European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Mary Creagh and John Redwood

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

[Mary Creagh]

On that point, does the right hon. Gentleman think that the draft Animal Welfare (Sentencing and Recognition of Sentience) Bill, which was published today, is a technical measure or something that merits scrutiny on the Floor of the House—and, ditto, the new environmental body that has been proposed by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs?

[John Redwood]

As I understand it, that decision has been made for me. I have not yet had the advantage of reading the draft Bill, so I cannot give the hon. Lady my personal view, but the Government’s view is that it is primary legislation. They think that even though that Bill is reaffirming practices in European law, because the Government think that it is going a bit further than European law, they have quite properly said, “We must make this primary legislation.” The example makes my case rather well that the Government are being cautious because they are trying to reaffirm and go a bit further than European law, probably in a direction that most people in the House would be entirely comfortable with. But the House will have the benefit of going through the full processes of primary legislation. I hope that there will be other examples like that, where Ministers recognise that there could be changes of substance that will warrant either primary legislation or a statutory instrument.

I do not want to take up too much time because many people wish to speak, but I would like to pick up on something that the Labour Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), started to mention and which I found very interesting. He drew our attention to the way in which we handle statutory instruments in the House in general. There are occasions when it is a weakness of our procedures that we cannot amend a statutory instrument, and we need to think about this for the future. This issue does not arise just from the transfer of European law; it goes to the fundamental business of how we generally exercise control and ensure that legislation works.

I remember being on a statutory instrument Committee under the previous Labour Government for an SI to regularise a series of payments to councils because the Government had been a bit late in giving themselves the legislative permission to make the payments—there was a surprise. I realised as soon as I read it that somebody had put in the statutory instrument the full amounts of money involved, and someone else had come along and put, “£millions” across the top of the table, so we were actually invited to vote six extra noughts on every figure going to the councils.

I am a generous man, but I thought that that was a bit excessive because it meant that the sums were probably bigger than the GNP of the country. If not, they were certainly approaching the GNP of the country in a rather alarming way. I was regarded as a bit of a nuisance for pointing this out because there was absolutely no way of correcting the figures. The Committee just had to sit and enact the statutory instrument as it was, even though it was clearly laughable, giving far too much cover for payments and not acting as a proper control. That is a minor example, but it shows that there are occasions when Ministers make mistakes and when it would be quite helpful if there were some kind of correcting procedure.

High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill

Debate between Mary Creagh and John Redwood

Monday 28th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

We will not be paying any tolls to go through Lichfield. Journey times to London will be significantly cut. One of the benefits that has perhaps been undersold is the connectivity that HS2 will bring even to those cities not directly connected. Given the anxieties in Stoke-on-Trent and the key decision to be made on Crewe, when will the Secretary of State bring forward his response to phase 2? It would be helpful to know his thinking.

[Mr Redwood]

What has changed between last autumn and today to move the Labour party from thinking that HS2 offers very poor value for money to thinking that it is a great financial project?

[Mary Creagh]

David Higgins and Simon Kirby, the former Network Rail chief engineer, have been appointed to the project, and the Higgins review has shown where costs can be brought down. The key risk to the project costs is political delay. We have also looked at the strategic alternatives, as we did in government, and we believe that HS2 is the best way to move to the low-carbon transport infrastructure that our country needs if we are to meet our climate change emissions targets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

We have been very clear that there is not a blank cheque for this project. The Select Committee will obviously look at the parts of the Bill, as it goes through it and hears the petitioning process, but a very clear budget is set out for the project from now until 2020. There will be annual reports on the budget under our amendments to the paving Bill. We look forward to receiving the first report from the Government.

The Transport Secretary has admitted that the legislation will not be passed before the 2015 election, as was apparent to all Members, so his Government have missed their target on that. It is right that there is proper scrutiny and ample opportunity for the Select Committee to examine every complaint and comment thoroughly, but there must be no more Government delays.

I want the Secretary of State or the Minister who replies to the debate to tell us when we can expect the Secretary of State’s response on the phase 2 route to ensure that the north, the north-east, the north-west and Scotland reap the full benefits from HS2 quickly. What impact does the Secretary of State anticipate the construction of the line will have on the Great Western franchising process, which is due in 2016?

