Afghanistan

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Wednesday 18th August 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)]

I rise to speak in this Chamber for the first time since my wife’s suicide in June last year. I would like to personally thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and many other right hon. and hon. Members from right around the House for the tremendous messages of support and condolence that you have sent me.

It is with no great pleasure that I stand to speak at the time of the UK’s biggest humiliation since Suez and of the US’s biggest humiliation since Saigon. The mood of the House is so different. I remember when the Taliban were evicted. The Labour Government went in with all-party support—apart from some very prescient comments by people such as the late Sir Peter Tapsell, the then Member for Louth and Horncastle—because we believed in nation building and in keeping terrorists at arm’s length and a very long way away from our streets after 9/11. There was then a period of very intense military activity, but we ended up with a muddled, messy Afghanisation in recent years.

The Afghan army has fought incredibly bravely—70,000 of them died—supported by us and the Americans technically from the air. President Biden drew a completely false choice. The choice was not between total immersion of American forces and the loss of American lives, which was going to do damage in the mid-terms, and pulling out. He could have carried on with 4,500 American troops and sophisticated air support. That would have sent a message to every Afghan army unit that if they were in trouble, they could call for American support. When it was announced that they were going, that sent a real message to the Taliban: “You’re safe, boys. Take every village and take every town, because the American air force is not coming after you.”

It is frankly shameful that the President of the United States—the leader of the free world—cannot face questions from his own hostile press corps but attacks the Afghan army for cowardice. We are now in a mess. China, Russia and Iran are hostile. What are we going to say to citizens in Taiwan, India, Pakistan and western Ukraine? They will all be worried.

The UK has a real role to play. Our recent review was worthless. We now have to cope with a weak American President, and, as the Prime Minister said this morning, the UK, leading the G7, has to step up. We have to review the review. We have to consider how we handle this.

In the short time I have left, I pay tribute to our armed forces. I am very proud to represent the 1 Royal Irish Regiment, based in Tern Hill in my constituency. I also saw them when I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) mentioned those funerals—I was there for three of them. Those veterans are very proud of what they did, and we should remember what they did: they brought women’s rights, and a concrete building in southern Afghanistan was turned from an ammunition dump into a girls’ school. We should remember them and we should remember the pressures they are under now.

These images will be shocking for those veterans. Combat Stress has had a doubling of applications for help in the last few days—it already looks after 15,000 to 16,000. We can all help: the Government can help through the NHS, the MOD contributes 25% of its funds, and every one of us—every constituent—can help Combat Stress now.

This is in our hands. I entirely endorse the comments about interpreters and getting other people out, but these are our citizens. Every time they look at the screen, the horrors of their experience in Afghanistan will come back. We owe it to those veterans now to go out and look after them.

European Union (Future Relationship) Bill

Owen Paterson Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 30th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con) [V]]

Thank you very much indeed for calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I give my particular thanks to the technical staff who just reconnected me, having lost the connection?

Mr Deputy Speaker, this is the first time that I have spoken on any subject in the House since my wife’s suicide at the end of June. I would like to thank you and particularly Mr Speaker, and so many other colleagues who have sent extremely kind messages of support. I would like to assure everybody listening that I will work really hard through the next few years to make sure that I can try to stop just one family going through the anguish that mine is currently suffering.

It is a great honour to be called in this incredibly important debate. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have been involved in this debate for a long time. This is a great day. We have established sovereignty, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) confirmed. One should pay tribute to him for the extraordinary manner in which he has fought this battle over the years; his indefatigable concentration and legal knowledge has been phenomenal. It is great to have sovereignty and it is great to have zero tariffs and zero quotas, which is very good for my constituency and very good for the economy of GB.

I would like to express a word of caution. I am very pleased with this deal for GB, but I am concerned that we have partnership councils, specialised committees, trade specialised committees, working groups and so on. We are going to need a really determined Government to make sure that we use that sovereignty properly and really exploit it, nowhere more than on the issue of fish. I went around the north Atlantic in 2004-05 and wrote a paper on how we should run a sane fisheries policy. It will take real political determination to get fish back in five and a half years’ time when we think that in the channel, for instance, the EU will be going down on cod only from 91% to 90.75%, when it should be on 25% according to zonal attachment. We will need real determination.

