General matters

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Tuesday 21st December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Describing a women’s refuge as a “success” is a regrettable use of the word, because in a supposedly civilised society there should be no need for a place of refuge for women and, frequently, also their children, to escape the violence, intimidation or non-physical psychological behaviour of a bullying husband, partner or father. But what has been achieved in my constituency at the Colchester and Tendring women’s refuge, and I am sure at many similar refuges around the country, can be described only as a success. I am sure that lives have been saved; certainly, battered lives have been spared further abuse and cruelty.

In the past year, the refuge has provided a safe haven for 120 women and 194 children. Across Essex, refuges have accommodated 664 women and 701 children—that is an increase of 15% over the previous year. The refuge in my constituency relies on a combination of professionals and volunteers. It represents exactly the concept that I believe the Prime Minister had in mind when he talked about “the big society”. The Colchester refuge could not operate without volunteers. In addition to the trustees, who are responsible for the organisation’s governance and financial health, there are a further 23 volunteers.

Sadly, although the operating costs of the refuge are less than half what it would cost the public purse if the children were put in care—and, thus, removed from their mother, whose whereabouts could also result in a cost to public funds—there is a real threat to its future provision and financial viability because of serious cuts to funding from the Supporting People budget. In Essex, the cut is feared to be in the region of 25% to 30%. We must examine the financial savings—these are in addition to the huge emotional good work, for which no monetary value can be given, of keeping mothers and their children united—from what refuges provide. There would otherwise be a legal statutory requirement on the relevant local authority to fund this money from the public purse.

There is arguably no worse time—or perhaps, given the awfulness of the subject, no better time—than the last parliamentary day before Christmas for me to raise one of the taboo subjects which diminish the claim that we are a civilised country: domestic violence and other abuse suffered by many women. This Saturday, about 30 children, 20 of whom are under child protection orders, will have their Christmas dinner in the Colchester refuge. If places had not been available, they would probably have had to be separated from their mothers and taken into foster care.

The directorate of children’s social care at Essex county council estimates that the cost of fostering a child for a week is £500—that excludes administration, monitoring and other associated costs. The highly respected Fostering Network puts the cost considerably higher. By contrast, the cost to Supporting People of keeping a woman with three children in Colchester and Tendring women’s refuge is £216 a week. Adding to that the housing benefit received, the cost of keeping a family together in a refuge remains less than half the basic cost of £1,000 to keep just two children in foster care.

I am certain that the pioneers who, in December 33 years ago, opened the first women’s refuge in Colchester would not have wanted things to be so desperate that such a facility was needed. Regrettably, such is the scale of the problem that in the second decade of the third millennium this accommodation in Colchester has grown from one property, a former neighbourhood shop, to two large houses. One is a big Victorian dwelling converted to provide individual spaces for women and their children, as necessary; the second is a purpose-built modern building that should be viewed as the benchmark for such provision. I recall attending the official opening of the older dwelling.

There is also a third building, which is a daytime centre providing non-residential advice and support for women living in disturbing relationships. Although the buildings are located in my constituency, the Colchester and Tendring women’s refuge covers two local authority areas—those of Colchester borough council and Tendring district council. The constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) covers parts of both those local authorities.

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

I commend my hon. Friend for raising this matter on the Adjournment of the House. Does he agree that the concern is that Essex county council’s decision to withdraw funds will result in increased costs for the council? I assure him that the Public Administration Committee, which I chair, is examining this problem in general and is considering how the voluntary sector is affected by reductions in public spending of this nature.

[Bob Russell]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, who has visited the refuge and is working with colleagues at Essex country council to try to resolve the financial problems to which I refer. We might disagree on some things, but I am confident that we have shared objectives on this occasion. I also understand that the hon. Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell), whose constituency is exclusively in Tendring district, will visit the refuge in the new year.

With a background as a journalist who reported on court cases, and with long service in local government where I came across much of life, I thought that I was streetwise, but in my time as a Member I have been shocked by how some male members of the species can be such “bar stewards”. I am sure that it has been the constituency experience of colleagues throughout the House.

