Middle East and North Africa

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

That depends on what Colonel Gaddafi has done. The International Criminal Court is looking into that at the moment. As I said, we expect a report from the prosecutor of the ICC to the United Nations next Wednesday, 4 May. That will be the next development in this subject and it is the ICC that will come to a view about it.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that over the last few weeks, not only have the eyes of much of the world been on Libya, but, unfortunately, so have the eyes of the leaders of many of the most brutal and oppressive regimes in the world? If Colonel Gaddafi manages to cling to any form of power having turned heavy weapons on his own people, it will make such behaviour far more likely in other countries across the region, costing many tens of thousands of innocent lives and potentially putting back the cause of democracy for decades. Is it not for that reason that Gaddafi must go, by one means or another?

[Mr Hague]

That is one of the reasons. Certainly, if Gaddafi had been able to do what he intended to do, the Arab spring, as many have called it, and the desire for democracy and greater freedom in the Arab world would have suffered an enormous setback, with potentially damaging consequences for this country.

Escape of Taliban Prisoners

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

The right hon. Gentleman is entirely correct. He will not hear any voices from the Government side of the House, or indeed from his colleagues, indicating that the events of the past 36 hours or so suggest any lessening in the determination to find a political answer. Ultimately, the future of Afghanistan will be in the hands of Afghanis themselves. They will be responsible for security, whether through policing, justice or the army, and the work of training goes on apace. I read with great interest the Foreign Affairs Committee’s report about its concerns and how it wishes to see people proceed in future. The political process is an absolutely key and integral part of that, and the United Kingdom will continue to support it, while at the same time supporting the work being done to ensure that the transition to Afghan security control is as good as possible, but that work will continue beyond 2015. The House should remember that although 2015 is the date when combat troops will be withdrawn, it is not the date when the United Kingdom will finish its commitment to the people of Afghanistan and their future.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the news of 476 dangerous Taliban fighters escaping from detention risks seriously damaging the morale of our troops serving in Afghanistan, and that it is therefore essential not only to improve the security at the detention centres immediately, but to tell our troops on the ground what measures are being taken to improve security, in order to shore up their morale and give them the confidence to know that that will not happen again?

[Alistair Burt]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Armed forces from whatever background, whether Afghanis, other elements of ISAF forces or UK forces, must be absolutely reassured that when they have done their job, at great cost to themselves, by securing the detention of those who have caused harm or danger to others, the system at that stage is able to pick those people up and make them secure. It is certainly my intention to ensure that once we have a full report and the Afghan authorities have completed their investigation, that information is transmitted to forces so that they know that if they do their jobs, other people will do theirs.

Middle East

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Monday 14th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I hope that it is believed and understood. It is meant sincerely, by not only this Government but the previous Government and hon. Members from right across the House, that we want security and prosperity for all Israelis and Palestinians for the future. We want a secure Israel living alongside a viable, contiguous Palestinian state. Of course, every time one makes a policy announcement or expresses a preference for talks to resume in certain conditions, that can be seen as taking sides in some way, but that should not hold us back from advocating those things. This country believes these things and means them very sincerely, so let us all underline that fact.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

May I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his recent visit to Yemen—the first by a British Foreign Secretary since 1996? As my constituency includes East Midlands airport, I am well aware that instability in Yemen can lead to serious security risks in the UK.

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. As I have said, our diplomats and aid workers do a terrific job in Yemen, so I thought it important to visit that country to see what they do and to talk directly to the President of Yemen. The security concerns that my hon. Friend mentions were right at the top of the agenda and I asked the President further to reinvigorate and strengthen the efforts that the Yemeni authorities are making to take on and defeat al-Qaeda.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Tuesday 1st February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

There has been a referendum in the south of Sudan in which it is thought that 99% of people voted for independence. The hon. Gentleman should not get too excited about the parallels in this case. The question of Abyei is one of the outstanding issues that requires negotiation between north and south as part of the comprehensive peace agreement. It is the major stumbling block in those negotiations, which need to be completed before 9 July. The south of Sudan is heading for independence, and we are doing everything we can to assist, including offering expertise in the demarcation of the border. I have had two conversations with former President Mbeki of South Africa, who is trying to bring the parties together, and we will continue to give every diplomatic assistance.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Zimbabwe used to be part of the bread basket of Africa, but for many years now it has been a basket case. Events unfolding in Zimbabwe over the next 12 months may well shape its future for many years to come. What steps are Her Majesty’s Government taking to ensure free and fair elections in Zimbabwe and a return to true democratic government?

