EU Exit Day Amendment

Debate between John Redwood and Anna Soubry

Wednesday 27th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

The mood outside the House is overwhelmingly that we should get on with it. The nation heard the Prime Minister and the Government promise on countless occasions that we would be leaving on 29 March 2019, with or without a deal. It is true that the Prime Minister always said that she wanted a deal and expected to get a deal, but she never ruled out leaving without a deal, and she was right not to do so. Indeed, for many months she used to say, “No deal is better than a bad deal,” leaving open the possibility that what was on offer would be so bad that it would be better just to leave.

I am not someone who thinks that we should just leave. I think that we should leave with a series of deals, and I am pleased that the Government have put place the essential deals that we need in order to leave. Of course we needed an aviation deal, a haulage deal, a Government procurement deal and all the rest of it, and those things have been sorted out, I am told, over the long two years and eight months that have elapsed since the original vote. I am also pleased that the Government, in parallel with constantly telling us that they would get an agreement and an agreement that we would like, continued their so-called no-deal planning, which, as I have said, is actually many-deal planning—that is, planning a series of lesser deals to ensure that things worked smoothly and that we were in a good position and had options.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Ind)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Redwood]

I wish to develop my argument a little.

The Government put us in that position. What we have not heard, either from the Minister or, more importantly, from the Prime Minister, who is responsible for this, is the case for the delay that we are now being asked to approve in United Kingdom legislation. It seems to be mainly geared to the idea that the House will accept the withdrawal agreement after we should have left, rather than before we were going to leave, but we now learn that the deal that was actually offered did not allow the Government until May or early June to put the thing through. The EU was very tough on the Government, saying, “You must get the withdrawal agreement through before the official leaving date of 29 March, under the previous understanding,” which leaves the Government with only a couple of days in which to do so.

The question to the Government must be, “Why has it taken so long to get this agreement into a shape that the House would pass, and why have you been so dilatory about presenting, or re-presenting the agreement?” or, even better, “Why did you not renegotiate it to get it into a form in which it might be worth considering again?” The question that you have rightly posed to the Government, Mr Speaker, is whether there is any point in constantly bringing the same thing back time and again when the answer continues to be negative. The Government have not really explained today, in the context of their wish for a delay, why the outcome would suddenly be different after they have left it for so long and why they left it so long if it was so time-critical. They have had plenty of months between the original Chequers disaster, when they first adumbrated this policy and there were mass resignations from the Government and the Conservative party and today, when—many more resignations later—there is still a considerable reluctance on the part of sections of the governing party to vote for the withdrawal agreement.

I fear that I am not free to support this proposal. I do not think that a good case has been made for delay, and I do not think that the Government have made a case to the public for why we have to be let down when such a clear promise was embedded in the law—in the withdrawal Act that this Parliament passed. I suggest to the Government that they should think again about how they wish to use the time that they are trying to buy.

I have a lot of sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) over the crowning irony of the position the Government have placed us in. They are claiming superior European law to do something the leave majority in this country does not want them to do, but they are not so sure of their legal ground that they want this House to actually endorse it, because they know otherwise there might be legal difficulties, but to do it on the very piece of legislation that is taking back control. It is almost unbelievable.

This House has rightly decided to back the vote of the British people and by a solemn statute say that we are taking back control and from the day that that comes into effect all laws and matters relating to Government and public business will be settled in this House of Commons and not by the EU. And we are now told that the Prime Minister can have a conversation in an evening Council meeting in Brussels and be pushed off her request and given something completely different from her request, and we are told that trumps anything the UK Parliament does. Well, if we wanted to sum up why 17.4 million people voted the way they did, we could not do better than take that example. We do not want this House sidelined or presumed upon; this House should decide when we leave the European Union and that should not have been settled in that way.

European Affairs

Debate between John Redwood and Anna Soubry

Thursday 15th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[John Redwood]

I quite agree.

We wish to take back control. We will be a very different and much better country when this Parliament can settle how much tax we levy, how we levy it, how we spend money, how we conduct ourselves and what kind of laws we have.