It was because of my growing concerns about domestic violence that I was able, when I served on the Home Affairs Committee, to encourage colleagues to hold an inquiry into the subject. We heard harrowing stories as we gathered evidence. In the course of the inquiry, I accompanied the Chairman of the Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), on a visit to the Colchester women’s refuge to meet members of staff and some of the residents. The Committee’s report on domestic violence, forced marriage and “honour” based violence was published on 13 June 2008.

Domestic violence is a subject that people do not normally want to talk about, but here in Parliament it is important that we do. An analysis of 10 separate domestic violence studies came up with consistent findings: one in four women experiences domestic violence at some point of their lives, with between 6% and 10% suffering in any given year. The British crime survey, looking at England and Wales for 2003, found an estimated 12.9 million incidents of domestic violence against women and 2.5 million against men. Although only a minority of incidents of domestic violence are reported to the police, on average the police still receive one call about domestic violence every minute—1,300 calls a day, more than 570,000 each year.

In that context, the need for women’s refuges is such that it would be wrong for there to be cuts that imperilled their future. We have to accept, as a sad reflection on society, that a small minority of men behave in an appalling way. The Colchester and Tendring women’s refuge provides a safe haven. A combination of professional staff and volunteers do a fantastic job, but I am concerned that the unintended consequences of Government policies—implemented by Essex county council, cutting the Supporting People funding for refuges—could seriously affect what is done. I urge the Government to ensure that women’s refuges are allowed to continue the excellent work that they undertake.

Moving from one serious subject to another, I note that this Christmas approximately 3,000 of my constituents will not enjoy the festivities with their family. I refer to the soldiers from 16 Air Assault Brigade, based at the Colchester garrison, who are deployed to Afghanistan and predominantly Helmand province. Most are at Camp Bastion, but others have been deployed throughout the province, including those soldiers at the forward operational bases, the FOBs. To them and their families back in the UK, I am sure the whole House will wish to send Christmas greetings and its hopes for a peaceful return in the new year.

Finally, to my constituents, royalists and republicans alike, let us look forward not only to Christmas but to the royal wedding. If the republicans do not want to celebrate, I hope that they will still enjoy the day off.

Publication of Information about Complaints against Members

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Thursday 2nd December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Barron]

I quoted the figures from the commissioner’s last annual report. During the time of the leaks, The Daily Telegraph and everything else, 245 complaints were never followed up whereas 72 were. My hon. Friend will know that they were not necessarily all upheld, and in such cases the commissioner wants to say that in terms so that there can be no equivocation.

The numbers that are investigated and the number of complaints that are not upheld are sometimes published by the commissioner, as my hon. Friend will know, through the commissioner giving a memorandum to the Committee and the Committee doing its own investigation on that basis and publishing it. All the information has been around in the House in one form or another for many years—since before I became a member of the Committee. I do not have the exact figure for the number of people among the 72 whose cases were followed up who were not found to have done anything wrong. If my hon. Friend is interested, I will try to get that figure from the commissioner, but we must recognise that the commissioner works independently from the Committee, although we have contact with him.

The second motion seeks to implement a recommendation of the Committee on Standards in Public Life—I think we used to call it the Kelly committee—that the commissioner should be able to carry out an inquiry without receiving a complaint. As my Committee’s seventh report points out, that would bring the House’s procedures into line with those of the House of Lords and of the compliance officer. It will also allow the commissioner to investigate a matter that has been reported on by the compliance officer and that raises code of conduct issues. For the first time, it makes proper provision for self-referrals, although they will continue to be subject to the Committee’s agreement.

There is a risk, as the report acknowledges, that giving the commissioner such a responsibility might raise public expectations that each and every allegation will be investigated or that the commissioner will turn into some kind of witchfinder-general. Let me make it clear that that is not going to happen. The Committee does not want it and the commissioner is not asking for it.

The amendment to the Standing Order provides for the commissioner to inquire into

“specific matters which have come to his attention”.

There is also a built-in requirement that there must be sufficient evidence of a possible breach of the code or rules to justify taking the matter further. In the 245 cases in the last annual report there was no evidence and they were not acted on. A lurid newspaper headline or unsubstantiated speculation will not lead to an inquiry. The process must be driven by the evidence and the evidence must come to the commissioner.

It is important, as my Committee’s report recognises, that the commissioner has the resources he needs to do his job. We supported the temporary expansion of his office to deal with the increase in the number of complaints over the past two years and, if necessary, we will do so again. However, there is no expectation that that will happen. The current work load is somewhat smaller than that of 12 months ago.

