Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill

Debate between John Redwood and Chris Bryant

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 14th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[John Redwood]

Opposition parties are struggling a bit with this idea of democracy, are they not? Taking back control was to have control by the people and for the people, and offering the people an early general election so that they could choose an effective Government when a Parliament was logjammed, hopeless and not prepared to govern with clarity and passion was the right thing to do. I just cannot understand why Labour and the SNP are still queuing up to defend the indefensible, and to say that because they may well be faced again with a situation in which they do not dare face the electors, they need some kind of legal rigmarole and manipulation of votes in a balanced or damaged Parliament to thwart the popular will yet again. “Never let the people make the decision,” they say: it must be contained within Parliament, even when a Parliament has obviously failed, as it did when it could not implement the wishes of the British people over the great Brexit referendum.

I want assurances from the Minister that this new policy will protect the Crown—the Queen—from the difficult business of politics. I think the Minister’s version of it is better than the version from the other place. Of course, it must keep the courts out. There is nothing more political than the decision about when we go to an election and when we give the people their power back and the right to make that fundamental choice. It is a choice that now can mean something, because we do not have to keep on accepting a whole load of European laws that we have no great role in making. Again, we need that absolute guarantee that we will have this freedom so that that can happen.

Those who say that they do not want the Prime Minister to have this much power have surely been in the House long enough to know that, while the Prime Minister has considerable power from his or her office, they are also buffeted and challenged every day by a whole series of pressures in this place and outside. If a leader of a party with a majority wanted an early election that their supporters did not want, I suspect that that would get sorted out without an early election. So we are only talking about what happens when a Government have lost their majority and the Prime Minister is doing his or her best to govern as a minority. We get the extraordinary position we got when the whole Opposition wanted to gang up to thwart the public making a choice, but did not want to govern. That was totally unacceptable, and the Opposition should hear the message from the doorsteps in the 2019 election. The public wanted a Parliament with a Government who could govern, so they decided to choose one. Those who sought to block it made themselves more unpopular, and they showed that they do not understand the fundamental point of democracy that, when Parliament lets the people down, the people must be able to choose a new and more effective Parliament.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I apologise to the House that, because I have been in Committee Room 10 launching the call for evidence on setting up a national strategy for acquired brain injury, I am afraid I was not able to hear the wonderful speeches that doubtless came from those on the Front Bench—well, on the Opposition side anyway.

I completely agree with what the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) has just said. Yes, I think the people of this country are crying out for a Government who can actually govern. They still were after the general election, and they certainly are at the moment. Yes, of course, the Prime Minister is buffeted, and I think the Prime Minister should be buffeted a bit more, to be honest.

What I do not understand is that this is the tiniest, most minimalist check on government that one could imagine. It simply means that a Government, which by definition already has a majority of Members of the House of Commons, should be required to come to the House of Commons to get a vote through to have a general election. It is absolutely minimal.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between John Redwood and Chris Bryant

Committee: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 12th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[John Redwood]

This debate is very important. As someone who wants this Parliament to take back control on behalf of the sovereign British people who voted in that way in the referendum, I can see that there is an irony in this debate. We hear that a number of Opposition Members are very worried that Ministers will have too much power as a result of this legislation, but by the very act of our having this debate, and in due course the votes, on how we should proceed, I think that we are demonstrating that, indeed, Parliament is taking back control. The purpose of these debates today and tomorrow and the subsequent votes will be for Parliament to set a very clear framework within which Ministers will have to operate.

We are, after all, debating how we translate a very large burden of existing European law into good United Kingdom law in order to ensure continuity and no change at the point when we exit the European Union. This is a task that unites people of all political persuasions, whether they were in favour of leave or remain, around the need for legal certainty. We all see the need to guarantee that all that good European law under which we currently live will still be there and effective after we have left.

We also agree something else: some of us do want to change some of those laws. I want to change the fishing law very substantially, because we could have a much better system for fishing in this country if we designed one for ourselves. We will probably need to amend our trade and customs laws, because as we become an advocate for and an architect of wider free trade agreements around the world, that is clearly going to necessitate changes, which we think will be positive. I think we all agree that where we want to change policy—to amend and improve—we should do so through primary legislation. As I understand it, Ministers have agreed with that. I am sure that this House is quite up to the task of guaranteeing that Ministers will indeed have to proceed in that way, so that we know that when they wish to change—amend, improve or even repeal—policy, they will need to come through the full process of asking for permission through primary legislation.

