Author: johnredwood

Mr Redwood’s intervention during the debate on the UK’s Justice and Home Affairs Opt-outs, 10th July 2014

July 16, 2014 0 Comments

Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): Does the Home Secretary understand that either this House is sovereign in criminal justice or the European Union is, and that if we opt into this measure, the European Union becomes sovereign? She has rightly pointed out lots of defects with the arrest warrant, but once we have given away our sovereignty we have no absolute right to stop or change things in the way that we can if we keep the authority here.

Mrs Theresa May (Secretary of State for the Home Department): The point I have made to my right hon. Friend, and others in the past, is that of course there is a question about the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, and we have already opted into measures post the Lisbon treaty where the Court operates. We have seen decisions by the ECJ that have been unhelpful—perhaps I can put it like that—such as the Metock case, or the case I referred to earlier when making a statement to the House. We believe that the Court should not have the final say over matters such as substantive criminal law or international relations, and that is why we are not rejoining more than 20 minimum standards measures on matters such as racism and xenophobia. That is why we will not be rejoining the EU-US extradition agreement, and we should be able to renegotiate as we see fit. I am clear that we should have the final say over our laws.

By already opting out of certain European measures, we have taken powers back from Europe that had already been signed away. The process we were left with, which was negotiated by the previous Government, was an unappealing choice between the potential impacts of ECJ jurisdiction over those measures that it is in the national interest for us to rejoin, or the prospect and dangers of an operational gap.

The Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill

July 16, 2014 0 Comments

As a number of constituents have written to me about the emergency Bill on Data Retention I am setting out some of my thoughts on the topic for those interested in the letter I reproduce below:

Thank you for your letter concerning the proposed legislation on data and criminal justice.

The government and Opposition claim this emergency legislation is necessary to restore the legal position created by Labour’s legislation following a decision of the European Court of Justice. That court has recently overturned the EU’s own Data Retention Directive 2006, which the past government had put into UK law as it was required to do by EU law.

I asked the Shadow Home Secretary to explain why the last Labour government had agreed to and implemented this Directive which has now caused concern at the ECJ on civil liberty grounds. She reminded me that Labour did implement this measure with more safeguards for liberties than were required by the EU law. They thought the UK police and criminal justice authorities needed access to details of when UK citizens suspected of serious crime made calls and to whom, which could be obtained under these powers. The authorities did not have access to the contents of phone calls and messages.

The 3 party leaderships point out that the replacement legislation being proposed puts in place more safeguards, and meets the requirement of the ECJ that data should not be held for more than twelve months and in other cases for less time.

I also asked the Home Secretary if the EU is likely to revisit its troublesome legislation and come up with a new Directive which we would have to implement, which could of course be less kind to civil liberties. She confirmed that might happen, but not soon. She is concerned that evidence trails could be lost if the current UK legislation is successfully challenged on the back of the ECJ judgement. I will want the UK to resist new EU laws that damage civil liberties.

I will be supporting Labour’s amendments to the proposal to ensure that there is a proper review of this legislation, and to have interim reports from the Interception of Communications Commissioner. I hope this will be accepted by the government given the view of many Conservative and Labour MPs that we need to protect the liberties of the citizen more clearly.

I see this as an interim measure forced upon the government by the decision of the ECJ to overturn EU legislation. I agree with the ECJ that the original Directive was insufficiently sensitive to civil liberties. Parliament thought so at the time and put in place what protections it could. It can now go further. I look forward to a better debate in the UK as we assess the impact of this short term measure, and consider what legal framework we want from 2016 onwards when this temporary Bill will expire. Meanwhile I am on the side of those who want more safeguards within the planned new framework.

Your sincerely

John Redwood MP

Reshuffle blues?

July 16, 2014 184 Comments

 

There was some good news in the reshuffle. Mr Hague’s decision to leave Parliament next May means we now have a Foreign Secretary who has stated he wants out of the EU if we do not get a much better deal. That is a better stance for our negotiation, and encouraging that he agrees with many of us that the UK’s current position in the EU   is unacceptable.

