Tobacco Packaging

Debate between Stephen Pound and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Friday 12th July 2013 Commons Chamber

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

May I welcome the wise statement made by my hon. Friend today, and remind her that it is often the case that parties in opposition are all in favour of freedom, and when they get into government they are suddenly in favour of the nanny state?

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

You had a nanny.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I did indeed; I was very fortunate. [Laughter.] It is a pity some Opposition Members did not, but never mind.

When liberties are removed, it should always be done, as my hon. Friend says, on the basis of evidence, because freedom is very precious, and the state does not have the right to interfere willy-nilly.

Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993

Debate between Stephen Pound and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Monday 22nd April 2013 Commons Chamber

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

May I begin by saying how pleased I am that this debate has come to the Floor of the House and commend my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for bringing it here? He was unduly modest to send it upstairs to Committee because this gives us an opportunity to highlight the Government’s achievement and send it to Brussels with a panache that says, “We know what we are doing and we are pleased to educate you.” Unlike the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), who I think has been confused in his economics this evening, the document shows how well we are doing, compared to our continental colleagues.

Before I adumbrate our great achievements and the success of this Government since 2010 as set out in the document before us, there is one little matter that I wish to raise about the surveillance mission that the European Union is entitled under a 2011 agreement to send into a country that is not meeting the convergence criteria. Although it cannot punish us for failing to meet the convergence criteria, the European Union can, I believe, send in a surveillance mission or even a rather ominous-sounding enhanced surveillance mission.

I hope the Government will be clear, and I thought from what my right hon. Friend the Minister was saying that the Government are being clear, that they will not accept such surveillance and will use all their abilities to discourage the European Commission from sending any surveillance mission. It would be a great audacity—a great cheek—if it were to do so when 19 member states are in special measures for their economic failings for the excessive deficit procedure. We, of course, are in it too because of our deficit, but those 19 other members are in the eurozone, which is why bringing their budgets together is so important, whereas for us it is essentially a technicality from the Maastricht treaty.

It is a matter of importance that the Government have got the policy right. The key to getting it right is found on page 31 of the documentation and then on page 15. Page 31 deals with the quality of the public finances. It deals with what the Government are doing to consolidate our situation and the projection. Projections should be treated with the greatest suspicion. All forecasts are wrong, and it is merely a question of how wrong they will turn out to be. None the less—

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

Is that a forecast?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

That was a wonderful interjection, as always, from the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound). I fear not. It is a statement based on a knowledge of history that forecasts invariably turn out to be inaccurate and it is merely a question of how inaccurate they turn out to be.

But if we look at what the Government are trying to do, they are getting spending down from 47.4% of GDP to about 40% of GDP. We know from our history that about 40% of GDP is a sustainable level of Government spending. It is a level that I personally would like to see reduced further, but it is none the less a level that has been consistently affordable over the long run, certainly going back to the early 1970s, based on taxation revenues going up to 38.3% of GDP. Now, 38.3% of GDP for tax revenues is very near the peak level that has ever been achieved. It is rare for tax revenues to go above 38% of GDP or to remain there for a sustained period.

So what is being done with the public finances is an extraordinarily effective consolidation on both sides, with taxes being pushed up and expenditure being cut, with most of the burden being taken by expenditure cutting and with a small amount of it on tax raising. That is setting the basis for a long-term recovery of the economy. Where I think the hon. Member for Nottingham East was perhaps unduly party political in what he said—uncharacteristically so, because he is normally a man of such consensus, support for the middle way and so on—was in ignoring the benefits of monetary activism.

I refer right hon. and hon. Members to page 15. The key difference between the UK economy and the continental economies is that we have the ability to change our monetary policy to ease the austerity—[Interruption.] Indeed, printing money. Absolutely right. It is the printing of money that is allowing the deficit to be sustainable and is allowing businesses and individuals to carry on borrowing and work through a consolidation of their finances, which is also in the document—the consolidation of individual finances—to take place in a way that is not crippling. On the continent that is not happening, which is shown up in the gilt yield figures. The latest gilt yield figure is 1.65%. That is the lowest in our history. In Italy it is at 4.05% and in Spain just under 4.5%, which shows the much tighter monetary situation in Spain and Italy as compared with the United Kingdom. That is why the austerity programmes in those countries are causing such extraordinary pain, whereas in this country it is manageable.

