Oral Answers to Questions

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

We are introducing regional hubs for the civil service. Of course, many UK civil servants work in Scotland, supporting the people in Scotland. Inevitably there are a large number of civil servants in London because this is the capital of the United Kingdom, but we have to make sure that they represent the country that they serve.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

We know that special advisers are required to submit their emails and telephone texts to public view under freedom of information legislation. What is the Government’s policy on the use of WhatsApp, which special advisers are using to conceal Government business from public view?

[Mr Letwin]

I hesitate to admit to my hon. Friend that I have never personally used WhatsApp in my life. I am happy to reassure him that all aspects of Government business are properly recorded and minuted, and are subject to FOI requests as normal, despite the rumours that he has heard.

Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Monday 18th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I am grateful to have this opportunity to make a statement on the report by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee entitled “Appointment of the Commissioner for Public Appointments”, which we published last week. The post of Commissioner for Public Appointments was established in 1995 following the recommendation of the Committee on Standards in Public Life in its first report, the Nolan report. The Nolan report recommended the creation of the post as a means of enhancing public confidence in the public appointments process and the quality of appointments made under it. The role of the Commissioner for Public Appointments is set out in the Public Appointments Order in Council 2015.

Since the post and office of the commissioner were established in 1995, there have been four Commissioners for Public Appointments. From 2011 to 2016, the post of CPA was held jointly with the role of First Civil Service Commissioner by Sir David Normington. However, with Sir David’s departure, the two posts of First Civil Service Commissioner and CPA were advertised separately. That was the result of a recommendation made to Ministers by Sir Gerry Grimstone prior to the publication of his review of public appointments. As indicated by the recruitment advertising for this post, the commissioner will be expected to work with the Government in implementing the Grimstone review’s recommendations. The Grimstone review, however, was published only in March this year.

After two hearings with the Government’s preferred candidate, the right hon. Peter Riddell, and after some discussion, we have given Mr Riddell a qualified endorsement as Commissioner for Public Appointments. He is well known to many in this House as a respected political journalist and commentator. He was appointed a Privy Counsellor for his work on the Gibson inquiry into the possible illegal rendition of UK detainees. He has also been chair of the Hansard Society and, most recently and perhaps relevantly, director of the Institute for Government.

PACAC remains concerned, however, that the changes proposed by the Grimstone review, as interpreted by the Government, alongside other changes, such as the introduction of enlarged ministerial offices—whereby Ministers, instead of the civil service, can themselves make appointments to their private offices—may be leading to an increasing politicisation of senior public appointments. We will report on our inquiry into the Grimstone proposals after the code of practice for public appointments and the new Order in Council have been published.

The proposals are controversial. They propose a significant removal of the powers exercised by the office of the CPA over the public appointments process. Ministers, instead of the CPA, would set the rules by drawing up the new governance code. Ministers could decide to run an appointment process without referral to the CPA. Ministers, not the CPA, could determine the membership of appointment panels, including the independent member. Ministers could include on selection panels an official acting as a Ministers’ representative without the consent of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. Ministers would have latitude to interview and appoint someone even if the selection panel had marked him or her below the line.

The new Order in Council and the new code of conduct for public appointments have yet to be published even in draft form. Publication of the Grimstone review was originally expected last year, but it was held back. There was a gap of only three days between the publication of the Grimstone review, along with the Government response, and Mr Riddell being named as the preferred candidate. That left us with no opportunity, by the time of Mr Riddell’s appearance before the Committee on 21 March, to consider the Grimstone review.

We concluded that it would have been inappropriate for us to make a report on the Government’s preferred candidate that could have been regarded as an implicit and unqualified endorsement of the Government’s interpretation of the Grimstone proposals. After our initial evidence session with Mr Riddell before Easter, we therefore issued a call for evidence on the Grimstone review. We took evidence from the outgoing CPA, Sir David Normington, from Sir Gerry Grimstone himself and from my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General prior to concluding our pre-appointment scrutiny of Mr Riddell on 12 April. I am very grateful to the Government for delaying Mr Riddell’s appointment while we completed our pre-appointment scrutiny.

We intend to report on the implications of Sir Gerry Grimstone’s review shortly. We will welcome any further written evidence. The present Committee on Standards in Public Life has warned that this could

“all add up to a public perception of a system which was being operated under increased political patronage. It could also run counter to the intentions to increase transparency and diversity.”

