Transparency in UK Company Supply Chains (Eradication of Slavery) Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Lord Harper

Friday 19th October 2012 Commons Chamber

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

The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) has brought forward a noble Bill that, in its intention and motivation, is of the highest standards this House ever reaches. As he said, it continues in the tradition of Wilberforce’s campaign to eradicate the slave trade and then slavery throughout the British empire. I believe that the Act of Parliament that finally eradicated slavery throughout the empire was passed three days before Wilberforce’s death, so he was able to see that moment.

I hope that it will not take quite so long for this Bill to be passed and that the hon. Gentleman will see very many years go by after his aim of getting slavery taken out of the practices of multinational companies has been achieved.

As a general rule, I am not in favour of imposing extra regulations on business. We need to have a competitive and free market with companies that can trade. I am very suspicious of fair trade as against free trade. Fair trade often means protectionism by another name—choosing one’s preferred people as opposed to those who are most competitive—and cutting out the poorest in favour of those who are good at filling out bureaucratic forms. We should always be careful when we consider doing anything that might encumber free trade or put burdens on business. We must remember that when burdens are put on business, it is not the profits of the multinationals that suffer but the electorate—often the poorest of our electorate—who find that their prices go up.

Within any advocation of free trade there must be some limits. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the proud Christian tradition of opposing slavery in all its forms. Going back to my O-levels, I remember studying the letter of St Paul to Philemon, which sets out the Christian case for opposition to slavery. In the Roman empire, slavery was perfectly legal and legitimate. There was no reason to oppose it; it was part of the status quo. The young, burgeoning Christian community lived within that—they had to. They were persecuted enough already without taking on one of the foundations of the Roman empire. St Paul, writing in prison to Philemon, who is a Christian, about his slave who may have escaped, tells him to treat Onesimus as a Christian brother, not as a slave—not as a piece of property but as somebody of worth and value equal even to a Roman citizen. That has set the path, followed by Wilberforce and others, to ensuring that as a nation we have done whatever we can for the past 200 years—after a pretty shameful history beforehand, it has to be admitted—to ensure that slavery is not part of the system of global trade and not something from which British companies profit.

So what is the right level of burden to put on companies—multinationals—that are facing this problem? First, there is the question of their own consciences. Before legislating, we should always see whether companies already take the view that something is fundamentally wrong and has no place in their supply chains. That is a good starting point. With the growth of international trade, many big companies will have major intermediary suppliers. They will not deal with thousands and thousands of small suppliers across the globe but have intermediaries they are able to go to. Those intermediaries should be able to assure the companies that they themselves do not use any improper forms of labour—slaves or children—in the production of the goods that are sold.

We then need to go to the next stage and look at the companies that are supplying to the intermediaries. There may be many thousands of companies, some of which are very small or in very remote parts. My professional background has been in investing in emerging markets. While I have been doing this, the number of emerging markets that have come into the investable framework has been growing. Countries of extreme poverty are now beginning to come into the global system, and auditing them efficiently and properly would be a pretty onerous task to put on to businesses. However, in relation to slavery, it is almost certainly a right and moral one for us to adopt.

The situation that companies will face is one that I have faced as an investment manager in looking at the companies that we invest in for our clients—that is, going to visit them to ensure that their practices are proper. I confess that in one of my company visits I was suspicious that the company did indeed use child labour. The business was a very attractive one, but I thought that my clients, and the pension fundholders they represented and the charities they served, would be appalled to be making money on the backs of children. The individual conscience of company managers and investment managers is an important starting place, which I think helps to achieve the objective behind the Bill.

The question then remains, what are we to do about people who do not have any conscience? Is legislation appropriate, right and proper? There may come circumstances in which that is the case. Perhaps this is more a point for a Committee speech than for a Second Reading speech, but I believe the Bill needs some adjustment to achieve what it is intended to. That is partly because it is trying to do a bit too much. I would prefer it to concentrate purely on the issues of slavery and child labour, which are specific and clear. Other issues can be harder to define and can therefore place a more difficult burden on companies. I hope that the Government will consider the matter seriously and see whether there is something they can do to ensure that the required standards are met.

