minimum wage to be paying taxes. There is no point in taxing people who are low earners merely to pay them benefits with their own money. Although it was a Lib Dem policy in the last election and they deserve credit for that, it was suggested earlier by Lord Saatchi and Peter Warburton in a booklet they produced for the Centre for Policy Studies. The Conservative antecedents of the policy are pretty good and solid. It is a Tory policy in origin and it ought to continue.

The aim of the Government in the long run should be that people on the minimum wage should pay neither tax nor national insurance. In that way, the amount of benefits that needs to be paid to them will be very significantly reduced, as will the administrative burden. Roughly speaking, tax collection costs 1% of the amount collected, and benefit payments cost about 2% of the benefits paid out, so if we tax people to pay them benefits, the overall cost will probably be about 1.5% of the total amount paid and received. The policy is very good and welcome.

Another policy that must be welcomed is the change to pensions. Questions about pension funds came up when my right hon. Friend Chief Secretary to the Treasury spoke. What the Government are doing is very simple: they are allowing people to keep their own money. That is not very popular among Labour Members, who seem to have the view that it is the Government’s money and should be distributed as they, rather than individuals, wish. Conservative Members and, indeed, Liberal Democrats who still have some residual liberal attachment believe that the money belongs to the individual taxpayer.

The policy has a very clear advantage for the tax authorities, because it clarifies the idea that pension saving is nothing but a tax avoidance boondoggle. It is about taxing people once, rather than twice. People are taxed when they withdraw the money from their pension fund, with a 25% exemption, rather than taxed when they put it in. It is worth bearing in mind that if that was at any point reversed, the withdrawal would be taxed as a capital gain rather than as income, and the rates that applied might be very different from those that currently apply to withdrawals from pension funds. Any Government who intend at any point—whether at the higher or the lower rate—to withdraw the benefits of saving through a pension fund should consider the ultimate pay-out, and how the policy is a fair means of taxing people and ensuring that they are not taxed more than once.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) said, this was a “steady as she goes” Budget. It is very impressive. The Government have not gone for cheap gimmicks, as parties sometimes do before elections; they have gone for continuing the work, which they started in 2010, of getting the country back on track. They are doing so in a way that benefits the least well-off in society the most. It is absolutely striking that the real incomes of every decile other than the highest-paid decile will rise by more than prices this year, as they did last year.

That Government achievement is helping where help is most needed: it is helping business to allow it to invest; doing more to help exporters; helping to rebalance the economy for the long term; and—gloriously, splendidly and rejoicingly—it is doing something to ensure that people have their own money. What a fine Conservative principle that is. We believe that the individuals and their families who build up society have the greatest wisdom about how they spend their money, not the tax authorities that dish it out. What is being done with pensions is the clearest statement of that. Yes, if people buy Lamborghinis, Bentleys or Porsches, they will spend it unwisely—

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Kelvin Hopkins

Thursday 18th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I wish I was in this fortunate position of having a chauffeur or driver to take me to Fife to get a job. When I tried for a job in Fife in 1997, I was distinctly unsuccessful, and came back to a job in London, but that is slightly beside the point.

The overall point is that income at whatever levels has a determinant effect on the employment people seek and the work they are willing to do. That applies to benefits— paying benefits at too high a level can create a benefit trap that makes it not worth while for people to apply for jobs—and it applies very clearly to high tax rates when people decide not to earn.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

There is some research that counters part of the hon. Gentleman’s argument. In the 1980s in Germany they found that if the income of people on very high salaries is increased, they want to take more time off to enjoy it. There comes a point when they have so much income that what they want is time, not more money.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

As always, the hon. Gentleman makes a very interesting point, but if we aggregate across society at large, the determining factor will be that people want to earn more money. Although some individuals may prefer leisure, of course, many will want to continue earning to increase their standard of living or to provide for future generations. We are slightly moving away from the point, however, and there are some key aspects to which I wish to return.

I mentioned fairness. It is a bizarre definition of fairness to say that it is fair to set tax rates at a level that raises less tax. That is an argument that makes PR and spin and the like much more important than the realities of economics, and it is bad politics as well as dreadful economics.