The outgoing CPA, Sir David Normington, has expressed his opposition to the proposals as a reversal of the Nolan reforms of 20 years ago. Sir Gerry Grimstone has made it clear that transparency rather than the direct powers currently held by the commissioner would enable the commissioner to remain a powerful regulator. However, the Minister for the Cabinet Office has made it clear that the CPA would be consulted by Ministers, but the CPA would no longer have the power to direct an independent appointment process, as now.

PACAC will therefore closely monitor how Mr Riddell works with Ministers to implement the Grimstone review’s recommendations, and how he responds to the recommendations that PACAC have yet to make on the Grimstone review. PACAC will underwrite Mr Riddell’s authority and independence as the Commissioner for Public Appointments, and we will make use of our ability to carry out follow-up scrutiny, if necessary, to make sure that any concerns we have are heard. We agree with Sir Gerry Grimstone that the role of the CPA should be robust and authoritative, and should not be undermined.

Furthermore, in the light of the Grimstone review’s proposed changes to the public appointments process and in line with other roles, such as those of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman and the chairs of the Office for Budget Responsibility and the UK Statistics Authority, PACAC recommends that future appointments of the Commissioner for Public Appointments should be subject to a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. This will be an additional safeguard, and act as a public reassurance that the independence and status of the Commissioner for Public Appointments is not threatened. We also recommend that a similar procedure should apply to the post of First Civil Service Commissioner. I am very pleased to present this report to Parliament.

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

I commend the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee for his report and today’s statement.

Sir David Normington, the outgoing Commissioner for Public Appointments, said that the Government’s proposals put at risk 20 years of progress and risk ushering in

“a return to the days of political and personal patronage”.

Indeed, he said that as the commissioner, he would be contacted once a month by the Prime Minister or other Ministers, asking why party donors, office holders or former MPs had not been shortlisted or recommended for posts.

In the light of those concerns, does the hon. Gentleman share our fear that dismantling the powers of the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments will open the door to political cronies being gifted public service jobs either as a reward for donations or to create an army of political enforcers in the public sector? Rather than appointment being made on merit or according to skills or public service ethos, are not the Government putting themselves at risk of accusations of cash for jobs?

[Mr Jenkin]

I think the danger is not that those things will happen, but that people will say that they may seem to be happening. Curiously, it might make it harder for the Government to put a friend or supporter into a public appointment job if the Minister is more directly involved. The current arrangements were created to protect Ministers.

If Ministers are frustrated that the wrong people are being interviewed, that people are being appointed according to the wrong job specifications or that people with the right skills are not being given an interview, it is up to them to make sure that the job specification for a job is as they think it should be before the recruitment process starts.

I will not defend the public appointments process in total. The Grimstone review has started a much-needed debate about public appointments, but before my Committee and I give a definitive view of Sir Gerry Grimstone’s proposals, we want to consider all the arguments and all the evidence.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend and his Committee on their excellent publication and the robustness of their recommendations, and I congratulate him on his statement to the House. What was Mr Riddell’s response when the Committee put the points that my hon. Friend has made to him? Does my hon. Friend foresee Mr Riddell being invited back before the Committee before the end of 12 months?

[Mr Jenkin]

On the latter point, we certainly intend to give Mr Riddell an opportunity to appear before the Committee before too long to see how he is settling into his new role. We would not have agreed to his appointment unless we were convinced that he was determined to be independent, but with so many of his powers being questioned and with Ministers substantively proposing to take back control of the appointments process, how he carries out the role will be crucial. How he maintains the importance of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments will be very interesting to observe.

We would like whatever changes are made to be made on the basis of consensus. We have picked up a certain amount of—how shall I say it?—tension between civil servants and Ministers about these appointments. There may be an opportunity to build a better understanding of both parties, so that these changes are not necessary.

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that to ensure that the best candidates are aware of these opportunities, the vacancies must be promoted far and wide? That would go some way towards ensuring that applications were received from candidates regardless of their race, creed, colour, religion, gender or even the university or school they happened to go to. It would also open up the process to people from different and varied walks of life who could bring their life experience to a different arena. Advertising a job on a specialist website and then phoning round our pals to encourage them to apply is not an effective or appropriate way to attract the strongest candidates.