There is another area that concerns me. I am chairman of the think-tank the Centre for Brexit Policy—see the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—and we put out a scorecard. According to the legal gurus led by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, GB comes out of this well. The worry for me, as someone who was shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for three years and the real Secretary of State for two years, is that Northern Ireland fails. We should remember the words of the noble Lord Trimble, whom I spoke to a couple of days ago. He reminds us that article 1(iii) of the Belfast agreement says that

“it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people”.

I will fight very hard on that.

I would love to vote for the Bill today, but I really cannot vote for a measure that divides the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland will have a different tax regime and, as part of the customs union, it will be under the ECJ, the single market and so on. I am very torn. I wish this deal well, and I hope that we can go to mutual enforcement, which is Lord Trimble’s recommendation, but I will be abstaining.

Northern Ireland Protocol: UK Approach

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

Yes, we absolutely will. Our whole approach is about making sure that the protocol, which of course was unwelcome in many quarters in Northern Ireland, is implemented now that it is law, but in a way that goes with the grain of Northern Ireland opinion and reflects the interests of Northern Ireland’s peoples, whom the right hon. Gentleman so eloquently defends.

[Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con) [V]]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement confirming Northern Ireland’s continued position as an integral part of the United Kingdom and customs territory and that he will deliver on the apparently contradictory demands of the protocol, which requires that the single market be respected and its integrity not damaged. The Alternative Arrangements Commission came up with very sensible suggestions that would conform with these requirements and square the circle through the use of enhanced authorised economic operators. Will he work with leading companies that ship goods across the Irish sea in both directions to set up trials in the next few weeks so that by the autumn, whether we have a free trade agreement or not, we are in a position to present the EU with a practical solution to ensure continued unfettered trade across the Irish sea in both directions?

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend, who was a brilliant Northern Ireland Secretary as well as a brilliant Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, is absolutely right. Building up the capacity of authorised economic operators and other trusted traders can make the protocol and the economy of Northern Ireland work better.

Ministerial Code

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

It is my experience, and the experience of my ministerial colleagues, that the civil service is clear that it can offer robust, impartial advice and provide counters from time to time to propositions that are put forward by Ministers, confident in the knowledge that we as Ministers respect the civil service for its independence and integrity. It is vitally important that anyone within public service who feels that the atmosphere in which they work is not conducive to that has the opportunity, which this Government provide, to make sure that their concerns are properly expressed and, if necessary, properly investigated.

[Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)]

The Leader of the Opposition mentioned some press reports, but he never touched on the fact that the policies pursued by the Home Secretary were voted for overwhelmingly in December and are extremely popular. People voted for 20,000 extra police and a managed immigration system. Her real offence is that she has upset the Opposition and the establishment. Can my right hon. Friend guarantee, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) touched on, that this inquiry will have the necessary resources to be finished quickly so that our greatly respected Home Secretary can crack on and deliver the job we were voted in to do?

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend, who was an outstanding Cabinet Minister, makes an important point. The comments from some—some—on the Opposition Benches suggest they are very happy when attention is shifted away from our focus on delivering our manifesto commitments, but we will not be diverted from delivering on those manifesto commitments, and the Home Secretary is committed to ensuring we do just that.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Owen Paterson Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons & Money resolution & Programme motion & Ways and Means resolution
Friday 20th December 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am afraid that the hon. and learned Lady has totally misunderstood, or possibly misrepresented, the purpose of what we are doing here. We remain proud of our work in receiving unaccompanied children. We will continue to support fully the purpose and spirit of the Dubs amendment, but this is not the place—in this Bill—to do so. The Government remain absolutely committed to doing so.

Among the many other advantages of this deal is, of course, the fact that we will be able to sign free trade deals with the booming markets of the world, a power that no British government have enjoyed for the past 46 years. We will cast off the common agricultural policy, which has too often frustrated and overburdened our farmers. We will release our fishermen from the tangled driftnets of arcane quota systems.

[Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)]

I offer my heartiest congratulations to my right hon. Friend. No communities will be more keen to get control back than fishing communities. Will he guarantee that we will not make the mistake of the 1970s and allow the allocation of fishing resources to be a bargaining chip in the treaty negotiations? Will he guarantee that we will become a normal independent maritime nation and conduct negotiations on an annual basis for reciprocal deals to mutual advantage?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend perfectly understands what we need to do to restore to this country the advantages of its spectacular marine wealth, and that is exactly what we will do, once we become an independent coastal state. I remind the House and Opposition Members that one party in this House of Commons is committed to not just reversing the will of the people, but handing back control of Scotland’s outstanding marine wealth to Brussels, and that is the Scottish National party—that is what they would do. I look forward to hearing them explain why they continue to support this abject policy and abject surrender.

Under this Bill, this House also regains the authority to set the highest possible standards, and we will take advantage of these new freedoms to legislate in parallel on the environment, and on workers’ and consumers’ rights. I reject the inexplicable fear—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)]

I congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on resuming the Chair, and wish you the very best of luck in your office.

I heartily congratulate the new hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) on a very fine and fluent maiden speech. It is never easy to make a maiden speech and it is certainly not easy to make it just one or two days after taking the Oath, especially in a high-profile debate such as this. She spoke clearly and put her point of view. I appreciate the manner in which she touched on her predecessor, Emma Little Pengelly, with whom I had a very good relationship and probably more in common politically. The hon. Lady could also have touched on her predecessor but one from her own party, Alasdair McDonnell, who I worked with closely for three years when I was the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and for two years when I was the real Secretary of State.

Above all, I heartily congratulate the hon. Lady on turning up. It is most important that her point of view for the future of Ireland is represented in this House. She quite rightly mentioned John Hume. Through the most terrible years, the Social Democratic and Labour party Members bravely made their case about where they would like Ireland to go. They were looking to a united Ireland down the road, but they always turned up here and participated in local, national and European elections; they always participated fully in the democratic process. I am therefore pleased to see the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) back here. They will not be at all surprised that I do not agree with them, but I hope that we will be working together. I congratulate her on her fine speech at a very key moment.

Let me pick up on some of the points the hon. Lady made, because I did not entirely agree with her. I see a great future for Northern Ireland post Brexit. She and I would entirely agree that there is never, ever going to be a hard border; that is never, ever going to happen, and there is no need for it to happen. I spent some time working on this issue last year. I would like the hon. Lady to look at the concept of mutual enforcement, whereby we would recognise the standards required by the market into which we were selling, and would make it a legal obligation to ensure that our suppliers matched those standards. In the same way, those selling into Northern Ireland would have to match our standards. That would not breach the point of sovereignty, which is key to this debate; it will be entirely in our national hands, but we would respect those standards. If she and the hon. Member for Foyle would like to look at that, we might find a mutually beneficial way forward, because like her, one of my main worries about the Bill is the concept of any sort of barrier down the Irish sea, which is a clear breach of the Acts of Union—to be exact, article VI of the Acts of Union 1800, which said that there would be no taxes, barriers or impediments to trade between what was then Ireland and Great Britain. I congratulate the hon. Lady and look forward to working with her.

I touched on the central issue of this debate, which is democracy. We went through this endlessly in the last Parliament. Every week I came down here and thought, “It can’t get worse,” and it did. It is very simple. In the 2015 election campaign, David Cameron promised that if there was a Conservative majority, he would deliver an in/out, decisive referendum. The people would be given the power; they would decide, and whatever they decided—remain or leave— Parliament would honour. That was then endorsed throughout the referendum debates. It was made very clear by the then Foreign Secretary, who has now left the House, that the referendum was decisive—we, the MPs, are currently sovereign, but we will give you, the people, the power to decide this issue. It was binary. There was no talk about trade deals or crashing out. It was remain or leave.

That was then endorsed in the general election in 2017, when the two main parties got over 80% of the vote. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) is not here today, but the Conservative party got the second largest number of seats in British history until this recent election. There was a further endorsement. The people were given another bite to try to get the message across at the European elections this summer, in which, amazingly, the Conservative party managed to come fifth behind the Greens, because our then withdrawal agreement was so unpalatable. The people have now had a fourth bite, and I am very proud of those people.