I also want to tackle the question of the morality of taxation. Is it morally right that people should pay half their earnings over to the Government? I think it is morally wrong. I think there is a moral case for low taxation and allowing people to keep the fruits of their labours, and when the rate gets to 50% that is simply too high in a moral sense, even if it is economically successful, which it is not. I do not believe the state has the right to take half of somebody’s earnings.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Unless such money is put in a mattress, it has an effect, because it goes into the banks. As hon. Members know, the banks have been short of capital to lend out and short of deposits.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

My study of economics, which I also used to teach, always showed that the rich have a lower marginal propensity to consume than the poor. If we want to drive economic growth, we should give money to poor people because they spend it immediately in the domestic economy, rather than hiding their surplus cash in tax havens abroad.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because it demonstrates an unduly simplistic approach. Indeed, poorer people may have a higher propensity to spend than richer people, but that is not the end point of the economic cycle. There need to be deposits in banks so that money can be lent to businesses—small businesses as well as large—and so that people can take out mortgages. There is a cycle and a flow of money.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

One of the major flaws that led to the banking crisis was that loan-to-deposit ratios across the banking sector were out of kilter. Banks were lending more than they had on deposit and were therefore entirely dependent on the wholesale market. The wholesale market dried up, which led to a huge calling in of loans. That was at the heart of the financial crisis.

The banks may be saying that they are more comfortable with their loan-to-deposit ratios, but if one looks at the figures, even HSBC’s loan-to-deposit ratio—for its UK business, rather than its international business—is about 100%. Historically, banks have been more comfortable in the 70% to 80% range. We therefore do need more savings in the economy and those come from the better-off saving some of the income that they earn.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The hon. Gentleman seems to be making a powerful case for the reintroduction of exchange controls, so that money made in the domestic economy goes into the domestic banks and helps us all.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman on that at all, because this country attracts a huge amount of foreign investment. Sticking to the example of the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, that company was able to ease its way through the financial crisis because it could lend its overseas deposits to its British business. It was on the backs of savers in Hong Kong and China that HSBC was secure during that period.

Rich people saving their income is a good thing economically because it boosts the pool of saving that is available for productive investment, such as loans to businesses and individuals. Even if the argument were right that this policy is a great boondoggle for the wealthy, which it is not, it would be beneficial because it would help the economy get back on to a path to growth by providing the capital that is needed for the banks to lend.

In summary, it is clear that putting rates up leads to less tax. That is not a sensible thing to do when the Government are short of money. It is not fair, indeed it is unfair, because it puts a greater burden on other members of society who have less ability to pay. It is not morally defensible because high rates of tax are not a moral good and low rates a moral evil; in fact, it is the other way round. People have a right to keep the money that they earn, unless the state can show that it is essential to take it. That is economically beneficial because one of the great problems of our economy is a lack of saving. We are not in the paradox of thrift circumstance, in which excess savings deflate the economy.

For all those reasons, the amendment should be rejected and Her Majesty’s Government should be proud of what they have done. Indeed, they should go further and look to get the higher rate of tax down to 40% and perhaps even to that magic figure of 37%, which, as I said earlier, some studies show would be the perfect rate to maximise revenue, encourage people to work hard and continue us on our path to success.

European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Kelvin Hopkins

Monday 4th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am bombarded with messages from across the country, and probably internationally, from people who want to know that the laws that affect them are made clearly so that they know what they are and are not caught out by trickery and underhand practices. That is a fundamental principle of why they send me here. I would argue that everybody who voted at the last election wants to sleep securely in their beds knowing that the law is fairly and properly made.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I often agree with the hon. Gentleman, but on this point I agree very strongly. I am perhaps alone in insisting on having hard copy in my Select Committee meetings rather than an iPad. I can operate an iPad but I want hard copy, and I still have it. Much as we know that we are in an electronic age, paper still has its place.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman, as so often, is wise and right in this instance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

There are two parts to my hon. Friend’s point. On the first part, I disagree with him. The form in which instructions are sent out is important, and it is right that people should know about it. It is a long-standing principle of our law that ignorance of the law is no excuse. If that is fair, it is also fair that knowledge of the law should be made available to people in a timely and efficient way, because it is something that might affect their lives, and that when a change to the method of notification takes place, that should be debated in this Chamber and passed into law. On the second part, I completely agree that the number of commissioners is significant.

