Early Parliamentary General Election

John Redwood Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

This Parliament is once again misjudging the mood of the public. We were elected here to do serious things on behalf of our public. Conservative and Labour MPs alike were elected to see Brexit through. Three years and four months later, there is no sign of that. Instead, we have this discordant, argumentative Parliament that will do nothing. It will not throw the Government out of office and it will not allow the Government to govern. We owe it to the British people either to allow our Government to govern or to let the British people decide on a better group of MPs who can form a Government and do positive things for our country.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

Every constituency in my region voted at the 2016 referendum by a huge margin to leave the European Union. At that time, lots of my constituents, in some of the most deprived communities of this country, told me that they did not trust this Parliament to deliver it. They said, “We won’t get it. They’ll never let us leave.” The five Conservatives out of the 10 MPs in my region might have voted to deliver Brexit, but is not the truth of it that the Labour MPs across my region, bar one or two examples, are never going to vote to leave the European Union, sadly proving right my constituents who said, “They’ll never let us leave”?

[John Redwood]

My hon. Friend is right, but it is now about more than Brexit. It is about confidence in our parliamentary system to deliver orderly government that can do things for the people or to allow the public to decide who should be a better Government, because the House has no confidence in the Government.

This Parliament needs to put through a Budget quite soon. Our economy needs a boost, and we need to know whether we can have the tax cuts as well as the spending increases, but I suspect that the Government fear bringing a Budget to the House because they think there will be no co-operation as they do not have a majority and this Parliament will not allow a majority to be formed.

This Government have recently brought a Queen’s Speech to the House. It contains a number of good measures that I do not think were ideological or Conservative provocations to socialists and those of a more left-wing nature. They were chosen to build some consensus and address the issues that worry people. But again, I think the Government rightly fear that any one of those measures, if introduced, would probably meet with resistance and a lack of co-operation, in exactly the way that we have been experiencing with all these other measures.

But above all, this House needs to think what message it is sending to all our partners, friends and allies—countries around the world; the businesses that our businesses do business with; all those contacts we have around the globe. They see this country as a great beacon of democracy—a country of great experience in the art of democratic government; a country that has often led the world in putting forward and fighting for those freedoms and showing how they can improve the lives of those governed by them. But instead we are sending a message that we do not know what we are doing and can never agree about anything—that all we can do is have endless rows in this place, for the entertainment of people here perhaps, but to the denigration of our country and the undermining of its position.

How can a Government conduct international negotiations when everything they propose is undermined or voted against by the Opposition, because we do not have a majority? Above all, how have we got to the point where this House decides that it is good legislation to say that the Prime Minister has to break his promises—where it has turned the demand that he break his promises into something that this House calls an Act of Parliament? No wonder we look ridiculous. No wonder we cannot resolve Brexit. No wonder we cannot have a Budget to promote our economy. No wonder we cannot govern with aplomb in the interests of the British people.

The Prime Minister is right that if this House cannot do better, it must dissolve and ask the people to choose a better Parliament. Either we need to be a better Parliament or they need to choose a better Parliament as soon as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Gentleman is trying to draw me into saying that this should be decided by a second referendum. I do not believe that it should be decided by a second referedum, because, of course, the first referendum has not been delivered on. We want to see the first referendum delivered on, and delivered on for the whole United Kingdom.

The argument has been put forward here tonight that we need a general election because this has now become a zombie Parliament—the Government cannot get their business through. We are not wreckers. We do not want to see the United Kingdom ungovernable. Indeed, the reason we voted with the Government on the Queen’s Speech last week was that they had a programme to get through and we wanted to give it support. We do not want to see the United Kingdom made ungovernable. But the one thing we are not prepared to do is to see the United Kingdom divided and the Union destroyed, and that is why we cannot give our support in the vote tonight.

[John Redwood]

Would it be a way through if the Government went to Brussels now and said that they would like to initiate free trade talks immediately so that we could leave with no tariffs and new barriers, if such talks were agreed to, rather than signing the withdrawal agreement?

[Sammy Wilson]

We are wandering a bit from the motion now, Mr Speaker, but I hope you will indulge me just to answer this point. That is one of the arguments that the Prime Minister has put forward—that surely all this will just disappear if and when we have a free trade arrangement. But the withdrawal agreement makes it very clear in section 13(8) that—this would have to be agreed with the EU so it would have a veto; so much for the claim that we have got our sovereignty back—the EU could still have a free trade arrangement that would leave Northern Ireland fully or partly within the protocols in the agreement.

