By Matthew Barrett
Follow Matthew on Twitter.
Yesterday in Parliament, Richard Bacon, a Conservative backbencher, tried to introduce a Bill which would repeal the Human Rights Act 1998. One of Mr Bacon's lines of argument was that the legal requirement for Ministers to amend legislation - without a vote in Parliament - in order to comply with European human rights legislation - is "fundamentally undemocratic":
"Under section 10, a Minister of the Crown may make such amendments to primary legislation as are considered necessary to enable the incompatibility to be removed by the simple expedient of making an order. In effect, because the accepted practice is that the United Kingdom observes its international obligations, a supranational court can impose its will against ours. In my view this is fundamentally undemocratic."
Mr Bacon also compellingly argued that the controversial social issues that judges often like to get involved in should be decided by "elected representatives and not by unelected judges":
"[T]here is no point in belonging to a club if one is not prepared to obey its rules. The solution is therefore not to defy judgments of the Court, but rather to remove the power of the Court over us. ... Judges do not have access to a tablet of stone not available to the rest of us which enables them to discern what our people need better than we can possibly do as their elected, fallible, corrigible representatives. There is no set of values that are so universally agreed that we can appeal to them as a useful final arbiter. In the end they will always be shown up as either uselessly vague or controversially specific. Questions of major social policy, whether on abortion, capital punishment, the right to bear firearms or workers rights, should ultimately be decided by elected representatives and not by unelected judges."
Continue reading "70 Tory MPs vote to repeal the Human Rights Act" »
By Matthew Barrett
Follow Matthew on Twitter.
The Daily Mail this morning reports on the 118 Conservative MPs who have written to constituents indicating their opposition to gay marriage proposals. The Mail says "Their opposition has been expressed in letters and emails sent to constituents who have contacted them with their own concerns", and points out that if these MPs voted against proposals, it would constitute the biggest Tory rebellion in modern times. However, Equalities Minister (and Secretary of State for Culture) Maria Miller pointed out on Twitter that since any vote on the issue would be a free vote, it would not technically be counted as a rebellion.
I have listed the MPs from the Mail's story below.
By Matthew Barrett
Follow Matthew on Twitter.
Below are the winners of the different categories of the Spectator's Parliamentarian of the Year awards, which were held this afternoon.
Three names especially strike me: Jesse Norman, Andrea Leadsom and Theresa May.
Jesse Norman deserves relentless praise for his defence of our constitution against the offensive, mandate-lacking desire of some in the Coalition to see the House of Lords destroyed. But Mr Norman is far from being a mere skilled rebel. He is a serious economic and philosophical thinker, and a remarkable talent on the backbenches. His award is richly deserved.
By Peter Hoskin
Follow Peter on Twitter
As revealed by ITV's Lucy Manning, the quietly assertive chairman of the Treasury Select Committee, Andrew Tyrie, will lead Parliament's inquiry into the banks. Joining him will be his select committee colleagues Mark Garnier, Pat McFadden, Andy Love and John Thurso. Four men to take on who-knows-how-many rate fixers.
However, as with David Beckham's exclusion from the Olympics football squad, it's the omissions that are more eyecatching. Among them is Andrea Leadsom, another Treasury Select Committee member and former Barclays employee, who was ferociously brilliant in her questioning of Bob Diamond, the other week — and matched it in her observations afterwards. She also, you'll remember, recently suggested that George Osborne apologise for trying to tie Labour (specifically, Ed Balls) to the Libor scandal.
And there's also Labour's John Mann, another select committee member who tried to cut Diamond, so to speak. He's currently raging against his exclusion on Twitter, even saying that "I'm going to run my own inquiry into the banking scandal".
Of course, not all shall sit on parliamentary inquiries — but leaving out Leadsom and Mann does seem to undermine this one from the off. There was already enough froth and divide about whether the inquiry should be conducted by MPs or by a judge. Now that the MPs have finally been chosen, that divide looks likely to remain.
By Matthew Barrett
Follow Matthew on Twitter.
