Author: johnredwood

Mr Redwood’s interventions during the Westminster Hall debate on the Climate Change Act, 10 September 2013

September 11, 2013 2 Comments

Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): I am glad that my hon. Friend is moving on, because what worries me is our attacks on people’s energy bills—the poorest suffer most—and on British industry, because we have such penal energy policies. Tony Abbott recently won an important election victory in Australia saying that for him it was a referendum on the carbon tax, because he simply rejected dear energy for Australia. He was right about that for Australia, and should we not be doing the same here?

David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con): I hope that a certain other Australian who works closely with our leader (Mr Lynton Crosby) is taking note.

I have tabled a lot of questions to the Minister on the issue. In reply to one, he has said that by 2020 around 23% of household electricity bills will be as a result of climate change policy. I have also tabled questions to find out, thus far without success, how much of the NHS electricity bill goes to support wind and solar farms. Another of his answers, which I do not have to hand, suggests that every person in the country will be paying between £4,700 and £5,300 a year towards the Government’s climate change policies. We have embarked on a hugely expensive course of action, which no other country in the world shows any signs of following.

…

Mr Redwood: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that before industrialisation, there was a lot of global warming and then global cooling? Can he tell us what caused the global warming before man generated CO2?

Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab):I will not respond to the right hon. Gentleman’s question simply because of lack of time, but I assure him that there was of course global warming and global cooling. We are looking at anthropogenic global warming, which is what we must be concerned about. He will accept that if we go over that 2° threshold, it will have damaging repercussions for all of us.

…

Mr Redwood: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the point that I was trying to make earlier to the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), who seemed to be unwilling to consider it? If one wishes to establish the impact of human CO2, one needs to understand all the other factors driving climate change, which might be up or down, and be able to quantify them. Otherwise, one cannot calculate the human effect.

Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con): Absolutely. When people say that there is a scientific consensus that all or the majority of heating that has occurred over the recent decades is due to man-made emissions, there is in fact no such consensus. If one drills down into the questions people ask, one will see that the questions in the first study included, “Do you believe that man-made emissions contribute to warming?” Yes, I do. “Do you believe that that is largely due to CO2?” Yes, I do. However, that does not make me an alarmist, and it does not justify anyone else pretending that every scientist is an alarmist—they are not.

The Act is not just the most expensive, impractically ambitious and uncertainly based piece of legislation that I have ever known; it is unique in being legally binding and unilateral. No other country has followed us down that route. Since we went down that route, Canada and Japan have resiled from Kyoto, and Australia has just abandoned its carbon tax. It is time we looked critically at the Act, repealed or revised it, and do not allow ourselves to be slavishly, legally bound to continue doing something that no longer accords with the evidence or goes along with what the rest of the world is doing.

Mr Redwood’s intervention during the debate on the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill, 9 September 2013

September 11, 2013 0 Comments

Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): Has the hon. Gentleman discussed his proposals with leading national charities, because they might not wish to have to register their people, who are legitimately campaigning for their charitable purpose?

Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab): I have—but I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has done so. He might be well advised to meet with them first, before asking a question like that. Yes, I have met with the leading charities. I have also met with representative organisations of the leading charities, and I have made two things clear to them. First, if they employ lobbyists according to the definition that we want to introduce, they will have to be registered. Even the large representative organisations say that that is the right thing to do. We are talking about professional lobbyists. Throughout the country, in every neighbourhood and constituency, there is much excellent community and charitable work that is undertaken voluntarily, and that is not professional lobbying. We do not expect people who lobby us at our surgeries with a particular problem in their neighbourhood to have to register. However, if a large organisation such as a charity—I can think of some that spend £300 million a year; that is their turnover—has parliamentary consultants working for them or for third-party organisations that are lobbying Parliament in the material interests of that charity, that should be registered. The register will take only a few moments to fill in—it is not a particularly arduous task—and it is right that anyone who lobbies Parliament should be on it.

Mr Redwood’s contribution to the Statement on the G20, 9 September 2013

September 11, 2013 0 Comments

Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): I read reports that the Prime Minister had a very welcome meeting with the German Chancellor to discuss member states of the EU having more control over economic migration and benefit systems. Is this true, and is there any news about the timetable for this welcome work?

The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron): I have many discussions with Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor. At the G20, most of our discussions were about Syria rather than about reform of the European Union, but we have had good discussions about the reform of the European Union. The stance that the German Government have taken is very helpful and I will continue to discuss that with her.