My main remarks for the Minister and his colleagues on the Treasury Bench, however, concern the conduct of the negotiations. Like the Minister, I wish the Government every success. I hope that they get a really good deal—I look forward to seeing where they get to—but the EU is trying to make the process as difficult as possible by insisting on conducting the negotiations in reverse order. It says first that we have to agree to pay it a whole load of money that we do not owe. It then says that we have to agree a long transition period that coincides with its further budget periods, so that it can carry on levying all that money, and that is before we get on to what really matters: the future relationship and the questions of whether there be a comprehensive free trade agreement, what it will cover, and if it will be better than just leaving under WTO terms.

In order to have a successful negotiating position, the Government have rightly sketched out a couple of important propositions. The first is that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. That is fundamental, and I urge Ministers to understand that they must not sign any withdrawal agreement unless and until there is a comprehensive agreement that is credible and that can be legally upstanding, because there is no point paying money for nothing. There would only be any point in giving the EU all that money if there was a comprehensive agreement that the Government and the country at large could be proud of, and which enough leave voters could agree with as well as remain voters.

The second thing that the Government have rightly said is that no deal is better than a bad deal. That, again, is fundamental to the negotiations. I have never made any bones about this, because I said before the referendum that no deal was quite a likely outcome, and a fine outcome. For me, no deal is a lot better than staying in the EU: it would give us complete control over our money, meaning we could start spending it on our priorities; it would give us complete control over our laws, meaning we could pass the laws and levy the taxes that we wanted; it would give us complete control over our borders, meaning we could have the migration policy of our choosing; and it would give us the complete right and freedom to negotiate a trade policy with the EU and anybody else. That would depend, of course, on the good will of the other side as well, but I would far rather be in that position than part of a customs union in which I had little influence and that was extremely restrictive against others. There is therefore an awful lot going for no deal.

The Minister and his colleagues must stick to the proposition that they will recommend a deal to the House only if it is manifestly better than no deal. They need to keep reminding the EU negotiators that no deal offers Britain most of what it wanted when it voted to take back control.

[Anna Soubry]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm whether he has seen the Government analysis—apparently it involves excellent modelling and is far better than anything they did in the run-up to the EU referendum—showing that if we were to crash out without a deal and rely on WTO tariffs, our projected increase in productivity and economic growth would be reduced by 7.7%? Is that what his remain-voting constituents—the majority—voted for?

[John Redwood]

No, of course it is not, but that is not true. I have written at great length about that elsewhere. Unfortunately, I do not have time to go into a detailed rebuttal of those proposals, but we know that the Treasury modelling got entirely the wrong answer for the first 18 months after the referendum. Its short-term forecast, which should be easier to make, was massively wrong and predicted a recession. I and a few others put our forecasting reputation on the line during the referendum by saying that there would be growth after an out vote, rather than what the Treasury forecast. We were right.

I assure my right hon. Friend that I have not voted for anything that will make us poorer. We will be growing well, as long as we follow the right domestic policies. It is complete nonsense to say that there will be that kind of hit. It implies that we lose over half our exports to the European Union, and it is not a proper reflection of what would happen to our trade adjustment were anything that big to happen. I want to concentrate on the customs union.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between John Redwood and Anna Soubry

Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 7th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[John Redwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention, although there is this legal wrangle. It is fascinating how those who wish to resist, delay or cancel our departure from the EU are now flipping their legal arguments from three or four weeks ago, when they were quite clear that this was irrevocable.

[Anna Soubry]

My right hon. Friend is a man of courage with a long, fine history of supporting the sovereignty of this place. He says that the Government will give us a vote in the event of a deal, but why does he not agree with those of us, on both sides of the House, who want the same vote, so that we ensure the sovereignty of this place, in the event that the Government cannot strike a deal, despite their finest efforts?

[John Redwood]

That is exactly the vote we had on Second Reading. If Members are at all worried about leaving the EU, they should clearly not have voted for the Bill on Second Reading. That is the point of the debate about irrevocability.

Exiting the EU and Workers’ Rights

Debate between John Redwood and Anna Soubry

Monday 7th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[John Redwood]

Why does the hon. Gentleman laugh? The Government are engaged—I think, again, in good faith—in an earnest discussion with the devolved Assemblies and Parliaments of the United Kingdom. I presume that quite shortly after the powers have returned, they will be properly devolved. As to the question of what guarantee there is that these major powers cannot be eroded, the first guarantee is that the Government have already made it clear that they have no plans to do so. They have given their word, and if they broke their word there would be very strong protests in here and there would be the usual pressures of public opinion, and then loss of seats for loss of faith should the Government proceed in that way. But as I understand it, primary legislation will guarantee all these rights and laws from the EU; these are not secondary matters, and so primary legislation will be required in order to deal with them in the future. And it may be that in the future we will want to improve these rights, which would entail amending them, and that is something we will be entirely free to do once we have taken back control; we can then do it in the way we see fit, without any complications from European law.