Yesterday evening a debate was held on regional pay. I blogged earlier this week on why I don't think the Government will introduce regional pay bargaining - and the Commons debate last night certainly didn't dispel my theory. After initial pro-regional pay contributions to the debate from Elizabeth Truss, Mike Freer, Margot James, Aidan Burley, and Andrea Leadsom, Guy Opperman, the Member for Hexham rose. He said:
"There are two key arguments in the debate, the first of which is economic. Having worked as a legal aid barrister or state prosecutor for 15 years .... It was during that time that I saw the effects of local pay, as it is described, and took into account the argument of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) ... who first contemplated it in 2003 and then forced it on the Courts Service in 2007. As with so many of the right hon. Gentleman’s economic policies, I see little evidence that local pay was a success. I have tried to study the economic argument behind it ... I do not support such arguments, which are obscure at best and have not been shown to work in real terms. Also—surely this is the crucial point—it is not supported by businesses in my constituency, none of which has come to me to press for it."
Andrew Percy, the Member for Brigg and Goole intervened:
"In our region, the Humber, we cannot get NHS workers to come and work and have to consider paying them more. A few years ago we could not get teachers to teach in the city of Hull and had to give them an enhanced salary to do it. Whatever the economics, the reality is that we cannot get some public sector workers to come to our region. How we would do that if we paid them even less is beyond me."
Continue reading "Tory MPs speak out against regional pay in Commons debate" »
By Tim Montgomerie
Follow Tim on Twitter
Tory MPs from the Fresh Start Group that is trying to reforge Britain's relationship with the EU (recently profiled by my colleague Matthew Barrett) have welcomed a report from the Open Europe think tank that argues that big reductions are possible in the EU budget.
Austerity may be stalking the whole of the continent but the EU recently demanded a 6.2% increase in its own resources. The summits, dinners and other talking shops mentioned earlier by Martin Callanan don't come cheap. More expensive is the escalating cost of EU staffers. "Expenditure on MEPs’ salaries and allowances has increased by 77.5 per cent since 2005 and cost £154million in 2012, excluding pensions and transitional allowances." The Daily Mail continues:
"Expenditure on Commission staff salaries has risen by 17.9 per cent since 2005 and now totals £1.7billion. Spending on schooling for children of EU officials currently stands at £137million, and is set for an increase in 2013 of 6.8 per cent."
Open Europe's alternative budget (can't find it online) includes scrapping a range of quangoes and also the second European Parliament in Strasbourg which France demands we keep but serves no useful function and costs European taxpayers £146 million. The think tank estimates 30% or £33 billion could, in total, be cut from the EU's unaudited budget.
Andrea Leadsom of the Fresh Start Group urged the British Government to be "far more aggressive in [its] negotiating position" on the EU Budget.
George Eustice MP added*:
“For too long the EU has decided what it wants to spend first and then simply expected member states to give it the money it wants. It needs to learn to work to a budget, to cut its cloth accordingly and to accept that it will have a complete freeze in income for the foreseeable future.”
* Quoted in The Times.
By Matthew Barrett
Follow Matthew on Twitter
My series profiling the backbench groups of Tory MPs has usually featured groups with general ideological goals. Groups representing the traditional right or Thatcherite wing of the Party cannot be said to focus on a single area of political life. Nor can newer groups like the Free Enterprise Group, or the 2020 Conservatives. However, Fresh Start, the subject of this profile, is focused on one big area of politics: Europe.
Origins of Fresh Start
Fresh Start was formed before the summer recess in 2011, and formally launched in September last year, at an event to which all Conservative MPs were invited. Anthony Browne, in his ConservativeHome column, reported on the launch of Fresh Start at the time:
"By one count there were 104 Conservative MPs; another put it at 120 – twice the total number of Liberal Democrats in the House of Commons. Either way, it was standing room only in the Thatcher Room in Portcullis House last night, as much of the parliamentary Conservative party (and the odd hanger-on like me) met to discuss Britain’s way forward with the European Union."
The founders are Andrea Leadsom, Chris Heaton-Harris, and George Eustice, all 2010 intake members:
By Matthew Barrett
Follow Matthew on Twitter
Yesterday in the House, an emergency debate was held on the following resolution, which was moved by Bill Cash:
"That this House has considered the matter of the legal and other action now to be taken by the Government in upholding the rule of law and protecting UK interests in respect of the nature and content of the Treaty on Stability, Co-ordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union."