I was proud to represent those people eight days ago, when the windscreen wipers were on double wipe, and there were queues in the rain in Oswestry and Market Drayton. All my small villages said that it was unprecedented. At about lunchtime—in fairness, my wife got there first—we twigged that it was a rerun of the referendum. Those people had been abused. They had been traduced. They had been bombarded with propaganda leading up to the referendum and after it. Since then, they have been told that they were thick. They were told that they were racist. We in the ERG were told that we were fascists, Nazis and extremists. All we wanted was to honour the referendum, the core of which is that laws and taxes imposed upon British citizens would be levied by democratically appointed politicians—elected politicians of this House. If they passed good laws, they would be re-elected. If they passed fair taxes and spent the money well, they would be re-elected. If they did not, they would be chucked out by the electors—a very simple principle, which we have taught the world about for centuries. That is what this is about. It is staggering to hear Members this morning still quibbling and cavilling about this. Four times the people have spoken. How many more times do they have to speak to get it? They voted to leave. This Bill means that they will leave, and I am delighted for it.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Paterson]

No; I am looking at the clock.

I touched on my fears in relation to Northern Ireland, and I want briefly to mention fishing, on which the Prime Minister gave me a splendid answer. In 2005, the Conservative party fought an election on my Green Paper, which established that the common fisheries policy is a biological, environmental, economic and social disaster. We need to replace it and take back complete control of the exclusive economic zone and all our resources, and then on an annual basis, in an amicable manner like other maritime nations, negotiate reciprocal deals on quota. That is the way ahead, but this is a day for democracy.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Paterson]

No; others want to speak. We are delivering what the people wanted four times, and I am delighted to support the Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Julian Smith]

The PSNI has received additional funding in the run-up to Brexit. I remain in constant touch with the Chief Constable, and I will ensure that the funding and resourcing they need to do their job, which they do day in, day out to protect the citizens of Northern Ireland, is there.

[Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)]

There is widespread disquiet among Unionists about the proposed deal, because of the concept of a border down the Irish sea. Does my right hon. Friend agree that when the UK comes out of the interim period and has a free trade agreement, Northern Ireland can have absolute equal status with the whole of the rest of the UK if mutual enforcement is introduced both north and south of the border? That would get rid of the need for a border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and a border down the Irish sea.

[Julian Smith]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. The Government, through this deal, are ensuring that the United Kingdom comes out of the EU as a whole. On east-west trade, we are doing everything we can to ensure that there will be unfettered access to the GB market and no barriers to that trade.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Owen Paterson Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 22nd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend alludes to an important change that we have been able to secure in the course of the negotiations, and he is right that full independence will be retained in the vital sphere of defence and security. I am grateful to him for drawing attention to it.

The House will be free not only from the common agricultural policy but from the common fisheries policy, and free to legislate for the highest standards. That is a crucial point for the House to grasp.

[Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)]

Will the Prime Minister give the House a categorical assurance that we will not make the mistake of the 1970s and use our marine resources and fish stocks as a bargaining chip to be traded during the upcoming negotiations? Will he guarantee that we will take total, 100% control of all our waters and resources within the exclusive economic zone and, like any other independent marine nation, will then annually engage in common- sense negotiations of a reciprocal nature with our marine neighbours?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood]

I do not like the provisions on Northern Ireland for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have set out. I want the whole country to leave, and Northern Ireland to be a full part of the United Kingdom under the same arrangements. If there are any different arrangements, I certainly want a consent mechanism that is acceptable to the representatives from the Democratic Unionist party and the people they represent.

I am also extremely worried about the money in this set of proposals. We never talk about the money, and so many MPs seem to think that giving billions away to the European Union is just fine. Taking back control of our money was central to the campaign. Indeed, it was very contentious, because people argued about exactly how much it was. I do not think it has been properly quantified. The liabilities are potentially large and long lasting, and there is no attempt in the agreement or the Bill to control them.

[Mr Paterson]

Could my right hon. Friend give us his best estimate of what he thinks the bill will be?

[John Redwood]

Well, we are told £39 billion, but I think that is a very low estimate; I think it will be considerably more than that and will stretch many years into the future under some of the headings that we are providing for. My worry is that the EU will be the main driver in deciding what the bill is because there is not a satisfactory dispute resolution procedure. The EU could levy the bill, saying that it is European law and that it knows best what we should be paying. We have to be extremely careful.