The second point that I raised with my right hon. Friend the Minister is crucially important. It relates to the change from article 308 of the previous treaty to article 352 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. Article 352 is broader in scope. Had it been assumed that anything previously incorporated under article 308 could be transmuted under article 352, that could have allowed all sorts of laws—my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) went through a number of them—to pass into the body of European Union powers without any further scrutiny by this House. As is often the case, something that is in itself minor has set an important precedent in protecting the rights of this House to scrutinise these matters and to ensure that the interests of our constituents are protected.

I wish briefly to discuss the number of commissioners. I do not have the confidence that some hon. Members have in our commissioners, and I do not feel happy that we have one representing us. Commissioners take an oath that they will act in the best interests of the European Union. Some have argued that that is directly contrary to the oath that they have taken as Privy Counsellors, and we should be concerned about that. They are there, by design, to represent the interests of Europe, not of the United Kingdom. Perhaps because of our history and our civic traditions, our commissioners tend to take that very seriously, whereas commissioners from some other countries may simply represent the nation state that has sent them. I do not have great confidence that the person representing the United Kingdom is waving the Union Jack; they could just as well be waving that awful European Union flag.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way yet again. I am one of those who have been concerned for many years about our commissioners, not just because they do not represent my view, but because I do not think they represent the collective view of our people, if there is such a thing. One possibility might be for them to be elected. We have started to elect police commissioners, but European commissioners are much more important.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

That is a brilliant idea. If they were elected, there would be less chance of their going native, because they might be able to stand for election again. At present, there is a fear that, when people go off to Europe, the moment they arrive they send out for Belgian dress so that they can appear to fit in with the ethos of the European Union.

I want to address the question of Ireland and the specifics of what it was given to persuade it—bully it, perhaps—to ratify the Lisbon treaty. That shows—I think that this strengthens the Prime Minister’s renegotiation position—that countries can renegotiate with the EU for things that they feel they need when discussions are being held in the European Councils. That is an important point. We have often heard people say, “The Prime Minister can go off to Europe, but they will not give him anything. It’s too bad: you’ve just got to like it or lump it.” Actually, the European Union, for all its many faults, is a fundamentally pragmatic body in how it gets agreement among member states. It does a lot of horse trading, one way or another, to get agreements. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) wants to intervene, but she seems to be nodding vaguely in response to that particular point.

The situation means that, if we go to the EU and say, “If you want X, you must give us Y,” or, “If you want X, you must give us A to Z in return,” that is a strong position for us to be in when the requirement is for unanimity. What Ireland has done, and what we are bringing into law, is very important and very encouraging for the United Kingdom and for the position of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his negotiations.

Finally, I praise the Government for the Bill, which has been proposed as a consequence of the 2011 Act. When the Act was going through Parliament, it was not universally welcomed, certainly not by those on the Opposition Benches, but even Eurosceptics on my side were sceptical about the effect that it would have. I was extremely pleased to hear the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) welcome the Bill and I am pleased that the Government have changed their view so that the multi-annual financial framework has to go through British law. That shows that the 2011 Act is working and acting as a proper check on what goes on in the European Union.

Without the Act, none of the three things under discussion today would have required legislation, but, because of it, they all do. As a result, crucial issues, such as the future number of European commissioners and renegotiations such as that which took place with Ireland to get it to support the Lisbon treaty, have come before this Chamber. Although in this instance the Bill has turned out to be uncontroversial, it could have been very controversial. I think that we are now secure, thanks to the Government, in having a better check on the accretion of powers to Europe. I might like to reverse them, but at least we are now checking them.

European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Kelvin Hopkins

Tuesday 6th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Not nationalist? I do apologise.

If a country has weak borders, it undermines the free movement of people within Europe.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

There has been discussion in recent years of the possibility of passport controls at internal borders. If there were, and if everyone had to carry a passport if they were not a resident of a country, we would solve some of that problem.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am very reluctant to see controls on the free movement of people within the UK. We ought to have secure borders, and the extension of the EU has weakened our border controls and allowed member states to give their citizenship away. One recent case is Hungary, which sells citizenship. If Hungarian citizenship is sold, UK citizenship is also effectively sold, because people will have the free right to move and settle here. In due course of time, when the provisional practices that apply to countries such as Croatia, Bulgaria and Romania end, their citizens will also be able to work here.