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend may not be aware that just yesterday, colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills laid draft regulations that will ensure that as part of their narrative reporting, quoted companies will have to report on any human rights issues necessary to understand their business. Perhaps we can achieve the necessary reporting standard through that avenue without the burden of the Bill.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the Minister, and I take this opportunity to welcome him to his new post. He is the most civilised of Ministers in the Government, and I am glad that he has moved, because when he was in his last post I opposed practically everything that he did. I sincerely hope that I will now be able to support him more often. In reference to the Board of Trade’s action, the term “human rights” does not necessarily have a very good name in the House. I am slightly cautious of it as a generic term when we have a pretty awful Human Rights Act and a European Court that often gets the wrong end of the stick. There are fundamental principles of humanity in the Bill that we are discussing, not just the woolly words “human rights”. So I am sort of grateful for what the Minister says—more grateful than for a lot of what he said about the constitution when he was the Minister responsible for it—but perhaps not fully grateful.

The Government need to take up the running and take the matter out of the hands of a private Member’s Bill, which cannot necessarily be given the time and resources it needs so that we can get the phraseology as tight as it ought to be. They should find the parliamentary time to introduce a detailed Bill, which could be used to ensure the correct balance between burdens on business and benefits for people at risk.

There is also a twofold economic argument for such a Bill. The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk alluded to the first part of it, which is that companies that fail to follow the basics of humanity will be embarrassed in their marketing. They will be brought to shame in front of the nation if it is discovered that they are using child labour or slave labour in the production of their goods. That will bring the crack of the economic whip on their profits, which is a very good means of ensuring that companies behave better.

The other point that is worth making is that companies that treat their employees well tend to be more profitable and successful. Sometimes they are very large employers. I have spoken to Hon Hai, which employs more than 1 million people and is one of the biggest suppliers to Apple. It finds itself employing so many people that it provides an almost governmental style of welfare for them, because it is in its own interests to do so. If it is to employ such large numbers of people in an environment in which there will inevitably be difficulties and disputes, it needs to take care of its employees in the round rather than simply getting the maximum out of the cheapest individual employee.

There is also the argument that if companies move away from child and slave labour, they will be able to mechanise more easily and therefore be more productive and efficient. There is a good argument, which has long been known, about the inefficiency of slave labour. The financial incentive that we talk about when discussing tax rates applies to people in routine jobs in poor countries just as much as to bankers in the United Kingdom. I have no doubt that there are robust economic reasons for wanting to avoid slave labour, and robust moral reasons as well. It is important—the mood of the House is almost certainly along these lines—that the Government should take the matter up.

Individual Voter Registration

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Lord Harper

Monday 16th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

That point has been made, and I looked at it when I visited Northern Ireland, which, for historical reasons and for the reasons it introduced the system ahead of us, requires people to have a form of photo ID when they vote. When that was introduced, it meant that many people were not able to vote, but it is now working smoothly. It has been suggested to us that we should adopt that system. The Government have decided not to do so, but we will listen to the evidence, as it certainly happens in one part of the United Kingdom. As far as I understand—I stand to be corrected—it currently works pretty smoothly, and for those electors who do not have their own form of photo ID, such as a passport or driving licence, there is a specific and very simple electoral ID card, with no database behind it, which they can use to prove their identity—and their age, for all sorts of other interesting purposes that to young people are probably more attractive than being able to vote.

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

Does the Minister agree that the occasions of personation fraud are extremely rare, but that more fraud is thought to exist in postal voting and that, perhaps, more restrictions should be placed on that?

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and there was a certain amount of fraud in the early 2000s. That is why the previous Government, to be fair and to their credit, tightened up postal voting and introduced the system of requiring identifiers, whereby an individual has to have their date of birth and provide a signature. We can at least be sure that the person who requested the postal vote is the person casting it, but of course it does not give us any confidence in that person being the real, genuine person who lives in that house, as someone may have created a fictitious identity. We can be sure that the person who requested the postal vote is the person casting it, but they could do so on the basis of a completely fictitious identity. Postal voting has been tightened up, and that is good. It is something that we supported and which the previous Government did.

Another reason for speeding up the system is that running parallel systems—the current system and the new system—was likely to be rather confusing and was, I have to say, going to cost a significant amount. We are investing a significant sum in getting this right—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) just lets me finish, we are going to spend £108 million on moving to the system of registration, so we are fully funding the move, and by not trying to run it in parallel with the current system we have saved £74 million, which, given the state of the economy and the public finances that we inherited, a point that I will not labour, is not an insubstantial factor to bear in mind. But it is not at the expense of ensuring that we have a secure and accurate register.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Lord Harper

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend is simply not right. We have had this debate before. It is important because it relates to the revised clause 2, brought about by one of the Lords amendments, which refers to a 14-day period. I know that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) supported it strongly when we debated it in Committee and on Report. Indeed, the Opposition supported our proposition when we voted against an amendment that I believe my hon. Friends had tabled.