At a time when the public are rightly demanding more accountability from their elected representatives, the opportunity to apply for jobs such as the Commissioner for Public Appointments should be widely publicised across a spectrum of United Kingdom society to encourage a diverse range of applicants, rather than going down the traditional route, which will reaffirm the public’s view that there is cronyism and engender disenchantment and apathy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jenkin]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s contribution. I thank him for the very diligent work that he puts in on the Committee. I do not think he will mind me putting on the record that in the discussions to which I referred he was one of those who expressed a strong reservation about this appointment, not least because no one could possibly describe Peter Riddell as an outsider to Westminster. Whether an outsider is appropriate for this particular role is debatable. We do not know who else was interviewed for the role, as that is not the job of a Select Committee. One of the frustrations of pre-appointment hearings is that we are not interviewing the person for the job but merely trying to establish in our own minds whether the proposed appointment is an appropriate one and the person has the necessary skills and experience. That is what we concluded, but with reservations. In his evidence, Mr Riddell confirmed his determination to make sure that a much wider pool of people are attracted to public appointments than currently appears to be the case. Certainly, we do not want to go back to the discreet tap on the shoulder—“Why don’t you apply for this job, old boy?”—that used to exist before the Nolan rules were brought into operation.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Are we not going back to pre-Nolan days, which were rife with personal and political patronage? Is this not a case of the role of the commissioner being emasculated? Sir David Normington said that he managed to see off the monthly attempts by the Prime Minister and other Ministers to appoint Tory donors or former MPs to key roles. We will be back in that position. Will that emasculation not be very similar to what has happened with the Government’s adviser on ministerial conduct, where we have seen cases of the most egregious misconduct by Ministers that were not referred to the adviser? We are going back to the bad old days. We have lost so much trust in the parliamentary system in this country. Our reputation was at rock bottom after the great scandal of Members’ expenses; it is now subterranean or worse. Will the implementation of Grimstone’s changes not take us further down that road? How will the Committee make sure that those abuses of patronage do not return?

[Mr Jenkin]

I am reminded by the hon. Gentleman’s stentorian warnings of the cries of St John the Baptist from the dungeon until his head was presented on a platter. Such warnings are important, and we have to have a system that we can defend against them. People are always going to be suspicious that there has been something of a fix about a public appointment. That is perfectly legitimate. Ultimately, the authority for such appointments rests with Ministers. We want a balanced and transparent approach, with safeguards. I repeat that if Ministers get a grip on the job specifications at the outset of such appointment processes, and have confidence in the independence of the interview panels, there should be no problem with the people of quality they want getting through the interviews. If that is not the case, we need to address that.

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Matthew Hancock)]

I am grateful for the Select Committee’s support for the appointment of Peter Riddell to the post. He is a heavyweight and distinguished public servant. The Grimstone report, which the Chairman of the Committee mentioned, follows the Nolan principles, adding to them the principle of diversity in public appointments. Although the proportion of appointees to such posts who declare a political allegiance is the lowest on record, down from more than 20% in the early 2000s to less than 5% now, transparency is important in this area. On those grounds, it gives me great pleasure to have the opportunity to ask the Chairman of the Select Committee a question, rather than the other way around. As a sturdy defender of the principle of parliamentary democracy, does he accept that voters would expect Ministers to make appointments to these vital public roles?

[Mr Jenkin]

Yes, of course they do. In the end, no public appointment of the general nature that we are talking about is made without a Minister signing off that decision. The question is twofold. First, are Ministers being presented with a choice of candidates that they consider appropriate? If they are, can we be certain that the process has not been fixed to get friends and cronies through the appointment process? We need a balance that the public will respect and have faith in. On job specifications, if we get the process right at the outset, there should be no need for the Minister to complain. If we take away too many safeguards, it is Ministers who will be criticised for the appointments they make, not civil servants who have been sitting on panels and been ignored.

[Mr Speaker]

We are most grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee.

EU Referendum: Civil Service Guidance

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Monday 29th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the instructions issued by the Cabinet Secretary to permanent secretaries in respect of EU referendum guidance for the civil service and special advisers.