Cash made his case for us yesterday on Comment, saying more Europe always leads to less prosperity and more disorder. Other Members who spoke made the following points:
Andrea Leadsom was pleased with the opportunity for "change" as a result of any new treaty:
"The euro summit will consider things such as competition and structures, and inevitably will, therefore, be a forum for caucusing... So change is in the air. I take great pleasure in the fact that, because change is in the air, there is the opportunity for change for Britain too. The prospect is no longer of a two-speed Europe but of a multi-tier Europe—in respect not just of those in the eurozone and those outside it but of those in the Schengen arrangement and those outside it, and of those great fishing nations interested only in the common fishing area and those who wish to be excluded from it. A multi-tier Europe in which member states can pursue their own particular interests but join together in areas of common cause is the opportunity facing us."
By Paul Goodman
Follow Paul on Twitter
Last year, the Prime Minister flew to Brussels amidst rumour of a leadership challenge if he didn't achieve at least a token repatriation of power.
Today, he faced the Commons not only with no such repatriation realised but with his veto - so rapturously greeted at the time by Conservative MPs - arguably valueless, since it's now clear that he won't challenge the principle of the EU institutions being used to enforce the F.U agreement.
Yet there was no mass revolt from his backbenches, and no revival to date of the leadership challenge rumours. What explains this change in the Tory atmosphere? I hope to explore the question in detail soon, but will for the moment rest with an answer I've cited before.
Continue reading "Cameron today: Off the hook on the veto. On it over more IMF money." »
By Joseph Willits
Follow Joseph on Twitter
After Justine Greening's announcement giving the go-ahead for a high speed rail network, High Speed 2 (HS2), 37 Conservative MPs were able to question the Transport Secretary within 60 minutes.
The exchanges demonstrated the opposition of those MPs whose constituencies are directly affected by high speed rail. However their reservations were outweighed by praise for the scheme from MPs namely in the North and the Midlands - and some in the South East who claimed that their seats have benefitted from HS1.
Fervent critic of high speed rail, Andrea Leadson MP (South Northamptonshire), questioned the project's costs in yesterday's debate. Leadsom praised the Transport Secretary's patience in listening to her concerns many times, but spoke of "communities blighted by this high-speed rail line". She continued:
"How sure is she that the actual costs in their entirety will be kept to the amounts we have been talking about, and how realistic is it for Britain to afford this project at this very difficult time economically?".
The country "cannot afford not to do this" replied Greening, who cited High Speed 1 as an example of being both on time, and on budget. Once Crossrail had been completed, the cost to the taxpayer would begin, Greening said.
Another MP whose constituency will be touched by high-speed rail, Steve Baker MP (Wycombe), welcomed that "additional protections for the Chilterns will reduce costs", but asked whether Greening would "consider tunnelling the entire width of the Chilterns?". At £1.2 billion, although considered, was "unaffordable", replied Greening.
Drawing examples from both France and Spain, St Albans MP Anne Main raised concerns "that the north might not get the projected benefit and that instead it might be London that grows". Both Lyon and Seville were "caused expense" rather than growth as Paris and Madrid benefitted, she said.
Greening responded by reiterating the backing for the project, and that the cities of Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds and Sheffield all believe "this project is vital." Rehman Chishti MP (Gillingham) reminded the House that "real concern was expressed prior to the introduction of High Speed 1 in Kent". This has now led to "real economic regeneration and growth in the south-east and Kent", he continued. Another Kent MP, Damian Collins (Folkestone & Hythe) echoed Chishti's sentiment with the hope that Kent will further benefit from connections north.
MPs from the North and the Midlands were most vocal in their support for the project. Pudsey MP Stuart Andrew spoke of the need to "rebalance the economy" nationwide, and allow the North "to become more attractive for business to invest in". The "solution", he said, was HS2. Martin Vickers MP (Cleethorpes), who has many constituents working at the Tata Steel plant in Scunthorpe, welcomed the announcement of HS2 as a boost to industry. He asked for "categorical assurance that everything possible will be done to ensure that the procurement procedures favour British-based companies". His sentiment was echoed by Nigel Mills MP (Amber Valley) who concluded that the decision would "be even more popular in Derbyshire if the trains are built at Bombardier".