Two alternatives can take place. I know this 1924 example goes back a bit, but it is one of the scenarios that can happen. Of course, that did not happen in 1979, but that was because we were at the tail-end of a Parliament, so the general election took place. If a vote of confidence were lost early in a Parliament, the situation I described could occur.

Another important issue came up here and in the other place when the rationale for clause 2 was debated. The 14-day period is not mandatory; it is the maximum period that can apply. If the Government had lost a vote of confidence and there were a general consensus that the country should move immediately to a general election, there would be nothing to stop the Government putting down a motion for an early Dissolution. A vote on it could happen and the general election could be triggered immediately. I am not sure that that argument came out strongly in the other place; that is why it is worth putting it on the record.

We listened carefully to the concerns expressed in the other place about clause 2. We also conducted meetings with the two former Speakers, as I mentioned. We listened and made the amendment. Opposition Members will be pleased that the amendment has been made. The hon. Member for Rhondda said that as we were abolishing the Prime Minister’s right to dissolve Parliament, and placing that right in the hands of Parliament, it would be better to state in the Bill, in clear language, what constitutes a motion of no confidence, so that there can be no doubt.

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

Will the Minister explain a couple of things? First, is there another example in legislation of a motion being laid down for Parliament to follow, or is it an innovation? Secondly, who will determine whether the motion has been passed in the correct form? Will it be a matter for the courts?

[Mr Harper]

Let me develop my argument, and I will cover the points raised by my hon. Friend. The concern in the other place about the original drafting of clause 2 was raised particularly by the two former Speakers, who felt that not having specific motions laid down, and requiring the Speaker to certify that votes of no confidence had been lost, would draw the Speaker into controversy. This House and the other place were happy that there was no issue about privilege and the courts trespassing into decisions of the House, but it was felt that there was a risk of the Speaker being drawn into controversy. The Government accepted the other place’s view that the language of the motion should be set out clearly.

United Kingdom Parliamentary Sovereignty Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Lord Harper

Friday 18th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

The flaw in that argument is that to put into an Act of Parliament the language in clause 1 would invite exactly the problem that my hon. Friend is concerned about. Because it would be in a statute that judges would have to interpret, it would invite them to start defining “sovereignty” and interpreting what Parliament meant by the words in the Bill. I do not think that is very helpful.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Harper]

I will give way once more on this point, then I will make some progress.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because this point is tremendously important and may, if he is correct, point to a fatal flaw in the Bill. I hope that he will deal with it carefully and precisely. I do not understand the idea that things that are in statute are justiciable but things that are not in statute are not. It seems to me that the judges can interpret the law of the land in the round, not just statutes. Will he focus on that point?

[Mr Harper]

The reason that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone gave for having the Bill and for reaffirming the sovereignty of Parliament was the risk that judges might erode the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty by setting out some new, autonomous legal order in which EU law had authority in the UK regardless of whether Parliament continued to give it that authority. We had that debate on the European Union Bill, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe made it quite clear that so far our judges have done nothing of the sort. In fact, they have had arguments put before them inviting them to take that stance and have specifically rejected them. That was why, in that Bill, which my hon. Friend and a number of other Members have talked about, we specifically set out that EU law had effect in this country only because it was given that effect by Acts passed by this Parliament. We did not think it was helpful—quite the reverse—to have a general sovereignty clause, which is what this Bill would introduce.

It is worth discussing one or two wider issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West was right when he drew attention to the fact that under clause 3(b), the Bill covers not just the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights but any rule of international law at all. It provides that no Minister of the Crown is to

“make or implement any legal instrument which…is inconsistent with this Act”,

in other words which affects the sovereignty of this Parliament. That seems a very wide term, including both domestic legal instruments and instruments that are binding in international law.

The Bill also appears to extend to any instrument, including any treaty, that the UK will make or implement, or has ever made or implemented. It appears that it would act with retrospective effect. It seems to me that that is quite deliberate given the words in clause 3 stating that it

“shall have effect and shall be construed as having effect and deemed at all times to have had effect”.

I shall come back to that in a moment.

I do not believe the Bill takes any notice of the changes that were made to the rules for ratifying treaties that were introduced in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which provides a number of tests and procedures for ratification that improve parliamentary involvement in the process. For example, when a Minister signs a treaty that does not come into force upon signature and to which domestic procedures concerning EU law do not apply, it may not be ratified unless it is laid before Parliament for a period of 21 days and neither House of Parliament passes a resolution objecting to it. If the House passes such a resolution, a Minister must lay a further explanation before the House, which may vote again within a further 21 days.

