Zero-emission Vehicles, Drivers and HS2

Debate between Mark Harper and John Redwood

Monday 16th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

No, not at all. Having no regard for taxpayers’ money would be deciding that a project was going to cost too much and deliver too little in benefits, and then continuing to spend taxpayers’ money regardless. This will not be welcomed by everybody and it was not the consensus view, but we have decided to cancel the second phase. By the way, this was about not just increased costs, but the combination of increased costs and reduced benefits, as I said in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark). It was about the two things together, and we have decided to reinvest the money in alternative transport projects, which, by the way, have a higher return on investment and will therefore deliver a greater return to taxpayers. That shows exactly the opposite of what the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) said—that we value taxpayers’ money and want to deliver the best return for taxpayers’ money, which is why we have made this change in how we are investing their hard-earned money.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Many councils apply for grants in order to make changes to their local roads. When considering these applications, will Ministers ensure that they do not end up paying for schemes that cut local capacity on crucial roads and make drivers’ lives a misery?

[Mr Harper]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point about what we should prioritise when funding roads. He should know that one of the important changes I have made is to make sure that our active travel team is focused on delivering cycling and walking schemes that increase choice, rather than focusing on driving people out of their cars. I hope he will welcome that important change.

Coronavirus Act 2020 (Review of Temporary Provisions) (No. 3)

Debate between Mark Harper and John Redwood

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

That is exactly right. It is for that reason that if there were a Division I would not be voting for this legislation, because I do not think it comes with enough parliamentary scrutiny—the sort of scrutiny that there is if we use the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.

[John Redwood]

Would it not also help the Government’s case if they gave us more detail on which of these measures actually worked and did some good? We need more post-result audits so that we can have more confidence in some of these measures.

[Mr Harper]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point, which would be worth following up.

Conscious of your strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me make a couple of final points. On the issue raised by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) on vaccine passports, the Secretary of State gave half of the right answer, which was that the Government would have to persuade the House to introduce vaccine passports, and he confirmed that the House would have to vote on it. The final piece to come in his wind-up remarks is that that vote will come ahead of any decision to introduce vaccine passports, rather than there being only a retrospective vote after their introduction. If he confirmed that, he would do the House a powerful service.

The final point is to reinforce what the shadow Secretary of State was saying, and what I said in my intervention, about speeding up second doses and third doses for those who are immunosuppressed and, to release the pressure on the NHS, focusing on improvements in social care this winter. My local NHS trust—I have raised this issue with the Secretary of State privately—has made the point that some of the pressures are because it cannot get the people who have received all the hospital treatment they need out into the community, because of a lack of either residential social care or domiciliary social care. For it to deliver on clearing the backlogs of healthcare and to stop accident and emergency backing up, it must be able to get people out of the “back door” of the hospital into social care or back home. It is social care that will put the NHS under critical pressure this winter, in the next few weeks, so I urge my right hon. Friend to focus on the social care aspect of NHS pressure, not just on NHS pressure. With that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will broadly obey your strictures and sit down.

Migration and Scotland

Debate between Mark Harper and John Redwood

Tuesday 11th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I do. I did not want to labour the point about all the areas in which the SNP-run Scottish Government are failing the people of Scotland—I simply focused on economic growth—but if I were pushed, I could focus on their underperformance on health and on education, as Scotland falls down—[Interruption.] I do not think that the Scottish Government missing all their targets for the performance of the health service is a laughing matter. The SNP ought to take that a little more seriously.

I have three more points to make before I conclude. The first is on enforcement. I challenged the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East on this and drew attention to the fact that, in the Scottish Government’s proposals, there is no sponsorship role for employers—that enforcement mechanism would not be there—and no salary threshold. He pushed back and said that, if a person chose to work elsewhere in the United Kingdom, that is where we would catch them out, but he is forgetting something.

Many people wish to come here from many parts of the world—I do not blame them, because the United Kingdom is a very attractive country to come to—and we stop them coming here by not issuing them with a visa. Once they are in the country, it becomes quite difficult and very costly to remove them when they have no right to be here. They often work under the radar, illegally. They are often exploited by rogue landlords, and they may make an argument that they are claiming asylum, which means that we have to go through a long and complicated process to demonstrate that they do not have entitlement to be here before having to remove them. By not having sponsorship, or that mechanism for employers with a record of proven success in employing staff from overseas, the hon. Gentleman is throwing away that significant enforcement mechanism. We would open up that risk not just in Scotland but in the whole United Kingdom, which is one reason why I do not find his proposals acceptable.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should make the point to business that, if it invites in people at the low end of the income scale, there may be large set-up capital costs such as extra social housing, school provision, health provision and in-work benefits, which is a charge on the taxpayer and ultimately a charge on British employers?