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Matthew Hancock)]

The referendum on 23 June on the European Union represents the biggest constitutional decision for the nation in a generation. The Government’s position is clear: Britain will be stronger, safer and better off remaining in a reformed European Union. Today’s Government document setting out the process of leaving underlines that case, showing that a vote to leave could lead to up to a decade or more of damaging uncertainty, with real consequences putting jobs and investment at risk. I concur with that assessment.

Because of the significance of the referendum, as the House knows the Prime Minister took the decision to allow collective responsibility to be suspended on the referendum question. This approach was discussed and agreed by the Cabinet on 20 February. The process is clear: Ministers may depart from the Government position in a personal capacity on the specific question of the referendum. On all other matters, including on other EU business, the Government will operate as normal, and in all things the civil servants support the Government position.

Guidance on how this will work in practice was set out and published by the Cabinet Secretary last week. The guidance is clear. Other than on the specific question of the referendum, all Ministers can commission and see all documents, as normal. On the question of the referendum—and on this question alone—Ministers who disagree with the Government position naturally cannot commission policy work on the in/out question or see documents setting out details of the case to remain. All Ministers can ask for factual briefing, and for facts to be checked in any matter. All Ministers can see documents on EU issues not related to the referendum question, as normal.

The guidance is clear and has been published. The process was agreed at Cabinet as the best way to manage the unusual situation of Ministers who disagree with the Government remaining in post. I hope that this clarity will allow Members on both sides of the House to focus on the main debate about whether Britain will be better served by leaving or remaining in a reformed European Union and then let the people decide.

[Mr Jenkin]

Clarity on this issue is one thing that we do not have. Nobody objects to the Government making their case in the referendum, but most people expect the civil service to be impartial in carrying out its support for Ministers. It is established in law that Ministers are accountable for their Departments. Voters expect Government facts and figures to be impartial and accurate, whether they are used by Ministers who support remain or leave.

Why does the Cabinet Secretary’s letter go far beyond the limits that were placed on dissenting Ministers in the 1975 referendum? Sir Peter Thornton, the permanent secretary of the then Secretary of State for Trade, Peter Shore, was quoted as saying:

“It was jolly difficult putting forward anti-Common Market briefs to Mr. Shore, but I hope we did what he asked”.

What a different atmosphere from today!

Worse than that, a Q and A briefing that has been circulated following the letter states that Ministers may not see any papers that

“have a bearing on the referendum question or are intended to be used in support of their position on the referendum”.

That has been described by one Minister, the Minister for Employment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), as “unconstitutional”. How can such a wide ban be justified?

How does my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office reconcile this with his comment on Radio 4 this morning that

“the Government is functioning on all questions, other than specifically the in/out question, in an entirely normal way”?

He also said:

“There are no rules other than those set out last Monday in the letter from Jeremy Heywood.”

What about the Q and A briefing?

Does the Minister deny that permanent secretaries have been instructed to conceal information requested by Downing Street or the Cabinet Office from a dissenting Minister? The Cabinet Secretary’s letter states that “Departments may check facts”, but civil servants have also been told that they cannot

“provide arguments or new facts”.

How is that consistent with the duty of honesty in the civil service code, which requires a civil servant to

“set out the facts and relevant issues truthfully”?

Does the Minister agree that where any guidance or instruction conflicts with the code, the code must prevail?

How does this situation best serve the democratic process if Ministers on opposing sides of the debate finish up disagreeing about information from the same Department which is meant to be impartial and accurate information provided by professional civil servants?

[Matthew Hancock]

Let me answer those points in turn. First, the Government are functioning perfectly well—in fact, I came to this House from a meeting with the Minister for Employment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), on childcare policy, and it was carried out in an entirely normal way. On Friday I visited a prison with the Justice Secretary, and those two points demonstrate that things are functioning as normal.

The civil service code, and the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, makes it clear that it is the duty of civil servants to support the position of the Government of the day, and it is only because the Prime Minister is allowing Ministers to remain in government while disagreeing with a single policy—the in/out position—that this situation arises at all. The letter from the Cabinet Secretary makes it clear that factual briefing is allowed.