Today we are talking about the adjustments, many of which are technical, that need to be made to ensure the continuity of European law when it passes from European jurisdiction to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom Parliament and courts. Ministers will obviously play up the fact that they think most of these matters will be very technical, such as taking out the fact that the UK is a member of the European Union when we exit and rewriting the legislation to point out that we are no longer a member of the European Union, or decreasing the number of members states by one from the current number if they are referred to in the regulation. More difficult will be the substitution of a UK-based body for a European body to ensure proper enforcement. Many of us see that as largely technical, although there may be wider issues. This Parliament is now properly debating how much scrutiny that kind of thing would require.

We have three possible models to ensure parliamentary sovereignty over any of these processes. The weakest is the negative resolution procedure, whereby Ministers will have to make a proposal for technical changes to the law, and Parliament will have to object and force a vote if it wishes to. The middle model is the affirmative resolution statutory instrument, whereby Parliament will have a debate and a vote; Ministers would make a proposal and we would have a vote. In some cases, we might even conclude that we need primary legislation, as it appears we are deciding with the issue of animal welfare. In that case, we wish not only to transfer the European law but to ensure that it is better in British law, so that will need primary legislation.

Today we are debating how to determine which of those processes are appropriate for each of the different matters that arise. A lot of items will definitely be in the technical area of rather minor changes just to ensure that things work smoothly, which is what I thought the Government were trying to capture in clause 7. We have heard from Opposition Members who think that the clause goes too far and will allow the Government to elide matters from the category of technical changes to the category where there are more substantial changes going on, and still leave us with the negative resolution procedure. I am not as worried as some Opposition Members. The power under the clause is a two-year power only, so it is clearly related to the translation and transition period, which I find reassuring. There are also clear restrictions in clause 7(6) on Ministers changing taxes, inventing criminal offences and all those kinds of things, because they would obviously require primary legislation. We need to continue our debate on whether those two lists—the list of permissive powers and the list of restrictions—are the right lists.

[Chris Bryant]

I have been listening very carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. He is resting on the word “technical”, which he has used repeatedly, but that is not what the Bill says. If the Government had come forward with something saying that they will only be able to use secondary legislation in technical changes, we might have been interested in looking at it. But that is not what it says; it is a widely drawn list. The right hon. Gentleman may well have perfect confidence in the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Chipping Wycombe. Sorry, he is the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker)—[Laughter.] Well, the constituency used to be Chipping Wycombe. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) might have confidence in this particular Minister, but it may one day be another Minister. I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the Leader of the Opposition is a Marxist revolutionary in a Venezuelan style. Well, he might yet be a Minister who will be making precisely these decisions, and that is why we should always legislate with caution.

[John Redwood]

I am intrigued to hear that characterisation of the hon. Gentleman’s leader; it is not a phrase that I have ever used in this House. I find that very interesting, but I do not want to take the conversation into that party political realm.

We are trying to explore the proper constraints and controls to put on Ministers through this primary legislation, which will drive our democratic processes for this transfer of law. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response because I want reassurances—of the kind I think he will be able to give me—that this power is well meant and is designed to prevent Parliament from being clogged up with literally hundreds of rather minor drafting changes. Such minor changes are simple consequences of going from being a member to being a non-member that we do not need to worry about too much, so we need somebody to do them for us. The Bill says that Ministers are going to do it for us. Various Members are a bit sceptical about that for some surprising and interesting reasons, such as that we have just heard. There is also a suggestion, which has a lot to recommend it, that there be a sifting mechanism so that Parliament is involved in the process and can say to Ministers, “We do think this matter is a bit more than technical, so we cannot have the negative resolution procedure. This has to be a proper debate and a proper vote in order to preserve parliamentary process.”

Exiting the EU: Sectoral Impact Assessments

Debate between John Redwood and Chris Bryant

Wednesday 1st November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[John Redwood]

What we need to do is to have a proper debate on the sectoral impacts and look at the many positives, so that Opposition Members can debate in the way I am and talk about the opportunities for our country and the way our economy can be better, rather than continue in the depressingly negative way they always do, where they are desperate to find some bad information. They have come up with two things at the moment, which are clearly misleading, but they are constantly repeating them. First, they say that planes will not fly in April 2019, after we have left, without a special agreement and sending lots of money to the EU. I was very pleased the other day to see that Willie Walsh of British Airways made it very clear, in his professional view, that the planes will fly—and of course they will. There is no way Britain is going to stop German, French and Spanish planes coming into UK airports the day after we have left the EU, even without an agreement, and in turn they will not want to stop our planes going there, with our tourists and with the people who want to go and spend money in their country.