[Mr Harper]

My right hon. Friend is exactly right.

To make my penultimate point, in the documents there are a number of references, as I have said, to Canada and Australia. Canada and Australia both allow free movement around their countries. The point is made in the Scottish Government’s own document that there are significant problems in retaining staff who have come in on the regional visas in the areas where they were supposed to stay, largely driven by the more attractive economic offers in other parts of the country. That is a real challenge, given that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East accepted that the present system is that there are more attractive economic opportunities for migrants in other parts of the United Kingdom than in Scotland—that was his own argument—and I do not see anything in the document that suggests that the Scottish Government would be able to retain those migrants in Scotland.

Finally, to turn to the motion, I think that the hon. Gentleman and the SNP have got it the wrong way round. They have published a document and called on the Home Secretary to engage with them on their proposals. Given that the Government have not yet set out their proposals in detail and they have not been agreed by the Cabinet, a more sensible approach, now that we have left the European Union—that battle is over for now; given the SNP’s position on Brexit, it was challenging for it to accept that it was happening— would be for the SNP to engage with the Government. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who opened the debate and who I am pleased to see in his place, made it clear that his door was open. The SNP should engage with both the Home Office and the Scotland Office to look at how the measures that will be set out in our points-based system—I have set out one or two of them—could best engage with Scotland’s needs.

We are keen that we have an immigration system that works for the whole of the United Kingdom, to make every part of our country more dynamic, and to increase pay and opportunities for people across the United Kingdom. That is the best way of proceeding, so I suggest that the House, when the time comes later today, reject the motion. I urge the SNP to engage seriously with the Government. If it does so, it will find a listening ear and a willingness to engage on that basis, which is the best way for us all to move forward.

Finance Bill

Debate between Mark Harper and John Redwood

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I am always grateful to have excellent suggestions from colleagues in Northern Ireland. It is worth remembering that they bring a particular perspective to Brexit, given that they have a land border with the Irish Republic. We need to be very conscious of tax effects across the border as we leave the European Union.

I set out in my Westminster Hall debate, which I will not reprise now, our good record on economic growth since 2010, our reduction of the deficit and the significant number of jobs that businesses in the United Kingdom have generated. That is all very positive. But I am perfectly happy, as are the Government, to accept that there is one area in which the country’s economic record since 2007-08—under both the Conservative party and the Labour party, when it was in government—has been less impressive, and that is productivity. Since the economic crash, productivity growth has stagnated, and the level of productivity is significantly below that of the G7.

As I have said, it is essential to raise productivity if we are going to increase pay in both the public and private sectors. I want—I think all Conservative Members want—to give public sector workers a pay rise, just as much as Opposition Members do. But we understand that that has to be paid for. There is also an element of fairness. Private sector wages fell, in cash terms, after the crash, but that did not happen in the public sector. The work done by the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that after a number of years of pay restraint, pay in the public and private sectors is now roughly in balance. It is, perhaps, a little ahead in the public sector if we take account of the more generous pension schemes. I want workers in both the private sector and the public sector to be properly rewarded; I do not want to favour workers in one sector at the expense of those in the other. That idea is missing in the comments we have heard today from the trade unions about public sector workers. We have to have a balanced settlement for workers across the economy, not just those in one area of it.

It is not clear what has caused the lack of growth in productivity. It will probably not surprise anyone in the House to learn that according to economists—I apologise if there are any economists in the Chamber; I stopped my economic training when I left university—a number of things seem to be at the root of this, one of which is that there could well be a lack of wage growth, which means that companies are not investing in capital equipment to make work more effective. As a former Minister for Immigration, I think that having unlimited unskilled migration—it is definitely at the lower end of the labour market, keeping wage growth low—has certainly not encouraged companies to invest in machinery and equipment to drive up productivity. Leaving the European Union gives us the opportunity to reduce importing unskilled workers from the current level. That does not mean reducing it to zero, but reducing it a little will help to improve such an incentive.