Some MPs in the Midlands did seem to be slightly cautious about the region's positioning, leading to a lesser service and coverage by HS2. Stafford MP Jeremy Lefroy spoke of businesses in north Staffordshire requiring stops between Birmingham and Manchester (of which Stafford would be one). This "stop is essential to the development of the regional economy", Lefroy said, and asked Greening to "confirm that it is still under serious consideration". Rugby MP Mark Pawsey's concern was slightly different in that the town's good service to London could be jeopardised by high speed rail. He hoped that even with high speed rail, "the legacy line will retain the speed and frequency of their existing rail links".
You can watch the debate on the BBC's Democracy Live.
Friday 8.45am John Redwood MP blogs:
"Orderly but rapid break up would be the least cost option. It would liberate the countries allowed out, and permit them to adjust their competitiveness by a devaluation which would be swift and easier to sell than large wage cuts. There is no foundation to the proposition that the EU would lose 10-50% of its output if they changed currencies. To my knowledge 87 countries have left currency unions since 1945. In most cases they have prospered more after exit. The successful break up of the 16 member rouble bloc could be the model."
8.30pm Philip Hollobone told Sky News:
"...we need to have a disorderly breakup so that the whole of Europe and the rest of the world economy can get back to significant economic growth in the future. This idea that we can prop up the eurozone in the next ten years with constant austerity is just not going to work."
6.45pm The leader of the Conservatives in the European Parliament, Martin Callanan MEP said:
"If there is any treaty change which creates European fiscal union then clearly that will radically effect the UK and that should be put to a referendum. That is what democracy demands, because we would be creating a fundamental change to the EU and our relationship with it. However, that could take years to complete. It might be a way to solve the next crisis - but not this one. That is why the focus should be on measures to address the issues at the heart of this crisis."
He said these would include "The casual one-size-fits-all approach that had undermined the euro from its foundations", "The massive economic imbalance between its prosperous and economically-disciplined members and those which were debt-ridden and financially dysfunctional", "The over-regulation which hampered wealth-creation and innovation and encouraged a dependency culture in struggling states."
5.30pm Paul Waugh reports that Edward Leigh said the following in a Westminster Hall debate this afternoon:
"We have had enough of reading of British prime ministers over the last 20 to 30 years in the days preceding a summit that 'they will stand up for the British national interest' and then coming back from a summit with a kind of Chamberlain-esque piece of paper saying, 'I have negotiated very, very hard, I have got opt-outs on this and that and I have succeeded in standing up for British interests'."
Update: Paul Waugh tweets:
"No.10 hits back at Edward Leigh's Chamberlain remarks. PM's spokeswoman: "It was offensive and ridiculous.""
5.15pm Nadine Dorries blogged:
"I have no doubt that the PM will return with some form of a guarantee for Britain as the last thing Merkel wants is a referendum in Britain. If Britain succumbs, other countries may follow suit and the effect such an event would have on the markets would be damaging for Germany. After all, it’s all about Germany. A fiscal union of 17 EU members forming one new country and in effect a new trading block will have huge implications for Britain and British business. It's time we gave the British people their say via a referendum. The next two days will test the Prime Ministers courage and skills. If he misses this opportunity to grasp the nettle and give the British People their say, they may eventually make him pay with the one vote they will have."
4.15pm Nick Boles appeared on the Daily Politics show this afternoon, and argued:
"Today is the moment of maximum economic danger for Britain. Our retail sales are falling, manufacturing output is collapsing, Brazil has stalled, China has stalled. The entire global economy is sitting on the edge of an abyss and the urgent priority for the British people is to protect our economy and their jobs by getting this Eurozone crisis fixed. We need to repatriate powers but we need to come to that after we've saved our economy, not before. ... What I want David Cameron to do is to protect our economy, protect our jobs - mainly, because that's the thing that's under most threat from the Eurozone - protect the City of London, but he needs to help them get a solution to the Eurozone crisis so that the entire European economy doesn't fall apart. ... We are going to work out an entirely new kind of outer-tier relationship, and that is a big exercise, it's a very important exercise, and it offers big opportunities for Britain, but it's probably going to take two or three years - it's not the work of a weekend when the global economy is on the precipice."