The 17.4 million people voted to take back control, and that was a remarkable vote. They voted to take back control despite being told by the great and the good, the Government and leading figures in the Opposition that there would be a short-term economic cost to them if they dared to vote to have a sovereign Parliament representing a sovereign people. We did not believe them, however, and I am very pleased that we did not do so. We have now had four months of growth, with more jobs, more shopping, rising incomes and all the other things that they said could not possibly happen, were we to dare to exit the European Union. Is it not good that experts are sometimes wrong and sometimes too pessimistic, and that sometimes the people are more sensible and know what is right for them?

The people also understood that this was about more than money. They did not feel that their money was at risk; they felt that something bigger than money was at issue. What was at issue was the question of who controls. Do the people any longer have their sovereign power? Can they elect a Parliament to do the things they want Parliament to do? They realised that they could not. They realised that this Parliament could not abolish VAT on tampons or green products in the way that most people would like it to because to do so would be illegal under European law. They realised that this Parliament could not amend the fishing rules in order to have a fishing industry that was good for English fishermen and English fish—or Scottish fishermen and Scottish fish—because that would be illegal under European law. They realised that both the major parties in the general election wished to make changes to the benefit rules, but that both sets of proposals turned out to be illegal under European law.

The British people said, “For goodness’ sake, we’re fed up with this puppet Parliament. We want a Parliament that can carry out our will. We want a Parliament that will take back power.” It took the people to say that, because this Parliament was incapable, on its own, of realising that it did not have enough power, that it could not carry out the wishes of the British people in so many fields, and that it ought to do something about that. A lacklustre negotiation with our former partners produced absolutely nothing of value, so the British people took the matter into their own hands.

[Anna Soubry]

I appreciate that the results of the referendum were declared on a local authority basis, but could my right hon. Friend confirm that the people of Wokingham actually voted to remain?

[John Redwood]

That is by no means proven. As my right hon. Friend says, Wokingham borough had a modest majority in favour of remain, but Wokingham borough comprises parts of four different constituencies. My own constituency contains bits of Wokingham borough as well as parts of West Berkshire. According to my canvass returns, I think it was roughly 50:50 in my constituency. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] Anyway, it does not really matter—[Interruption.] My right hon. Friend must listen, because I think she actually agrees with me on this, although she will not admit it.

Members from both sides of the House trooped solemnly through the Lobby to put through the European Union Referendum Act 2015, and it was crystal clear from what Ministers and others were saying at the time that we were passing the decision to the British people. We were not asking their advice. We were not giving them a rather grand and expensive opinion poll. Ministers said, “You, the British people, will make this decision.” And just to ram it home, a leaflet was sent to every household in the country—at the taxpayers’ expense, which some of us were a bit worried about—repeating that message. A solemn promise was made by the Government. The Opposition were involved with this, because they did not object and they helped to vote through the money for that promise to be sent to every household. That promise was crystal clear. I feel, and I think my right hon. Friend agrees with me, that we are now under a duty to expedite the decision of the British people.

Steel Sector

Debate between John Redwood and Anna Soubry

Monday 18th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. It has absolutely been a pleasure to work with Fergus Ewing—I think that is the correct way to refer to him—with whom I have had such discussions. I of course fully back all efforts to sell Dalzell and Clydebridge, and I very much hope that a buyer can be found. Any support that the UK Government can give will be given.

The hon. Gentleman made good points about energy costs, but as he will know, the state aid rules are really strict when it comes to any support we give the steel industry. He talked about the future, but I would say this. One of the things we have done as a Government—this has never been done before—is to look at all the huge infrastructure projects that we are rightly putting together, at huge cost to the taxpayer. That includes HS2, for example. We have assessed the steel needs of all those projects, and we have given that assessment to the steel industry, so we are already doing that sort of work. We are looking not just at the next five, 10 or 15 years, but right the way down the track, if I may use that expression, at the sort of work the Government are doing to invest in our infrastructure, and we have put our steel requirements to the industry.