[John Redwood]

To help my right hon. Friend, let me say that there is a good reason and a bad reason why productivity has been disappointing. The good reason is that we have generated lots of lower-value jobs—it is better to have a job than no job—and we now need to help those people to work smarter so that they can be paid better. [Interruption.] Labour Members do not want jobs for their constituents, but I do, and I then want to go on and get them, when they have been trained and skilled up, into better-paid work. The bad news is that we have lost a lot of top-end jobs in the North sea oil industry because of the maturity of the fields and the decline of output, as well as the hit on the price, and we have also lost quite a lot of top-end jobs in the City—some people did not like those top-end jobs very much, but the crash destroyed quite a lot of them in the City—and that has obviously depressed the overall productivity figures.

[Mr Harper]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. I agree with him that the response to what he said about the growth in jobs was very disappointing. One thing I touched on in my Westminster Hall debate was the comparison between this country and some of our European neighbours. I must say that in Britain, where the level of unemployment for young people has fallen from 20% to 13%—I accept that that is still too high—the record, particularly for younger people, is phenomenally better even than in countries such as France, where the rate remains at 20%, while in some European countries that have completely lost control of their public finances, the rate is—

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood]

Fifty per cent.

[Mr Harper]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Half of young people in Greece are unemployed, and that is after a significant number of other young people have come to countries such as the United Kingdom and Germany to work. I must say that that is not a sustainable economic model. I suspect there is going to have to be a shake-up in the eurozone at some point—more fiscal transfers, or looking at the currency—because it is not sustainable for half of a country’s young people to remain unemployed for a considerable period.

Thankfully, we have not had to confront such a problem in our country—we have a different set of challenges—but my right hon. Friend is right about productivity. Let us look at the Bank of England analysis. He has already referred to falling productivity in the oil and gas sector and the financial sector. As I have said, there has been the impact of the financial crisis on allocating capital. I think there is now enough capital in the economy, but the issue is about getting it to the right businesses. There has also been a slowing rate of growth in innovation and discovery, as well as some inaccuracies in the data.

There is no single thing that we can do, which is why I am very pleased that the Government have set out a range of options in the productivity plan published by the previous Chancellor, George Osborne, in his Budget immediately after the general election in 2015, and in the measures set out by my right hon. Friend the present Chancellor, who was in the Chamber earlier. In relation to the national productivity investment fund, the Chancellor has set out some very important areas of spending, which I will briefly mention.

The first area is accelerating the housing supply, which is absolutely critical. I share the concerns expressed by Opposition Members. It is absolutely critical that we look at growing the housing supply urgently so that younger people, and not only younger people, can find affordable houses for them either to rent or to aspire to buy. A very significant sum in the national productivity investment fund will go towards that incredibly important area. The second area is investment in transport. I welcome today’s announcement about the very significant investment in the A303 and the significant amount of money to ensure that we properly protect the ancient monument of Stonehenge. That is very important for me and colleagues from south-west England. We are also seeing improvements to rail, and to the missing link on the A417—the bit of the road that is not dualled—in which the Government are committed to investing. Therefore, there is investment in some important areas of transport.

I also welcome the conversations that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is having with colleagues in the north of England about significant investment that we could make on top of HS2 to connect cities in the north properly. My understanding is that if we see an agreed plan from Transport for the North, the Government will be very keen to fund that to drive productivity growth in the north of England, in the same way that significant investments in road infrastructure have driven productivity growth in London and the south of England.

It is important that we invest in other transport infra- structure such as airport connectivity. Particularly in the light of our leaving the European Union, Britain needs to be able to join up with global markets all around the world. I am particularly keen, as a south-west MP, for the Government to move forward on the Heathrow option and install that extra capacity so that businesses in my constituency, the south-west of England and elsewhere can be joined up properly with the rest of the world.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Mark Harper and John Redwood

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Monday 13th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that.

Let me now deal with the two Lords amendments that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is inviting the House to disagree with. The first one relates to EU nationals, and I have listened carefully to the debate we have just had on it. I believe I heard the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) suggest to the Secretary of State during it, from a sedentary position, that he could put people’s minds at rest by accepting the amendment. I fundamentally disagree with that.

If we read what the amendment actually says, as opposed to what people have asserted it says, we find that all it says is that the Government should bring forward proposals within three months to deal with people who are legally resident in Britain. I think this is faulty for three reasons. First, the inclusion of “three months” puts in place an arbitrary time limit, which will be decided by judges if people challenge it. This may happen in the middle of the negotiation process that the Secretary of State is going to carry out to secure the rights of British citizens and it could well disrupt that process.