If the Bill does make any progress tonight—that is not looking very likely from some of the things people are saying—I hope that there will be considerable concentration in Committee on whether there are mechanisms for having better discipline over the money, because we voted to take back control of the money. I want some of that money for hospitals, schools and other public facilities in my constituency, and I hope that many other Members of Parliament take the same view. It would be very galling indeed if we found that we were technically out of the European Union but were still paying it a great deal of money.

I approach this agreement in a spirit of disappointment, but I think the Prime Minister was deeply damaged and undermined by the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019, which greatly reduced the bargaining leverage of the United Kingdom Government, and I think people recognise that. It is strange that that legislation, which might as well be renamed the “breaking the Prime Minister’s promises” Act, is permissible because surely we either have confidence in our Government and in the Prime Minister to be able to keep his word, or we do not have confidence in our Government collectively, in which case we can get a different Government. This Prime Minister has said that he will take us out on 31 October. There is a lot of support for that in the country, and I hope that we can find a way to make it take place. The Prime Minister has said that we would preferably leave with a deal, but that if we cannot get a decent deal we will leave without a so-called deal.

I think the language is totally misleading. There is no such thing as a no-deal Brexit. There is either leaving and signing a withdrawal agreement or leaving and not signing a withdrawal agreement. Were we to leave not signing a withdrawal agreement, there is an aviation agreement and a Government purchasing agreement, there are haulage and customs arrangements, and there is a general agreement on facilitation of trade through the WTO, so we would have a managed WTO exit, which I think would work extremely well.

I want to spend that money in Britain to promote growth and a stronger economy. I want the free trade agreements that I think we might be able to generate with the rest of the world. If we just left, the EU would want to negotiate a free trade agreement with us, but all the time it thinks it has a chance of our not leaving it is not going to offer anything or be positive about that, because it thinks it might, from its point of view, do something better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith); we share a Christian name—I think we are the only two Members of Parliament with the name—and I share his concerns about Northern Ireland, which I will come to in a minute, but I do not think we have that much else in common.

People are looking at this debate absolutely exasperated; people were told that this Parliament would give them the power of decision to decide whether we stayed in the European Union or whether we left, and we have this collision, which I have mentioned on numerous occasions before, between direct democracy and representative democracy. The representatives here have royally let down the people of this country, because for the first time the people have gone against the wishes of their elected Members, and the elected Members here have used every possible technique to thwart them, and they know it.

We promised to take back control. All Conservative Members were elected on a manifesto to leave the single market, leave the customs union and leave the remit of the European Court of Justice. Does this Bill do the business? It is a start. It is a very good start; that would be my judgment. There are numerous things in it which I do not like, but it does set the process in train for us to honour what we promised the people.

[Sir William Cash]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most cardinal sins we can commit in this House of Commons is to vote for a Bill knowing full well what it says and then to reverse those votes in effect at a later date?

[Mr Paterson]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. It was also wicked to promise the people that we would respect their judgment and not deliver it.

So this Bill does begin to bring laws back. It does not yet begin to bring money back, but there is, I am pleased to say, with this version light at the end of the tunnel, which is a free trade agreement, which is where we should have gone from the very beginning. That is what President Tusk offered us back on 7 March 2018, but we have inherited all this baggage from the previous negotiations and, in my opinion, an awful lot of that remains, which I regret.

There are two big areas that I am still very unhappy about. First, I am concerned that the transition period could be used to take advantage and to ruin what is left of our fishing industry. That is a wonderful natural resource. I find it completely extraordinary that Members such as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) talk in glowing terms about the environmental benefits of the EU; we throw back 1 million tonnes of healthy fish dead, because of the stupidity of the way the common fisheries policy is managed. I was delighted to learn from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s reply to me earlier that we will bring back complete control of our exclusive economic zone and all our resources so that we can manage them in a modern way, as I wrote in a Green Paper way back in 2005. However, I am worried about what will happen during the transition.

Secondly, I am concerned about Northern Ireland. I wrote an article just 10 days ago saying that I was worried about antagonising the Unionists. There is great interest in republican activity, but I am concerned about the Unionist community, which the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) has mentioned on numerous occasions. We had an incident on the Newtownards Road last night. I hope that the Lord Chancellor will give us some assurance in his reply to the debate that all the arrangements in the current protocol will be dissolved when we conclude a free trade agreement with the European Union and that this sovereign UK Parliament and Government will pass a law to move Northern Ireland into the free trade agreement on a level pegging basis with the rest of the United Kingdom. That might alleviate some of the concerns in Northern Ireland.