I know that this may sound a little emotional, but it is our absolute intention and we are absolutely determined that the steel used in HS2 will be made in this country. That is not just at Scunthorpe; we also want to ensure that there are blast furnaces in south Wales. That is our determination, and we are working towards it.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

The Minister is right that the Government need to ensure that every penny of public money spent, directly or indirectly, on steel procurement should be spent on British steel. Is she now saying she has secured such changes in European law and rules that she can actually specify that all railway and construction steel paid for by Britain will be British? That is what I want.

[Anna Soubry]

I am amazed that my right hon. Friend, who I thought was a real free enterprise chap, takes such a view. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] That is a gentle chide. We are two good friends who agree on many things.

The most important point is that we have changed the procurement rules. We are the first ever country in the EU to take advantage of doing so. There is now absolutely no excuse for any Government contract not to include buying British steel and, indeed, other metals such as aluminium.

Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill

Debate between John Redwood and Anna Soubry

Monday 2nd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

I can. I cannot off the top of my head remember whether one of the many letters I received was from the two authorities, but I would not be surprised, if I can put it that way. I have genuinely been seriously impressed by the work that is happening in local authorities. I do not care what political party is running those authorities. I hope they sing this out, particularly if they are looking forward to elections.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will the Minister ensure that other Government Departments fully participate in enforcing the covenant? I have a case of a couple who have had to move twice recently to meet the husband’s requirements in the armed services. The wife is a nurse. She was on maternity leave. There was a delay in getting a job at a new hospital in the new place they were going to. The Government are now demanding all the maternity pay back because she was a few days out of time. That is not helpful and does not seem to be in the spirit of the covenant.

[Anna Soubry]

On the basis of what my right hon. Friend has just said, I would agree. I urge him, and any other hon. Member, to come to see me. I would have no difficulty in taking up whatever case it may be on behalf of a constituent or an hon. Member. I would be happy to do that. He makes a good point. It is imperative that we work across government. I am pleased that that includes working with local authorities.

Our armed forces do not have the same opportunities for redress on employment issues as civilians—they do not, for example, routinely have access to employment tribunals. We must therefore ensure that there is a robust system in place to deal with any complaints they may have in connection with their service. Such a system needs to be able to deal with grievances quickly and fairly. When it comes to speed, we know that there are some serious failings in the existing system.

That is not just right in principle but is essential for operational effectiveness. If a group of men and women are happy and content in their work, it goes without saying that they will work well, whatever the circumstances of their work may be. Having unresolved complaints breeds discontent, which can undermine morale and diminish our fighting capability.

I turn now to the specific proposals in the Bill. The existing complaints system was set up by the Armed Forces Act 2006 and covers all three services. Many complaints are dealt with promptly and successfully, but we accept that performance is still not good enough and that it can be significantly improved.

It is good to remind the House at this stage of some of the statistics. Fewer than 1% of our service personnel feel that they have any need to raise a grievance and use the complaints system. Of the complaints that are made, it is interesting to note that the majority are not about bullying, harassment and discrimination. It is fair and right to say that those are the most serious complaints, but I note that in the Navy, for example, 10%—I am not going to say only 10%, because 10% is too many —of complaints are about bullying, harassment and discrimination; the overwhelming majority relate to pay, conditions and allowances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

I could be rude to the hon. Gentleman and suggest that he read the Bill. It is clear that it provides for an ombudsman in the traditional sense of someone who investigates when a complaint of maladministration has made. The definition of maladministration is broad, but we are clear that we are putting in place a new complaints system. As a result, we now have an ombudsman. That is not another level of appeal: it means that someone whose grievance has been flawed through maladministration and not been dealt with properly can take their complaint to the ombudsman, who will see whether there has been maladministration. The ombudsman will have the breadth of remit to go into the detail of the allegation of administration, and then to report without fear or favour and with rigour. At any stage and at any time, the ombudsman can go to any of the chiefs of staff or any Minister—most importantly, of course, the Secretary of State—and has complete freedom, should he or she so wish, to go to any member of the press and say, “Something is happening here that I am not happy about”, or to the Chair of the Select Committee and say, “This is something that I have found out and I am concerned about.”

