I will be talking about Brexit and listening to the points of view of others tomorrow at Three Mile Cross Church at 10.30 am
Author: johnredwood
The undemocratic few in Independent Labour
The MPs that are defecting to the Independent group do not get on well with democracy. They all dislike the result of the People’s vote in 2016. They now wish to change their views on big issues, compared to the Labour and Conservative Manifesto platforms they stood on in 2017. If they are keen on democracy and a People’s vote, they should offer themselves for election in a series of by elections soon.
An MP who changes party allegiance is not obliged to resign to create a by election. Indeed, if an MP resigns from his or her party to be independent because he or she thinks their party is failing to carry out promises they jointly made at the last election there is not even a moral pressure to hold a by election. But if an MP wishes to change party, or to be a so called independent on a very different platform to the one they stood on for their original party, there is plenty of moral pressure to ask the electors their view.
When Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless decided the Conservatives were not Eurosceptic enough they resigned to join UKIP. They did the decent thing, stood in by elections and won. It did not work out well for them personally, on the assumption they would have liked to carry on in Parliament. Mark lost his seat in the following General election, whilst Douglas ended up in substantial disagreement with the Leader of UKIP and also ceased to be an MP.
The media seem to think the Independent group will morph into a new party. As it does so there will be more pressure on its members to answer why they do not submit themselves to an electoral test of what they are doing. This is particularly apposite given the belief of many of them that the public should be offered another vote on the issue of the EU. Wasn’t the 2017 General election another vote on the EU? I remember the election being dominated by the Brexit issue. 82% of the public voted for the two main parties who both said they would implement the result of the referendum. The Lib Dems made the case for a second referendum and slumped to 10% support.
I would be interested in what name you think would be most appropriate for this new grouping? Would it be unkind to suggest the We know better than the voters party, or perhaps the Not the Labour party.
My intervention during the debate on Exiting the European Union (Aquaculture), 20 February 2019
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): I seek to clarify my earlier question, which did not seem to get through. Is the Department working on a better regime for fishing in general, and for fish health in particular, for once we have left? This is a great opportunity, and fishing is an area that has been very badly damaged by EU membership.
The Minister of State (Mr George Eustice): My right hon. Friend will be aware that the purpose of these regulations is to ensure that we have an operable law book on day one after leaving the European Union, but he will also be aware that, separately, the Fisheries Bill is going through the House—it has completed its Committee stage and will return shortly on Report.
I can confirm that the Bill has a dedicated provision that gives the Government power to legislate in the area of fish health in particular so we can improve on the current regime and make any necessary changes. These regulations are simply about ensuring we make retained EU law operable, and I commend them to the House.
My intervention during the Urgent Question on Leaving the EU: Economic Impact of Proposed Deal, 20 February 2019
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): Will the Treasury issue a codicil or a clarification of its economic forecasts, looking at what happens if we leave in March under the managed World Trade Organisation model, when we spend the £39 billion-plus of the withdrawal agreement on boosting public services and boosting our economy at home? We are bound to be better off—is that not true?
Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mel Stride): It is important to recognise that the modelling is on the basis of the status quo, so the model would not take into account factors of the kind that my right hon. Friend has raised, or indeed changes in productivity or trade flows and other factors. It will be for individual Members to assess the specific issues that he raised, in that context.
My intervention during the debate on Exiting the European Union (Structural and Investment Funds), 19 February 2019
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): Before the Minister moves on from the money, will he explain how the money would be calculated, and whether we would have to make a contribution to the administration costs or just to the actual costs of the programme?
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy) (Mr Richard Harrington): If I may, Mr Speaker, I will use this opportunity to answer my right hon. Friend’s earlier question about the dispute resolution. Any disputes in relation to how funding is spent are dealt with through the audit and default functions and the provisions set out in the existing funding agreements. As for his second question, I will have to give the matter some thought, as I must confess I do not know the answer. If I do not think of it in the next half an hour or so, I will certainly write to him with the answer on that. My memory is quite good and usually things come back in due course, as I know they do to you, Mr Speaker.
I mentioned that the EU is making separate legal provision for us to continue to participate in the Peace and Interreg V-A programmes. That provision is intended to enable continued access to the programmes in the event of no deal, but it does not resolve the problem of payment powers, which is why we need both the EU regulation and this statutory instrument to safeguard those programmes and to ensure the continuation of their benefits. Not having this instrument in force by exit would also prevent the Government and our devolved Administrations from paying out the guarantee to UK partners of other territorial co-operation programmes, risking their financial viability.
My intervention during the Urgent Question on UK Nationals Returning from Syria, 18 February 2019
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): How will the UK authorities go about finding the evidence concerning those UK citizens who went abroad to join a terrorist organisation and to fight or intervene in acts of brutality or support those who did?
Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr Sajid Javid): My right hon. Friend highlights an important issue. Members will understand why it is very difficult to gather evidence when someone has gone to a completely ungoverned space where we have no consular presence and no diplomatic relations of any type, and nor do our allies.
That said, we put a huge amount of effort—I take this opportunity to commend our security services, the police and some of our international partners—into gathering battlefield evidence and having that ready to use whenever appropriate. If we can supply that evidence in some cases to our partners for cases that they wish to bring in front of their courts, we will try to work constructively with them. The UN has also been looking at this. New measures are being considered on battlefield evidence conventions, and Britain, through the Ministry of Defence, is making an incredibly important contribution to that.
Fiscal squeeze continues in UK
Tax revenues were up by a massive 9.7% in January, creating a record surplus in a month where the government usually collects more money than it spends. Public borrowing is running 46% lower than last year and is on target to hit the Chancellor’s wish to cut it sharply.