[Hannah Bardell]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[John Redwood]

Then there is another one that the Opposition are constantly telling us about, which is that there will be lorries queuing all the way back from Dover. I am not quite sure how that would work because it would mean that they were queuing in the sea. But of course, given modern, electronic frontiers, there is absolutely no reason why there should be huge queues.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between John Redwood and Chris Bryant

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 6th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[John Redwood]

Yes, the United Kingdom, through this Parliament, has decided that there will be differential arrangements for different parts of the United Kingdom. To Scotland we have given a Parliament; to Wales and Northern Ireland we have given an Assembly; and to England we have given absolutely nothing. That, so far, is our constitutional settlement. We have accepted exactly what the SNP spokeswoman was seeking: special treatment for Scotland through a more powerful Parliament.

One of the disappointments about this debate on devolution is that the myriad amendments do not, as I understand them, deliver more devolved powers to the Scottish Parliament or to the Welsh or Northern Ireland Assemblies, yet that opportunity will be there for the taking as we proceed with the process of leaving the European Union.

I despair at the pessimism of so many people about this very exciting process of recreating an independent, democratic country. The SNP should understand that an area such as agriculture, which the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) wrongly told us was fully devolved —of course, it is not fully devolved but almost completely centralised in Brussels, which makes all the crucial decisions and budgetary dispositions, which we then have to execute—

[Chris Bryant]

It is now.

[John Redwood]

The hon. Gentleman says it is now, but we are still in the EU, and that is the position we are about to change. This gives us a huge opportunity to devolve that power from Brussels. Some of it might go to the Union Parliament, some to the Welsh Assembly and some to the Scottish Parliament. That is to be decided, but would it not be a good idea if the SNP joined in positively the discussion about the appropriate areas to take those powers?

Standing Orders (Public Business)

Debate between John Redwood and Chris Bryant

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I am duty bound to give way to the right hon. Member for Wokingham, but then I will make some progress.

[John Redwood]

In those days, we had a unitary state, where it was accepted that this place made all the decisions for all parts of the United Kingdom. We have moved on. What we are saying is that it is unfair if some parts of the UK have devolution and others do not.

[Chris Bryant]

The thing is the right hon. Gentleman is not arguing for devolution in England; he is arguing for a completely different thing. He is arguing to change this Parliament. The devolution that was introduced in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland was on the back of a long process that gathered the views of the whole community. There were referendums, draft Bills and Bills.

2014 JHA Opt-out Decision

Debate between John Redwood and Chris Bryant

Monday 15th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Redwood]

My maths tells me that there are far fewer countries in the European Union than in the rest of the world, and we manage to have pretty good arrangements with the rest of the world. I have every confidence in the ability of the current and future Home Secretaries to restore our bilateral arrangements with the other 27 members of the European Union just as surely as we have bilateral arrangements with most of the other 200 countries in the world. The hon. Gentleman will remember that there was a time before this country was in the European Union, and certainly before we were in this current set of criminal justice arrangements, when we had perfectly good working relationships. I am sure that he and I would have liked them to be improved—one can always improve and make progress—but he should not be so defeatist about the ability of our Ministers and civil servants to defend Britain’s interests and come up with a good answer.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman suggests that it would be perfectly fine to abandon the European arrest warrant and rely on bilateral arrangements because we have such wonderful arrangements with so many other countries in the world. The Russian Federation, for instance, is covered by the previous version of the EAW, the European convention on extradition, but we have not managed to get Mr Lugovoy back, have we?

[Mr Redwood]

To find a country where there is a problem does not disprove my case. My case is that if there is good will—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) seems about to allege that all members of the European Union cannot be trusted and that we can do a deal only with the Commission. I have more faith in France and Germany than he does. I think that it would be in France’s and Germany’s interests, should Britain opt out of the European arrest warrant, to put in place really good arrangements, because they will want them to operate for them in Britain just as surely as Britain needs the arrangements to operate in France and Germany. As someone who does not like centralised European government arrangements, I find that I am often warm-hearted towards, and supportive of, the French and Germans and believe that we can make very good arrangements with them because it is in our mutual interests to do so. It is the rapid pro-Europeans who so dislike our French and German partners that they say that it all has to be bound up in central European government because we cannot trust France and Germany to come to a sensible arrangement with us over these important matters.