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

I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for missing his opening remarks, but it was his subsequent remarks that I wanted to hear. Will the motion allow right hon. and hon. Members to make self-referrals, which we know the commissioner discourages?

[Mr Barron]

It would do that. Self-referrals would carry on and, indeed, there has been one since the election. However, self-referrals will still have to come in front of the Committee and the commissioner will effectively ask permission, although we do not direct the commissioner by giving permission or telling him not to do things. He works independently of the Committee. Self-referrals will carry on in much the same way as they do at the moment.

Of course we can all help to ensure that the commissioner has the resources to do his job by acting at all times in full compliance with the code of conduct and the associated rules. Members of this House decide what workloads are and whether treatment is fair or unfair by what we do on a regular basis.

The third motion, tabled in the name of members of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, was not on our original shopping list, but we are grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for adding it to today’s business. It relates to a proposal that was put to Sir Christopher Kelly and the Committee on Standards in Public Life by our former Chair, now the Leader of the House, to add lay members to the Standards and Privileges Committee. The proposal was supported by the Kelly committee in its 12th report. Lay members already serve on the Members Estimate Audit Committee and they will soon sit on the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. Lay members provide the public with reassurance that the Committees are not cosy gentlemen’s clubs, where deals are stitched up and scandals are hushed up. They can also bring valuable outside experience and expertise with them. It is common practice for standards bodies dealing with the professions to have lay members, and in the view of the Committee on Standards and Privileges it should be the practice here too. I say that as a now former lay member of the General Medical Council; I spent nearly nine years in that role, sitting with various clinicians.

That said, adding lay members to one of the House’s senior Committees raises some important questions. For example, the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended that the lay members should have full voting rights on the Standards and Privileges Committee. The question is whether that would mean that the lay members could vote on matters relating to privilege. I assume not. I know that the Clerk of the House has reservations about allowing lay members to vote at all, because he wrote to me about it following the publication of the motion. In practice, of course, we have to recognise that any decision of the Committee that was not supported by the lay members present would lack public credibility. It may be that the lay members will not need to have a formal vote to have a decisive influence.

The Procedure Committee might wish to consider other questions identified in my Committee’s report, such as how many lay members there should be and whether they should form part of the Committee’s quorum. The Kelly committee suggested there should be two lay members, but a case can be made for more than two. I hope that the Procedure Committee will wish to consider that. We also suggested that lay members should receive modest remuneration, directly related to the volume of work that they carry out. We felt strongly that to provide the public with the greatest possible confidence in their appointments, the lay members should be appointed to the Committee but not by the Committee. The Procedure Committee may wish to consider what would be the best way of making the appointments, what qualifications those appointed should have, what should be the term of the appointments, and who should be involved in making them.

My Committee’s understanding until recently was that progress on the issue was being held up by the Government’s work on their recall policy. However, a recent letter from the Leader of the House to Mr Speaker has put us right on that, and the House has now been given the green light to proceed. In the Committee’s view, the best way forward is to ask the Procedure Committee to come up with some workable proposals for putting the matter into practice. It is an important reform and it needs to be got right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

That is a very helpful intervention, and of course the landscape has changed since a year or so ago. We now have the compliance officer in the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, who is responsible for investigating some matters. Having that memorandum of understanding seems to me a very positive way forward.

I mentioned the time that investigations sometimes take and the adverse effect that that may have on a Member’s reputation. As I said, it would be sensible for the commissioner to be open about the process of an investigation, such as when it began and where a Member had reached in the queue, to ensure that we have a more transparent approach. It is also important that Members know at the first opportunity that a matter relating to them is under investigation. It should never be the case that a Member hears that from the press or from a political opponent.

The Government support the move to give the commissioner a power to initiate investigations, which, to an extent, ties up a process started by the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009. Without that power, the commissioner would not be able to act on referrals from the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority compliance office. That would clearly be unsatisfactory, because the House would not be able to take action against a Member who had knowingly submitted an improper expenses claim. However, this issue goes wider than that; it is absurd that allegations about a Member’s conduct can be splashed all over the newspapers, yet the commissioner is powerless to investigate unless he receives a complaint from a member of the general public. That is an unnecessary hurdle. If we can trust the commissioner to use his good judgment to carry out investigations, we can trust him to decide when to initiate them.