If those two issues can be resolved, I will vote for this Bill, albeit without any great enthusiasm, because it sets us on the road. Having mentioned Ireland, it is worth looking at the example of the Republic of Ireland as it emerged from the Irish Free State. Michael Collins said something in the Dáil Éireann on 19 December 1921 that pretty much reflects my views this evening:

“Now as one of the signatories of the document I naturally recommend its acceptance. I do not recommend it for more than it is. Equally I do not recommend it for less than it is. In my opinion it gives us freedom, not the ultimate freedom that all nations desire and develop to, but the freedom to achieve it”.

This Bill begins the process of establishing our full freedom, and I hope that I do not suffer the same fate as Michael Collins in wanting to see that delivered.

Preparations for Leaving the European Union

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I will share with the House the revised planning assumptions in Yellowhammer very shortly. It is the case that the level of business readiness has increased, and we expect that a significantly increased number of vehicles will be ready. That obviously has an effect on flow at the border, but we are being deliberately cautious. We are copper-fastening those assumptions and I hope to share them with the House very, very shortly.

[Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)]

Following on from the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), I entirely agree that there is no such thing as no deal; there is not leaving with a formal withdrawal agreement and with a whole lot of side deals. Will my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster make a point of publicising those deals to educate the Opposition? Will he inform the House of what further meetings he has planned with the French authorities? They have been bullish that traffic at Calais/Boulogne will flow and that they have made the necessary preparations. Contrary to what the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said in his question, the lorries do not need paperwork; it is all done electronically.

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend makes a number of good points. The first is that in the no-deal preparation document, which was shared with the House on 8 October and runs to some 150 pages, we ran through many of the arrangements that have been put in place—some agreed and some the unilateral decision of the EU—to make sure that if we leave without an agreement, we can mitigate the risks in all our interests. It was interesting that on that occasion the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) did not ask any questions about that document; he asked about other process questions. I am always available to answer questions about those provisions.

My right hon. Friend is right that significant investment has been made by the French Government to ensure that, exactly as he says, electronic information can be exchanged before trucks arrive in Calais, to allow them to move smoothly through the green lane and, if they are carrying fish or shellfish, to move smoothly to the border inspection post at Boulogne-sur-Mer.

Principles of Democracy and the Rights of the Electorate

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Thursday 26th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

If the worst thing the Irish could say of the European Union is that it made them vote twice, I can imagine they have a lot worse things to say about their relationship and their union with England.

This week, we had a sterling reminder from the United Kingdom Supreme Court that in the UK we live in a constitutional democracy with checks and balances on Executive power. We were also reminded that so long as Scotland remains part of this Union, Scots law and the Scottish judiciary are deserving of respect—because let us not forget that the 11 UK Supreme Court justices followed the unanimous decision of the three judges in Scotland’s highest court, the Inner House of the Court of Session. In Scotland, our democratic and constitutional tradition goes back to the Declaration of Arbroath in 1320, which we will be celebrating 700 years of next year, and the Claim of Right in 1689. The principle of those documents is that neither the sovereign nor the Government is above the law. It was very refreshing to hear Lady Hale remind us that the same has been the position in England since at least 1611 when she said in her statement on Tuesday:

“As long ago as 1611, the court held that ‘the King (who was then the government) hath no prerogative but that which the law of the land allows him’.”

So constitutional democracy means not a tyranny by the Executive but parliamentary democracy with checks and balances. As Lord Drummond Young said in Scotland’s highest court:

“The courts cannot subject the actings of the executive to political scrutiny, but they can and should ensure that the body charged with performing that task, Parliament, is able to do so.”

I do not think that anyone on these Benches will take any lectures from members of the Conservative and Unionist party about the importance of democracy when it was their leader who tried to shut down parliamentary democracy for five weeks at a time of constitutional crisis in the UK.

Lady Hale stressed that there are two—[Interruption.] I am happy to take an intervention if the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) wants to make one.

[Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for offering me the chance to intervene. The point I would make is that we have had this huge national drama over the past couple of weeks as to whether the Prorogation will be ended, because so many Members of Parliament were so extremely zealous to attend and to address the issue of Brexit. But if we look at the Opposition Benches, there are almost as many SNP Members here as Labour Members—that is it—and there are only four of them.

[Joanna Cherry]

Perhaps if the Government brought some proper business forward, there would be more people here.

I want to return to what Lady Hale said. The judgment of the Supreme Court this week was not very complicated. Many Government Members suggested yesterday that it made new law—it did not. Lady Hale was simply expressing a principle that goes far back in the Scottish constitutional tradition and also in the English tradition that the Government are not above the law. She stressed two principles of our democracy: parliamentary sovereignty and parliamentary accountability. The Executive must be accountable to Parliament. It puzzles me that so many parliamentarians thought this was a novel statement of the British constitution, but that is perhaps because of the lack of a written constitution in the United Kingdom.

Many Members in this House—particularly those on the Opposition Benches—will be familiar with the writings of Justice Albie Sachs of the South African Supreme Court, a great jurist and freedom fighter. When he sat down to write the constitution of the new South Africa, he was shocked to find that Britain, which he was looking to for guidance, did not have a written constitution. One of the things that the Brexit crisis and the horror with which the UK Supreme Court judgment has been greeted by some illustrates is the need for the United Kingdom to have a written constitution. But I am afraid to say that I will not be holding my breath for constitutional reform in the United Kingdom. The Scots are very familiar with the oft mentioned promise of federalism whenever Scotland looks close to voting for independence. Gordon Brown is normally wheeled out to promise federalism, but there is never any appetite in this House to make that a reality.

There are many things that could be done to improve British democracy, but the horrified reaction to the checks and balances imposed by the United Kingdom Supreme Court last week shows me that Government Members do not actually understand their own constitution and would probably find it very hard to write it down. Brexit has thrown the constitution of the United Kingdom into crisis. In 2014, during the Scottish independence referendum, which was a great deal more civilised affair than the EU referendum—[Interruption.] Well, nobody lost their life during the Scottish independence referendum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my near neighbour from Wrexham, though sadly in the time available I will not pick up his points.

I would like to pick up on the early intervention by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), who mentioned an horrific attack this afternoon using the word “fascist”. I must sadly remind her that there is balance on both sides. I am a member of the European Research Group.

[Mrs Moon]

The word “fascist” was not my word. It was the word shouted by the demonstrator attempting to break the windows of an hon. Member’s constituency office with her staff behind the windows.

[Mr Paterson]

Totally understood. The hon. Lady reported this horrendous and completely unacceptable incident. I was making the point that we should all watch our language, but sadly one of her colleagues compared the ERG to Nazis. If you google “ERG fascists”, you get 227,000 results, and if you google “ERG extremists”, you get 176,000. We in the ERG would like a system of government where Members are elected to this House, from which a Government is formed. If that Government perform satisfactorily, tax sensibly and spend money sensibly, they are re-elected. If they do not perform well, they are removed by voting. That is a pretty basic summary of representative democracy.

The problem now in this country is the huge collision with the juggernaut of direct democracy. I think we have had 11 referendums in recent decades, and they have all pretty well gone along with what the establishment wanted. The political and commercial establishment were happy with the results—on Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales, and probably the alternative vote referendum, too.

Then we have this current problem. In 2015, David Cameron promised, “If you vote Conservative, we will give you a one-off in/out referendum. We the MPs will give you the people the right to decide whether we stay in or leave the EU.” Possibly to his surprise, he won the election, and then promised to deliver. The right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond) took the referendum Bill through the House in 2015. In his winding-up speech, he gave a pretty good summary. He said:

“But whether we favour Britain being in or out, we surely should all be able to agree on the simple principle that the decision about our membership should be taken by the British people, not by Whitehall bureaucrats, certainly not by Brussels Eurocrats; not even by Government Ministers or parliamentarians in this Chamber.”—[Official Report, 9 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 1056.]

The Bill got 544 votes on Second Reading.

We then had the referendum itself. People were bombarded with a Government document costing £9 million. It was made very clear that this was a one-off and that the people would decide—that it was not an advisory referendum, but was giving a clear steer to Parliament and that parliamentarians would have to honour it. That was the understanding: whatever the decision, parliamentarians would deliver.