What is it about our country that these people do not like? What is it about our national democracy that they wish to tear down? A previous Government negotiated in good faith the third pillar arrangements for criminal justice. The idea of the third pillar was that, yes, we wanted enhanced co-operation and collaboration with our nearest neighbours, and of course I accept that there are more likely to be issues with France, Belgium and Holland, because they are very close, than with countries in Asia, so there is a reason for enhanced collaboration. We worked out a system in which we could have better procedures, enhanced collaboration and more co-operation, based on the mutual agreement of the states involved, not based on an independent united states of Europe Government, which is emerging as a result of this and other exercises but not from an independent court where there is no democratic accountability to the British people.

In recent months, we have had case after case from the European Court of Human Rights that this country and the British people have deeply disliked. There is very little we can do about that. If we give further enhanced powers to the European Court of Justice, we will have another series of such decisions from the European Court of Justice that we do not like. All major political parties will have to go to the electorate, shrug their shoulders and say, “We can do nothing about it. We still expect our salaries and to sit in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, but don’t expect us to revise this. We no longer run the criminal law and can no longer change the law in the way you want or expect. That is now settled in Brussels. Even your MEPs probably won’t be able to sort it out because the European Court of Justice is supreme above all elected officials and can provide the motor for making decisions on these crucial matters.”

The case before us today is very simple. Those who vote for opt-ins vote for European centralised justice and for the uncertainty of the European Court of Justice, which will in due course make decisions that the British people and their elected representatives cannot tolerate. Those who vote for opt-ins vote because they do not like this country’s democracy and they vote themselves out of a job.

Those of us who vote for the opt-out, and nothing but the opt-out, vote for the reverse. We vote for the House to take the responsibility. We vote to trust successive Home Secretaries. We vote to trust the judgment of the British people to judge their Governments and Home Secretaries, elect those who do a good job and throw out of office those who do a bad job. That is a true democratic system.

I do not want to live in a country where criminal justice has been transferred to independent experts abroad whom we cannot sack or influence. I do not want to go to my electors and say, “As a result of the vote we have had tonight and what happened subsequently, another major power of this country’s democracy has been seceded to the European Union in perpetuity in such a way that we can never get it back.”

It is a simple issue. I urge the House to vote for the opt-outs and against the opt-ins.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between John Redwood and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Redwood]

I listened carefully to the shadow Minister’s speech, and it is quite true that the public mood is one of wishing to see both a just return on its forced investment in the banking industry and the banking sector—particularly the state-owned and subsidised banking sector—making its contribution to the recovery, in view of what happened in 2008 and 2009.

I remember in 2007 and 2008 being in dispute with the then Government, because I felt they were setting up a banking crisis that we could have avoided, but unfortunately my voice was not listened to; they did not take action on interest rates and money market conditions to prevent the crisis. When it started, I think I was the only MP who said, “Do not give all this money to the banks.” I felt it was wrong to buy shares in the banks and to support the bondholders. I thought we had a duty to the depositors and individuals who were tied up with the banks, but not to those who had financed and run the banks in those conditions. Unfortunately, the decision was made to embark on a massive subsidisation and share-buying programme, which the previous Government did. So we are where we are, and I think that we all agree that what we wish to do now is get the maximum value we can out of the banks that are subsidised or in state ownership, because that would make the public feel better about it. Surely, now is the time when those state-owned and state-subsidised banks should make their fuller contribution to the recovery, after their role in the recent crash.

[Chris Bryant]

I apologise in advance to the right hon. Gentleman if what I am about to say is an inaccurate representation of what he said in the past, but my memory is that he produced a report in which he argued there should be much less regulation of the financial services industry—in fact almost none—[Interruption.] He is shaking his head. I am sure he will be able to enlighten us by correcting me.

[Mr Redwood]

How many times will I have to deal with this idiotic canard that Labour dreamt up? The report was very clear: it said the then Government were not regulating cash and capital strongly enough, and it was a cash and capital problem that the banks had that led to the crisis. If the then Government had taken our advice, the banks would have been made to have more cash and capital at a much earlier stage of the cycle, so we would not have gone into the period of banking weakness during the credit crunch.

We also said that the mortgage regulation introduced by the then Labour Government was not fit for purpose, was useless and might as well be scrapped. Our case was proved extremely well, because it was the mortgage banks that crashed—the very banks that were the object of the extra regulation. The extra regulation was clearly regulating the wrong things. We were not against regulation: we said mortgage banks and other banks should be regulated, but it was vital to understand what the problem was. It was very clear in ’06 and ’07 that the problem was an excess of lending of poor quality. It was also very clear that the answer was more cash and capital, and that was what we recommended. It is a great pity that the then Government did not follow our advice.