The second and more important point is about the fact that the amendment refers to those who are “legally resident” in the country today. Two groups are involved here, and I would like to be more generous to one and less generous to the other. The first group comprises those whom we have discovered perhaps did not understand EU legislation, which says, “You are legally resident here if you are a student or you are self-sufficient only if you have comprehensive health insurance.” Many people fail that test; I think it would be sensible for us to take a generous approach when legislating for people to be able to stay here, but the amendment, as drafted, does not suggest we do that. I think the Government could be more generous to EU nationals who are making their lives here than the amendment proposes—I think that would be welcome.

[John Redwood]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we get to the point where all our proceedings, debates and votes have to be put into legislation and are subject to court action, we cannot proceed—we will cease to be sovereign?

[Mr Harper]

That point is very well made and it leads me on to my next point. There is another group of EU nationals, who are unlike those we have already been talking about, whom we all want to protect and are here working and contributing. A significant number—although they are only a small percentage—of EU nationals in Britain have broken the criminal law. There are 4,500 EU nationals in prison. They are legally resident in this country. Lords amendment 1 would mean that when they were released from prison after they had served their sentence, it would be very difficult for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is sitting on the Front Bench, to remove their right to stay in this country and deport them to their home country, which is what I want us to do. I would like us, as a country, to be more generous to those who come here to work, contribute and study, but to be less generous to those who come here to break our laws and violate the welcome we give them and the trust we place in them. I do not want to fetter the hands of Ministers in doing that. The amendment is poorly drafted and does not provide that reassurance, so I ask the House to reject it.

The final thing I shall say about EU nationals relates to the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). I listened carefully to what she said about her Lithuanian constituent—I hope her constituent will forgive me, but I did not catch her name. I hope that when she was talking to her constituent, the hon. and learned Lady was able to reassure her by explaining the clear assurances that the Prime Minister of her country has placed on the record about wanting to make sure that people like that constituent are able to stay.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Mark Harper and John Redwood

3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 3rd sitting: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 8th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[John Redwood]

I find myself in agreement with new clause 2, which makes perfectly sensible statements about what our negotiating aims should be. I have even better news for the Opposition Front-Bench team: it is a statement of the White Paper policy. Of course we wish to maintain a stable, sustainable, profitable and growing economy, which we have done ever since the Brexit vote. Of course we wish to preserve the peace in Northern Ireland, to have excellent trading arrangements with the European Union for goods and services free of tariff, to have lots of co-operative activities with EU member states and institutions in education, research and science and so forth, and to maintain the important rights and legal protections enshrined in European law. As I understand it, the Government have made it crystal clear in the White Paper and in many statements and answers to questions and responses to debates from the Front Bench that all those things are fundamental to the negotiating aims of the Government.

Having excited the Opposition with my agreement, I need to explain why I will not vote for this new clause. I have two main reasons, which I briefly wish to develop. First, I am happy to accept the promise and the statement of our Front-Bench team, and I advise the Opposition to do the same. Secondly, although the words do not explicitly say, “This is what has to be delivered”, the fact that it is embedded in legislation implies that all these things must be delivered, and some of them are not in the gift of this Government or this Parliament. I return to the point that the Opposition never seem to grasp: we are all united in the aim of ensuring tariff-free trade, but it will be decided by the other 27 members, not by this Parliament or by Ministers.

[Mr Harper]

Given that the list in new clause 2 exactly matches some of the things in the White Paper, it is pointless. Is it not interesting that the two areas it does not mention are immigration and strengthening the United Kingdom? Those omissions are very significant.

[John Redwood]

That is a very powerful point. I could add others. It is a great pity that it does not mention the opportunity to have a decent fishing policy. It certainly does not talk about having a sensible immigration policy. The Opposition still do not understand that we have to remove the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice if this Parliament is to be free to have a fishing policy that helps to restore the fishing grounds of Scotland and England, and to have a policy that makes sensible provision for people of skills, talent and interest to come into our country, but that ensures that we can have some limit on the numbers.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Mark Harper and John Redwood

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

[John Redwood]

No, not on this occasion, because 2012 was 2012, and we were trying all sorts of things to get us out of the EU—we found one that worked, and I am grateful for that. However, now is now, and we have to speak to the current conditions and the state of the argument.