While I would love to think that that would be a way out, and we would love to see it be a way out, unfortunately the agreement that the Prime Minister has signed does not allow it to be a way out. That is yet another reason why we have to get this right, and yet another reason why we do not believe that debating, scrutinising and accelerating the passage of the Bill through the House, and an early general election to get a mandate to implement it, is correct.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

John Redwood Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 22nd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

This Parliament is letting the public down. Three years and four months ago, I and 17.4 million people voted to leave the European Union. We voted to take back control of our laws, our borders and our money, and we are still waiting for that to happen. We were told by the then Prime Minister that he would send a letter announcing our decision immediately after the result, and under the treaty we expected to be out after two years with or without agreement by the European Union.

Instead, we find ourselves today having yet another debate after so many groundhog days in this place, with the same people rehearsing the same arguments, as around half the Members of the House of Commons—we will find out whether it is more than half—are still trying to stop any kind of Brexit, and are forcing those of us who believe in Brexit to dilute what we are trying to do and delaying our enjoying the fruits of our Brexit vision.

Let us look at the agreement, because it is far from ideal from the point of view of a leave voter. I am delighted that the Prime Minister has today reassured us that we will completely take back control of our fish, and that we will decide how that amazing resource is nurtured, looked after and used by our country. That is very welcome. I also accept that the documents show that we will not have to go into battle with our troops on a vote that we have lost, and that we are not about to be sucked into losing the sovereign control of our Government and Parliament over our foreign and defence policy.

But we are still in trouble with the powers of the European Court of Justice over our laws. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) for contributing to the Bill, because there is now a sovereignty clause, and I hope it works; it is a definite improvement. However, I am extremely worried by the situation in Northern Ireland.

[Jim Shannon]

Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that Unionists believe that our sovereignty has been removed by this agreement and that being a Unionist in Northern Ireland is very different from being a Unionist in the rest of the United Kingdom, including the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency? Does he not feel that Unionists have been duped and deceived in how this agreement has been brought forward?

[John Redwood]

I do not like the provisions on Northern Ireland for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have set out. I want the whole country to leave, and Northern Ireland to be a full part of the United Kingdom under the same arrangements. If there are any different arrangements, I certainly want a consent mechanism that is acceptable to the representatives from the Democratic Unionist party and the people they represent.

I am also extremely worried about the money in this set of proposals. We never talk about the money, and so many MPs seem to think that giving billions away to the European Union is just fine. Taking back control of our money was central to the campaign. Indeed, it was very contentious, because people argued about exactly how much it was. I do not think it has been properly quantified. The liabilities are potentially large and long lasting, and there is no attempt in the agreement or the Bill to control them.

[Mr Paterson]

Could my right hon. Friend give us his best estimate of what he thinks the bill will be?

[John Redwood]

Well, we are told £39 billion, but I think that is a very low estimate; I think it will be considerably more than that and will stretch many years into the future under some of the headings that we are providing for. My worry is that the EU will be the main driver in deciding what the bill is because there is not a satisfactory dispute resolution procedure. The EU could levy the bill, saying that it is European law and that it knows best what we should be paying. We have to be extremely careful.

If the Bill does make any progress tonight—that is not looking very likely from some of the things people are saying—I hope that there will be considerable concentration in Committee on whether there are mechanisms for having better discipline over the money, because we voted to take back control of the money. I want some of that money for hospitals, schools and other public facilities in my constituency, and I hope that many other Members of Parliament take the same view. It would be very galling indeed if we found that we were technically out of the European Union but were still paying it a great deal of money.

I approach this agreement in a spirit of disappointment, but I think the Prime Minister was deeply damaged and undermined by the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019, which greatly reduced the bargaining leverage of the United Kingdom Government, and I think people recognise that. It is strange that that legislation, which might as well be renamed the “breaking the Prime Minister’s promises” Act, is permissible because surely we either have confidence in our Government and in the Prime Minister to be able to keep his word, or we do not have confidence in our Government collectively, in which case we can get a different Government. This Prime Minister has said that he will take us out on 31 October. There is a lot of support for that in the country, and I hope that we can find a way to make it take place. The Prime Minister has said that we would preferably leave with a deal, but that if we cannot get a decent deal we will leave without a so-called deal.

I think the language is totally misleading. There is no such thing as a no-deal Brexit. There is either leaving and signing a withdrawal agreement or leaving and not signing a withdrawal agreement. Were we to leave not signing a withdrawal agreement, there is an aviation agreement and a Government purchasing agreement, there are haulage and customs arrangements, and there is a general agreement on facilitation of trade through the WTO, so we would have a managed WTO exit, which I think would work extremely well.

