Leaving the EU

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Let me make it very clear to the hon. Gentleman that nobody is talking about making people poorer. What we are talking about is protecting people’s jobs and livelihoods and delivering a deal that delivers on the vote of the British people. That is what this deal does.

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

Is it not the case that legally the backstop can only be temporary, because it is a pathway to a future trade deal, and that therefore descriptions of being trapped in the backstop forever, or of becoming a vassal state or even, absurdly, a colony, are overblown and wrong? Should not hon. Members look at the deal, which I commend the Prime Minister for having negotiated, in the round, because it will enable us to deliver on the promise we made to the British people to implement their decision in the referendum?

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend; it is important that this deal does deliver on the decision of the British people. We committed to deliver on that decision. There are various references in the withdrawal agreement that make it clear that the backstop, were it to be invoked, would only be temporary, not least the fact that the withdrawal agreement is on the legal basis of article 50, which cannot be used to establish a permanent relationship.

Progress on EU Negotiations

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady will recognise that there are certain matters that are for the House, but I repeat the point I have made in this Chamber before on a number of occasions. If you asked members of the public, “If Parliament is asked to vote on the deal that the Government have brought back from Europe, what do you expect Parliament to vote on?”, I think they would expect Parliament to be able to have a vote on the deal. We have been clear that a motion may be amendable, but people will want to know the view of Parliament on the deal as it is brought back from Europe.

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

I welcome this declaration and, in particular, the strong and explicit commitments to ensure that free movement will end, that the country will have the freedom to strike trade deals around the world, and yet that we will forge a strong and close economic partnership with the European Union. Is that not exactly what business wants? Is not the withdrawal agreement’s provision for a transition period what business wants, and should not those of us who wish to implement and honour the referendum decision recognise that this sets the path towards a pragmatic and orderly Brexit and that we should think very carefully before rejecting it?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The withdrawal agreement allows for that implementation period. That is exactly what business had requested and what will give business the certainty that it wants. I think that is exactly one of the aspects that every Member of this House will wish to consider when they come to the meaningful vote.

EU Exit Negotiations

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

Thursday 15th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave earlier.

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

Is there not a danger that in getting hung up on issues such as the backstop, which although immensely important is something that all sides wish to avoid, or the transition period, which is by definition temporary, we lose sight of the really important issue, which is the future relationship with the EU? That is what we should be focusing on and discussing, and that is what our constituents expect us to deliver. Is it not the case that however they voted in the referendum, the vast majority of Members of this House voted to trigger article 50, and the public expect us to deliver on our promise? Members on the Government Benches in particular should be careful what they wish for in making it harder to move to that position.

[The Prime Minister]

I support my right hon. Friend’s comments. He is absolutely right. There has of course been a lot of focus on the backstop, and I recognise why, because there are genuine concerns about its operation. As he says, others have referred to the transition or implementation period. What will actually determine our relationship with the European Union for decades ahead, though, is the future relationship that we negotiate with the European Union. That is what will determine the futures of my right hon. Friend’s constituents, of my constituents and of people right across the whole United Kingdom.

European Council

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Our plan is to continue with the long-term patient work of combating Daesh militarily, which, of course, continues, and, in terms of building the future of Syria, supporting moderate opposition elements that can support a transitional Government in Syria. In the end, a Government in Syria without moderate Sunni opinion in them will never be able to unite that country, so we have to continue with that plan.

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that the weakness in the position of those who criticised the agreement between the EU and Turkey in the run-up to it—that also appeared to be the position of the Leader of the Opposition today—is that they have signally failed to advance any credible alternative to those arrangements? Surely, it is in the British national interest to support our partners in making a sensible arrangement with Turkey to prevent migrants from making a perilous journey overseas, while maintaining our own borders.

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. I think we get the best of both worlds. It is worth asking what difference it would make if we were not there. I suppose my answer is that I think the European Union would have continued for longer with the rather borderless approach of relocating migrants around different European countries. That approach failed. What was required was an approach that was more about looking upstream, supporting people in the camps, finding the funding for that, hardening the external border and breaking the link between getting in a boat and getting settlement. I think that Britain, including my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who has been to Council meeting after Council meeting, has done a huge amount to drive that agenda forward.

EU Referendum: Civil Service Guidance

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

Monday 29th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

No; on the contrary, this is a consequence of allowing Ministers to express their views freely on whether they want to remain in or to leave, as many of them are doing.