[Mr Bellingham]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question. Zimbabwe is facing a dramatic year. We are working closely with the South Africans, who are putting together a road map towards credible elections. It is most likely that there will be a referendum on the new constitution some time this spring or summer. It is absolutely essential that it goes smoothly and that it is free and fair and completely credible, because it will be observed very closely as the forerunner for presidential and parliamentary elections possibly later this year or next year.

European Union Bill

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

I entirely agree. I am another of those who are willing to criticise European institutions on grounds of waste and the untransparent way in which some things are done. The fact is, however, that—as has been made clear today—some Conservative Back Benchers, along with mainstream Conservative associations, believe that Europe is a thoroughly bad thing. I am sorry, but I do not share that view.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the duty of every elected Member of the House of Commons is to defend and protect the sovereignty of this Parliament?

[Mr Jones]

I think that the duty of the elected House of Commons is not to try to hoodwink the public into believing—although the sovereignty and primacy of the House of Commons are self-evident—that the Bill will bolster our credentials, when that is clearly not the case.

Members who really want to change things, and to prevent the primacy of EU legislation, should try to amend the European Communities Act 1972. EU law is enacted by this Parliament, although anyone listening to some hon. Members today and some commentators outside might believe that it had no role in it whatsoever. The primacy of EU law over national law is clearly enshrined in the 1972 Act, which was passed by this Parliament. It can also be amended by this Parliament. I should be happy for those who obviously do not wish us to remain in Europe to table an amendment to that effect—that would be the proper thing for them to do—but clause 18 merely reiterates what is already there, as has already been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly.

As the European Scrutiny Committee in paragraph 82 of its report states,

“Clause 18 does not address the competing primacies of EU and national law.”

The idea that passing the clause would somehow enshrine, or protect, the sovereignty of the House is complete and utter nonsense. Paragraph 82 continues:

“The evidence we received makes plain that these two spheres of law coexist, usually peacefully, clashing occasionally. When they do clash, neither side gives way. The Court of Justice of the EU maintains that EU law has primacy over national law, including national constitutional law.”

That is clear from the ruling in the case of Thoburn v. Sunderland City Council.

I find it disturbing that some Members appear to believe that the courts have no role in the interpretation of law. As one of my hon. Friends observed earlier, the laws that we pass in relation to Europe are interpreted over time, and that is the role of the courts. It would be completely wrong for Parliament to interfere directly in the interpretation of a law once it had been passed. European law is no different from other laws in the sense that there are various possible interpretations of it. The Thoburn case made it clear that European law could not direct what the House of Commons could do in terms of making its own laws.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

There is a mechanism by which the House can do that. That mechanism is to amend the 1972 Act or the subsequent treaties. I know it might disappoint the hon. Gentleman to hear this—although perhaps his local association is one of the most pro-European—but we must explain to people how the system through which European law becomes national law in this country actually works. It is not the case that it arrives in an envelope on the Prime Minister’s desk one week, and then it is just adopted. Different countries interpret and combine European legislation and laws into their national legislation in different ways, and in the past our country has been accused of gold-plating certain regulations and other measures.

It is not the case that sovereignty is endangered by Europe. There are powers open to us to change the treaties or Acts if we wish to do so. It is strange that there is a later clause in this Bill on referendums. Strangely, it will bind future Governments and Parliaments to referendums on a range of issues. That is trying to look too far into the future, and many people might object to such a future referendum.

[Andrew Bridgen]

On the hon. Gentleman’s point about the clause on referendums and looking too far into the future, does he not agree that that measure is in place because we are in fact looking into the past as the last Government refused the people the referendum that they had promised?