Finally, the Government support the principle, first advocated by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, that the Standards and Privileges Committee should be strengthened by the presence of lay members. Although that is ultimately a matter for the House, the Government take an interest, given the commitment in the coalition agreement to establish a right to recall Members who have been found guilty of serious wrongdoing. There is obviously a potential role for that Committee in the process of adjudication on recall cases, and the presence of members from outside Parliament will help to build people’s confidence in our system of internal compliance. In supporting that, we note the concerns expressed by the Clerk of the House, to which the Chairman of the Committee referred, that if lay members are given full voting rights, they might not enjoy the protection of privilege or their presence might compromise the Committee’s position based on privilege in respect of judicial review. The Procedure Committee will want to look particularly closely at that, while the Government will be taking a close interest as part of the ongoing work on the draft parliamentary privilege Bill.

[Mr Jenkin]

I am very grateful that my hon. Friend has addressed the question of privilege and lay members, and I am grateful for the Government’s measured and sensible response to this approach. However, does it not begin to advance the argument in favour of having a standards committee that is separate from a privileges committee? If there really are two functions that require lay members to be involved in one function and not the other, should we not have two separate committees, permanently? I shall discuss that in my remarks later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Jones]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. When the Procedure Committee looks at the issue, I hope that we will be able to avoid that. With great respect to all the ladies and gentlemen who serve on many committees, I do not want to see the usual suspects. I would like to see people who have not been involved before and who bring an entirely different perspective.

[Mr Jenkin]

The third motion concerns by far the most contentious matter before the House this afternoon. As Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, which is responsible for the public appointments commissioner, I can attest to the fact that what the hon. Lady is saying is absolutely correct. I do not think that Whitehall is the model of how to make public appointments, and in any case there comes a point where, even if we are bringing lay members into House, it should be this House that appoints them, not necessarily ex-civil servants who do not understand how the House works.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

One of these three issues—ensuring that resources are available to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards—is vital. It is a tragedy and a disgrace to the House that we did not do this when Elizabeth Filkin was the commissioner. There is not enough time to go back over all that now, but the House does not have a very good or consistent record.

The question of whether lay members will have privilege should not be too difficult. Presumably, we extend privilege to the commissioner, so we ought to be able to extend it in the same way. I do not have a view on whether we should go for a sub-committee of Members only to deal with privilege issues. I shall not argue against the proposal on lay members, but I note that the provision that they cannot have been a Member of Parliament before would exclude someone such as Martin Bell who would be eminently qualified to be a lay member, but that might be the rough justice we will have. I suspect that if there were lay members, we could avoid hon. Members having the dilemma that he and I faced when we were members of the Privileges and Standards Committee and agreed, in one or two cases that we considered, to use the criminal burden of proof rather than the balance of probabilities. I think that we made a mistake; I think he acknowledged that in a book and I am perfectly willing to say now that we did make a mistake. Again, however, the reasons behind that are not for discussion today.

Paragraph 25 of the Privileges and Standards Committee’s HC 67 report says that the Committee had “read with some concern” the suggestion of the Committee on Standards in Public Life that

“MPs should be required to register positions of responsibility in voluntary or charitable organisations, even if unpaid, together with an indication of the amount of time spent on them.”

Bluntly, I would ask that Committee why not spend more time looking at what MPs do in our job rather than what we do with our spare time? In my time at Parliament, I have been a trustee of Christian Aid, chairman of the Church of England Children’s Society, a member of the council of Mind—previously the national association for mental health—and a member of the council of Nacro. I have also been involved with other, less nationally prominent, organisations. I do not think that I would have accepted the invitations to take those positions if I had thought that I would have to log the amount of time I spent going to and at meetings, and I doubt whether I would have taken on the position of being parliamentary warden of St Margaret’s at Westminster. There is a whole range of issues on which that Committee ought to wake up, and if it wants to take advice from me publicly or privately I shall offer it.

[Mr Jenkin]

Is not the corollary of that recommendation that an MP who went on a holiday to learn how to paint watercolours would have to fill in a form and register it because that would be time spent not as an MP but doing an unpaid extracurricular activity? Why not register everything we do not do for Parliament in our spare time?