Finally, the 1975 guidance made it clear that no briefing or draft speeches contrary to Government consideration were allowed to be drafted by civil servants. In fact, it went further because it said that if someone wanted to oppose the Government position, they had to inform No. 10 of any invitations to appear on the radio or TV. We have not put that provision in place. On all these things, the clarity in the guidance from the Cabinet Secretary that was published on Monday last week shows the rules, and those rules are consistent with the civil service code and, indeed, the law.

Points of Order

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Monday 29th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During the exchanges that we have just had, it was noted that the Minister did not refer to the question and answer brief that has been circulated by the Cabinet Office to civil servants, which carries some of the wider interpretation of the letter. I wonder how I can draw the House’s attention to the fact that we will be publishing it on the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee website later today or tomorrow.

[Mr Speaker]

As I think the hon. Gentleman knows—I say this in response to his spurious point of order—he has achieved his objective. He should consider the matter so advertised.

European Council

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

May I point out to my right hon. Friend that article 50 did not exist in the treaties until the Lisbon treaty, which he used to oppose and now agrees with? There are many ways of leaving the European Union that might not involve article 50. He does not want to bind himself into the article 50 framework. Will he give this some thought, rather than committing himself to a policy that he obviously does not support?

[The Prime Minister]

Whether we like it or not—frankly, I do not particularly like it—the treaty on European Union sets out the way in which a country leaves. It is called article 50 and I think people should read it. If you want to leave, leave. If you want to stay, stay. What I find slightly odd is the idea of voting to leave to try and half stay. I do not think the British public would understand it, I do not think our European partners would understand it and I am at a loss to understand it as well. I thought that we wanted to have a referendum and to make a choice.

UK-EU Renegotiation

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. A very large number of right hon. and hon. Members are still seeking to catch my eye. Legendarily, the Prime Minister, on several occasions, has been here for long periods to respond to questions, but there is now a premium on brevity that will be demonstrated, I am sure, by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin).

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

May I point out to my right hon. Friend that the former director general of the legal service of the Council of Ministers, Jean-Claude Piris, has said:

“There is no possibility to make a promise that would be legally binding to change the treaty later”?

In fact, he then used a word which one might describe as male bovine excrement. Can the Prime Minister give a single example of where the European Court of Justice has ruled against the treaties in favour of an international agreement, such as the one he is proposing?

[The Prime Minister]

As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), Denmark negotiated the same sort of legal opt-outs—and, 23 years on, they still stand and are legally binding.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Wednesday 27th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me, but I shall wait until the commission reports. We will respond in due course.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

May I inform my right hon. Friend that the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee will be scrutinising those proposals very carefully indeed? We want to make sure that the judges are interpreting the Freedom of Information Act as Parliament truly intended, but I can tell him that there is no going back on freedom of information.

[Matthew Hancock]

Indeed. The Freedom of Information Act has brought to light many things that it is in the public interest to have in the public domain. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend’s Committee will scrutinise the proposals very carefully, not least to ensure that the will of Parliament is the law of the land. I look forward to working with him on that.

EU Council

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

If we look at the facts of the CAP, we will see that the days of the great wine lakes and butter mountains have by and large gone, and I do not think it is possible to argue in the same way as it was in the past that it adds hugely to families’ bills. That is not what is happening. There has been quite significant reform. There has also been some fairly significant reform to the common fisheries policy. Of course, our deregulation targets and subsidiarity tests apply in all those areas.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

May I invite my right hon. Friend to make a list of the European laws and European Court rulings he believes depend primarily on the “ever closer union” phrase in the treaties?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to come back to my hon. Friend. I do not have the list on me, as it were—I do not carry it around to remind me. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) said that the phrase had been cited in 55 different actions. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) is one of the people who in the past said how important it was to get out of ever closer union. I say to colleagues who are considering the issue that it has been raised time and again by people like me, who are concerned about the ratchet of the European Union and who want to get this renegotiation right. If we can deliver it, let us all link arms and celebrate it.

Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [Lords]

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Thursday 3rd December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

I can give some assurance to my hon. Friend—

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

And learned.

[Matthew Hancock]

Sorry, my hon. and learned Friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

I very am grateful for that unexpected invitation. I am dearly tempted. I hope that Unlock and the Prison Reform Trust will work with us to ensure that the Bill passes in a form that supports the important work that they do.

On the broader question of supporting the reputation of charities, by one measure trust in the sector is at a seven-year low. It is in all our interests that we have a strong, confident and thriving charitable sector.