That ought to concern us. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who has said that we need to look at the whole question of the free movement of people, because of certain extraordinary anomalies within it, which were highlighted on “The World Tonight” on Radio 4 last night. The programme explained the difficulties that UK citizens have in bringing in a dependant who is not an EU national. However, a member of another EU nation state who is resident in the UK can bring in a dependant who is not an EU national.

One could argue that the structures of the free movement of people in the EU are in fact racist, because they deny the right of people from Commonwealth countries, who are often non-white, and who have very close associations with the UK, to come here, when people within the EU, with whom we sometimes have very little connection, can come here. We must therefore look at the free movement of people of the EU. It used to be a rich man’s club, but it is a European man’s, and indeed woman’s, club that excludes members of the Commonwealth who are not also EU members, who are often not white. This is a serious question for us to think about. Is the basis of the free movement of people within the EU fundamentally a racist principle? We need to consider whether seven years will be enough for Croatia, and whether we should amend British law to restore controls over immigration that are fair to people across the world, and that do not discriminate favourably towards Europeans but unfavourably towards others.

Croatia might not be ready to join and might fail to meet the requirements of the EU. On tackling corruption, the Commission is concerned that only three people have been found guilty of abuse of office. The Commission states:

“The implementation of the Law on the Police should be ensured, in particular to depoliticise the police and increase professionalism”.

The fact that that problem has not been tackled is a difficulty. What if we cannot have confidence in the police in a country that is about to join? Even if it is not part of Schengen, it will be part of the European arrest warrant arrangements, but it does not have a de-politicised police force or one that has been made sufficiently professional. Are we really, after the middle of next year, going to allow British subjects to be arrested on the say-so of a Croatian court, when Croatia has a police force in which even the European Commission does not have confidence?

The European Scrutiny Committee report shows that what is sought from Bulgaria and Romania is not happening. The same applies to some extent to Croatia. Is there an autonomously functioning and stable judiciary? That, too, relates to justice and home affairs agreements. We allow the judiciary of foreign countries to have an effect on subjects of Her Majesty going about their business in the UK, but countries that are joining the EU do not meet basic standards. The report states that we have not seen

“concrete cases of indictments, trials and convictions regarding high-level corruption and organised crime”.

We are therefore concerned that the state is corrupt at the highest level, yet we are allowing it to join before the problems are sorted out. That is once again the triumph of hope over experience—can letting them in and hoping to sort it out possibly be the right way forward when we have so many commitments through joint recognition of standards in fellow member states? We are also concerned that Croatia does not have

“a legal system capable of implementing the laws in an independent and efficient way.”

We must be more careful and prudent. Widening is a good thing—it is splendid to have a wider rather than a deeper EU—and it is good thing that newly emerged democracies have been able to come into the EU fold. However, when we have so many commitments to the EU that can be enforced upon us by foreign countries, is it right that we should let them in before the requirements have been met or without installing protections for ourselves by amending the treaties? I therefore have concerns that the opportunity to negotiate repatriations of power to the UK that could protect us from some of the inadequacies of the Croatian state before it joins the EU has not been taken—whether by the previous Government or this one is beside the point.

In that context, it is worth looking at what Ireland has done. As we know, Ireland was bullied by the EU into voting twice. That was a classic example of the EU believing in democracy for others but not for itself. It is a question of it saying, “Vote as often as you like until you give the right answer, and then you don’t need to vote again.”

Court of Justice of the European Union

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Kelvin Hopkins

Thursday 12th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I begin by thanking the Minister, because it is down to his initiative that we can have this debate under the European Union Act 2011, which was a major improvement in our procedures to enable anything altering the structures of the Court to come before Parliament and to be the subject of a proper debate and motion. That is all to the good and increases the power of the House in relationship to the EU.

It is worth reminding ourselves that the European Court of Justice is not a proper, honest, decent court, like our courts are. I remind the House that these are the judges who ruled to their own benefit against that legal maxim that a judge should never be a judge in this own cause. They ruled to increase their own pay, and we should always remember what an improper and rotten court it is. We are dealing here with a small package of measures that will make it a more efficient, if no less improper, court by enabling it to attend to some of its business faster.