I want to spend that money in Britain to promote growth and a stronger economy. I want the free trade agreements that I think we might be able to generate with the rest of the world. If we just left, the EU would want to negotiate a free trade agreement with us, but all the time it thinks it has a chance of our not leaving it is not going to offer anything or be positive about that, because it thinks it might, from its point of view, do something better.

Preparations for Leaving the European Union

John Redwood Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

There is no such thing as a no-deal exit; if we leave without the withdrawal agreement, there would be all sorts of agreements and arrangements in place. So will the Government do more to tell the country about the 2017 facilitation of trade agreement between all World Trade Organisation members to ensure smooth borders, the government international procurement agreement to allow Governments to transact business, and the customs, haulage and aviation arrangements and agreements, which are all in place. People should stop scaremongering.

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend makes a very fair point. If we leave without the withdrawal agreement being ratified, we will leave without that deal. “No deal” is sometimes used to cover that specific outcome, and it is with respect to that widely accepted description that I use the term. He is right to say there are other agreements, and there will continue to be agreements, that we have concluded, both with individual EU member states and with the EU overall, which will govern our relationship. However, I am strongly of the view that a withdrawal agreement which has been ratified in this place will be the best possible way in which we can ensure both that we recognise the Brexit referendum vote and that we continue to have free trade and friendly co-operation.

Preparations for Leaving the EU

John Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the shadow Brexit Secretary for his questions. First, he asked where the Prime Minister was. The Prime Minister is talking to our EU partners, attempting to secure a good deal, and he is doing so with the full-hearted support of everyone on the Government Benches. The question that many people will be asking outside the House is why, if the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) says that he is anxious for a deal, he declined to support one on the three opportunities he had to do so. If he wants to be taken seriously as an advocate of compromise and a deal why, in cross-party talks in which we both took part, did he attempt to erect an obstacle at every turn to consensus across the House? That is the conclusion that people will draw.

There is another conclusion that people will draw. The no-deal report was made public three hours before the right hon. and learned Gentleman began asking questions. Having had time to absorb 156 pages, he did not have a single question about no-deal preparation; not a single point to make about how any sector could be better prepared; not a single suggestion, query or contribution about how we can ensure that British business is in a robust position. There was just a series of questions that we have come to expect from him about politics, rather than policy; about positioning, rather than practicalities.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about customs checks in Northern Ireland. He knows—it has been made clear—that those customs checks can take place away from the border, at the manufacturer or other distribution sites. He also asked whether our proposals were serious about maintaining the integrity of the single market. They allow the EU to maintain the integrity of the single market, but is he serious about maintaining the integrity of the United Kingdom, because he and his party are more than willing to see a customs border erected in the Irish sea? We would be the only sovereign nation in the world with such a customs border, but he is more than prepared to dance to the EU’s tune, rather than standing up for the UK.

That is the spirit in which the Benn Act was passed. That Act signals to the EU that there are people in Parliament who do not want to conclude a deal, who do not want to leave by 31 October and who want to delay. Indeed, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is one of them. He has had every opportunity to engage meaningfully with Government, not just on the deal but on no-deal preparations.

When I last spoke to the House, on 25 September—the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to my statement then—I invited any MP in this House to come to the Cabinet Office and the Department for Exiting the European Union to discuss a deal and our no-deal preparations. Only one Opposition MP, the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), accepted that invitation. Oh sorry—and the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). Two Opposition MPs. That is the measure of the seriousness with which the Labour party, the SNP and all the Opposition parties take our Brexit negotiations: an open offer, an invitation, to come and talk rejected hands down.

Is there any surprise? The right hon. and learned Gentleman in 2017 said of the referendum:

“We’ve had a decision and we respect that decision.”

He also said that the Labour party cannot spend all its time trying to “rub out yesterday” and not accept a result it is honour-bound to respect. As I mentioned earlier, after voting against the deal three times, he rejected the opportunity to come to a consensus between the Front Benches to get a deal through.

We in this Government have compromised. We in this Government are showing flexibility. We in this Government seek to leave without a deal, but faced with the delaying, disruptive and denying tactics of the Opposition we say, on behalf of the 17.4 million: enough, enough, enough—we need to leave.[Official Report, 16 October 2019, Vol. 666, c. 3MC.]

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

When Mrs Merkel says that either the UK or Northern Ireland have to stay in the customs union, is she speaking for the EU following consultation with the other 25, or is she just making it up and assuming they will go along with her totally unrealistic and inflexible view?