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that the misunderstanding of the Government’s position has been evidenced by the last question, which suggested that the Prime Minister required Ministers to agree with him? That is not the case. The public will surely agree that fairness is ensured by the fact that Ministers are free to speak out. That is what the Prime Minister is allowing, and that is a generous position. There is no reason why those Ministers should be supported by the civil service or the taxpayer in expressing their view, to which they are entitled in conscience. If they feel that this is unfair, they have the option of not remaining in the Government.

[Matthew Hancock]

Yes.

European Council

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We will certainly be fighting a very positive campaign. That campaign will involve a series of documents, some of which were mandated by the other place when it amended the referendum Bill, so we need to set out the alternatives to membership, and the rights and obligations here—the things you get out of and the obligations you have in the EU. We will be talking about the economic case. We will address all those issues. I say to those who are interested in some of the cultural or educational arguments that they should come forward, too. We need a strong voice from universities, as they have a lot to say about this issue—they get a lot out of Europe—and cultural organisations should be speaking out, too.

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that when this country, in our national interest, makes an international agreement of any kind, it may involve a loss of sovereignty? That may be the case through any trade deal, through trading under World Trade Organisation rules and on the single most important decision this House of Commons could take: whether or not to engage in military action. We are treaty-bound by NATO, under article 5, to go to the defence of a fellow member that is under armed attack—that obliges us. In that sense, we have lost sovereignty because we believe it is in the interests of the country to enter that agreement and that it has made us safer. If the claim of “sovereignty” and its loss were the trump card, would not all those international agreements have to be torn up?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point: if your only determination was never to cede any technical sovereignty, you would never join any of these organisations, you would not do a trade deal and you probably would not be a member of the UN, the International Monetary Fund or the World Bank. Therefore, the question really is: what maximises our power, influence and ability to get things done? As the Transport Secretary put it so brilliantly at the Cabinet meeting, “I would love to live in utopia but I expect the EU would probably be there, too.” That is to say, you do not abolish the EU by leaving it; you simply cut yourself off from something and therefore possibly make yourself, in many ways, less powerful, rather than more powerful.

UK-EU Renegotiation

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

What I said was that because this measure does not rely on changes in the treaty but will be in European legislation, it can enter into force relatively shortly after the referendum. It will require some legislation, but, as I said earlier, the leader of one of the biggest parties in the European Parliament said that it could be a matter of months, because the process can be accelerated. It just goes to show how much we need to bind everyone into the agreement that we hope to achieve in the coming weeks, so that the Parliament can pass the legislation as swiftly as possible.

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the biggest concerns about the direction of travel in the European Union is that countries within it, the eurozone members, wish to integrate more deeply in order to protect their currency? We have our own currency, but an incredibly important part of my right hon. Friend’s negotiation ambition was that we should be protected from any discriminatory measure that might result from those countries’ ability to integrate more closely. Is that not why this proposed package is indeed significant? Is it not the case that it does protect us, and that not only are there now two different speeds, but we have a different destination from our European partners, which puts us in a relatively advantageous position?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me make two points. First, I think that the reference to a different destination is significant. People have often talked about Europe moving at different speeds, but for the first time it is being said that we may not all be trying to achieve the same ends, and I think that that is very important.

The “euro ins-outs” section is probably the most technical and, in some ways the most impenetrable, but it contains some simple principles, such as the non-discrimination and no-cost principles that I mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). There is also the very important concept that, should we need to take action in the form of financial supervision to secure our own financial stability, nothing should get in the way of such action. That, I think, is a very important clarification for the good of our country.

Government Efficiency and Reform

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

The hon. Gentleman is completely mistaken if he believes that there is a direct linear relationship between the number of HMRC officials and the amount of tax that is being collected. There is absolutely no evidence of that. The size of HMRC, in terms of headcount, was falling before the 2010 election, and the amount of tax being collected has risen. We can do things differently and we can do things better—we have already shown that that is the case—but if the hon. Gentleman thinks that the only problem with the public finances is that we are not taxing enough and not raising enough taxes, I am afraid that he and I differ. I think that we must cut our costs first, which is what we are doing and will continue to do.

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour, who has done a superb job in driving these savings and thereby ensuring front-line services can be protected? He has done a fine job behind the scenes and will be much missed from this place, but I hope he will be able to continue in some way in this important public service. Does he agree that the key part of his statement was that these savings have been achieved as a result of a strong corporate centre—a central drive for efficiency—and is it not the case that that centre will have to be strengthened further if significant additional savings are to be achieved?