Some thoughts on 5 big rebellions in this Parliament

September 11, 2013 54 Comments

 

There have now been four occasions when a Commons debate and vote has decisively changed Coalition policy and actions and one when a letter signed by 81 Conservative MPs changed the government’s approach. It shows that this Parliament is a stronger Parliament than its last few predecessors, willing to challenge and if necessary defeat the government.  We need to ask why this is happening. There are lessons for government, for Oppostion and for everyone else interested in  the evolution of our democracy.

On 24th October 2011 81 Conservatives voted for David Nuttall’s amendment seeking an EU referendum, with 19 more abstaining.  The pressure for a referendum from Conservative MPs finally resulted in the Prime Minister’s Bloomberg speech and the offer of a referendum should there be a majority Conservative government next time.

On 10 July 2012 91 Conservative MPs voted against Lords reform, in a rebellion against coalition policy led by Jesse Norman. In  August the government announced it was dropping its Lords reform Bill.

On 31 October 2012 53 Conservatives supported Mark Reckless’s amendment to cut the EU budget. Labour also voted for his amendment, and the government was defeated. The Prime Minister then successfully negotiated a reduction in the EU budget.

On 5 June 2013 Andrew Bridgen sent a letter to the Prime Minister signed by 81 Conservative MPs urging him to hold a debate and vote before making any further commitment to Syria. The Prime Minister accepted this advice.

On 29th August 2013 31 Conservatives voted against the government’s motion on Syria with Labour, defeating the government after it had in effect accepted it had no majority for military action and would not  be bringing forward a second vote to approve a  missile strike as required by the amended motion.

This pattern of rebellions against the recommended line of the whips is unusual. Firstly, the rebellions bring far more MPs to vote against the government than in previous Parliaments. Secondly, they tend to be on the really big fundamental issues. Thirdly, they are not made bitter by personal rivalries or by people seeking to become leader. Fourthly, each one has been organised by a different MP. Everyone has been organised by an MP of the 2010 intake, not some  former rival of Mr Cameron . The Syria vote did not require a leader, as there was no amendment or rival motion involved. Nick de Bois, the Secretary to the 1922 Committee and a member of the 2010 intake, was one of the more active in the media on it.  Fifthly the personnel  varies considerably depending on the issue. It’s not just a hard core of anti leadership people.   Sixthly, the 2010 intake, whipped more energetically than more experienced MPs, is usually half the rebellion, reflecting their proportion of Conservative MPs overall.

I think much of this behaviour can be put down to the coalition. Too many talented Conservative MPs are free to think their own thoughts. They think the coalition has not pushed through enough Conservative measures and they remain truer to the Conservative Manifesto they fought on. The EU is the biggest source of disagreement, as most Conservative MPs want a new relationship with the EU as soon as  possible, and deeply resent the continuing increase in EU powers and laws, as more Directives and court judgements rain down on us.

The Syrian motion brought out some surpising rebels. Fiona Bruce, Tracey Crouch, Anne Marie Morris, Phillip Lee would not be head of most people’s lists of likely rebels.  When  usually loyal representatives of the middle of the Conservative party feel they have to help vote down the government, it should be time for a rethink on how whipping works and policy is formed and approved.

The modern Conservative party wants its Ministers and leaders to work with it, to persuade, to listen, to discuss. Most sensible MPs know that if MPs treat every vote as a free vote and object to anything that might be unpopular, you end up with anarchy. The party which opposed the Syrian war strongly, has given the governemnt good majorities so far for the Lobbying Bill, even though there are criticisms of it flying from both sides.

Anyone wishing to get a measure through this Parliament has to remember the arithmetic. If the coalition speaks for both its parties, they have a good  majority. If coalition ministers agree with Labour’s line they have a majority, regardless of Conservative backbenchers. If  Labour votes with rebel Conservative backbenchers on a measure Conservative MPs do n ot regard as sensible, they have the majority, as the larger rebellions see more than 50 Conservatives in disagreement with the government.

 

Wokingham Times article, 4 September

September 10, 2013 1 Comment

Parliament had a good week last week. We stopped the UK going to war in Syria.