[Mr Harper]

On a referendum, it depends what the options are. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) is clear that his two choices are that we accept the deal or we stay in the EU. I was on the remain side of the argument, but the question on the ballot paper was unconditional: leave or remain. I accept that my side lost and we are leaving. He wants to rerun the referendum all over again, but that is not acceptable.

[John Redwood]

I agree with that.

People are trying to make these negotiations far more complicated and longwinded than they need be. Because of the Prime Minister’s admirable clarity in her 12 points, we do not need to negotiate borders, money, taking back control, sorting out our own laws, getting rid of ECJ jurisdiction and so on. Those are matters of Government policy mandated by the British people—they are things we will just do. We will be negotiating just two things. First, will we have a bill to pay when we leave? My answer is simply: no, of course not. There is no legal power in the treaties to charge Britain any bill, and there is no legal power for any Minister to make an ex gratia payment to the EU over and above the legal payments in our contributions up to the date of our exit.

Secondly, the Government need, primarily, to sort out our future trading relationship with the EU. We will make the generous offer of carrying on as we are at the moment and registering it as a free trade agreement. If the EU does not like that, “most favoured nation” terms under WTO rules will be fine. That is how we trade with the rest of the world—very successfully and at a profit.

Members should relax and understand that things can be much easier. There will be no economic damage. The Government have taken an admirable position and made wonderful concessions to the other side, so I hope that those on the other side will accept them gratefully and gracefully, in the knowledge that they have had an impact on this debate.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Mark Harper and John Redwood

Wednesday 7th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I accept the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but that is not provided for. The Committee regulates its procedure. Nothing here talks about the balance of party members on the Committee. The Chairman of Committees in the other place will nominate the members from the House of Lords, and the Speaker of the House of Commons will nominate those from this place. There is no provision in the amendment to do what the right hon. Gentleman suggests.

If a Committee of members of both Houses considers the matter at length, it will produce a report. If we accept for the sake of argument that it manages to agree on the right outcome, it will only produce a report that will inform a further debate in this House. Members of this House will still be required to take a decision. We will still be required to weigh up the arguments that my hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Immigration so ably laid out before the House today and the Home Secretary did in January. We will still be required to consider the arguments that the shadow Minister did not put before the House; he simply recited the views of others. We will not be freed from the responsibility of taking a decision. It is the “kick the can down the road” amendment, which allows the House to avoid taking a decision.

These are difficult issues. I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd), whom I respect hugely on these matters, but there is a balance to be struck between defending the liberties of our citizens and protecting us from terrorism. I do not reach easily for the national security argument. I was pleased when I was elected to the House to vote against the provisions for 90-day pre-trial detention. But this is a proportionate and limited proposal. I supported the previous measure. The Home Secretary has listened to the debate on 30 January in this House and to the debate in the other place. Amendments (a) and (b) do two things. First, they ensure that we are not left with a situation of someone left unable to seek citizenship. She has to have reasonable grounds for believing that they are able to, and that addresses many of the concerns raised previously by the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), who set those out on 30 January.

A review mechanism is now in place, whether by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation or another independent person, which will enable the House to look quite quickly, after an initial one-year process, and then every subsequent three years, at the actual implementation of the legislation in practice, so enabling us, if there are issues, if some of the concerns set out by my hon. Friend for Aldridge-Brownhills or others come to light, to enable the House to amend the legislation. The concern that the Home Secretary set out with the al-Jedda judgment leaves a gap in our legislation, which leaves us vulnerable to those who would do us harm.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Given my hon. Friend’s expert knowledge on this subject, can he give the House some indication of how many people this treatment might be applied to? Are we talking about very few people?

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend the Minister set out how many individuals had been deprived of their citizenship on non-conducive grounds, so not using this power, since 2006, and it was 27. It is not possible to know in advance, but we are talking about very small numbers. We are talking about people who conduct themselves in a way that is seriously prejudicial to our national interests. It is a small number of people, but it is a small number of people who mean to do us serious harm, but whom we are not able to prosecute.

This is a proportionate use of the Home Secretary’s power. It is reviewable by the independent judiciary, so there is a check and balance in place. We have to ask ourselves whether we want to leave ourselves open to this vulnerability, exposed by the Supreme Court. We are, as I said, only putting the law back to what it was before 2002. I do not think that any of the scenarios set out by Members happened before 2002. I urge Members to disagree with the Lords in their amendment and to put amendments (a) and (b) on the statute book when we vote this afternoon.