[Mr Jones]

I do not want to go down that route, but I think that point has already been dealt with very well. We did not do what we are being accused of having done. [Interruption.] I do sometimes worry about some Conservative Members, as they must have to lie down in a darkened room and take sedatives after having got themselves so frothed up and excitable about the Lisbon treaty somehow being the end of the world as we know it. Unfortunately for them, the end of the world has not happened because of the implementation of the Lisbon treaty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

Yes, but interestingly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham mentioned, the Conservatives failed to do that. Obviously, they were trying to decontaminate the Conservative brand and thought that one of the elements of doing so was not saying nasty things about Europe. I must make it clear to my hon. Friend that if any major constitutional changes in respect of Europe are made in future, referendums will be important. The hon. Member for Dover hinted that every so many years we should have a fundamental referendum on whether we are in or out of the European Community. That is completely wrong and does not help this country’s standing in Europe. We have a settled position in Europe and it would be best if we moved on to dealing with what is important for people on Europe. As my hon. Friend said, that is about what Europe delivers for this country and issues associated with accountability and transparency, which need to be addressed.

Amendment 41 states:

“The sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament in relation to EU law is hereby reaffirmed.”

If we are reaffirming this sovereignty, we are starting from the premise that it already exists. I am not sure, but the phrasing of the amendment may belie the fact that sovereignty is in no danger from Europe. The fudge in the Bill was included because of the coalition agreement or because once the Foreign Office lawyers got hold of the Conservative manifesto they realised that what was being promised in a sovereignty Bill was complete nonsense. It was obviously very useful for political purposes but was not needed or enforceable in terms of what is in place at the moment.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Is the hon. Gentleman asserting that when people reaffirm their marriage vows they are not actually married already?

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman seems to have completely misunderstood the point that I was making. If someone is reaffirming something, be it marriage or, in this case, sovereignty, they recognise that it was there in the first place. So I cannot see the point of what he is trying to say.

Clearly, clause 18 has come about for political reasons. An honourable attempt is being made to get at least something out of the clause through the proposal for annual reporting. Amendment 52 states:

“The Secretary of State shall prepare an annual report on the extent to which in the previous 12 months the provisions of subsection (1) have been challenged or questioned in the courts, including the European Court of Justice, identifying any challenge to the declaration contained in that subsection that the status of EU law is dependent on the continuing statutory basis provided by the European Communities Act 1972.”

That would at least ensure that we would be dealing with facts, rather than what we deal with on many occasions in the press and, increasingly, from Eurosceptic members of the Conservative party. They believe that if something is said enough times, people will believe it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacShane]

The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to speak later.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Is the right hon. Gentleman’s rather rambling speech just a ploy to use up time so that his colleagues can get back from Oldham?

[Mr MacShane]

I would politely suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he wait until the early hours of Friday morning before he begins to smirk about Oldham.

European Union Bill

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Tuesday 7th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have been quite dismayed by some of the contributions to the debate, from both Government Members and Opposition Members. It is well known that the Bill is supposed to be red meat for some of the Eurosceptics on the Conservative Benches, many of whom have wanted referendums in the past. I remember them asking for a referendum on the Nice treaty, then on the constitution and then on Lisbon.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Surely it should be blue meat, not red meat.

[Mark Hendrick]

Depends how much blood is on it, I think.

The modern Conservative party has become a surrogate for the old Referendum party. It is quite fortuitous that my speech was preceded by that of the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), the son of Sir James Goldsmith, who served with me in the European Parliament. I remember the damage that the Referendum party did to the Conservative party up and down the country, and it is interesting to see that Sir James’s son now sits on the Conservative Benches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

I am mindful of the time constraints on speeches, Mr Deputy Speaker, so that all hon. Members can participate.

I welcome the European Union Bill and the concept of the referendum lock. After so many years of broken promises on Europe, the Bill is essential to regain the trust of the people and to give them faith that the EU will not continue to gain powers from this country. It has always been my opinion that the sovereignty of the country belongs to the people, and that they, not politicians, should make the decision on whether it is transferred to other bodies or countries.

Should justice and home affairs not be subject to the referendum lock? Many of my constituents find justice rulings the most frustrating aspect of our EU membership. The recent ruling that gave prisoners the right to vote, after a convicted murderer appealed successfully to the European Court of Human Rights, is just the latest example of the EU overruling the will of the British Parliament and its people.