Brexit Readiness: Operation Yellowhammer

John Redwood Excerpts

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

The right hon. Lady is right about the Schengen Information System. If we leave without a deal and the EU does not put provisions in place, we will lose access to that database. However, I have had an opportunity to question people who have been involved in national security and individuals who work for Border Force. Appropriate mitigations are place, and, indeed, new powers are available.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that in the case of our current borders with the EU—our currency borders, VAT borders, excise borders—all the calculations and payments that those require take place away from the border; and so will not customs also be handled electronically, away from the border, not leading to queues?

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. It is the case that for most companies, the customs procedures that they will now need to engage in will be conducted away from the border, at offices of departure, by authorised consignees, and as a result, with the operation of the smart border that the French put in place in Calais, that should lead to as smooth as possible a flow of trade.

Prorogation (Disclosure of Communications)

John Redwood Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Grieve]

I understand my right hon. Friend’s point. That was a matter that exercised me very much before I decided to table this motion, but against that, we have to face up to another fact: those necessary protections for civil servants cannot and must not be used as a device to hoodwink this House and the public as to the way the Government conduct their business. The Government have a duty. They can sometimes have a duty not to say something, but they certainly do not have a right to mislead, and this is such a fundamental matter that I think we are right to pursue the issue. Of course, if it turns out that the information I was given was mistaken, well, in those circumstances, I shall be the happiest person of the lot, but I have to say that I think it is sufficiently serious in its nature and content that I would be failing in my duty as a Member of Parliament if we were not to seek to ascertain whether it was correct.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Surely all that matters is what was in the Prime Minister’s mind—his reasons for making the decision—and we cannot work that out from the personal testimonies of lots of officials, some of whom met the Prime Minister about this and some of whom did not. The question is what was in the Prime Minister’s mind, and the House has had ample opportunity, which it has already used, to cross-examine him and to satisfy itself as to his true motive. I do not see how knowing what some officials thought helps at all.

[Mr Grieve]

If I may say to my right hon. Friend, last week, at Prime Minister’s questions, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Gauke) and I asked questions of the Prime Minister seeking to elicit an answer about his motive and state of knowledge, and I was rather struck by the fact that he avoided answering both questions completely. He made not a single attempt—my right hon. Friend should look at Hansard—to answer the question. I am afraid I do not have much confidence that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has the capacity—frankly—to answer questions of this kind, because he does not appear to understand how serious they are and appears to treat them with a high level of flippancy.

G7 Summit

John Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a serious point about the US’s attitude towards Russia. May I gently remind him that, when it came to the Skripal poisonings in Salisbury, the United States expelled 60 diplomats in support of the UK, in solidarity with the UK and to show their revulsion at Russian behaviour? As for whether or not it is right to have a Queen’s Speech, the Opposition have been calling for a Queen’s Speech just about every week—finally they get one, and they protest.

On the EU, it remains the policy of the Scottish nationalist party once we have come out of the European Union on 31 October—it is their avowed policy; they are inevitably committed to this by logic—to go back into the EU. That is what they say they want to do if they were to achieve independence: to submit to the whole panoply of EU law, to scrap the pound in favour of some unknown currency hitherto unbaptised—the Salmond, the Sturgeon or whatever it happens to be—and, above all, to hand back control of Scotland’s fisheries to the EU, just as they have been reclaimed by this country. What an extraordinary policy!

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will the Prime Minister confirm that, from 1 November, it will be the UK Government and authorities in control of our ports such as Dover? Will he confirm that it will be the Government’s policy to ensure the smooth transit of food, pharmaceuticals and other goods into our country, as today, so that there will not be shortages?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I can confirm that that is exactly what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and others have been preparing for months and that those measures are now well in train.

Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill

John Redwood Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 19th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mark Tami]

I rise to speak to new clause 1 and amendment 6 on my behalf and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), and to amendments 8 and 9 on my behalf and that of the right hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin).

New clause 1 seeks to give statutory powers to the Comptroller and Auditor General to examine the preparedness of the Sponsor Body and the Delivery Authority to undertake the parliamentary building works required. Importantly, that power would come now, rather than looking at the project in the years to come. The new clause would not mandate the Comptroller and Auditor General to do it, but it would give him the power and the opportunity to do so if he considered it appropriate. For public confidence, it is vital that this project delivers and is seen to deliver value for money for the taxpayer. There is clearly uncertainty about what exactly we will find when we start the work on the building. As we have already seen with the Elizabeth Tower, we can actually find some quite large increases in costs.