In many ways, those are the great freedoms, but it is clear in the Bill that the ombudsman is appointed to look at maladministration—never forgetting that it is the individual who has raised a grievance, sought redress, felt that they have not got it through the system and have exhausted their appeals who will go to the ombudsman on the basis of maladministration, like many of those who go to an ombudsman.

We have drafted regulations that deal with the new system of complaints. Hon. Members have rightly raised the criticism—Dr Susan Atkins also complained about it—that too often there is too much delay. That is wrong, and that is why it is imperative that we reform the system. When we have the ombudsman in place, he or she must be in a position to conclude that delay is part of maladministration. He or she will be able to look specifically at that and take their recommendations to the Defence Council if need be. I have confidence that action will be taken accordingly.

[Mr Redwood]

Given that so many complaints are about pay, allowances and other financial matters, is there more that Ministers can do to ensure that more armed service personnel can buy a property of their own before they leave the armed forces, so that they do not become homeless when they leave their contract?

[Anna Soubry]

We have set up the Help to Buy scheme. I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive me if I cannot remember the exact figures, but I think that the scheme has now received nearly 3,000 successful applications. It has been hugely successful. In my limited experience, if members of our armed forces think that something is good, it will spread like wildfire, and that seems to be happening. The attitude that the Government take is that people should have a choice. Not everyone wants to buy their own home—it does not suit everybody—but we must give every opportunity to those who want to do so, because we believe in a property-owning democracy.

I have mentioned the House of Commons Defence Committee, and I want to pay tribute to its work over many years in advancing the cause of putting in place a proper complaints system and a service complaints ombudsman. I look forward to the ensuing debate with members of the Committee. I am sure that we will agree on many things, and that we can work together on them.

Clause 1 creates a new service complaints ombudsman to replace the existing Service Complaints Commissioner. Clause 2 replaces the existing service complaints system with a new and improved framework. I believe that it should be the armed forces that are responsible for dealing with any complaints from service personnel. That is the right way to do it. It is for the services to ensure that complaints are dealt with fairly and that the appropriate redress is given when complaints are upheld. When something has gone wrong, it is for the services to put it right. It is their responsibility and no one else’s.

The role of the ombudsman should therefore be to ensure that the systems are working effectively and that complaints are properly dealt with. The ombudsman’s oversight of the system will also put them in a unique position to identify lessons for further improvement, which will benefit individuals and the services more widely. The service chiefs are content that the proposals set out in the Bill strike the right balance between creating strong and independent oversight and maintaining the authority of the chain of command. The former Service Complaints Commissioner was also fully involved in developing the reforms.

A central feature of the new system is that the service complaints ombudsman, unlike the current commissioner, will have a power to consider whether a service complaint has been handled properly. If the ombudsman considers that there has been maladministration, and potentially injustice, in the handling of a complaint, he or she will make recommendations to the Defence Council to put things right. This could include, for example, reconsidering the complaint or rerunning a particular part of the process. The Defence Council will remain responsible for any decisions arising from the ombudsman’s recommendations, but it would need to give rational reasons for rejecting any recommendation.

The Bill also makes other changes. It gives service personnel the right to apply to the ombudsman if they believe that the handling of their complaint has been subject to maladministration. It will reduce the number of appeal levels, which will speed up the process while remaining fair. It includes a new process of assigning a complaint to someone who has the authority to deal with it and give appropriate redress. It gives the ombudsman a new role at an early stage of the complaints procedure. When the chain of command has decided not to allow a complaint to be considered within the service complaints system because, for example, it is out of time or excluded on other grounds, a service person could ask the ombudsman to determine whether that decision was correct. A decision by the ombudsman will be final. The ombudsman will have a similar role in respect of appeals decided as out of time. The ombudsman will also retain the vital role of offering an alternative route for a serviceman or woman who does not wish, or is unable, to approach the chain of command directly, to have their concerns fed into the system. That is an important safeguard, especially where there are allegations of bullying or harassment.

Finally, the requirement to report annually on the operation of the system will remain, ensuring that there is proper accountability to Parliament. I just wish to re-emphasise that the ombudsman has access to any Minister and any member of any Committee in this place and also has the freedom to go to the media, should he or she wish to do so. So, over and above the annual report, they have an unshackled freedom to report without fear or favour their findings in relation to any particular grievance.