On workers memorial day, we remember all workers who have been killed at work, particularly in constructing our transport infrastructure across the decades. In particular, we remember the worker who was recently killed on the Crossrail project, and send our condolences to his family and friends. Our ambition, which I am sure is shared in all parts of the House, is that this railway is free from fatalities and serious injuries.

[Mr Redwood]

Is the hon. Lady at all worried that the business case says that load factors on the west coast main line will be only 31% in 2037, and that there will have to be cuts of £8.3 billion to non-HS2 services to try to keep costs under control?

[Mary Creagh]

The right hon. Gentleman refers to a part of the report that does not immediately spring to mind—I have not perhaps digested it and kept it in mind as thoroughly as he has done—but there is broad consensus across the parties that the project is the right thing to do for the nation, and I hope that we can proceed on that basis.

Finance Bill

Debate between Mary Creagh and John Redwood

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

I want to look at three areas of this Finance Bill. The first is the economic impact of the fiscal conservatism contained therein, and particularly how, in tandem with the fiscal consolidation taking place across Europe, it threatens a double-dip recession not just here but Europe-wide. Secondly, I want to look at the social and labour market consequences of the double whammy of the VAT bombshell and the deep spending cuts. Thirdly, I shall focus on the political implications of the Liberal Democrats making the wrong choices by voting in favour of this Bill this evening.

On the economic impact of the Bill, we see the pursuit of the Goldilocks economy—one in which neither too much nor too little is spent, but the spending is somehow just right. We all know that fairy tales are fine for little children, but it is a dangerous metaphor because it over-simplifies a complex economy still in a fragile state of recovery. How do we know that it is dangerous? Well, because the Office for Budget Responsibility tells us that growth will be lower and unemployment higher in future years, with 1.3 million jobs set to be lost over the next four years as a result of the measures in this Finance Bill.

I tabled a parliamentary question a week or so ago about the contact between the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Treasury on 29 and 30 June and 1 July—and in the aftermath of those sticky Prime Minister’s questions debates. So far, I have had no reply from the Economic Secretary. I would have thought that it was a fairly simple thing to look into officials’ diaries, ministerial diaries and phone records and to give the House a reply on the important question of whether pressure was put on the Office for Budget Responsibility.

The pre-eminent question raised by this Finance Bill, but left unanswered by those on the Treasury Bench, is: how does taking money out of the economy increase confidence, boost growth and secure the recovery? The answer is, quite simply, that it does not.

There seems to be an insistence that Government spending is somehow crowding out private sector investment. That is ludicrous. The United Kingdom’s output gap—the gap between what it produces and what it has the potential to produce—is somewhere between 4% and 6%, depending on whose estimate we accept. The Chancellor expects the private sector to take over demand from a shrinking public sector, but is silent on where that private demand will come from. It is clear from what has been said in the debate that there are no real answers to that question.

The Government say that 2. 5 million jobs will be created—

[Mr Redwood]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Mary Creagh]

I will not, because we have only one hour left, and eight Members wish to speak. The Front-Bench spokesmen took their time, and I intend to take my time.

The labour economist David Blanchflower, a former member of the Monetary Policy Committee, has said that the Government’s prediction on jobs is wildly over-optimistic, given that the Labour Government created only 1.6 million jobs between 2000 and 2008, when the economy was, by consensus, booming.

The VAT increase for which the House voted will raise £12.1 billion in 2011-12, but will reduce the amount of goods and services that people can buy. It will depress demand and delay the recovery. It will increase prices permanently by 1%, thereby permanently reducing the value of future earnings and—one of the hot topics in the Bill—future pensions. It will also disadvantage the poorest, who spend the biggest proportion of their income.

Let me say something about the social impact of the Bill. It was difficult to hear the details of that as the Minister raced through his speech. We have heard from the Prime Minister that children need warmth, not wealth, and they will certainly miss out on the wealth part as a result of this Bill. Poor families in Wakefield will lose up to £1,200 as a result of changes in working families tax credit. From April 2011 the Sure Start maternity grant will be available only for the first child in a family. That means a £500 cut for low-income pregnant mothers who already have a child.