The decision to replace Mr Grieve as Attorney General suggests  according to some of the accompanying briefing that the government is planning to change its approach to the European Convention on Human Rights. Many Ministers and others are frustrated that the Convention and Court gets in the way of the UK seeking to extradite certain criminals and run the borders  policy it wishes to run.

Mr Gove’s arrival as a speaking Chief Whip with wider duties than a  traditional Chief Whip makes sense in the run up the General Election. Nikki Morgan as the new Education Secretary needs to push ahead with reforms that Mr Gove has instigated.

I invite your thoughts on the whole package.

Why did self assessment Income Tax decline so much at the 50% rate?

July 15, 2014 93 Comments

 

In 2008-9, well into the financial crisis, the UK state raised £22.5 billion in Self Assessment Income Tax, with a top rate of 40%. The following year, the last year at 40%, saw another £21.7bn collected.

The 50% rate then introduced was assumed by the Treasury to yield a lot more self assessment income tax, as high payers usually  have to complete the self assessment process and are an important part of that total. In the June 2010 forecast the Treasury looked forward to raising £29.2 bn from self assessment in 2012-13, and £32,5bn in 2013-14. These forecasts were reduced steadily in successive years. So what actually happened?

In 2012-13 the Treasury collected just £20.6bn in self assessment Income Tax. In 2013-14 it managed £20.9bn. In  other words, the  Treasury collected 4 -5% less  in those two years than in the last year of 40% tax, despite the inflation in the meantime.

More worrying is the gross inaccuracy of the forecasts. Revenue in 2013-14 was a massive 36% down on the June 2010 Budget forecast in 2013-14. It was 32% down on  the Budget 2011 forecast.

Much of the debate about optimum or desirable tax rates in the UK is conducted without reference to any of these outcome numbers. Too many people assume the Treasury model and official statements about the impact of higher rates are correct, where the official word is they do not have a lot of effect either way.

People interested in this topic  should instead study the outturn figures. They are markedly different from the forecasts. They show that self assessment Income Tax was hit badly by the 50% tax rate, and has been running a huge one third below forecast.

 

Reshuffles can go wrong

July 14, 2014 82 Comments

 

Past Prime Ministers have often been damaged by their  reshuffles. The reason is simple. There is no sensible personnel function for Ministers in modern government.

It begins with the failure to map the interests, experience and qualifications of the talent pool, the MPs and peers available for appointment. It is worsened by those who may include friends and spin doctors of the Prime Minister who think the best way to conduct the run up to a reshuffle is a discussion of the merits and especially the  failings of the candidates in  the press without involving them. It can reach a climax with job offers to people who have no wish to do the job in question, allied to attempts to sack people from office who had no idea they were likely to lose their job and who are most reluctant to leave.

A badly conducted reshuffle ends with the Prime Minister having more unhappy colleagues. Those outside the tent who wanted to be Ministers have been passed over again, often with no explanation. Former Ministers have been bruised by the sacking and the unpleasant briefing that often accompanies it. Some Ministers who have been moved or kept in place remain unhappy because they are not doing the job they want or even deserve. So how could all this be changed and improved?

The first thing that needs doing is a Prime Minister needs to upgrade the Whips office to be more of a modern personnel function. Whips should know more about MPs’ past training, experiences and abilities. They need to have a way of keeping the PM informed of the talent available. They need to know what individual MPs and peers would like to do, and they need to manage expectations where these are unrealistic. In cases where they are possible they could guide the individual into what actions would be helpful for that MP or peer to take to make their appointment more likely. Proper mapping of wishes and skills might find many MPs and peers will be able to have a job they would like and is suited to them. Not all MPs want to be Ministers. Some want to be Select Committee Chairmen, or Deputy Speakers, or strong minded backbenchers. In my time as an MP I have only once been asked what job I would like to do. I made three  suggestions. I was never told why I did not get any one of them!

The second thing that is required is better management of Ministers in post. I put in place a system of regular meetings between directly reporting Cabinet Ministers and the PM when I advised Margaret Thatcher. I felt it was important that a senior Minister should hear from the PM about what she wanted to see and what she thought of his department’s work, and that the Cabinet member should get a private opportunity to criticise what Number 10 was doing, or to ask for more help, or to warn where things might be difficult. I wanted to make sure there were no surprises either way. The PM needed to know the truth about the big picture in each department, and the Minister needed to know if he was supported or was expected to raise or change his game.