The purpose of the Bill is twofold: first to tackle the challenges and then to unlock new opportunities. The main provisions of the Bill fall into three main areas: first, strengthening the Charity Commission’s powers, including over trustee disqualification; secondly, the regulation of charity fundraising; and, thirdly, the new social investment power for charities.

Let me turn to the Charity Commission’s powers. The purpose of the Charity Commission is to ensure that each of the 164,000 charities in England and Wales pursues its charitable objectives. Set up in 1853, it has done a century and a half of good work, but two years ago the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee found that it was failing in its core duty. In particular, they found that it was not doing enough to tackle the abuse of charitable status. The NAO made a series of recommendations to improve the commission’s effectiveness.

The coalition Government published proposals for new powers based on those recommendations. Following a public consultation, the draft Protection of Charities Bill was published. Pre-legislative scrutiny and the Bill’s passage through the House of Lords have resulted in further refinement. I thank all the Members, peers and others who have improved the Bill that is before the House today. These measures are just one part of a wider programme of reform, aimed at turning the Charity Commission into a tough, clear and proactive regulator.

[Mr Jenkin]

It pains me to point out that my right hon. Friend has left out the significant post-legislative scrutiny of the Charities Act 2006 that was conducted by my Committee, the Public Administration Committee, in the last Parliament, which was the prime precursor of this Bill. I also sat on the Joint Committee that performed the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill.

Will he say something about recent controversies, for example those around charitable fundraising? The Select Committee is very frustrated that we are conducting significant inquiries that the regulator, the Charity Commission, should be conducting, but it does not necessarily have the power to hold its hearings in public in a way that would demonstrate its regulatory role.

[Matthew Hancock]

I was going to come on to the work of my hon. Friend and his Select Committee in making sure that the Bill is in the best possible shape. I am very grateful for the work that he did at the end of the last Parliament, after the National Audit Office report, to make sure that when we had a Bill, it gave the commission the necessary powers.

We believe that the Charity Commission has the power to convene meetings in public. However, I recognise that there is a question over whether it does so. During the passage of the Bill, we will look at that point in more detail. We are prepared to accept amendments, if they are necessary to bring clarity on the point that my hon. Friend raises.

[Matthew Hancock]

I hope that this Bill can unite both sides of the House. I welcome the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) to her place. My hon. Friend has made his point very clearly and it will appear on the record, but I do not want to get into an unnecessary dispute with the Opposition, given that I hope we will have all-party support for this important Bill which will strengthen the role of the Charity Commission and, ultimately, be in the best interests of charities throughout the land.

As I said, we want to provide a tough, clear and proactive regulator. Under the strong and capable leadership of William Shawcross and Paula Sussex, there has been a direct focus on tackling abuse and mismanagement. However, an effective regulator needs to have teeth. As the NAO reported, the commission needs our help to address the “gaps and deficiencies” in its legal powers. The Bill will close those gaps in the commission’s capabilities, as well as tackling a number of damaging loopholes in charity law.

Let me briefly outline the five new powers that the Bill confers. These powers will help to protect the public, the staff and the people our charities serve from those who would seek to exploit them. First, the Bill will extend the automatic disqualification criteria. Currently, the focus of the law is on barring people who have misappropriated charitable assets, but the criteria are far too narrow. We will extend them, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) said, to include people with unspent convictions for money laundering, bribery, perjury or misconduct in public office, those on the sex offenders register, and those convicted for terrorism offences, including individuals subject to an asset-freezing designation.

Secondly, the Charity Commission will be given new powers to disqualify in instances where an individual has behaved in a way that makes them unfit to be a charity trustee, acting on a case-by-case basis and using its judgment and discretion. That new power is essential to empower the Charity Commission to tackle those who would bring charities into disrepute, and I hope that it will be used with care and decisiveness.

Thirdly, the Bill gives the Charity Commission a new official warning power in response to low-level misconduct. That will allow a more proportionate approach for less serious cases. Fourthly, the Bill grants a new power that allows the Charity Commission to direct the winding up of a charity following a statutory inquiry. That would apply if the commission proves that a charity is not operating, or that its purposes could be promoted more effectively by ceasing to operate, and that to do so would be in the public interest. We expect that power to be used in limited circumstances, and it is subject to several safeguards.

