European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Richard Drax

Monday 13th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I will just say, briefly, that a previous Leader of the House stood godparent for me when I was baptised into the Catholic Church, so I think I consented through him.

I will turn to the text of the document, because we need to look at the detail of what the Government are signing us up to. My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry has mentioned paragraph 3 of the “Europe for Citizens” document, but I should like to construe it in some detail. It says:

“While there is objectively an added value in being a Union citizen with established rights, the Union does not always highlight in an effective way the link between the solution to a broad range of economic and social problems and the Union’s policies.”

But that is not true. The very fourth word of that paragraph is a falsehood. Objectively, there is no added value in being a European citizen—that is a subjective view of being a European citizen. The document is a dishonest document and we are only on the third paragraph.

The paragraph continues:

“Hence, the impressive achievements in terms of peace and stability in Europe”.

It occurs to me that the achievements in terms of peace may have had something to do with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the willingness of the United States of America to spend billions of dollars on putting a defensive shield around western Europe to protect us from the USSR, the evil empire. This is a document of ipsedixitrists: people who believe that, because they say it themselves, it must be true, but, by and large, it is not true.

The paragraph goes on to tell the great joke—I doubt you ever thought, Mr Deputy Speaker, there would be such humour in a European Union document—about long-term stable growth. Tell that to the Greeks, the Italians, the Cypriots, the Spanish, the Portuguese and the Irish. Are there any other offers from hon. Members? [Hon. Members: “The French!”] The French and Monsieur Hollande would like to hear about the stable growth provided by their kind brethren in the European Union.

The paragraph goes on to tell us about the “promotion of fundamental rights”. How splendid that is. I am all in favour of fundamental rights—we have had them in this country for quite a long time—but what is the one fundamental right that the European Union disapproves of? Why, it is democracy of course. They do not like that a bit, because we might vote against them. I am sorry to say that even our own Foreign Secretary does not much like democracy any more, because he thinks this Parliament may have the discourtesy to vote against rules and regulations and instructions sent down from on high by the European Union.

The paragraph notes that the situation has, sadly,

“not always led to a strong feeling among citizens of belonging to the Union.”

My infant children blow raspberries sometimes. In this House of Commons it may not be appropriate to blow a raspberry literally, but let me metaphorically blow a raspberry at the idea of having a strong feeling about belonging to the Union.

I will come back to the next page later, because it ties in with a comment made by the Prime Minister that, importantly, needs to be examined. The sixth paragraph looks at the

“interim evaluation report of the Europe for Citizens programme”,

which says that the last programme was a great success and worked very well. The European Commission has produced a report to say that what it has just done was enormously successful. That strikes me as, to coin a phrase, marking one’s own homework.

I will move on, if I may, to paragraph 7. Where are they going to do all this wonderful stuff? They are going to do it

“in the areas of education, vocational training and youth, sport, culture and the audiovisual sector, fundamental rights and freedoms, social inclusion, gender equality, combating discrimination, research and innovation, information society, enlargement and the external action of the Union.”

Not all of those are, in fact, competences of the European Union, so in this article 352 extension to the powers of the EU we see an attempt to push those powers even further by spending money in areas that are not actually competences of the EU. The Government are agreeing—in breach of the coalition agreement—to an extension of the power and competence of the European Union.

I quite like paragraph 8, because it wants to promote reflection on defining moments in European history. If we do have to have this Bill, I hope it will get through by 2015, because there are four defining moments in European history that I am looking forward to celebrating in 2015. It will, of course, be the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta; the 750th anniversary of the meeting of the House of Commons with Members from boroughs; the 600th anniversary of Agincourt; and the 200th anniversary of Waterloo. We can have a jolly time in 2015 celebrating the defining moments in European history, which I am glad to say mainly involve the success of the English and, more latterly, the British.

[Richard Drax]

Given that my hon. Friend is giving such an excellent speech and talking about anniversaries, I would be failing in my duty if I did not point out that it is his wedding anniversary today and that his other half is not too far away.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is spot on. He has discovered the secret of the Rees-Mogg household: we celebrate our anniversary by speaking about the European Union. I have a feeling that that is probably true of Members on both sides of the House. Could there be a nicer way to spend one’s seventh anniversary?

Reflecting on the history of Europe is important, because we as Britons can take some pride in the fact that we have on four occasions—arguably five—destroyed an attempt to have a single European superstate: Louis XIV was unquestionably one, followed by Bonaparte, the Kaiser and Hitler. It may be that the fifth attempt to create—

Press Charter

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Richard Drax

Wednesday 4th December 2013 Westminster Hall

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

It is a privilege to be under your chairmanship, Mr Turner, for this debate on press freedom as I see it. A colleague of mine would like to speak for a short time, so when I conclude, he will ask to speak. I know that others wish to intervene, and I would be very happy to take interventions.

Having been a journalist for some 17 years, this subject is dear to my heart. The principles of free speech and a free press are cornerstones of our democracy. At its best, our press is indeed Churchill’s

“vigilant guardian of the rights of the ordinary citizen”,

rooting out wrongdoing and holding the powerful to account. At its worst, it is vicious and petty, wounding those it should protect, but for all its faults, I am proud and fortunate to live in a country with a free and often irreverent press. It is a beacon of hope across the globe, which is why I was genuinely surprised when, back in March, 530 hon. Members dared to cross a threshold not crossed for 300 years.