[Peter Bottomley]

I think my hon. Friend makes the point that if we registered what we did not do we would probably have a longer list than if we registered what we did do. The key point is that the general aim of having transparency matters.

The first of the motions introduced by the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) concerns publication. During my time in Parliament, there have been two or three cases in which I have been rather proud of my approach to them and the persistence I maintained. However, two of them ended up with accusations being made against me of being a paedophile, one of which was swallowed by a national newspaper, which published in 2 million copies a case against me. If a Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards took media attention as a basis for starting an investigation, I would object. As it happened, in that case, no other newspaper copied the allegation, and the first settled, at pretty heavy expense to it, and made a damages payment. I wish those events had not happened, but the case involved people whom I had upset. They were bad, mad or sad; I was bold and pretty decisive, and there ended up being a series of allegations against me.

In a second case, a constituent whom I had helped complained to the commissioner that I had taken obscene photographs of his children. The commissioner found that there was no case to look into, but if that person had gone to the papers and they had run the story as they normally would, under the current arrangements the commissioner would have had to look into it. We have to be aware of such dangers. We cannot legislate against all possibilities, but we have to be careful about saying that just because there has been media attention, the commissioner should get involved.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Tony Lloyd) about how we choose the lay members. The House has fallen into the habit of finding people seen to be more respectable than we are in order to resolve some of the difficulties that have arisen. Inevitably, they turn out to be former permanent secretaries, but with the greatest respect to those eminent people, they are seen as more respectable only because they have not been exposed in public life to the extent that many of us in public life have been.

[Helen Jones]

Continuing the debate about who should be appointed, does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the problems we have encountered—we will see this in the debate later on the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority—is that civil servants tend to want to fit everyone else into the civil service mode, and often do not understand the work of a Member of Parliament?

[Mr Jenkin]

I wholly agree with that point, and it fits with the one I am trying to make, which is that their perspective is necessarily a different one, owing to civil servants’ long and distinguished experience. Very often—it has to be said—Parliament will have been, throughout their careers, perhaps a matter of great frustration to them, and they might well share the feeling of many others about how poorly the House has done its jobs in various ways over the years. I do not think, therefore, that they necessarily have the right perspective—they have one perspective, but it cannot be solely the right perspective. We have to take their recommendations gratefully and humbly, but add a wider perspective to them to give them life.

On the question of adding lay members to a Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron), who moved the motion, gave examples of where lay members have been added to other committees. However, those are not parliamentary committees and are not, for example, subject to the question of privilege, and it is on parliamentary privilege that I wish to make three brief points. First, there are members of the judiciary and senior figures in public life who have served elsewhere in public life who are either careless of the question of parliamentary privilege or actually could not care less about parliamentary privilege.

The word “privilege” carries certain overtones. At one stage before the election, it went out to the Conservative party that we should not use that word, because it would be misunderstood and seem to relate to the then Leader of the Opposition’s education. In fact, every Parliament in the world of any distinction enjoys some measure of privilege or immunity in order that those Members can do their job. The reason we had the Bill of Rights in 1689 was to enable the House to function, and we still need those privileges, that protection and those immunities. We hold those immunities not for ourselves and the protection of our own persons or private interests, and not to protect us from the criminal law if we commit criminal offences—as we have just discovered in a recent case—but so that we can advance the interests of the country freely and without fear or favour. These are the people’s privileges. I urge the Procedure Committee, as it considers this matter, to accept the advice of the Clerk of the House. Let me, for the second day on the trot, quote from a note from the Clerk. Referring to the role of lay members on the Committee, he made it clear that he did not comment on the merits of the proposal itself, which I personally welcome, but he also said:

“It is not clear to me that their participation in decision-making by voting is in fact covered by parliamentary privilege. At the very least the matter is questionable and therefore may be justiciable.”

Until that matter has been comprehensively and categorically resolved, it would be sensible for the Procedure Committee to recommend that if the Standards and Privileges Committee is to have lay members, they should not be voting members.

I imagine that it would be extremely hard for the Standards and Privileges Committee to ignore the advice of the lay members, particularly if they are as eminent as I hope they will be. I very much hope that one of them will be a retired judge, for example. I think that it would greatly assist the functioning of the Committee to receive more legal advice, so that it could interpret the byzantine rules and regulations and be navigated through difficult, contentious issues of evidence and fairness. After all, that is what the Committee is about. It would be very difficult to ignore the advice of a retired judge, whether he had a vote or not.