There is a wonderful paragraph from the helpful Library document. It is a quote from the Max Planck Institute, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) cited, about what the European Court is up to:

“Whether it is buying a car, going on holiday or taking out an instalment loan, few aspects of our everyday lives are conceivable today without reference to European Union law. Countless directives and regulations, which set out the rights of consumers and entrepreneurs, apply not only in international legal undertakings, but also in domestic legal transactions. Which party has the law on its side is increasingly dependent on the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, which ensures the implementation of European law within the EU.”

That is a rotten state of affairs.

There were great debates in the 18th century in this House on the motion:

“That the power of the Crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.”

In every debate on the EU, we should remind ourselves that the power of the EU has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished. That is why I challenged my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe over whether it was a good thing to make the European Court more efficient. In response, he challenged me with a proposition that I would normally accept, because he quoted an ancient British maxim—one probably invented in Somerset, where all good things come from—and it is true that justice delayed is justice denied. But the key word is “justice”, and the European Court of Justice might have that word in its title, but it is not its essence. Its essence is as a political entity. It is seeking to increase the power of a federal European state and turn the EU into a functioning country. That is why the House should be cautious about doing anything that makes it more powerful, because it is fundamentally hostile to us.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I have much sympathy with the latter part of the hon. Gentleman’s speech in particular. Would it not be a good idea to test the water somewhat by seeking to repatriate some powers—some power, even—to Britain, to see what the reaction of the European Union would be? There is much talk of repatriation, but let us take back just one simple power: I would start with the common fisheries policy, as he might know.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is so wise in these matters. We ought to be looking at the inefficiencies in the European Court of Justice and saying, “Could these matters be decided in our own courts?” Is there a way in which, instead of saying, “Give them more power; give them more money; and give them more judges,” we can say, “Let these laws be determined in our country.”?

It is interesting, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone said, that one of the reasons for the increase in the European Court of Justice’s work load is that our courts are sending it judgments for preliminary approval and guidance on what European law says. Would it not be better to repatriate that? Indeed, when we are in the process of negotiating on the European Court and how to make it more efficient, this is surely the opportunity to do so.

Finance Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Kelvin Hopkins

Monday 2nd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

This argument is not a moral one. We are not the House of Bishops. I am all in favour of the Lords Spiritual having a view on this, but I am not one of them. I did not go into the Church; I went into politics. Politics is about raising the revenue that is needed for the country to carry out its business, and it is not an issue of morality in terms of how we phrase the laws. That those laws are then obeyed is a matter of morality. I can probably quote paragraphs of the Catholic catechism on this, but you are looking fretful at that thought, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I shall move back to the golden age of the noble Baroness Thatcher, Lady of the Garter, Order of Merit.

In 1979, the top tax rate was 98%—83p in the pound on income tax and a 15p surcharge. [Interruption.] I hear Labour Members saying that that was excellent and a jolly good thing. It is rather splendid to know that I am not the only one with dinosaur-style views in this House; there are even greater dinosaurs on the Labour Benches. When those tax rates were reduced they came down first to 60% and then to 40%, to fury from hon. Members. I believe that the House was suspended when the noble Lord Lawson introduced the rate of 40p in the pound; I think the Scottish nationalists got up in a passion of anger, wishing for higher taxation to spread across the realm of the United Kingdom. What did that reduction do? It raised more money for Her Majesty’s Government, which meant that the Government could spend money on their priorities and pay down their debt. We had a golden economic scenario when the noble Lord Lawson was at the helm, because we believed in low tax rates and had the courage of our convictions.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I remember the noble Lord Lawson’s time as Chancellor and the real reason we boomed in that time was that he depreciated our currency by 35%.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Without going anything other than briefly through a history of sterling in the 1980s, I seem to remember that it bottomed in 1985 at $1.10 and then started rising again. So, that was not the case throughout the noble Lord’s period in office.

I shall come back to the subject of the Laffer curve, but I must first take an intervention from the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones).

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. One always feels ashamed not to answer a question directly, so I apologise to the hon. Lady for the fact that I shall have to give a later answer on that knotty point of value added tax.