It is not currently easy for the CAG and the National Audit Office to access a company’s records of contracts. They can look at a contract between the Government and a body in the private sector, but the NAO does not have access rights to such companies’ accounts. While that is not detailed in the new clause, I hope the Government will look at it. Greater access and transparency is vital in this respect. In saying that, we do not want to put extra burdens on small and medium-sized enterprises and other companies looking to tender for work. In fact, as I will explain, we have to do everything to ensure that they actually tender, but I ask the Minister to look at this issue, because it will be important in the future.

Amendment 6 is very straightforward. It calls for an annual audit of all the contracts awarded under the programme so that we can see both the size of the companies and, importantly, where they are and where the money is spent around the country. This project, by its very nature, is based in London, but it should not just be a London-centric project. This is a national Parliament, and the work needs to be spread across the whole of the UK. I know that other amendments also look at that.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I entirely agree that where work has to be done, it should be spread around the country. Is the right hon. Gentleman envisaging that the audit should take into account the policy issues? For example, will it look at whether it is good value to move MPs out of this building, or whether there is some easier way of doing this without something so fundamental?

[Mark Tami]

As someone who has been involved in this from day one, I would say that we have looked at this very carefully, and the decision to decant from here was not taken lightly. A lot of work went into that, and I think we have made the right choice.

The two amendments in my name and that of the right hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales provide that the external members of the shadow Sponsor Body, including the chair, will be automatically transferred to the statutory Sponsor Body on the creation of that statutory body. As a member of the shadow board, I can say that I greatly value the work and experience that the external members of the shadow board have brought to bear, and I think it is important that that carries on. The amendments cover the members who only last year went through a fair and open competition, based on merit, to be appointed to the shadow Sponsor Body. Given that the shadow Sponsor Body has only recently commenced its work, it is important to retain these members, for now, for the continuity of the restoration and renewal programme. I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing in Committee to work with the right hon. Gentleman and me on these amendments, which I hope the Government will accept.

These amendments will transfer all the external members of the shadow Sponsor Body to the statutory Sponsor Body. The chair will be appointed for a term of three years from the date the Sponsor Body is established in statute. The terms of the other external members of the Sponsor Body will be three years from the date the shadow Sponsor Body was established in July 2018. Once these terms have expired, the chair of the Sponsor Body will be responsible for setting the members’ fixed terms, which cannot exceed three years. The Bill provides that, in doing so, the chair must have regard to the desirability of ensuring that appointments do not all expire at the same time. These amendments are a practical way forward, and I hope the House will accept them.

[John Redwood]

I am very happy that there should be proper audit and review, and I think the right spirit was struck by the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) in speaking about his proposal. However, I would like to raise the bigger policy issue. The underlying Bill he is seeking to amend says that the Delivery Authority is

“to formulate proposals relating to the design, cost and timing”

of the works, so it is not a done deal. I am very pleased it is not a done deal, because I think a lot of work needs to be done before committing to the plans that this House has not had a great deal of time to consider in this forum. It has been considered elsewhere, but perhaps other MPs have views that ought to be taken into account before we decamp from this important part of the Palace and embark on such fundamental works. When the audit looks into these matters, I hope it will take into account the wider issues of value for money and convenience, and the functions of this building.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that because the Elizabeth Tower works are going on while we are sitting here, we could somehow remain in parts of the Palace of Westminster while the works on it are carried out? Will he reflect on which parts of the Elizabeth Tower are used for parliamentary business and which parts we are hindered from accessing as the works are going on?

[John Redwood]

Of course, when the works need to move on to parts of the Palace that MPs use more often and more directly, alternative arrangements will need to be made. However, I do not think that means that all MPs need to move out of the old Palace for a long period of time, when it has been shown that bits of work can be done around the historic Palace without everybody having to decamp.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

The right hon. Gentleman is being kind in giving way. To support my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray), in my 14 years in this Parliament, I do not think I have been in the Elizabeth Tower once. I think that strengthens the argument that has just been made from the Scottish National party’s Front Bench.

[John Redwood]

I do not think it does at all, because I have also pointed out that there are a lot of roofing works going on. The hon. Gentleman is using the parts of the building that are being reroofed without being interrupted in his work. Again, I pay tribute to those who are carrying out the works without the need for fundamental change.

If we want value for money, we need to ensure that before any full plans are adopted, the Delivery Authority has done a proper job of analysing the options.

I also make a more fundamental point about our democracy. I know that there are many Members here who do not want to restore a proper independent democracy in Britain and are doing their best to ignore the wishes of the British people, as expressed in the referendum. It would be doubly ironic if they not only had their way on that, but said that we cannot use the historic Palace in the way that was intended for a long period. That would be a symbol that the public’s wish—

[Mark Tami]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Hence I am sure Sir John will now go back to where he wanted to be.