Cabinet Ministers should do this for their junior Ministers. I worked closely with junior Ministers when they reported to me, using a system of regular  review of the progress they were making through weekly meetings and informal discussions. Cabinet Ministers should be consulted on the junior Ministers   reporting to them  before they are reshuffled.

The third thing  that would help is to do more to mentor and train Ministers. There should be a  course for those who want to be Ministers which most MPs could take whilst hoping for preferment. This would cover the law as it applies to Ministers, Ministerial powers, collective responsibility, handling the workload, managing the diary, relating to the public and media and working through Parliament. Doing the course would also  be useful to MPs seeking to hold Ministers to account. Completion of it would not guarantee  promotion.

The fourth thing is to manage retirements or “resignations”. Where the PM wishes to get rid of a colleague they should  be given warnings of what is expected of them and what they need to improve before being sacked. If Ministers understand that positions generally are 2-5 years in length there should be no shame or bad briefing if their tenure is terminated, as there can be no automatic right to promotion.  Some people will do a good job as junior Ministers for a period of years, and should be allowed to retire from the Ministerial role with thanks for their service. Entry into the Cabinet needs proof that the individual has a wider political pulling power, support within the Parliamentary party and the wider public,  a strategic sense and an ability to manage a large organisation, amongst a range of requirements.l

State debt and the Bank of England

July 13, 2014 120 Comments

 

Today I want to concentrate on the narrower definition of the nation’s debts – the £1300 billion of official borrowing in the name of the nation that gets measured in the international comparisons, some 80% of GDP. This excludes the  public sector pension deficits, the semi nationalised bank liabilities and the private finance guarantees.

80% of GDP is a comparable level of indebtedness to Germany, the USA and France, and well below Japan. Markets are getting used to highly leveraged states these days.

29% of this state debt is now owned by the state. We have bought it back from the people who originally lent it, using created electronic money from  the Bank of England. It means as of today we only owe 57% of our national income in this core borrowing.

I raise this because we have ahead of us a decision to make about what we do with this self owned debt. Currently we pay ourselves interest on it, and recoup much of that one way or another. The Bank tops up the amount of government debt it owes as repayments come due. There are three main options from here:

1. Sell the debt back to the private sector, destroying the created money as we do so. This would drive interest rates higher, improve the position of savers and worsen the position of borrowers, and would lead to a monetary tightening. This seems an unlikely course of action for the authorities to pursue any time soon.

2. Stop replacing the debt we owe as debt is repaid. Over a period the state holdings of debt would be run down, and the Bank of England balance sheet gradually deflated as this happens.

3. Cancel the debt as we owe it to ourselves, creating an accounting transaction to sort out the Bank of England balance sheet when this happens.

Which of these would you like to see happen?

Can innovation transform the public sector?

July 12, 2014 89 Comments

Many parts of the private sector are being changed dramatically by digital technology. If you want to buy a house you can now visit a range of properties on line and see their floor plans and their inside and outside appearance from your home computer. If you want to buy any good or service you can google it and see a list of competing offers, usually with prices. You can order on line from your armchair. If you want to find a new job there are electronic jobs boards with choices of openings on offer. You can bank online, insure your car on line, undertake a study course on line. The opportunities are endless. The role and nature of the estate agent, the insurance broker, the bank clerk and the employment agency have altered substantially.

As a result of all this change the private sector is rapidly having to adjust its staff and property to accommodate the new way of doing things,. Will we need a many shops when people shop more on line? How many bank branches and insurance broker high street outlets do we need when more is done on the home computer or on the mobile on the move?  Does the Town Centre become more of a leisure and entertainment destination. with much higher proportions of restaurant and leisure facility space? I sense we have only just started to see wide ranging changes this technology has unleashed.