In response to the Leveson inquiry, the Government established a new system of punitive exemplary damages in an amendment to the Crime and Courts Bill. Only 15 Members voted against, myself included, and some of the glorious 15, as The Spectator magazine called us, are here today.

Since then, the press charter has received Royal Assent. The legislation amounts to the toughest regulation of the press in the free world, and it has been greeted with widespread condemnation. In the US, where freedom of the press is enshrined in law under the first amendment, such legislation would be illegal. The New York Times states that the regulations will

“chill free speech and threaten the survival of small publishers and Internet sites.”

Many other countries have joined the chorus of disapproval. A senior delegation of “concerned” publishers and editors from the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers will visit Britain next month. They are coming here, to this island that has stood and fought for freedom for so long, to demand an end to

“continued attacks on press freedoms”.

We are in poor company. Other countries that the team have visited include such bastions of free speech as Ethiopia, Libya, Yemen, Tunisia, Mexico, Honduras, Ecuador, Colombia, Guatemala, Ukraine and Azerbaijan. One really could not make it up.

Free speech organisations around the world are asking us to rethink. They fear that the changes set a dangerous precedent for non-democratic regimes, and our Foreign Secretary agrees. Why, then, are we going down this road? True democracies erect a barrier between Government and the press for good reasons, and there is no excuse for dismantling it. It is claimed that the royal charter protects press freedom because it can be changed only by a two-thirds majority in Parliament, but that is illusory. Such a majority rule was enacted in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, but a simple amendment would allow a future Government to sweep it away at any time with a single-vote majority. Even the two-thirds safeguard is misleading, especially when we consider how an emotive topic such as Syria nearly persuaded the House to take the country to war. Large majorities are not as rare as the charter would have us believe, especially if the cause is deemed to be right, whether it be going to war or cracking down on the press.

Wind the clock back a bit. When Lord Justice Leveson published his report in November 2012, he called for “voluntary, independent self-regulation.” The deal stitched up at 2 am over a pizza by a group of politicians and the celebrity lobby group Hacked Off was far from voluntary, independent or self-regulating. The newspapers and magazines that it covers include the 1,000-plus regional and local papers that were exonerated by the Leveson inquiry, none of which was told that the meeting was taking place. There was no parliamentary scrutiny or consultation with the industry or the public on the terms of the state-sponsored royal charter, even though there are compelling constitutional questions about the imposition of a royal charter on an industry that does not want one. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) has put those well.

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his flattering comments. Can he recall any occasion since the late Stuart period, when the Stuart kings were trying to establish an absolute monarchy, on which a royal charter has been used for the purpose of extending the power of the state? I hope that the Minister will be able to answer that point as well.

[Richard Drax]

My hon. Friend is extremely good on that subject, and I would not begin to question his knowledge. I am sure that what he says is the case, and we would both be grateful if the Minister answered that point in his wind-up.

The legislation also raises questions under human rights laws. The eminent human rights lawyer, Lord Lester, says that the new system may breach article 10 of the European convention on human rights. In a letter to The Times, he wrote:

“There is no need for further state intervention, as proposed by Hacked Off celebrity campaigners. We need a system of independent self-regulation that encourages professional standards and provides effective redress, avoiding unnecessary litigation.”

Instead, what we have is state licensing of the press. That was unthinkable only six years ago, when the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport concluded:

“statutory regulation of the press is a hallmark of authoritarianism and risks undermining democracy.”

I could not have put it better myself.

Unfortunately, much has changed in the past five years. The American satirist H. L. Mencken famously said that in a democracy,

“journalist is to politician as dog is to lamppost.”

Now, with the aid of organisations such as Hacked Off, which is totally unrepresentative, the lamp post has turned on the dog. The motivation of some of my colleagues is dubious, to say the least. The sharpening of axes has been heard for some time. Cash for questions, cash for honours, cash for lobbying, mortgage flipping, duck houses, moats—the list goes on. As for Hacked Off, it simply wants to curb what it calls the “excessive” power of newspapers. I appreciate, as I am sure everyone does in this room and in the country, that there have been examples of appalling behaviour, and victims are understandably angry, but let us not forget what spawned the Leveson inquiry: phone hacking, which is already a criminal offence. As Lord Lester has said, the country’s

“plentiful criminal and civil laws”

already regulate the press.

Far from nothing having happened as a result of Leveson—a complaint that I hear all too often—the repercussions have been profound. The biggest newspaper in the country closed down, and 61 journalists were arrested. Prosecutions are ongoing in a number of courts across the land. Those in favour of the royal charter say that it will not impinge on a free press, but I disagree, as does Fraser Nelson, the editor of The Spectator. He wrote that as soon as Lord Leveson’s recommendations were published, the number of calls he received from Members increased markedly, all suggesting that comments with which they were unhappy should be removed or clarified. That is precisely the chilling effect that I and many others feared and have warned against.

Today, we have reached an impasse. The press is unwilling to sign up to the royal charter. Instead, the newspapers have gathered all the recommendations of the Leveson inquiry into their own set of regulations for the Independent Press Standards Organisation, which I have here.

Succession to the Crown Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Richard Drax

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Under who?

[Richard Drax]

As my hon. Friend rather amusingly says, “Under who?” Indeed, I do not think we have seen the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) for some time.

To sum up, as a Member of Parliament—