3.30pm Sir Peter Tapsell told Radio 4:
"The fact is the French and German leaders have been meeting for weeks and weeks. I have very little doubt that they will not be able to solve the eurocrisis on Friday but it is very much in the British national interests that it should be solved. As we argued at the time of the Maastricht Treaty to think that you can have a single a interest rate for a whole variety of countries at different stages in their development. And that remains true today and although we opted out of the euro right from the beginning and very sensibly so, but we are affected by the euro and I feel really sceptical that they can solve to eurocrisis, I don’t expect it to survive. ... The reason why Europe is in crisis has to be traced back to the Maastricht Treaty. They then introduced a whole series of measures which weakened the European economy by comparison with those of the Far East and America and so on."
Continue reading "Rolling record of Tory MPs' comments on new EU Treaty" »
By Paul Goodman
Follow Paul on Twitter.
There are conflicting views at present about where Conservative Euro-revolts go next. One is that they peaked on the vote over an EU referendum. Another is that they will climb higher if Britain enters any new treaty negotiations without a repatriation of powers proposal. My view is the latter (were the Government to present a bill based on such a treaty).
But either way, it is worth recording briefly that a Government motion relating to future EU budgets was passed yesterday evening without a Tory backbench amendment. Both a source loyal to the Government and a rebel used the same phrase to me yesterday about potential future rebellions - "guerilla warfare".
In other words, they are united in agreeing that rebellions will be back sooner or later, but for the moment there is no appetite for more among most of the 81 Conservative MPs who voted against the Government on the referendum motion. I think that Tracey Crouch's letter to Mark Pritchard last week rather caught the mood.
Continue reading "Government EU budget motion passes without rebellion" »
By Joseph Willits
Follow Joseph on Twitter
In a Westminster Hall debate on Sex and Relationship Education, Andrea Leadsom MP (South Northamptonshire) has said she would like to see books and videos used in the teaching of sex education, given an age guidance rating. The "perfect template", she said was the system already implemented by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC). Despite the need to use sex education to "tackle issues such as teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases", Leadsom said that some of the material used was "completely inappropriate" and "sends out totally the wrong message". When fears of the "sexualisation of childhood" are heightened, she said, "sexually explicit and inappropriate materials in primary school classrooms can only make things worse."
Leadsom said she had been "shown leaflets given out to primary school children that give graphic definitions of orgasms, masturbation and prostitution" which were being used to educated children as young as 5. There are accounts, she said, of children's "traumatic experiences ... who have been put off having boyfriends", coming to the conclusion that sex "looks absolutely horrific”, therefore having a counter-productive effect.
The materials uses to teach sex education, she said, were guilty of failing to place proper "emphasis on building relationships", and that children should be taught "primarily about relationships". Children, she said, needed "to understand that sex is almost always better when you are in love, or when you are in a committed relationship". On the issue of sex and relationship education for younger children, "the relationship side" she said "can be separate from the sexual side at a very young age", and that at a young age, a "child is not old enough to conceptualise what the act of sex means". Leadsom used gay relationships as an example, saying it "is entirely appropriate to teach that sometimes men love other men, but it is not appropriate to teach what sometimes men do with other men".
By Tim Montgomerie
Follow Tim on Twitter.
Dan Byles MP comments:
"The next few months will be critical to the HS2 debate. The Transport Select Committee will shortly publish their report on the economic case for and against HS2, and soon afterwards the Secretary of Sate for Transport will make an assessment of the recent public consultation and will publish his recommendations. That's why the Backbench Business Committee debate on HS2 on Thursday in the main chamber is so important. We need to make the case to MPs who don't believe HS2 affects them, from Kent to Cornwall to East Anglian, that HS2 will be paid for by every household in the country. The momentum behind the No to HS2 campaign is building, and today, together with my colleagues Andrea Leadsom MP and Chris White MP, I helped a small group of campaigners hand a petition bearing some 108,000 names in to 10 Downing Street. I believe the arguments against spending £32 billion on HS2 are compelling. I just hope the decision makers are prepared to listen to them."
By Matthew Barrett
Follow Matthew on Twitter
The company Key Business Insight's "Commons Performance Cockpit" ranks MPs by their total cost - that is, staffing costs, travel expenses, office costs, salary, and so on. The majority of the 50 "most efficient" MPs, in terms of total cost, are Conservatives.
The top 50 "most efficient" MPs between 1st April, 2010 and 31st March, 2011 are listed below:
*Took his seat on 3rd March, 2011
**Took her seat on 13th January, 2011
***Resigned his seat on 8th February, 2011