Palestine and Israel
Debate between Jack Straw and Andrew Bridgen(10 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Straw
We represent the electorate of the United Kingdom. I can tell the hon. Gentleman, having spent 13 years sitting on the Treasury Bench, that resolutions passed in the House, whether they emanate from Back Benches or Front Benches, make a difference, and this resolution will, if it is passed, make a difference.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill
Debate between Jack Straw and Andrew Bridgen(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Straw
I shall speak particularly to amendment 25, which has the support of my Front Bench and, I am pleased to say, of the Government as well. I was a member of the Cabinet in 2009 which first gave formal approval to HS2. That was endorsed in the run-up to the general election by all-party agreement. Although I have taken a close interest in the project ever since, I have seen nothing in the intervening period to persuade me to withdraw my support for it.
The case is clear. First, thanks to a dramatic increase in the usage of the railways in the past 15 years—I am very proud of Labour’s record—we face a situation where, for both freight and passengers, the existing lines cannot cope. As someone who for years has had to endure the west coast main line, I have to say that large sums of money were spent during that period—one of the reasons why there was so little electrification—on patch and mend to that line and on quadrupling the line in the Trent valley, with very little overall benefit. If folk in the House and outside think there is an alternative to HS2, they are right that there is, but it is a worse alternative, with more disruption and greater cost.
The second reason why I strongly support HS2 is that it will help to rebalance our economies. I have listened to some fancy arguments in the House, but among the fanciest are those that I have heard today and from colleagues in the Tea Room—that if we put in this investment, it will somehow suck more economic activity into London. It is worth turning that argument on its head or, as the Treasury likes to say, looking at the counterfactual. If that were the case, it would be overwhelmingly an argument for reducing the capacity of the railways north-south and for slowing up the lines. It is simple nonsense.
Mr Straw
I will in a moment, but I am conscious that others want to get in before the knife.
I come to the issue of the costs. No one is in favour of providing blank cheques for schemes, but I have seen no evidence that a blank cheque is being provided for this scheme. What we are talking about is £42 billion until 2033, which works out at just over £2 billion a year. That is a lot of money but, in the grand scheme of things, including infrastructure investment, it is not huge, particularly when compared with the massive amount of money that has rightly been put in by successive Governments to improve infrastructure in London and the south-east. I would be happy to support that, but it is time that the investment went elsewhere.
Andrew Bridgen
The right hon. Gentleman is obviously an advocate of HS2, and that can be his view, but will he explain the discrepancy between his view and that of the noble Lord Mandelson, who was also a member of the previous Labour Government?
Mr Straw
I have certainly never wished to speak for my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Mandelson. All I can report as a matter of fact is that my right hon. and noble Friend was in the same Cabinet Room in 2009 when the project was endorsed. If he has had some reverse damascene conversion, it is for him to explain that, not me.
Let me turn to the issue of costs. I was chairman of the Cabinet Committee on the Olympics for its first four years. The first bid was put in at about £2.5 billion and the ultimate cost came out at £9 billion. Let me explain why there is no direct comparison. The bid was not based on the contingency but on a prayer that we would win it. Not a huge amount of effort was put into costing it because, frankly, very few people ever thought we would win. It was only after we had won on 6 July 2005 that the serious work began and led, quite properly, by the Treasury, we considered the contingencies.
I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) that a contingency of such a size is sensible, because there needs to be an optimism bias. That was what was put into the budget for the Olympics by the man who is now Sir David Higgins, who turned that project around. Contrary to what was said by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), the Olympics as an infrastructure project came in not only on time, because it had to, but on budget. Those who are worried about a blank cheque—any Chancellor or shadow Chancellor needs to be—should be reassured that Sir David Higgins is now in charge. I have every confidence in him, not only from his time running this operation and the Olympics, but from his time at Network Rail. He got costs down and took a close interest in the detail of the projects.
Voting by Prisoners
Debate between Jack Straw and Andrew Bridgen(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Straw
I was not in the House in 1965. [Hon. Members: “Are you sure?”] I was causing trouble at universities at the time, so I have an alibi—I was at the scene of some other crimes.
I do not quite subscribe to the hon. Gentleman’s view about that piece of history. The signing of the protocol that gave the Court that power was very public. Anyway, where we are is where we are, and subsequent Administrations of either persuasion have not objected to the Court’s having that power of what amounts to individual petition.
Our Human Rights Act was expertly drafted, giving our courts the power to declare primary legislation incompatible with the convention but no power to strike down that legislation. In that way, the sovereignty of Parliament is respected and indeed protected by the Act. Our senior judiciary, without question among the best in the world, have applied the Act with the sensitivity that one would expect. As the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden said a moment ago, when the British courts first considered the Hirst case, prior to its going to Strasbourg, they found no breach of the convention whatever. In addition, they said that any change in the law was a matter for Parliament. For the avoidance of doubt, let me put it firmly on record that the tension and conflict that we have to resolve today can in no sense be laid at the door of the Human Rights Act or, in my judgment, at that of the plain text of the convention.