Fifthly, the Bill closes a loophole that allows offending trustees to resign before they are removed by the commission, and then act as a trustee for a different charity without fear of repercussion. That will ensure that trustees are no longer able to escape accountability if they abuse their position of trust. As with all the commission’s existing powers, all five of those proposals would be subject to the general duty to have regard to best practice. With the exception of the official warnings power, all the commission’s new powers are subject to a right of appeal to the charity tribunal.

All five measures that I have outlined are essential to protecting the interests and reputation of the vast majority of charities that are run by people of great integrity. The Charity Commission was closely involved in developing the powers, and it fully supports them. In addition, independent research for the Charity Commission found that 92% of charities supported new, tougher powers for the regulator.

We also intend to remove clause 9, which was added on Report in the Lords. We have serious concerns about the unintended consequences of that clause, as it attempts to encompass complex case law into a single statutory provision. It would also impose a major new regulatory responsibility on the commission. Clause 9 was not proposed because of concerns about charities in general, but in a narrow attempt by the other place to undermine the Government’s manifesto commitment to extend the right to buy. It is regrettable that a Bill with widespread support was used in that way, and we cannot allow that to stand. I urge the House to reject that anomalous clause and consider the matter elsewhere.

The challenge of regulating charity fundraising has already been mentioned. We can be incredibly proud that we are one of the most generous countries in the world when it comes to charitable giving, but although people are happy to give, they do not want to be bullied or harassed into doing so. A voluntary donation must be voluntary. Earlier this year we heard about the tragic case of Olive Cooke, Britain’s longest-serving poppy seller. For years, she was targeted with hundreds of cold calls and requests for money. More than 70 charities bought her details or swapped them with other charities, and in one month alone she apparently received 267 charity letters. Sadly, since then more cases of unscrupulous fundraising practices have come to light, and we must act.

We began by asking Sir Stuart Etherington to review the regulation of fundraising over the summer, backed by a cross-party panel of peers, and I thank them for their work. Sir Stuart recommended a new, tougher framework of self-regulation, and we are working with charities to deliver that. Lord Grade of Yarmouth will chair the new independent body at the heart of that framework. It will be paid for by large fundraising charities, and it will be able to adjudicate against any organisation that is undertaking charity fundraising. The body will be accompanied by a fundraising preference service—similar to the telephone preference service—which will give the public greater control over their consent to receive charity fundraising requests.

Next, we will prohibit contractors from raising funds for a charity unless the fundraising agreement between them explains how the contractor will protect people from undue pressure, and sets out how compliance will be monitored by the charity. It will require large charities to include a section in their trustees’ annual report on the fundraising undertaken by them or on their behalf. That will include an explanation of how they protect the public in general, and vulnerable people in particular, from undue pressures and other poor practices.

[Mr Jenkin]

The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee—or PACAC, as we call ourselves—is concluding an inquiry into charitable fundraising, alongside our other inquiry into Kids Company. I will not pre-empt the outcome of those two inquiries, but we are concentrating our inquiries on the conduct of trustees in these matters, and their responsibility to oversee and support charitable organisations so that they reflect their values in their operations as much as in their objectives. We are making recommendations on that because it might be insufficient to rely on processes and structures to ensure that things are ethically and properly run.

[Matthew Hancock]

I welcome that review, and I hope that during the passage of the Bill we can consider—and where appropriate take on board—any recommendations to improve it. I am glad that the work of that Committee is taking place concurrently, and I hope that recommendations will come forward in time for them to be considered for the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

We took action towards the end of the previous Parliament to ensure that the legal framework for charities and other organisations means that they do not cross over into direct partisan political work. A review is under way into how the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 has worked. There are questions about whether that needs to go further, but the best place to deal with such issues is in the review and during scrutiny of the Bill. I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns, and it is important that our review fully considers the impact of the 2014 Act.

We regard the Etherington package, including the fundraising preference service and a move to opt-in for further contact, as the minimum necessary to rebuild public trust. We propose that regulation of fundraising happens on a self-regulatory basis, but that self-regulation must implement the review’s recommendations in full. Some people have rightly asked what will happen if self-regulation fails. We want it to work, but we are also clear that practices must change. In Committee, we intend to bring forward amendments that will strengthen the Government’s reserve powers to intervene if the self-regulation recommended by Sir Stuart fails. Predatory fundraising targeted at vulnerable people is wrong. It has shaken public confidence in charities and we are determined to stamp it out.