Border Force

Debate between Mark Harper and John Redwood

Wednesday 4th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

First, the right hon. Lady is not right to say that checks were suspended. That is not what the report says. As she will know, there is a layered approach at Calais. Checks are done by Border Force officers, and searching by the port authorities also takes place, using equipment supplied by us. We also have contractors, who were absolutely excellent and very successful when I visited in the summer. The day I was there, one of our contractors with detector dogs had that morning found 24 people attempting to enter—[Interruption.] Well, with the greatest respect, I know that labradors are intelligent, but I do not think that that labrador was aware that a Minister was arriving to observe the search for clandestine immigrants. I believe that that level of performance is sustained every day. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has not had a great summer for well-researched thought-through speeches, as everyone in the House is well aware. Perhaps it would be welcome if we heard a little less from him. It is not the case that checks were suspended, even if Border Force officers were dealing with queues. Freight searching was still being carried out, both by our contractors and by the port authorities.

The shadow Home Secretary also referred to the decision not to fingerprint clandestines. I remind her that that decision was actually taken by the former Government of whom she was a member. It was taken early in 2010, which, if I remember rightly, was before the last general election. As I said in response to the chief inspector’s report, that is something that we are reviewing to see whether the decision remains sensible.

On the issue of a culture of fear, all I can say is that I have visited a number of our ports—both airports and seaports—and our juxtaposed controls and, in my experience, the officers I met were, as I said in my statement, dedicated staff. I did not find any reticence on the part of officers in either saying what they were good at or stating where they thought there were issues. They raised their concerns directly with Ministers, and my experience was also the experience of the director-general. I say simply, then, that what the right hon. Lady mentioned was not my experience.

I think I have dealt with the shadow Home Secretary’s point about leadership, as we have now appointed a permanent director-general who, in his capacity as Second Sea Lord, has a record of achievement from outside the Department. I believe that he has already started to lead the organisation in a very powerful way.

Finally, the right hon. Lady made a last throwaway remark about our pilot of publicity on vans. I would point out here that most of the public support the tough stance we have taken on illegal immigration and that the majority of voters of all parties—72% of the public—support the vans. They want to see our tough approach continue and they do not want the weak approach of the Labour party.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I would like to thank the Minister for a very visible improvement in the performance of the Border Agency over the last year or so, and urge him to work with his staff to ensure that ever-higher standards are achieved by promptly and courteously allowing the legal people in and by ensuring that we find all the illegals at the first point of entry.

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I know from a conversation we had that he has seen the work that our border officers do in our juxtaposed controls, where attempted illegal entries are prevented from even getting to the United Kingdom. He makes a good point, too, about the rest of the UK Border Agency after the agency’s split into the two component parts of UK visas and immigration and immigration enforcement. It is doing exactly what my right hon. Friend said, which is to welcome those who come to Britain to contribute—skilled workers and students, for example—while deterring those who do not and ensuring that those who overstay their welcome are removed from the country.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill (Money) (No. 2)

Debate between Mark Harper and John Redwood

Tuesday 15th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)]

I beg to move,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of charges payable to the Chief Counting Officer in connection with the referendum on the voting system for parliamentary elections.

The resolution relates to Lords amendments 31 to 34 to paragraph 20 of schedule 1, which were inserted in the Bill in Lords Committee. The resolution gives the chief counting officer, who is the chair of the Electoral Commission, a power to incur expenses for the effective conduct of the referendum in certain, limited circumstances and to make payments in respect of those expenses out of the moneys to be provided from the Consolidated Fund. The original money resolution, which was agreed to on Second Reading in this House, covered only the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of charges payable to regional counting officers and counting officers in connection with the conduct of the referendum.

This additional resolution is needed because it has become apparent to the Government and the Electoral Commission that further savings in the cost of the referendum can be made by allowing the chief counting officer to pay costs directly from the Consolidated Fund. For example, Royal Mail has indicated that it may be able to provide a cheaper service for any sweeps of mail centres—a service to ensure that any postal votes still in mail centres towards the end of polling day are identified, extracted and provided to returning and counting officers before the close of poll that evening—if it can contract for this on a national basis with one individual, rather than having to negotiate and contract with the more than 350 officers conducting the poll locally. The resolution is therefore pragmatic.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Those of us who are worried about the amount of money to be spent on the proposal might be persuaded a little more if the Minister could give us an idea of by how much the cost will come down as a result of this resolution, and say what other measures he can take to try to secure better value.