[Mr Maude]

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s kind comments, and I also hugely appreciate what he and the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) have done in leading the work of GovernUp, which has made the case very powerfully, as indeed has the Public Accounts Committee, for a strong corporate centre in Government that can drive these sorts of changes. When we examined this, we found that, in almost all cross-government functions, the historical position of the British Government is to have an extraordinarily weak centre. That is part of the reason why it has been proved in the past to be so difficult to drive these sorts of efficiency savings, but we are changing that.

Ukraine (Flight MH17) and Gaza

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The only proposal on the table currently is the Egyptian proposal for a ceasefire and a process. We have said that we back that, the Israelis are willing to back that, and we need Hamas to back that as well. Everyone who can should bring their pressure to bear. All those countries that have a relationship with Hamas—of course, we do not because it does not recognise Israel’s right to exist and it believes in violence—should bring that pressure to bear.

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

One of the people tragically lost on flight MH17 was Glenn Thomas, a British national who worked for the World Health Organisation and who was known to a number of us in this House through his work with our all-party parliamentary groups, including the group on global tuberculosis. His loss was a great shock to us. Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to his work and to those who were travelling to the world AIDS conference? Do not the values of the World Health Organisation and that conference, the values of internationalism and respect for human rights, stand in stark contrast to the disregard for such values shown by Russia, the aggressor?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I certainly join him in paying tribute to Glenn Thomas and in sending our condolences to his family and friends. The World Health Organisation and specifically the work that has been done on diseases such as TB, malaria and AIDS has been staggeringly successful and it is a beacon for what we can achieve if we spend aid moneys wisely and sensibly and work together as a global community. My right hon. Friend is right—what a contrast between that lifesaving effort and the brutality of what we have seen on our television screens.

Civil Service Reform

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

In 2010, when I accepted an invitation to join the Government of Britain, to coin a phrase, I found myself as a Minister in two Departments—the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. My experience was precisely that outlined by the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) as regards the problems of silo Departments. They were two Departments created from one, and they found it very difficult to co-operate to address holistically the problems that clearly needed to be addressed; how to tackle crime, at source, at the earliest possible stage. Just as people were trying to deal with those problems in a joined-up manner on the ground, the Departments had been split nationally.

It was a salutary experience. When I walked into the Ministry of Justice for the first time, I was shown the lifts by my private secretary. The MOJ had a more intelligent allocation of lifts than the Home Office: you indicated the floor you wanted to go to and the right lift would arrive for you. My private secretary told me that it was possible to override the programme in the event of a Division so that a lift would immediately arrive for me, the Minister. I tried this out on what I thought would be a quiet afternoon. The lift hurtled to my floor, and a sign on it said, “This lift is under ministerial control.” The doors opened, and out stepped the then Justice Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who questioned whether the lift was indeed under his control. If so, it was about the only thing there that was under ministerial control.

The serious point I want to make is that, just as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and the right hon. Member for Barking have said, although set by an historical doctrine, questions of accountability arise today. If, in the mid-19th century, a form of permanent government was effectively created, that is fine when that permanent government happens to do things in the way that accountable Ministers like and that is satisfactory, and when it happens to be performing well. The problem comes when that permanent government does not perform well. Accountability then falls on Ministers who have little ability to wrest improvements from the system.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex suggested, the failures do not need to be rehearsed. As the right hon. Member for Barking said, there have clearly been major and costly project failures. When this Government came to power, only a third of major projects were running to time and to budget, and the problems have persisted. There are issues with skills, given the commissioning failures we have seen. There is also the issue of poor financial control. It is a paradox that in our centralised state the willingness of the centre to exercise careful financial control over Departments is actually very limited. The Treasury does not wish to exercise that detailed financial management or scrutiny, and it shows. All these things often lead to poor value for money, a waste of resources and poor outcomes. It is the weakest in our society who pay the price, but we all pay a price through higher taxation. I think it is common ground that these issues need to be addressed.

Every time a Government come to power, they arrive believing that there are few problems that cannot be solved by the arrival of an enlightened Government with a different set of political objectives, and that all the problems are the fault of the outgoing Government. That was certainly the case in 1997 and in 2010, when most Ministers—my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office was one of the notable exceptions, and it shows—had little experience of government. Soon the scales drop from Ministers’ eyes as they realise that not all the problems can be laid at the political door—the door of the Opposition—and that there are systemic problems.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) said, we have an opportunity for forging a cross-party agreement about the changes that need to be made. Why? Because, for the first time since the second world war, every party has had recent experience of being in government and understands that while the political debate goes on, there are issues that we need to address. That is why I am pleased today to have launched GovernUp with the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), a non-party project with cross-party support. I am delighted that the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee is a member of the advisory board. The board also includes the Government’s lead non-executive director, Lord Browne; Lord Bichard, a former permanent secretary; Lord Birt and Baroness Lane-Fox—all Cross-Bench peers with important experience to bring.