The public sector has been slower to adopt the potential of this technology. Education is still mainly conducted by going to a school or college and sitting down to hear and be guided by a teacher. Health care still mainly involves going to visit a Doctor or dropping into A and E for triage. It is true at the edges you can now renew your road fund licence on line, and can file your tax return electronically. The new Universal benefit system is a massive investment in new technology to deliver people’s state financial support.

Today I am inviting you to comment on what new applications and changes you would like to see in the way we deliver the main public services. If we can no order our food shop from our own living room and pay all our bills from our phone, what more could we do in this way when meeting government requirements or accessing public services?

Legislating on communications data

July 11, 2014 2 Comments

 

Next week Parliament will debate a Bill to reaffirm the law on surveillance of communications in the UK. Several constituents have written expressing their concern about this. I am therefore  reproducing beneath the government’s argument on why this measure is needed and how it mainly restates the existing position. As all 3 party leaders favour this Bill it is likely to carry, but backbench MPs will of course question and probe to try to ensure the powers are necessary, limited and proportionate and certainly not greater than the current ones.

 

 

 

The government writes:

“COMMUNICATIONS DATA AND LAWFUL INTERCEPTION

It is the first duty of Government to protect the public and we are today introducing emergency legislation to ensure that our law enforcement and intelligence agencies have access to the tools they need to keep us safe.  Access to information relating to communications, subject to robust safeguards, is vital in the fight against crime and terrorism and has been used successfully for many years.

 

Communications data – the who, where, when and how of a communication but not its content – is a vital tool in the investigation of crime and safeguarding the public.  It has been used in 95% of serious and organised crime investigations handled by the Crown Prosecution Service and every major Security Service counter-terrorism investigation over the last decade.

 

The interception of the content of communications is of critical importance to the preservation of national security. Since 2010, the majority of the Security Service’s top priority UK counter-terrorism investigations have used intercept capabilities in some form to identify, understand or disrupt plots seeking to harm the UK and its citizens.  However, two recent developments have put these crucial capabilities at risk.  Without legislation, we face the real prospect of a serious degradation in the ability of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to do their jobs.

 

Firstly, the European Court of Justice judgment of 8 April declared the EU Data Retention Directive (2006) invalid.  This Directive required Member States in Europe to provide for a mandatory communications data retention framework covering certain data for the purpose of the investigation of serious crime.  Following the judgment, our domestic Data Retention (EC Directive) Regulations 2009, which transposed the Directive, remain in force.  However, we need to legislate to maintain an effective mandatory communications data retention framework, and to address the ruling unambiguously and immediately.

 

If companies could no longer be required to retain communications data, law enforcement’s capability to prevent and detect crime and protect the public would be severely degraded; many investigations would be delayed and some would cease entirely.

 

The second component of the Bill will put beyond doubt that companies providing communication services to customers in the UK must comply with lawful requests under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 irrespective of where those companies are located.    A number of overseas communication service providers have questioned whether they are required to comply with obligations under the Act in relation to the interception of communications.

 

With the increasing globalisation of communications, any decrease in cooperation from overseas providers could have a devastating impact on national security.  If we lose visibility of what terrorists are saying to each other, we will lose the ability to understand and mitigate the threat that they pose.

 

This Bill will ensure that communications data continues to be available when it is needed.  Whilst most of the European Court’s criticisms are already addressed in UK law, the Bill will also respond to the judgment.  The European Court’s judgment did not take into account national laws on access to communications, and in particular the UK’s access regime with its robust safeguards.  Our communications data regime is internationally respected, and already addresses most of the criticisms made in the judgment.  However, we are introducing a number of new safeguards to respond to the judgment, such as enhancing our data retention notice regime, and formalising the requirements placed on communications companies to safeguard this crucial data.  We will also create a Code of Practice on Data Retention, which will put best-practice guidance on a statutory footing.  Furthermore, the Bill will also put beyond doubt the extra-territorial application of RIPA to ensure that companies, irrespective of where they are based, can comply with their obligations.

 

The legislation does not create any new powers, rights of access or obligations on communications companies beyond those that already exist. It does not seek to replicate the proposals that were included in the Draft Communications Data Bill, published in 2012. And it would sit aside the already robust regime RIPA provides to regulate access to retained data.