Although I support the principle and aims of the Bill, one word that concerns me greatly is “significant”. My concern can be summed up by adapting a famous Sir Humphrey Appleby statement: “Anything can be attacked as a loss of sovereignty, and almost anything can be defended as not a significant loss of sovereignty, which seems to signify that one should appreciate the significance of significant.” What impact does the term “significant” have in the Bill? It could be argued that a future Government would find it difficult to amend something that would not fall under the significance condition. They could claim that the referendum requirement was too rigid and disproportionate to a treaty change that was sought. I also believe that it would be politically courageous for a future Government to remove the referendum lock from the statute book. This should therefore be a permanent piece of legislation. What constitutes significance needs far more definition so that the Bill is not seen merely as a sop to Eurosceptic Back Benchers, of whom I count myself one, but as a genuine change in the way in which we view the sovereignty of our country.

It should not be the Executive who decide what is significant. At the very least, Parliament should dictate what is a significant transfer of power. I refer back to my maiden speech, in which I said that as MPs

“we must not consider ourselves to be the owners of sovereign powers. We are merely the custodians of power and sovereignty for future generations. Sovereignty is not ours to give away; it belongs to the people who elected us, and to their heirs and successors.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2010; Vol. 510, c. 654.]

I intend to support the Bill this evening, but I issue a warning to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench. I and many hon. Members will not stand idly by and witness the death of our country’s sovereignty, bled away by a thousand cuts, however small, that some may think insignificant.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Tuesday 6th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I would be happy to discuss that case further with the hon. Lady, if she would find that helpful. What I hope the working group of the UK and Greek Ministries of Justice and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will achieve is to make it much easier to transfer evidence from one jurisdiction to another, so that fair and swift trials become the norm.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

T9. Will my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary please inform the House of the next option for Her Majesty’s Government when sanctions against Iran fail?

[Mr Hague]

As I explained earlier, sanctions are part of a twin-track approach in which the peaceful and legitimate pressure on Iran of sanctions is intensified, but we remain open to negotiations about the whole of Iran’s nuclear programme. Although we have never as a Government ruled out military action or supporting any military action in future, we are most definitely not calling for that at this time, nor advocating it. It is precisely to avoid conflict that we want the situation to be resolved peacefully, through sanctions and negotiation.

European Affairs

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Thursday 3rd June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to give my maiden speech. In this debate we have heard many fine maiden speeches, all of which were well crafted and delivered. In particular, I must compliment the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) on her speech, and declare a vested interest: I am a graduate of one of her area’s great universities, the university of Nottingham. I must also admit to having sampled the hospitality of Ye Olde Trip to Jerusalem inn on more than one occasion.

I took advice on what the contents of a maiden speech should be, and I was surprised by some of what I heard. I was told that my speech should have all the attributes of a lady’s well-cut dress, meaning that it should be long enough to cover all the important points but still short enough to be interesting. I will try to comply with those criteria.

Hon. Members will know that this is the first time for more than five months that this Chamber has been addressed by an hon. Member for North West Leicestershire, following the tragic and untimely death of my immediate predecessor, David Taylor, who, very sadly, passed away on Boxing day last year. I have become aware that tributes to one’s predecessor are sometimes given through gritted teeth, especially when the previous Member had sat on the opposite side of the House, but that is not the case on this occasion. Although David Taylor and I often disagreed on what he did, I have always been a great admirer of the way in which he did it. At this time, when we are so keen to rebuild the public’s faith in our Parliament and our parliamentarians, we could find few better examples or role models than David Taylor. When David and I agreed, we fought together for the benefit of our constituency—defending Moira fire station from closure, opposing open-cast mining at Measham, and trying to protect the green wedge from overdevelopment.

David Taylor was born in North West Leicestershire, and he lived and worked there. He was unflinchingly loyal to his constituency, and as a result was extremely well regarded by his supporters and political opponents alike. His dedication to his work was unparalleled both in this House, where he was voted Back Bencher of the Year in 2007, and in his constituency. Given all his work against smoking and the dreaded weed, I know that he would be delighted that his successor is a reformed smoker. Our constituency is a far lesser place for his passing, and it is a privilege to be here in his stead.

Hon. Members will recall many column inches being filled in April with speculation about the voting intentions of “middle England”, but there was often confusion about exactly whom that referred to. From my perspective, it referred to the people of North West Leicestershire, who are literally based in the very centre of our country; mine is possibly the most landlocked constituency in the country, surrounded as it is by eight other constituencies. North West Leicestershire is at the heart of the new national forest, where many millions of trees have been planted over the past 15 years. That fabulous countryside sits alongside the traditional and gritty mining town of Coalville and the historic market town of Ashby de la Zouch. My constituency’s gently undulating countryside is both quaint and picturesque, spanning Newton Burgoland in the south and Cavendish Bridge in the north, and containing the villages of—I shall name but a few—Castle Donington, Kegworth, Moira, Measham, Ibstock, and Swannington, which is in the middle, and is where I live with my wife and children.