Alongside tackling those challenges, the Bill aims to open up new opportunities.

[Mr Jenkin]

I am terribly sorry for intervening again, and most grateful to the Minister for being so generous in giving way. I regret that I cannot stay to take part in the debate. The House will need to know that my Committee will produce its reports in January, in good time for the conclusion of the passage of the Bill. Before he leaves the matter of fundraising, will he bear in mind the concern of many people about some charities that raise a substantial part of their income from foreign sources? Security services are concerned that organisations posing as charities might be receiving funds from abroad for nefarious purposes. Will he consider introducing measures to the Bill at a later stage to deal with that matter? I know that that is something that also concerns the Charity Commission.

[Matthew Hancock]

The Chairman of the Select Committee need not apologise. He can intervene on me as many times as he likes and I will always seek to take his interventions. I know that that must happen, otherwise he will seek to get me in front of him in some other way. On my hon. Friend’s substantive point, that concern has been raised with us. We want to consider the matter in more detail as the Bill passes through the House.

The Bill seeks to open up opportunities for charities to do more to fulfil their mission by providing a new power of social investment. Social investment seeks a positive social impact and a financial return, trying to make money go further. It is a huge and growing chance for UK charities to make more of their assets in a field where the UK is already the world leader. In 2014, the Law Commission conducted a review of charities’ social investment powers. It found a lack of clarity around charities’ social investment powers and duties, and concluded that that could be deterring some charities from getting involved in this exciting new field.

UK charities currently hold assets of over £80 billion, but they have made social investments of about only £100 million. We think that with the right support that market could double in the next few years. The Bill will ensure that more charities have a chance to take full advantage of social investment should they so wish. It removes the existing uncertainty by providing a specific new power to make social investments. It also sets out trustees’ duties to ensure that all social investments are made in the best interests of the charity. That will allow charities to make investments with the dual aim of fulfilling their mission and achieving a financial return. It is the way of the future and it is happening here in Britain. We want to support it to go further.

The work charities do transcends politics and unites hon. Members on both sides of the House. We want all charities to enjoy the very highest levels of public trust and esteem, and the generosity that brings. By delivering a more effective regulator, by tackling unscrupulous fundraising and by unleashing the power of social investment, the Bill will strengthen that trust and allow charities to do more with that generosity. I commend the Bill to the House.

ISIL in Syria

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Following the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), I am struck once again that on the one hand in this debate we are grappling with what is no more than a minor tactical correction in the conduct of the air war against ISIS, and on the other hand we are trying to judge an overall strategic plan which has been formulated among a rather disparate and disunited coalition and which is necessarily chaotic, fluid and bound to change. That is in the context of a 14 or 15-year campaign that we have been mounting since 9/11 against a global Islamist insurgency, and we have not yet begun to get the measure of that campaign.

In Northern Ireland, to which the hon. Lady referred, we spent 10 or 15 years getting it wrong. The west is now faced with a far more complex international problem. We are learning, we are discussing, and this debate is perhaps part of that process, but we have not yet got near the full and comprehensive understanding that will win us this campaign in the long run. Mistakes will continue to be made, but that does not mean that we can turn our back on the present situation. There are risks whichever way we turn.

Another aspect that we have heard periodically in this debate is that what is now visited upon us is somehow our fault; that we are being punished for our own mistakes and errors; that the terrorist attacks on our own country are something that we have provoked. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the terrorist threat. The west is omnipresent in the Muslim world. We are beamed in by satellite. The people there are challenging their own outdated religious power structures. Women want equality. Young people aspire to be educated at western universities. That is challenging the whole structure of the Muslim world, and the extremes of the Muslim world are striking back at us. They are not going to leave us alone if we disengage, so we have to engage with the problem. We might go on getting it wrong and making mistakes, but that is the nature of warfare.

The attacks in Paris were an act of war. We have been suffering such acts of war against our country since 9/11, and even before. The west is going to have to become more coherent and more united in its response. Perhaps the most significant strategic effect of this decision is that we will be joining our coalition partners and helping to create that diplomatic and political process.