Secondly, I should be interested to know how often votes take place on the Committee. Never? I see a shaking head.

[Peter Bottomley]

Not never, but not frequently.

[Mr Jenkin]

My hon. Friend says “Not never, but not frequently”, and I observed the right hon. Member for Rother Valley shaking his head.

It would be awful if decisions were split on some of the contentious cases that we are discussing. The voting is not really relevant, and I think that it can be set aside until the question of the privileges of the House has been resolved.

We keep running up against the question of privilege. The arrest of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) led to a protracted argument about it. The case relating to privilege has just been resolved—I recognise that other cases are sub judice under the criminal law, so I will not comment on them—but resolving it took months. If we had had a more watchful Privileges Committee entirely devoted to the question, we could have forestalled all that. More to the point, if we got on with the parliamentary privileges Bill that everyone agrees we need, we could put the question of privileges on a much less contentious and disputed footing.

That is my third point. When will we have a parliamentary privileges Bill, so that we can resolve some of these issues? Australia has enacted such a Bill, as have other Commonwealth countries. It is time that we stopped resting on the 1689 Act, which is increasingly irrelevant in this information age whose media are so different from those of the past. Parliamentary privilege has to contend with many issues that were not conceived in those days. It is time we updated the Bill of Rights with a parliamentary privileges Act, and I hope that the Procedure Committee will consider that.

I also think that we should have a Select Committee on parliamentary privilege, separate from the Standards and Privileges Committee. As soon as a big issue arises, what happens? Following the arrest of my hon. Friend, it was immediately agreed—somewhat insultingly—that the existing Committee was not up to the job, and that much grander and more important panjandrums would have to be placed on a separate Committee to consider the issue of privileges. I think we had better recognise that the two functions are different. The fact that lay members will be involved with one aspect of the work of the Standards and Privileges Committee and not the other underlines the fact that there are two separate functions, and that they should be undertaken by two separate Committees. I very much hope that that will be one of the Procedure Committee’s recommendations.

Business of the House

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Thursday 28th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I apologise for any discourtesy to the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of the housing association. He is entitled to a reply on behalf of his constituent, and I will raise this matter with the Secretary of State. I think I am right in saying that there is an ombudsman who can deal with complaints from social housing tenants.

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

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on publishing a very useful card showing the dates of the sitting days of this Parliament, as well as the recess dates, for many months ahead? I congratulate him on this tremendous innovation. It gives me great satisfaction that this has been introduced not by some manic young moderniser but by a true Conservative who was educated at Eton and Oxford.

[Sir George Young]

rose—

Business of the House

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Thursday 15th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I think that that question would be more appropriately put to Ministers at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, who, I hope, can give the hon. Lady the assurance that she seeks. They will be before the House on Thursday 9 September.

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

May I ask my right hon. Friend for a debate, for which legislation clearly provides, but that he seems not to wish to have on the Floor of the House, namely on motion 16 on the Order Paper about the new members of the Electoral Commission? Motion 8 on delegated legislation in his name seems determined to remove the subject from the Floor of the House of Commons, where it was originally intended to be debated. May I invite him to reconsider so that we can have a debate about the new Electoral Commissioners?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Clearly, we want to make progress on appointing the new members of the Electoral Commission. Of course, the House is entitled to scrutinise the proposals that are on the Order Paper, either by debate on the Floor of the House or through the appropriate Committee.

Backbench Business Committee

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Tuesday 15th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for pointing out those restrictions which might preclude the nomination of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) for chair of the committee, unless he was minded to join a larger party for a day.

If colleagues believe that the committee should be accountable to the House, they might wish to resist the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham North, which would have the committee elected for the whole Parliament.

The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire has tabled an amendment to increase the size of the committee, and I have already dealt with that point. Although I understand the reason behind his amendment, the review may also be able to consider it.

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

My right hon. Friend is involved in a historic shift of power to this House that is extremely welcome, but will he consider the balance that needs to be struck between accountability and independence? Members of the Back-Bench business committee may be able to act more courageously and independently if they do not feel under threat of defeat at an election.