[John Redwood]

I am very willing to do so. As I say, I welcome the principle that where works are conducted, there needs to be a proper audit. However, I go back to the intervention that I made at the start of the debate, when I said that any audit should also look at the policy, because I note that the legislation we are being asked to approve today makes it very clear that the policy has not been finalised. We are setting up authorities and bodies to sort out both the policy and the implementation, so I submit that the audit must apply to the policy as well as to the implementation.

[Neil Gray]

I will speak to amendment 4, which appears in my name and those of colleagues not just in the Scottish National party, but across the House. The amendment would insert something that presently does not appear anywhere in the Bill, but which is critical for the project to enjoy not only political support, but the support of the public, particularly in the devolved nations.

Nowhere in the Bill is there a commitment that the project will see benefit derived outside London. However, clause 9, which is about spending issues relating to the project, extends and applies to Scotland. That means that taxpayers in Scotland will pay for their share of these works on a project in London but, with the way the Bill is currently drafted, will get nothing in return. We have had warm words, but according to what the Bill actually says, which is what matters, this will be another massive capital project in London, which already enjoys a huge share of UK capital spending—a third of it goes to London and the south-east.

Why is this important? Of all spending, capital spending derives the greatest economic benefit, bringing higher growth and employment to the areas where it occurs. Right now, London and the south-east benefit from a third of all UK capital spending. This multibillion-pound project will widen that gap and, as it has been designated a UK-wide project, there will be no Barnett consequentials. I think that this project should go beyond Barnett and that there should be a capital investment fund, proportionate to the total cost of the project, to be allocated on a shared basis to the nations and regions. Perhaps it could be a requirement that the money is spent on restoring and renewing old buildings in those areas.

If amendment 4 does not pass, there will be nothing in the Bill to mandate the Sponsor Board or the Delivery Authority to ensure that any spending, any procurement or even one single job is gained outside London, where the project will obviously be based.

[John Redwood]

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that some £400 million of common taxpayers’ money was spent on the Edinburgh Parliament, and no equivalent English Parliament has been granted? This is the Parliament of the Union, so we all share in it. His fellow countrymen and women voted to stay in that Union and are proud of their Union’s Parliament.

[Neil Gray]

It is for the former Secretary of State for Wales to promote the idea of an English Parliament, not for a Member of the Scottish National party.

--- Later in debate ---

I know that we have moved on, but when the underground car park was built some 40 or 50 years ago archaeological rigour was not quite as thorough as it might have been. It is likely that part of Edward the Confessor’s original palace—a hugely significant building both to the nature of this whole area and its interrelation with Westminster Abbey—was lost in the construction of that car park. That was a piece of archaeological vandalism. We must absolutely make sure that, in the considerable work that will need to take place in this Palace, the full archaeological integrity and importance of the building—what is under it, what is on it and what is next to it—is appreciated and that we do not lose the opportunity to investigate more the history of this place or destroy, in our pursuit of getting a building that is more sustainable, user-friendly and so on, all that in the process.

[John Redwood]

These are very important considerations and I am glad my hon. Friend is raising them. One of the problems in dealing with a building that has 1,000 years of history on its site, as a royal palace and as legal and government buildings, is to know which era or eras one is most concerned about, what one is trying to conserve, and what one can hope to re-use or conserve. Does he have any thoughts on that complexity when there is so much history on site?

[Tim Loughton]

I will come on to that in a minute. It is said that all archaeology is destruction, because when you take something out of its context you cannot return it to that context. It is therefore absolutely essential that the context of what we find—part of archaeology is what you do not find and might have expected to—is absolutely respected and recorded in order to fit together the jigsaw puzzle, particularly for such an important building over so many centuries, and, most likely, over 1,000 years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Loughton]

I absolutely do not accept that—the two are not mutually exclusive. The list of considerations that the Sponsor Body must “have regard to”—not “have a veto on” or “be a more important consideration”—includes “value for money”,

“safety and security of people”,

the protection of the environment, being “sustainable”, ensuring that it is accessible to visitors, accessible to people working here with disabilities—absolutely—“improved visitor access”, and ensuring that

“educational and other facilities are provided for people visiting”.

I absolutely agree with all those—they are exceedingly crucial and worthwhile—so why is there a problem with adding that the Sponsor Body should “have regard to” the fact that this is a unique building?