It all began before the Parliamentary recess. I joined 80 other Conservative colleagues and sent a letter to the Prime Minister saying that if they wished to change their Syrian policy at any time they needed to recall Parliament, hold a debate and a vote.  We explained to Ministers that we did not think arming the rebels would be a good idea, though Ministers favoured that approach. The rebel forces encompass a wide range of movements and people and we could not be sure who might win the ensuing struggle for power and whether that would be an improvement. We also argued strongly against UK  military intervention. The government  promised us that we would have a debate and a vote.

Last week the government kept that promise. By the time Parliament was recalled, Ministers had shifted their stance. They now agreed with us that we should not arm the rebels. They agreed the UK should not intervene to try to shift the  military balance. They did however, want to intervene to retaliate for the use of chemical weapons.  Many of us were no happier about this idea than the idea of general intervention. Indeed, we could not see how you could confine  your military intervention to the issue of chemical weapons. The cruise missile hitting a Syrian target would not plant a poster explaining it had been unleashed just because of chemical weapons.  The government  did not  worry too much about convincing us as it was confident it had the support of the Labour party and so did not need our votes.

When Mr Miliband late on Wednesday afternoon announced he was no longer planning to back the government, they faced the reality that they would lose a vote to authorise the use of force. The government redrafted its motion, and promised us all that they would make no decision on military activity until after the UN weapons inspectors had reported. They also said that after the report they would come to a conclusion on military activity and then put it to the proper vote in the Commons.

I spoke in the debate against military involvement. During the course of a long Thursday in Parliament it became clear a very large number of Conservative MPs would vote against the subsequent authorisation of force. By the time of the vote on the government’s motion it was clear the government would not bring another motion to authorise military activity as it knew it would lose such a vote. As it turned out they also lost the bland motion they did put to the House on Thursday, as more than 70 Conservative MPs declined to vote for it.

I strongly welcome and support the government’s new policy on Syria. The UK will not arm the rebels, and will not intervene with military force. It will instead renew efforts to find a diplomatic and political way forward.

Russian diplomacy

September 10, 2013 31 Comments

 

When Mr Kerry let slip that putting the chemical weapons out of use could prevent a US military strike, the Russians went into overdrive. They made a proposal to Syria to put their chemical arsenal under new supervision. Syria has a made a positive response to the  idea. We n ow learn that Mr Obama had also discussed this with Mr Putin at the G20.

I would urge the President and his Secretary of State to take this offer seriously, and sit down and discuss what it means,  and how it might be implemented.  The rest of the world will not be pleased if an apparently fair offer to deal with the issue that the US has highlighted is not properly examined.

Of course the US can  seek proper guarantees and assurances.  The UN might wish to make an independent and useful contribution, seeking to find a way forward which reassures all who do not wish to see chemical weapons in use that the Assad regime’s stockpiles cannot in future be used in this conflict.

It may be difficult to resolve this offer fully before the vote in Congress. It is a complication over the debate and vote. As the US administration says it sole concern prompting military action is the future use of chemical weapons, any sensible Congressman or woman would want this offer to be fully explored before thinking of  military action.  It argues for delay to the vote, or argues for a  conditional vote  in Congress, with Congress considering  later military action if the latest diplomatic initiative does not produce a negotiated settlement of the chemical weapons issue.

Meanwhile the Congress also needs to weigh the heavy news from Syria  concerning some rebel attacks on Christian settlements.The BBC has highlighted the plight of the Christians driven out of Maaloula,  reminding us that not all the anti Assad forces are benign democrats.

Energy Prices and Profits, 4 September

September 9, 2013 0 Comments

Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): Does the right hon. Lady not understand that if she backs the most expensive and least rewarding forms of energy investment, to the tune of £110 billion—which is what she wishes to do—profits of less than £4 billion a year will not pay for all that?

Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab): The choice that we face is between moving to the energy market that is best suited to the future and continuing to incur the additional costs of the past. The Energy and Climate Change Committee has produced information about the cost of decarbonising our power sector, but has also drawn attention to the cost of not doing anything. I believe that the cost of staying stuck in the past would far exceed the cost of investing the amount that we need to invest in renewable and low-carbon energy for the future.

Mr Redwood’s interventions during the Opposition Day Debate on Living Standards, 4 September

September 9, 2013 0 Comments

Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): I am glad that the hon. Lady is highlighting this issue. She is right that in the last couple of years under Labour there was a huge reduction in living standards, and the coalition Government have not yet reversed it. Does she now think that her party was wrong to implement policies of very high and rising energy and fuel prices, which are one of the main reasons people are in this bind?

Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab): I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. We have said that we would abolish Ofgem and create a new energy watchdog with real teeth to force energy companies to pass on price cuts when the cost of wholesale energy falls. Meanwhile, under this Prime Minister’s watch, energy giants are enjoying a £3.3 billion windfall. That shows the warped priorities of this out-of-touch Government. Rail fares are another example, increasing by up to 9% a year. We would apply strict caps. We have said that we would introduce a new legal right for passengers to be entitled to the cheapest ticket for their journey; this Government are giving powers back to train operating companies to increase some fares by up to another 5% beyond the cap. Again, that shows the warped priorities of this out-of-touch Government.

On housing, there are now 3.8 million households in the private rented sector, including more than 1 million with children. Research shows that many are being ripped off through hidden fees and charges costing tenants £76 million a year.
…
Mr Redwood: I am glad that the Minister has said that we share Labour’s ambition for more people to have better paid jobs. Of course we want people to be better paid, but is not the best way for people to get a better paid job to start with a low-paid job and work their way up and get mentored and trained in the workplace?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Clark): My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Opposition Members should not be so disparaging about the chances that are being given to millions of people to find work, make progress, learn skills and acquire the necessary experience.
…
Mr Redwood: Does the Minister agree that President Obama’s economic policy, which has been much misrepresented and much praised by the Labour party, has included a far bigger budget deficit reduction, through spending cuts and tax rises, than anything done here, and that the American economy is growing faster for longer?

Greg Clark: My right hon. Friend is right that there is a global consensus, if I could put it that way, that responsibility in fiscal matters is the necessary condition to revive the economy. The only exception to that consensus continues to be Opposition Front Benchers.

We have cut our structural deficit by more than any G7 country. The deficit is forecast to fall this year, next year and the year after that. We have record low interest rates. We are investing more in infrastructure during this Parliament than the previous Parliament.

It is still a world of economic turbulence—let us be clear about that—but the evidence throughout the past few months is that Britain is on the mend. National income has grown for two successive quarters.

An appeal to Congress

September 9, 2013 54 Comments

 

             If President Obama’s idea of a fast and furious missile assault on the Assad regime was to have any chance of working it was best done quickly, in the heat of anger at the chemical weapon massacre.

             Some might say revenge is a dish best served cold. In this case I disagree. I think in these circumstances revenge is a dish best cancelled. It would have been more understandable  if it had been done immediately after the chemical weapon incident. US missiles could have hit more military targets more easily. Hot revenge is more passionate and maybe more forgivable than cold calculation.  It would still have left open the three crucial issues of proof, legality, and the consequences.

             Now Assad has had many days to hide and disperse his military high command, to replicate or shift computer and communication systems, and to place strategic military hardware in inaccessible places or close to those no-one should wish to harm. Anyone bent on revenge should not have too much of the Hamlet about him.  A possible military action later this week or next still faces those very same big issues  that the President doubtless agonised about, leading to his delay.

              We still do not have incontrovertible proof of who was to blame. The UN still refuses to give legal cover to a military strike, so the legality rests on arguing that a strike will prevent a future atrocity. The US still cannot be sure  how the regime and others will respond to a missile campaign, and cannot know just how much weaponry to let off to change the dictator’s actions without allowing a worse regime to take over.

              In yesterday’s Sunday Telegraph I set out in an open letter why I think the US Congress should refuse to vote for military engagement.  If the motion seeks approval for the use of  force they should vote it down. Those of us who oppose the use of force by the UK are not appeasers, people wishing to turn our backs on the world. We are realists, who recognise that sometimes venting fury with missiles from a distance cannot remodel a dictatorship or ensure smooth transition to a working liberal democracy in a country as heavily armed and as divided as Syria.

               The case against military action is that a limited volley of firepower is unlikely to make the position better, and could make it worse. Those who think the use of force is essential have a duty to tell the rest of us in general terms what is their military aim, how they think they carry it out, and why Syria will be  a happier place afterwards. Bombs and missiles kill people and destroy buildings and equipment. The aim, I thought, was to protect the lives of more Syrians. The weapons would have to be very selective to kill just those  who intensify the massacres, and to create all of a sudden a political dynamic in this war torn country that could assert peace.  Where the west before has wanted to support or create democracy, in Afghanistan, it has had to expend much blood and treasure with many troops on the ground, fighting to impose and uphold freedoms that otherwise people would not enjoy. Why should Syria be any easier?