However, that description belies a constituency of extremes. My late predecessor experienced many of those extremes. Imagine his surprise in 1992 when, despite polling more than 28,000 votes, he lost the election. North West Leicestershire had the highest turnout that year, with more than 85% of the electorate going to vote. However, David got the rewards for all his hard work in 1997, when he gained the biggest swing against the Conservatives in that election.

In 2007 the pendulum swung again, this time back towards the Conservatives. We had the biggest swing against Labour in the district council elections that year, and on 6 May this year we again witnessed another 12% swing back to the Conservatives. Indeed, the chimes of the mediaeval church at Breedon on the Hill symbolised the bellwether nature of our constituency, which has always gone with the Government. I believe that when the people of North West Leicestershire have had enough of you, they come out and vote and let you know. History proves it. That was always very heartening in opposition, but I assure the House that it is slightly more worrying when I am standing in this position—which brings me back to today’s debate.

We are here to debate Europe, and I am delighted to be speaking on that subject because I love Europe. I have travelled extensively through it, at my own expense. Indeed, East Midlands airport in my constituency is our border with Europe and the world. I adore much European cuisine. I admire much of its culture, and I revel in its diversity, but I am not a supporter of economic union. I was an active member of Business for Sterling in the no campaigns. I strongly support the Government’s policy of placing a referendum lock on new European treaties, and indeed on anything that would give more powers away to Brussels.

The events in Greece, which spread quickly to Spain and elsewhere, demonstrate the danger inherent in trying to pull together a disparate group of economies and cultures. We need to learn from their misfortunes and hold on to our triple A rating at all costs. I am particularly pleased that all hon. Members on this side of the House, our Liberal allies included, now appreciate that we need early deficit reduction to protect our credit rating. In my first three weeks in politics I believe that I have seen something I never thought I would see—a miracle. I think that we should call it “The Conversion of St. Vince on the Road to Whitehall”.

The consequences of not holding on to our credit rating are extremely frightening. Our economy has been run on to the rocks. Had we joined the euro, we would not just be holed below the waterline, we would also be without lifeboats. We have a huge task ahead to rescue our economy and solve the problems of 21st-century Britain. Sadly, we Members of this House, with a few notable exceptions—or should I say extensions; I am thinking of my hon. Friend the Father of the House—are merely “here today, gone tomorrow” politicians. As a result, we must not consider ourselves to be the owners of sovereign powers. We are merely the custodians of power and sovereignty for future generations. Sovereignty is not ours to give away; it belongs to the people who elected us, and to their heirs and successors.

On that basis, I am very pleased to be one of the many Members of this House who fought and argued over many years to prevent the UK from joining the euro. We Eurosceptics have often suffered the disdain of the Europhiles: at times—heaven help us—we have been called “little Englanders”. As an Englishman of below average height, representing a constituency in the centre of our great country, that is an accusation that I personally find difficult to refute.

My background is in business. I firmly believe that our country’s small and medium-sized enterprises provide the backbone of our economy. If we help them, they will help to get us out of the current predicament that we find ourselves in. It is not just as a politician but also from a business perspective that my views on Europe have developed over the last 20 years. In 1997 we were the fourth most competitive place in the world in which to do business, but now we are a lowly 84th. Much of that is due to regulation from Europe. This cannot continue.

My business has been a major employer in North West Leicestershire for many years, and I want to be a champion of business and enterprise. I shall support the creation of an environment in which public spending is managed more efficiently and the private sector is unshackled from the weight of burdensome EU regulation. I want an environment in which our country can move free from the lodestone of needless red tape, and where we can build for our future by correcting so many of the mistakes of the recent past.

It is a privilege to stand in this House, and to serve the people of North West Leicestershire. I will do my very best not to let them down, and if at the end of my time in this place, however that may come, I am thought of anywhere near as well as my predecessor David Taylor, I will class myself as having done a very good job indeed.