It is not just a UNESCO world heritage site. Probably uniquely among UNESCO world heritage sites in this country, it is a working building where history is still being made. The history of the fabric of the building still has relevance to the ongoing organic development of our constitution and the way we govern this country. That is why it was so important that when people said, “Why don’t we just turn this into a museum and have Parliament move into a purpose-built building?”, the point was made that that would completely ignore the importance of the heritage, history and cultural background of this place, which we could not repeat in a soulless, characterless, heritage-less, new, modern building. It would completely change the whole character of what we do here.

[John Redwood]

Again, an additional complication is that this is a complete Victorian rebuild of an earlier building, which also reflects the Victorian view of the history that predated the building. We therefore have a double time capsule: it is a piece of Victorian Britain and it is their view of the previous few hundred years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Value for money is what the PAC and the NAO are about. That was a very good intervention.

I hope the Minister can convince us that his No. 1 concern is safety—this is a world heritage site and we do not want it burning down or flooding—but the No. 2 consideration must be value for money. That is what worries me—again, without going into past grief—about many of the present plans. We have heard about architectural significance from my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, and I am worried about the proposal to demolish Richmond House. It is an important modern building that has won architectural awards, but I am worried not just that we might be knocking down a listed building but that this would again create an opportunity for waste. I will always look for the cheapest option, and I have been arguing that if we have to leave the Chamber—I accept the decision of the House that we will leave for a time—we should use the courtyards to build a temporary Chamber rather than knocking down large parts of Richmond House.

Unfortunately, we have told the Delivery Authority that there has to be an exact replica of where we are standing, with the same size Chamber, the same height and the same width in the Division Lobbies. I am not sure that that is entirely necessary—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is shaking his head. If I am wrong, I am wrong, but I am saying that if we can have a cheaper option with a narrower temporary Chamber that can be used for other purposes afterwards, and if we have to have electronic voting and not go through wide Division Lobbies, we should consider all those options. This is not a matter for today, but it all comes down to value for money, and it is important that we highlight these matters in these debates.

[John Redwood]

New clause 1 seems to imply, in answer to a question I was asking earlier, that the Comptroller and Auditor General would have a duty to examine policy value for money with regard to how much work is done, the timing of the work, whether we need to move, and so forth. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely fundamental that that should be part of the process, because the way in which the most money is likely to be wasted is through policy error rather than through contractors slightly overdoing a contract?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Yes; my right hon. Friend has made a worthwhile intervention, and perhaps I have been too unfair on contractors. My experience of public sector contracts over the years is not so much the importance of those in the private sector who work for us, as that it is our fault for treating these projects like a Christmas tree. We have our own prejudices and policies, we constantly change personnel, and we add things on to the Christmas tree. The private sector—either correctly or incorrectly, depending on the way we feel—then takes the opportunity to charge us more and more. We have to grip this now.

I am slightly worried about amendment 9, and perhaps the Minister, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin) who tabled the amendment, can reassure me that there is nothing in it that takes away the democratic right of us in this Chamber to elect the members of the Sponsor Body and to dismiss them if necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christian Matheson]

As a distinguished former Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the right hon. Gentleman is able to give the House that guidance, for which I thank him.

[John Redwood]

The project will also reveal part of our industrial history. When the building was first constructed, it drew on crafts and skills from across the country, and some of the companies involved might still be around in one form or another and be able to bid again. It was a national endeavour, not a London endeavour.

[Christian Matheson]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for pointing that out; he is right. Perhaps the successor companies of some of those original suppliers will be able to bid—what a lovely connection that would be.

Some of the work for this project can clearly only be done in London. Obviously we are not going to move the Palace lock, stock and barrel to another part of the country, so the work has to be done in London. But efforts must be made, where possible, to include a diverse geographical range of companies. It is an opportunity to change old habits and step outside the old London-centric focus in which projects in our capital city are so frequently dominated by large London businesses—the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Drew).

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

It is always a joy to hear another expert on the history of this building.

We have some concerns about the wording—not the thrust—of what my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham has said. For example, the Government recognise the significance of the Westminster UNESCO world heritage site designation, but note that that encompasses an area larger than just the Palace of Westminster: it also includes Westminster abbey and St Margaret’s church. I am mindful of the possibility that the inclusion in the Bill of the UNESCO status of the Palace of Westminster could be misinterpreted. The Government also share the concerns of the Joint Committee that explicit provision aiming to protect the heritage of the Palace could override opportunities to renew and enhance its purpose.

I appreciate the evidence supplied by Historic England and congratulate it on its solutions for ensuring the preservation of heritage on other projects, such as Lincoln castle, Manchester town hall and St Paul’s cathedral, while also increasing disability access. I certainly encourage the Sponsor Body to engage early with Historic England about the works so that it can learn from those projects.