We then had the biggest vote in British history—17.4 million on a single issue against 16.1 million to remain. The conundrum is this. In the ensuing general election, in which, in fairness to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) who is not in her seat at the moment, she got the second largest number of votes ever—13.6 million—in a general election, her manifesto was very simple. The Conservative party was elected on a manifesto that we would honour the referendum, leave the single market, leave the customs union and leave the remit of the European Court of Justice. Although woollier, there was pretty clear language in the Labour party manifesto that it would honour the referendum result. According to one assessment, what we have against that in this Parliament, which is a remain Parliament, is 485 Members supporting remain and only 162 supporting leave. We may never ever have a referendum again, but I put it to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this has to be delivered. The people were told very clearly, “You vote Conservative in that original general election; we will give you the chance.” They were told during the referendum campaign, “You vote to leave; it will be delivered.” They were told by the two main parties that they would honour the result, but here we are, three years on, and this has not been delivered.

There are Members chuntering about no deal, but this is all a bit of a shibboleth. We are talking about leaving a customs union to which 8% of our businesses send goods. Our sales of goods to this organisation represent 8.2% of GDP and our sales of services 5.5%. This will not bring the roof down.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. Does he share with me the frustration and anger that I hear every day in my constituency? People say to me, “You asked for our opinion. We gave you our opinion. Why have you not left yet and what are you still talking about?”

[Mr Paterson]

I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend says. People come up to me the whole time. The words that I get so frequently are, “Just get on with it.” Let us take up an earlier intervention. We are talking about normalisation. Our sales of goods and services are a bit over 13%. It is inconceivable that, even if we did have no deal—do not forget that on page 36 of our manifesto, we said that, “No deal is better than a bad deal”—we have agreements on aviation, we have heard from Calais and we have heard from Dover. All this stuff about no deal is a shield, and it is a shield for Members who do not want us to leave. My proposition is that if we do not deliver on the referendum, that will be far more damaging to this country. The damage to the integrity of all our institutions will be absolutely shattering, compared with just a little bit of interruption, which can be sorted out at our borders and which all those bodies who run the borders say do not represent a problem.

We may never ever have another referendum. We may go back to what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) describes—he dismisses this as an opinion poll. He is a strong believer in parliamentary democracy. I am as well, but we gave people the choice. We cannot put that back in the bottle. I appeal to all Members, particularly those on the Opposition Benches, to recognise that we have only a few short weeks in which to deliver what the people voted for, and they really must consider the extraordinary anger that could result. British people are very patient, but as my hon. Friend has just said, they are getting really angry. They have been thwarted and they know perfectly well that the establishment has thwarted them. The establishment was very happy with the results of those previous 11 referendums. For the first time, the vote went against them. What we have to do now is to deliver so that we can remove that anger and leave the European Union on 31 October.

Prime Minister's Update

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I think the historical record will reflect that several Prime Ministers—I think all Prime Ministers—have had Prorogations. John Major, for instance, prorogued for several weeks in advance of an election. On the substantive question about the view of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General about the judgment yesterday, let us be clear that we are as one in respecting the Supreme Court, and we are as one in thinking that that judgment was wrong.

[Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)]

The people were told in the general election in 2015, during the passage of the European Union Referendum Bill through this House and during the referendum itself that we, the MPs, would give them the decision, that it would be a final decision and that whatever the result was, we, the MPs, would honour it. The crisis we have is that for the first time ever, the people have not obediently and politely gone along with what the establishment wanted. We have seen the political establishment in this House, the commercial establishment and now the judicial establishment go against the will of the people. They are angry. They feel thwarted by the establishment. [Interruption.] Does the Prime Minister agree that the only answer is to leave on—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman persisted, but he was entitled to be fully heard. I hope he is content.

[Mr Paterson]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I did my best to help the right hon. Gentleman—go on, blurt out the last sentence, man!

[Mr Paterson]

Does the Prime Minister agree that the only way to resolve this crisis is to leave the European Union on 31 October by taking back control, leaving the customs union, leaving the single market and leaving the remit of the European Court of Justice, as we promised in our election manifesto?

[The Prime Minister]

Mr Speaker, I am grateful to you for making sure that that last sentence was heard, because I agree with every word of it; that is exactly what we are going to do.