[Sir George Young]

I am not sure that I buy that point. The object of the Back-Bench business committee is to reflect the views of the House in selecting the agenda for discussion. I am not sure that a display of heroic independence—to an extent that led the committee away from the centre of gravity of the House—is what the committee should be about.

Motion 4 defines Back-Bench business and provides for the committee to have 35 days at its disposal in the House and in Westminster Hall. This is one of the central recommendations of the report, but it is important to remember the bigger picture. The Wright Committee noted:

“The single greatest cause of dissatisfaction…with current scheduling of legislative business in the House arises from the handling of the report stage of government bills.”

In implementing one part of the Wright report, it is important not to undermine what another part of the same report says. In addition, the Back-Bench business committee is only half of the picture, and we must not lose sight of the progress that we want to see made in the third year of this Parliament on a House business committee. The creation of a House committee—looking at both the scheduling of Government and Back-Bench time as a single entity—will be better able to balance the time more effectively between debates and scrutiny.

I shall explain briefly how the proposals will work. The committee will have a total of 35 days at its disposal, which equates, as the Wright Committee recommended, to about one day per sitting week. The time will be divided between the House and Westminster Hall. The Liaison Committee will have 20 Thursday sittings in Westminster Hall for debates on Select Committee reports, and all other Thursdays will be for business determined by the Back-Bench business committee. Each of these Thursdays will count as half a day towards the total allocation of 35. In a typical Session of about 35 sitting weeks, therefore, the committee will use seven or eight days of its allocation in Westminster Hall debates, and the remainder—about 27 or 28 days—will be taken in the Chamber. Some of that time may be taken in the form of 90-minute topical debates, under Standing Order No. 24A, which will count as a quarter of a day; and I am happy to say that I see no difficulty in accepting amendment (a) to motion 4, which encapsulates the 27 days in the form I just outlined.

It may also be helpful if I say to the House that it is my intention to invite the Procedure Committee to consider whether the sittings in Westminster Hall could be extended to allow for sittings on Monday afternoons. That would provide the Back-Bench business committee with even more flexibility in how it schedules business. In future, it will also be for the Back-Bench business committee, not the Government, to schedule debates on pre-recess Adjournments, on set-piece debates on defence, Welsh affairs and international women’s day, and on topical debates. These decisions will rest entirely in its hands, and just as I am accountable to the House for Government business, so it will be so accountable for Back-Bench business.

Finally on the Wright Committee recommendations, we propose that the operation of the new system should be reviewed at the beginning of the next Session, in late 2011. I recognise that there is concern about the reasoning behind this review, but the object of the review is to enable the House to move forwards, rather than, as some have said, to wind back. There is absolutely no intention to shut down the Back-Bench committee after the first Session. We are committed to establishing a House business committee, dealing with both Government and Back-Bench business, by the third year of this Parliament, so a review of the Back-Bench business committee any later than that would make no sense. I would therefore urge the hon. Member for Nottingham North not to press his amendment deferring the review until the beginning of the next Parliament, which, as I said, will be after the House business committee has been set up.

I shall now deal briefly in turn with each of the remaining motions on the Order Paper.

Business of the House

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Thursday 27th May 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Lady puts forcefully the concern in her constituency. May I suggest that she apply for an Adjournment debate or a debate in Westminster Hall, where the issues she has raised can be tackled in more detail and she can get a response from Ministers? She may have heard what the Chief Secretary announced yesterday, when he outlined his commitment to laying the foundations for recovery by getting the deficit under control—a huge deficit, which we inherited from the outgoing Government.

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

Does my right hon. Friend recall the prayer of St. Augustine, which can be paraphrased as, “Lord make me chaste, but not yet”? In that context, will he explain why it will take three years to establish a business committee, a principle for which I welcome his commendation?

[Sir George Young]

The Wright Committee made several propositions and it suggested that they should be implemented in stages. The early recommendation dealt with the Back-Bench business committee—the one on which we plan to make immediate progress. There was a much broader recommendation about a House committee, and it was always envisaged that that would be set up towards the end of the process of implementing the Wright recommendations. We have given a commitment, which did not exist previously, to do that within three years. I hope my hon. Friend will welcome the progress that has been made on that—it is an advance on the position at the end of the previous Parliament.