 

We must act now to ensure that the capability of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies to prevent and detect crime, protect the public and ensure national security does not rapidly and seriously diminish.  The need to act is made all the more pressing because the threats we face remain considerable, not least the collapse of Syria, the emergence of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, organised crime that crosses national boundaries and the expanding scope of cybercrime.

 

All these threats and many more should remind us that the world is a dangerous place and the United Kingdom needs the capabilities to defend its interests and protect its citizens.

 

The proposals on communications data and investigatory powers which I have set out above are necessary to ensure that law enforcement and security agencies are able to continue making use of these essential tools. These provisions are not intended to fill the gap which we were looking to close with the draft communications data bill but to ensure that law enforcement can continue to access the material which they currently have access to.”

 

 

 

European criminal justice and the sovereignty of the British people

July 11, 2014 73 Comments

 

Yesterday Parliament debated whether to opt back in to 35 of the EU Criminal Justice measures.  We have recently rightly opted out of all 135 measures, as we were entitled do under our version of the centralising Lisbon Treaty. I and others told  Parliament why we do not wish to opt back in to anything.

On June 15th 1215 at Runneymede the King conceded an important grant of liberties to Englishmen called Magna Carta. Though this was just one of many evolving constitutional documents thrown up in our history of curbing the powers of  executive government and building a stronger dem0cratic Parliament to curb excessive state power, it has become one of the earliest and most iconic. It gave Englishmen the right to fair trial under English law with proportionate punishments for the guilty. It set up a forerunner of Parliament, an elected council of 25, to supervise the settlement and check up on the government’s good faith in implementing it.

The government plans to celebrate and commemorate this event next year. It is no way to do so by passing control of these important matters of justice to the European Union. I and like minded colleagues fully understand the need for cross border police collaboration, for some common investigations of cross border crime with agencies from other countries, and the need from time to time to extradite possible criminals for trial elsewhere. We do this by Extradition Treaty or agreement with other countries in all but the EU. The EU wishes us to have different arrangements in the EU, submitting our control and jurisdiction to EU and European Court jurisdiction. This to me is a step too far, and a needless sacrifice of the sovereignty of the British people.

Yesterday the government argued that the European Arrest Warrant was necessary to get back nasty criminals for trial who had travelled to EU countries. We explained to them that we too wish to see serious crime pursued across frontiers. We wish to have an Extradition Treaty with the EU just as we have such treaties with many non EU countries. That is a better route than putting ourselves under the control of the ECJ and the Commission. We can change, influence or cancel an Extradition Treaty if we wish. Once we have opted into EU criminal justice we are powerless to change anything unless 27 other EU countries, the Commission and the European Parliament agree.

Wokingham Times

July 10, 2014 1 Comment

Last Sunday I attended the Berkshire service of commemoration for the start of the Great War in 1914.

It was a time for sombre reflection. A whole generation of young men were put at grave risk of death, and lived in atrocious conditions in the trenches, as the combined  powers of the West and Russia sought to defeat the militarism of Germany and her allies. It led many to say this must be the war to end all wars. Instead a badly drafted Peace Treaty and political convulsions in Germany led to another world war 21 years later.

The good news we can celebrate is there has been no major European or world war since 1945. The construction of NATO, the commitment of the USA to preserving the peace and protecting the borders of post 1945 Europe, and the move of the major western countries to democratic government have succeeded in creating a new peace loving climate in much of  Europe that is our precious inheritance. Doubtless all those who lost their lives in the brutal slaughter of 1914-18 would be pleased that belatedly  Europe has come to its senses and sees the futility and danger of fighting over borders and government control of territory.

Today we see too many civil wars in the Middle East. We see continuing instability about borders and governing areas in the east of our own continent. The EU has been needlessly provocative to Russia, and Russia has replied with the annexation of the Crimea. We need to make sure wiser counsels prevail. The EU should not be seen as a threatening  force by its neighbours, and the neighbours need to respect the rule of law and the wish for peace by most European peoples.

I thank all those who read, sang and spoke at the service. The words and hymns chosen were deeply moving. We both commemorated the dead, and gave thanks that we live in an age which has not sent European  young men to their death in wars of industrial proportions.