[Mr Harper]

I can reassure the House that, because of the way the Bill and the amendments are drafted, the chief counting officer can directly recover expenditure only where it has been incurred in a way that provides a clear financial benefit to the public purse. The test is that the chief counting officer may recover expenditure that she has incurred for the purpose of running the referendum only where that expenditure would have been incurred by local or regional counting officers in any event, but where it was more economical for it to be incurred by the chief counting officer. The resolution is therefore aimed at saving money.

[Mr Redwood]

How much?

[Mr Harper]

The whole point is that it is not possible to predict every eventuality. The resolution says that if by spending money herself centrally, the chief counting officer can get services at a lower cost than all the individual regional counting officers, she will be able to do so, thereby delivering a saving, although it is not possible to quantify this in advance. I have given a specific example of where we know there is an ability to deliver a saving, but I cannot give my right hon. Friend the certainty on the numbers that he seeks. However, having given him the detail that I am able to, I commend this resolution to the House.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Mark Harper and John Redwood

Wednesday 24th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I am not quite sure what my hon. Friend is driving at.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Another way that Parliament could do what it wished would be to repeal this legislation by a simple majority.

[Mr Harper]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, in the sense that this is an Act of Parliament and can be repealed, but the difference is that it will then engage the other place, in which the Government do not have a majority—and in which we will still not have one when the new peers have been introduced. We think that putting the provision in legislation is preferable to putting it in Standing Orders because the Government then have to get the Bill through both Houses of Parliament, in one of which they do not have a majority—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) says that the Government will have a majority, but no. Even when the new list of working peers has been created, the two governing parties together will not have a majority. There are Cross Benchers in the Upper House, which he keeps forgetting.

For those reasons, I think that amendment 4 is flawed. If it is pressed to a vote, I urge my hon. Friends to oppose it. The Government’s position is very clear. We want fixed-term Parliaments but we want there to be two circumstances in which there can be an early general election: when there is a traditional motion of no confidence, in which a simple majority is enough to say that a Government have lost the confidence of the House; and when the House uses its new power to force an early election, which is decided by two thirds of the Members of the House. The same provision is in the Scotland Act 1998 for the Scottish Parliament. I should say that it is the same provision, because in Scotland it is two thirds of all Members, not just those voting. The hon. Member for Rhondda did not get that quite right.

Whichever of the amendments is pressed to a vote, I urge hon. Members to reject it. We can then move on.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Mark Harper and John Redwood

Monday 18th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Redwood]

I am grateful for that intervention, from which I learned that the no campaign would like one of these booklets. However, I rather prefer the lock on the door that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex is proposing, as I remain to be persuaded that such a booklet can be phrased in a way that everybody would find fair. The fairest thing to do is to put this lock on the door; then we will know that we have had a fair referendum because everybody will have consented to it.

If the Minister will accept amendment 247, that will be wonderful and my hon. Friends will rest content. If, as I suspect, he will not, will he at least say that he will warn the Electoral Commission not to try to write a definitive document, as it would just be torn to pieces?

[Mr Harper]

There are three amendments in the group, which seek to clarify the role of the Electoral Commission in providing information about the voting systems on which the public will be asked to vote. I ask hon. Members to support Government amendment 264, which clarifies the Electoral Commission’s role, making it clear that it can make appropriate information available in line with its stated intention to provide strictly factual or neutral information to voters on how the different systems work in practice.

Hon. Members will know that when the Electoral Commission was doing its research on the question, which we debated last week, one important conclusion highlighted the limited knowledge of voters about different voting systems. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) raised the same point in his remarks. The report acknowledged that the referendum campaigns and media coverage will increase public understanding. The current public awareness role of the Electoral Commission, seen in paragraph 7 of schedule 1, is to provide information about the mechanics of the referendum—how it takes place and how to vote in it. My hon. Friend had a bit of fun with the language earlier, but I am sure we can agree that what is important is the practicalities rather than whether to vote yes or no. We are not going to table an amendment to mandate the answer, I am afraid to say. The Government are, of course, neutral on the result.

The current paragraph 7 of schedule 1 does not necessarily envisage giving factual information about the two voting systems and it is unclear whether the general awareness role in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 really enabled what was intended, which was to allow the commission to publish information about a voting system that is the subject of a future referendum. We wanted to make the position clear—hence Government amendment 264, so that the Electoral Commission can indeed make that information available.