Only in exceptional circumstances may a treaty be ratified without the agreement of this House, and a Minister cannot override a decision of the House that it should not be ratified. If the Bill became law, what would happen if Parliament did not object to the ratification of a treaty but it was subsequently concluded that it was inconsistent with the Bill? What effect would that have on the sovereignty of Parliament?

I argue that the Bill is rather dangerous because of the effect that it would have on how we conduct international relations. It would make it impossible for us to participate in a number of organisations—for example, we belong to the United Nations and have signed a range of treaties connected with it. I listened closely to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said this morning about the Security Council resolution. He pointed out the wide authorisation that it gives us and other members of the international community to act but he also explained that it places clear limits on what we can do. If the Bill were in force, it would not allow us to enter into agreements that limit what Parliament can do unless we held a referendum. We could not sign up to any international treaty with which we had engaged that somehow constrained our behaviour, as most do, unless we held a referendum.

My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West highlighted the Bill that we discussed earlier, which encountered no opposition, on the wreck removal convention. If we accepted the measure that we are discussing, we would pass primary legislation to hold a referendum on whether the British people should support the wreck removal convention. That would not be welcome.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend may have found a fatal flaw in the Bill, and I therefore ask him to consider it further. However, an EU rule has effect in this country above UK legislation, subject to the 1972 Act. That is not the case with agreements made in the United Nations or under other treaty conventions, which Her Majesty’s Government can abrogate at their own will.

[Mr Harper]

My point, which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe made when we debated the European Union Bill, is that EU law has primacy in this country only because Parliament has passed legislation to say so. The Government will not do it, but it is open to Parliament to change or repeal the Act so that EU law does not have primacy. It is possible, although we are not going to do it. That is the flaw in the argument.

Clause 4 is another good reason for objecting to the Bill because it purports to bind future Parliaments. It states that a Bill passed in this Parliament cannot be amended without the consent of the people in a referendum. An important aspect of parliamentary sovereignty is that Parliament may enact or repeal any legislation it pleases, and it cannot bind its successors. Clause 4 undermines that. It also states:

“No Bill shall be presented to Her Majesty the Queen for her Royal Assent which contravenes this Act”,

but is not clear who would determine whether a Bill contravenes “this Act”. It would clearly have to be the courts, which would then be engaged in assessing whether Parliament had properly passed Bills and whether Bills should have received Royal Assent before a referendum had taken place. That invites courts to have much more power.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Lord Harper

Tuesday 15th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend is quite right, but it is important for the Boundary Commission to be certain about the matter at the beginning, so that it can then undertake the rest of the boundary process. If the decision were up to the commission and it were to make a certain assumption in its initial proposals, and then come to a different conclusion as a result of the extensive written consultation process and public hearings that we have laid in place, it would have to make a radical change to the proposals. As my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest, who is now back in her place, said in a previous debate, certainty and clarity are very important to ensure that the boundary review is carried out properly.

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

I support the amendments fully, but once the Isle of Wight has been given two seats, the argument for absolute uniformity has fallen, which it did not in the case of Na h-Eileanan an Iar, the Shetland Islands and so on. If the Isle of Wight can have special treatment, why not Cornwall and, as far as I am concerned, why not Somerset? Every county now has a special case to make that ought to be considered. In largely accepting the Lords amendment, the Government have given the game away.

[Mr Harper]

I think that my hon. Friend helps my argument. As I said, this is part of the parliamentary process. The Government introduced a Bill, which did not include an exception for the Isle of Wight. When Lord Fowler tabled his amendment, the Government strongly resisted it—indeed, we were criticised for doing that—but the House of Lords took a different view. My hon. Friend mentioned Cornwall, but the House of Lords debated Cornwall, voted on it, and decided, by a considerable margin, that the case for Cornwall had not been made. I appreciate that some hon. Members disagree, but that was the view that the House of Lords reached. It did not reach the same view about the Isle of Wight. There was a majority of 74 in the other place for making an exception for the Isle of Wight. That was not the Government’s position, but a strong message from the other place.