I will stick with the Laffer curve and its history of increased revenue. We heard from the Opposition that when rates went down, the economy boomed and so, therefore, did the revenues raised. There are two answers to that. One reason that the economy boomed was that there was lower tax, so people had more of their own money in their pockets to spend on goods and services, leading to overall economic growth. Secondly, the amount paid by top taxpayers grew much faster than the rate of the economy overall. We are now in a situation where 27% of income tax is now paid by the top 1% of income tax payers—

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Not enough.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Mr Deputy Speaker, you will rule me out of order if I argue that raising the minimum wage would be extremely unwise, so I would not dare to say it. However, on the point of benefits for the worst off, I am all in favour of those. It is a thoroughly good thing to help people who are just in the earning bracket, but not to give benefits to people earning £70,000 a year, paid for out of their extraordinarily high taxes.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Surely the biggest disincentive to less well-off people earning or trying to get work—many are trying to get work that is not available because there is mass unemployment—is the fact that all the benefits are means-tested. If we reduced the level of means-testing and had many more universal benefits paid for out of a much more progressive form of taxation, we would avoid that problem.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

There are enormously exciting benefit changes coming through and I look forward to speaking on those with enthusiasm, because I think they will make a substantial change to the welfare of the people of this country. But that is for another day. We must make sure that the tax system encourages work, gets people off benefits and helps them to be prosperous. Universal benefits have the grave disadvantage of wasting money on people who do not need it.

In the limited time that remains to me, I wish to deal with the issue that has caused most controversy: the freezing of the age-related allowance. This was a bold decision for the Government to take, but undoubtedly the right one. The ordinary threshold has been so raised that the age-related allowance, which used to be almost double the ordinary allowance, is now only marginally higher. The change is being made in the most sensible and calm way, by freezing the allowance so that nobody loses in cash terms. There will not be a cash loss to any existing pensioner. Over time the basic threshold will be raised so that everybody is better off.

It is a policy that has of course been momentarily unpopular. It has received a little publicity that is adverse, but as somebody once said, to govern is to choose. Government are at their best when they make tough choices and stick to them. We know that the economic situation of this country is deeply unsatisfactory. We know that we have a deficit that is out of control and a level of debt unseen out of wartime. In getting it right, the Government cannot throw money about like confetti. They must take the tough and bold decisions and yes, there may be consequences in the newspapers, but—

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The hon. Gentleman talks about the deficit. Things are getting worse, rather than better, because of the squeeze on the economy. If we made serious efforts to reduce the tax gap, which is estimated at £120 billion a year, we could solve that problem overnight. It is just a question of changing the law to make sure that people pay the taxes that they should pay.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

We have already discussed this. By and large people pay the taxes that they are supposed to pay, as Parliament has laid down. If they evade tax, the full force and might of the law can and should come down upon them.

I conclude on the crucial point of defending the Government on a decision that, though it has not been immediately well received, will be welcomed by the electorate, because the electorate admire Governments who govern effectively through the tough times. They do not admire Governments who are loose and lazy with their money. They admire ones who are willing to take the tough decisions. We should oppose all the amendments in the group and stick with the Budget as it was—a very fine and good Budget, in which the right decisions were made.

Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Kelvin Hopkins

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I hope we do too. As for the repercussions, will we be taken to the European Court of Justice? I suppose that is what happens; however, I think the European Union has other things on its mind rather than punishing us for not sending the Red Book across to Brussels. It has more problems than it can deal with at the moment, and it will not be taking us to court simply for refusing to send across our Budget book, which it can buy in the shops anyway.

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

I apologise for not being here for the whole of the debate, but I was in the Finance Public Bill Committee. Does my honourable friend in European matters not agree that the Government have behaved much, much better this year, by allowing the debate in Parliament to take place before the book is sent to Brussels, and that we should encourage the Government in this reformed behaviour?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Indeed. I think we ought to debate many more of these things on the Floor of the House. I would like to think that many more colleagues, from all parties, would take part in these debates and appreciate some of the things that some of us, on both sides, have been saying about the nonsense of the European Union at the moment.

I have been speaking for rather too long, so I ought to stop. There are two extremely good reasons for not sending the Budget report to Brussels. I hope that many Members will agree with that and vote against the motion this evening.