Stamp Duty revenues are down for the year so far and down in January, reflecting the continuing impact of higher rates. The government should cut the rates to help the market and would then collect more cash from this source.
Income tax revenue was particularly strong.
The government is squeezing the economy too much and could do with some cuts in tax rates to promote growth. The right tax cuts would also boost revenue. Property taxes including business rates are particularly damaging at a time when we need to see more redevelopment and change of use as the digital revolution sweeps through our High Streets and industrial parks.
State debt as a percentage of GDP is falling, and now stands at 62% after deducting the debt the Bank of England has bought up
The Independent Group and anti semitism
Yesterday we had a moving and important debate in the House about the rise of anti Semitism in the UK. Most of us agreed that it is a nasty racism which no-one in a decent democracy should have to confront. James Brokenshire made a powerful speech for the government setting out how we must all take action to prevent it. The Labour spokesman Barry Gardiner apologised to the Jewish community on behalf of the Labour party and confessed that there has been a strand of virulent anti Semitism within Labour that they need to control. He spoke with passion and feeling.
The new Independent grouping of Labour MPs were well represented. They gave good support to Luciana Berger who catalogued the abuse she has faced from Labour party members and social media for her Jewish ancestry. Another group of active Labour MPs sitting on the two back benches behind their Shadow Spokesman also delivered powerful asides and interventions, demanding that their party did more than just offer an apology but tackled the backlog of cases that have been referred to the National Executive alleging anti Semitism. They showed considerable sympathy for their former colleagues and expressed similar feelings. They were keen to see the expulsion of Derek Hatton, recently admitted to the Labour party again.
Into this emotional rift came the resignations of three Conservative MPs from the Conservative party. They too wish to be seen as independent, though it is not clear they are the same kind of independent as the Labour group. Their reasons seemed somewhat different to the Labour explanations given the day before. They have yet to articulate exactly what they want to stand for, or why they have moved away from the 2017 Conservative Manifesto with its clear pledge to leave the EU and its customs union and single market in order to fulfil the mandate of the EU referendum. They say in general terms they object to the very Brexit which helped get the Conservatives elected, and that they think the modernising agenda has been overthrown. They also dislike austerity, which ironically came from the modernisers David Cameron and George Osborne that they professed to like.
The Labour independents have said they are not forming a new party and will not be contesting elections. The polling assuming they would shows them capturing just 14% of the vote, mainly at the expense of Labour who go down to 28%, and squeezing the Liberal Democrats down to 7%. The sense from yesterday is the main reason they have split from Labour is one of attitude and tone from the leadership. They dislike Mr Corbyn and dislike the intolerance they find in the party. Others might follow them judging by the reactions of some other Labour MPs during the debate.
The Conservative party will come together again as soon as we are out of the EU. It has been the delay in our exit for 2 years 9 months that has allowed the argument about how and when we leave to fester. The Labour party has deeper seated disagreements within it which pose a problem for the leadership. At Prime Minister’s Question time neither leader wanted to mention the difficult topic of defections.
Development in the Wokingham Council area
The Council is in the early stages of considering the next local Plan and where development might go. I have suggested that we make a case for a slower pace of new housing development in the next plan period given the large amount of housing and its impact on our area currently underway.
The issue of Grazeley and a possible large settlement there is under discussion. I have said that this should only be considered if it was instead of development elsewhere in the Borough, as we would not wish to commit to a large new settlement and have substantial sites elsewhere as well. I have also said there must be an up front considerable investment in infrastructure not just for any new development but also to tackle the knock on effects on transport, health and schools in the wider area affected. I am not myself committed to any given location for development for the new plan.
I would be interested to hear your views.
Honda loses out in Europe and worries about the change to electric cars
Honda’s market share has fallen a long way in recent years in Europe. From selling 311,000 cars at the peak in 2007, last year it sold just 136,000. The Swindon plant is only running one of the two lines, and at under 150,000 cars a year it is a small plant by world standards. Honda Europe is one of the casualties of the top down electrification policy pursued by the EU and UK governments. As Honda explained :
“This is not a Brexit related issue for us. This decision has been made on the basis of global issues. We have to move very swiftly to electrification of vehicles, because of demand of our customers and legislation”.
Honda wishes to concentrate its investments in large plants making modern vehicles that meet changing legislation in the places where they sell most cars. That is Asia and the USA, not Europe, where their market share is now small. This is one example of the massive change being forced on the industry by governments with their requirement to sell many more electric vehicles. It is interesting that Honda mentioned legislation as an important factor, underlining that this abrupt change in the profile of cars to be sold results from a top down instruction from legislators as well as from some customers having a genuine preference for electric vehicles.
It follows hard on the heels of Nissan’s decision to make one of its diesel cars only in Japan without adding a UK line , given the big drop off in demand following adverse legislation and threats of more to come from government. Nissan does have decent overall volumes in the UK and is committed to further investment in its UK business.
I forecast particular difficulties for the UK car industry in 2017 when the Bank of England adopted a tough stance on car loans, and the government launched a tax attack on new vehicles whilst pursuing an anti diesel policy. This was particularly damaging to the UK based car industry which had built centres of excellence for clean diesel engine technology here in the UK with government encouragement. Investment in car production is a long term business. The big switch in UK government attitudes to diesels will have a price that goes beyond its obvious impact on the large section of our car industry that makes diesel cars. Companies want consistent support for the industry and a predictable legislative and tax background, whether they are making diesel or petrol vehicles.
I trust the government will explore alternative uses for the Honda factory and work for the workforce. It could get a contractor that supplies vehicles to the state and or does deep maintenance on public sector vehicles to undertake it there, for example.