Inspiration has now struck me, and I can answer the question that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) asked. Based on 2009 figures, one seat would be 34,366 away from the UK quota and the two seats would be 20,748 away from the quota. That is a significant narrowing of the difference.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Although the Lords are wonderful guardians of our constitution, the debate has seen any number of perfectly sensible amendments rejected, and the Government have not lost a single vote in the House. I therefore do not see the logic of saying, “We must give in to the Lords on this, but on everything else we’ll tell them they’re wrong and send the Bill back.”

[Mr Harper]

I think the difference is the strength of view in the other place on the matter. [Interruption.] That view was also consistent and cross party. The Labour Lords who voted in the Division in the other place all supported Lord Fowler’s amendment. It is therefore extraordinary that Labour Members are making so much noise now. The Government have acknowledged the debate at the other end of the corridor. Given my hon. Friend’s previous comments about their lordships, I would have thought that he saw more strength in the case. On the basis of the arguments that I have set out, I hope that that case will be supported.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Lord Harper

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

No; the Government’s intention is to change the system so that there are fixed-term Parliaments, apart from in the two possible cases set out in the Bill. We think that that is a desirable change. If the public and future politicians agree that it is desirable, it will stand the test of time. That is what we hope for and what we have argued for.

My hon. Friends the Members for Stone and for Harwich and North Essex raised concerns about the two procedures in clause 2—motions of no confidence and motions on early elections—that allow for early elections. However, the House of Lords Constitution Committee was fairly supportive of those measures.

The Committee said that it was

“sensible for the Bill to contain some form of safety valve which would allow for an early election in circumstances such as the government losing the confidence of the Commons or where a political or economic crisis has affected the country”,

and concluded that the safety valves that we had included were appropriate. The Committee also looked at the risk of the courts intervening, which my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex mentioned, and concluded:

“The risk that the courts may intervene in any early dissolution of Parliament by questioning the Speaker’s certificate is very small”,

adding:

“we do not consider the risk to be sufficient to warrant a rejection of clause 2 of the Bill.”

Based on what the House of Lords Constitution Committee has said, I, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, am confident that when this House approves the Bill, as I hope it will, and it is debated in their lordships’ House, they will give it proper scrutiny, but in the end give it a fair wind and pass it. However, if my hon. Friend presses his new clause 5 to a vote, I will urge all hon. Members to reject it and to keep clause 2 as it stands.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Lord Harper

Wednesday 1st December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

Yes, it is.

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

I cannot think of an example of such a position since the reign of Queen Victoria, who refused to accept Robert Peel as Prime Minister, and I think it inconceivable that it would arise in a modern constitution.

[Mr Harper]

I did say that there would have to be an extraordinary set of circumstances for the Prime Minister to behave in such a constitutionally outrageous way. They would be circumstances in which a Prime Minister was abusing and stretching the constitution in order to stay in office and avoid the consequences of losing a vote of confidence in Parliament.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I think that that is extraordinarily unlikely. It is theoretically possible that the Queen could refuse assent to a Bill, but that has not happened since the reign of Queen Anne. Such constitutional anomalies remain theoretical, but so theoretical that it is inconceivable that they would arise whatever the emergency. I really feel that to rely on that for the passage of the Bill is most unsatisfactory.

[Mr Harper]

I am not relying on it for the passage of the Bill. I was referring to the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest, who last week, on behalf of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, raised some potential scenarios with which she was uncomfortable. I believe, and the Government believe, that those scenarios are indeed, as my hon. Friend says, theoretical, and extremely unlikely to happen. My point is that if a Prime Minister behaved unconstitutionally in such a theoretical and extremely unlikely way, a mechanism that already exists would be invoked. However, the Government contend—and I agree with my hon. Friend on this—that both sets of circumstances are highly unlikely. It is our contention that the eventuality to which my hon. Friend has referred would not be necessary, because a Prime Minister would not behave in a way that stretched constitutional convention to breaking point.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Lord Harper

Tuesday 27th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

Clearly, the hon. Lady has not read the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, which we published last week. We are actually extending the consultation period for local people from one month to three months, to give local people, local organisations and political parties more opportunity to comment on the boundary commission proposals, not less.

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

In considering this matter, will the Minister bear in mind the fact that people have historic loyalties to the traditional counties of England, not to administrative regions? In particular, will the people of Somerset be allowed their historic county, not some monstrous, vague, administrative nonsense?

[Mr Harper]

If he has looked at the Bill, my hon. Friend will know that the boundary commissions are able to take into account local ties, but only to the extent that we can still have equal-sized constituencies. They are able to look at those things, but we think that the principle of equal-sized seats is most important and should take priority.