That is why I say the document is a model for our friends and neighbours across the channel. We ought to send it to them with a fanfare, with trumpeters, with Garter King of Arms leading the way, to say to them, “Look, this is how you do it. This is how you restore a country to fiscal sense, and you do it through monetary easing.” Although I loathe the fact that we have to report to a multinational body about matters that are our own sovereign right and should not be interfered with from abroad, on this occasion we can take real pride in what the Government are achieving and what they are working towards and the manner in which they are doing it.

Big Society

Debate between Stephen Pound and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Monday 28th February 2011 Commons Chamber

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

This debate is ideological. It was a Labour Cabinet Minister who said that the man in Whitehall really does know best. What we are talking about here—it is one of the reasons the Liberal Democrats are such an important part of the coalition; it is one of the biggest areas where we agree—is the philosophical split between those of us in the coalition who believe that the state is built bottom up, and our socialist friends who think that the state is created top down.

If we go back to the beginnings of society—man in a state of nature—we see that there is no government, but there is society. Man is a political animal. There is society in our earliest history and forms. Government comes later. The problem with government is that, when it comes, it binds. Let us recall the image of Gulliver when he is bound down by the Lilliputians. Thousands of little people have crawled all over him and tied his hair to the beach. They have put ropes over him so he is stuck—he is tied down. That is what we saw in 13 years of socialist Government. The view was that, if it was not done by the state, it was bad.

We have heard a great array of examples from my right hon. and hon. Friends of what that means: the insurance policies for referees; and my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) needing £2 million of insurance. We have heard about the CRB checks. Bell ringers in my constituency are worried about having any children come to ring bells. Although large numbers of them ring together, they are frightened that the big state may not approve and may not say yes. We have data protection. I know that fellow rotarians are here in the House this evening. My own rotary club, Midsomer Norton and Radstock, takes old people shopping—a good thing to do, one would have thought. Members of the rotary club go around to local churches and ask, “Are there any elderly people who might need a hand?” What is the response? It is, “We are not allowed to give you the names of the old and the lonely because of data protection, because the man in Whitehall, who knows best, is fearful that you have evil intent and he will not allow that to happen.” That is why the big society is so important.

If we believe that society is built by individuals, their families, through communities, they are the ones who should make the decisions, raise the money and spend it according to the needs of their communities. One of the great cankers of socialism was that it took over the funding as well. Then we get into the argument about cuts, which is the great confusion in relation to the big society. It is a bad idea for charities to receive most of their funding from Her Majesty's Government because, as soon as they do, they become agents of the state and lose their independent action. They become subject to the rules, regulations and disbursement requirements that are set upon them by Governments. All that must be swept away. The Minister must cut Gulliver free. Gulliver’s hair must be released. He must be unbound. He must be able to stand up and stride forth.

[Stephen Pound]

As ever, the House is so much in the hon. Gentleman's debt as we move from the noble savage to “Prometheus Unbound”, spanning as we do Somerset rotary clubs. The logic of his comments would appear to be, and I speak as a proud member of Greenford rotary club, that we should, for example, get rid of the Charity Commission, because surely the dead hand of the state would apply just as much to that commission. Is he suggesting that it be cast into the dustbin of history?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman and fellow rotarian makes an excellent point. I hope that the Minister will consider thorough reform of the Charity Commission—set the people free!

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Debate between Stephen Pound and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 23rd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

A common theme running through the debate—almost the golden thread of it—has been that of not seeking to oppose for the sake of opposition. Of course, I entirely subscribe to that emotion. However, although I rejoice in seeing a sinner repentant, and the Conservative party being converted once more to the policy of Keynesian fiscal incentives, I feel that the Bill is in many ways a disincentive and, even more seriously, a crude, clumsy and extremely complicated one.

Much has been made of geography and the fact that large parts of the country are excluded from the glorious sunshine of this Bill’s benefits, which will cause flowers to bloom and businesses to leap, as from the brow of Jove, into the marketplace fully formed. The excluded areas are not just the leafy shires where the only concern is getting one’s second au pair, or third Range Rover. They are also places such as Milton Keynes, Medway—Medway!—Portsmouth, Reading, Slough, Southampton, Luton, Peterborough and Thurrock. It is true that the Bill also excludes parts of the south-west London-Surrey border where people are so wealthy that they can afford the luxury of electing Liberal Democrats, but in excluding such a large area the Government are assuming that within the eastern region, the home counties and London there exists a seething tide of entrepreneurial energy, ready to burst forth at any minute, that needs no assistance.

The hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) said that there was a message coming from the House tonight. Well, the message is, “London, the home counties, East Anglia: get lost. You can manage on your own, you don’t need any help.” That is desperately crude. In times of tight margins, small incentives make a huge difference. The geography of this country is so tight and small that whereas Hampshire is excluded from the benefits of the Bill, Dorset and Wiltshire are not. One does not have to read one’s Blackmore to know that the boundaries and borders in those areas are very close and tight. Is the coalition Government’s aim to empty out as much of London, the home counties and East Anglia as possible and send everybody flooding to Somerset, Wiltshire and Dorset?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Hear, hear!

[Stephen Pound]

We have had some very successful imports from there in the House, particularly from North East Somerset. None the less, I am not entirely convinced that it should be the policy of Her Majesty’s Government of the United Kingdom to act in that crude way.

Talking of crudeness, advancing the idea that we can somehow assume that people will not move into a low-tax zone, like one of those Chinese economic zones, is simply not being serious about the realities of modern business. There are no Liberal Democrats in the House tonight—a happenstance that will doubtless be replicated on a longer-term basis after 2015. One thing that they tried, in one of their strange, clouded pipe dreams during the election campaign, was the suggestion that we could have geographically specific immigration—presumably with border posts on the M1, so that certain parts of the country could benefit from immigration while other parts could not. A quick glance at the map of this country shows that that simply is not possible. We will immediately have the difficulty of disincentivisation occurring in the south-east, while the benefits are transferred to the rest of the country.

The Bill is also ferociously complicated. Everybody thinks they know what a new business is, but nobody can define it. We heard in an intervention by the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) that apprentices are not covered.

I turn, as ever I do, to the explanatory notes, which have been written in the most extraordinary way. We read about Roy the carpenter; Sam the noble publican wishing to hand his business on to Tom; and Rosie and Jim the plumbers—none of whom is included in the Bill’s provisions. We read of an extraordinary ménage in what I had previously thought was the rather dull world of accountancy, in which Alan, Ben, Charles and David decide to link up with Ellen and Frances. In doing so, they also bring in a mutual friend, George. That is experience beyond that of most Members.

My particular favourite example is almost a Mills and Boon novel: John and Paul the dentists, who have been partners for many years but fall out. One imagines John and Paul, their eyes meeting over the face masks as they attend to a cavity together, their latex-covered digits brushing against each other. Then, one day, they fall out and set up alternative dental practices. John and Paul, once so close, are close no more. The explanatory notes should be published by Mills and Boon, not by the House of Commons.

After all those examples, what do we find? We find that the complicated reality of new businesses is such that the coda to that great, glorious, rather romantic tale is, to quote paragraph 46:

“The intended effect of this provision is that a person will be prevented from enjoying a holiday if, before beginning to carry on a business, the person enters into arrangements that mean that at some point after the person’s business has started he may undertake activities carried on by another business and, had the person been undertaking those activities at the time the business was started, a holiday would not have been allowed.”

That is reductio ad absurdum. How can we possibly even begin to take seriously a Bill that, leaving aside the romantic dentists and Rosie and Jim the entrepreneurial plumbers, creates such an incredibly complicated mechanism? That is not what we should be doing.

The Economic Secretary, as ever, cuts to the heart of the matter. I have great admiration for her. She is no stranger to the streets of Acton, where first we met. She had a reputation then for striking through all the persiflage that normally infests this place like wisteria—if that is not a painful subject for the Conservatives. She asked earlier, “Would it be better for this holiday to be extended across the whole country, or is it better for it to go to two thirds of the country?” I have to say that it should be all or nothing. The minute we try to set up those complicated differentials, there are immense problems. Why could the measure not be applied sectorally? Why could we not choose a particular sector and incentivise it? I am talking about those that employ large numbers and have a proven track record of entrepreneurial success. Why could we not continue with the enlightened work of the previous Labour Administration and provide start-up support for capital equipment and allow deferred VAT payments?

There are so many things that we could have done. What we have before us is probably—I say probably—rooted in decency and good, honest Keynesian politics. However, it has become so complicated that I fear that there will be very few businesses leaping to life in Liverpool, Manchester, Rotherham or wherever. There are some entrepreneurs in London who may say, “Without that additional advantage, why not relocate not only outside London but outside the UK?”

The hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) said that he was as comfortable operating a company in this country as he was in the United States. People will look at this measure in the context of a global economy. What we have here is crude, complicated and unfocused. I am not entirely sure that it will be the agency that will kill unemployment and bring us all into some glorious new future. I appreciate that hundreds of new civil servants will be employed to make this system work, and I welcome that; we need more work. How tragic is it that this Bill—the Bill to encourage the private sector outside the home counties—will end up employing more civil servants in London and, almost certainly, not providing that great entrepreneurial spark in the rest of the nation?