It is also worth noting that the House is not its own planning authority: in seeking planning permission, there will be the usual protections. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on archaeology, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham made a passionate case. If he is prepared to withdraw his amendment, there could be some useful engagement with him, his group and Historic England, to look for appropriate wording that could be inserted into the Bill in the other place. That would cover the legitimate concerns he has picked up.

I thank the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside and the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) for tabling new clause 1, which relates to the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General, whom it would provide with the right to carry out examinations of the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority under section 6 of the National Audit Act 1983. Such examinations are commonly known as “value-for-money assessments”.

The new clause also makes specific provision for a right of inspection and interrogation in respect of information held by contractors and subcontractors for the purposes of the conduct of value-for-money assessments by the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority. Although I am sympathetic to the principle behind the new clause, the Government are unable to support it due to the potential impact on small suppliers, which, unlike larger contractors, might not be able to engage with that type of audit.

It is worth noting that scrutiny of the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority is already provided for in the Bill. Existing legislation also ensures scrutiny of contractors—for example, section 6 of the National Audit Act 1983 already applies to the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority. That provides for the Comptroller and Auditor General to carry out examinations of the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority, given that the Bill requires the accounts of both bodies to be examined and certified by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Additionally, article 5 of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 (Rights of Access of Comptroller and Auditor General) Order 2003 means that, for the purposes of their audit function, the Comptroller and Auditor General will have the right to inspect and interrogate information held by the Sponsor Body’s and Delivery Authority’s contractors and subcontractors. The Bill provides that the Comptroller and Auditor General will have the same powers as they do in respect of any public body when it comes to audit and examination.

Subsections (2) to (5) of the new clause go beyond the Comptroller and Auditor General’s current powers in relation to other public bodies. That is the provision allowing the Comptroller and Auditor General to access documents and information held by contractors and subcontractors for the purposes of their value-for-money assessments. Those subsections would be an extension of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s powers. The Comptroller and Auditor General’s current powers, provided for in section 8(1) of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000, allow for the Comptroller and Auditor General to access documents and information held by contractors and subcontractors for the purposes of their audit functions only.

[John Redwood]

Will the Minister remind the House of the latest estimate of the total cost of the whole project and the timing of the payments—how many years?

Leaving the European Union

John Redwood Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd May 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about discussions with the Scottish Government. Of course there have been discussions with the Scottish Government. I have met the First Minister, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has held a number of meetings with the Scottish Government. The devolved Administrations have been party to the debates and discussions that have been taking place.

The right hon. Gentleman says that a vote for the Scottish nationalists is a vote not to leave the European Union. A vote for the Scottish nationalists is a vote to betray our democracy and to betray the view of the people of the United Kingdom. People asked us in this House to deliver Brexit. We have a responsibility to do that. The question is how we do that. The withdrawal agreement Bill gives us the opportunity to debate the issues about how we do that. This House should have those debates, come to a decision, stop ducking the issues and get on with the job that the British people instructed us to do.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

What does the Prime Minister say to the many members of the public who think the Government should have kept their promise to take us out on 29 March with or without the draft treaty? What does she say to the millions of angry leave voters who do not see the agreement as any kind of Brexit, but a lock-in for many months with no clear way out?

[The Prime Minister]

With the greatest respect to my right hon. Friend, what I say to voters who expected us to leave on 29 March is that the Government’s position was that we should leave on 29 March. The majority of Government Members voted for us to leave on 29 March. Sadly, Opposition Members and some others voted to keep us in on that date.

European Council

John Redwood Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that a march for a second referendum took place. It is, in fact, the right hon. Gentleman’s policy, and I noticed that his deputy went on the march. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman normally jumped at any opportunity to go on a march, but he was not actually there on this occasion; I can only assume that he was involved but not present.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

What would the Prime Minister say to a leave voter who wants us to leave on 29 March and thinks that indicative votes are a waste of time because, as she rightly says, the options on offer have already been rejected once or twice in this Parliament?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that the options that appear to be on offer have already been rejected by this Parliament. I would have to point out, of course, that for reasons that I explained in my statement—in relation, particularly, to the Governments of parts of the United Kingdom—we have requested the extension to article 50, so the 29 March date is no longer there. But I would say to a leave voter: we can guarantee Brexit and leaving on 22 May, as the Council conclusion suggests, by supporting the deal that has been put forward. That is the way to guarantee Brexit; anything else does not guarantee Brexit.