Over the course of the next year the project will do important research in the areas of accountability, skills and international comparisons—work that needs to be done. It will not do that work alone, or simply be an isolated research project, but will draw on the experience of former Ministers, in this place and outside, and of civil servants, whom we wish to appoint to a reference panel. We have secured agreement to that proposal from the leadership of the civil service and the Minister.

That approach will be evidence-led, will involve detailed and careful research, will be open, involving outside bodies, will involve dialogue with the civil service itself and will draw on the experience of parliamentarians in both Houses. I want to suggest that that is a better approach than that of a parliamentary commission. I have grave doubts about the capability of a parliamentary commission to do what is necessary. Indeed, I think that the concept of a parliamentary commission—an old-fashioned, inquisitorial model—is entirely wrong, quite apart from the question of who would be on it. The real question is whether it is a body that looks backwards or forwards: do its members wish to be a part of it because they think that proposals for civil service reform are dangerous and wrong, or are they looking forward to addressing the challenges that face this country and the kind of system we need to develop? The danger of the commission as currently constituted, with a judge leading it, is that it would be the worst kind of backward-looking and reactionary body, so I do not support the proposal.

Although the Public Administration Committee report has some interesting content, I think it is evidence of some of the weaknesses of a parliamentary approach. After months of deliberation and evidence-taking, what is the report’s conclusion? It is that there needs to be an inquiry. Where are the detailed recommendations? Where is the detailed analysis and evidence of the kind of change we need? We have only a year left and I believe that now is the time to do the careful work.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I am disappointed at the right hon. Gentleman’s criticism of the concept, but the fact is that there are enormously wide ranges of views about the civil service. A conclusion would not have been consensual: there would have been serious division among members of the Select Committee and we would have gotten nowhere. A parliamentary commission could do that job.

[Nick Herbert]

I find great difficulty in understanding how a cross-party Select Committee would find it impossible to come to a conclusion, but a parliamentary commission would not. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could explain that.

[Mr Jenkin]

Why does my right hon. Friend think that the think-tank he has set up would be any more objective than a parliamentary commission? Indeed, how would it be more objective when it has been sanctioned and approved by the Cabinet Secretary and the civil service—the very thing he seeks to reform?

[Nick Herbert]

I agree with the right hon. Member for Barking that we should let a thousand flowers bloom. Many will wish to do work in this area, but I doubt very much that the GovernUp initiative, which I and the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne have set up, is sanctioned by the leaders of the civil service. What I specifically said was that they had agreed that civil servants could perhaps sit on a reference panel. That does not mean that they would have control over any of the body’s work. My argument is that we now need to do the work. It is the detailed research and analysis that we need to do; we do not need political grandstanding or an inquisitorial approach. That is why I think that the proposed parliamentary commission would be wrong.

I believe that the narrative of Whitehall wars, whereby Ministers are at loggerheads with civil servants, is wrong and misplaced. There is plenty of evidence that civil servants themselves seek change. Indeed, the Public Administration Committee report notes that Lord O’Donnell, the previous Cabinet Secretary, said in his evidence that

“if you really want to improve public sector outcomes, I think there is a radical transformation necessary.”

It seems to me, therefore, that the question is not whether change is necessary, but what is the nature of the change and who will make the case for it? Do we have a system that is equal to the challenges facing this country, with rising demand for services, the need to adjust to further spending reductions in the next Parliament and in the future, and the fact that we face ever greater international competition? All parties need to understand that Government reform is as significant as, and essential for, public service reform. That is why this is such an important issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jenkin]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister and everyone who has spoken in the debate. I agree that it has been an interesting debate in which there has been a great deal of consensus and agreement. Let me just respond to the last point made by my right hon. Friend. The point we are making in our report is that it would be wrong for the Government to overrule the Civil Service Commission without Parliament having some say in the matter, because the Civil Service Commission was established by Parliament to provide precisely that kind of check and balance in the system to stop the Government making such a decision merely on the basis of royal prerogative. Personally, I am sympathetic to the idea that ministries should have more influence and choice, as they had in the past, over decisions about the appointment of permanent secretaries.

In all the speeches today, I have not heard a single solid argument against the civil service commission. Every argument in praise of GovernUp and the work it is doing is an argument in favour of the civil service commission in Parliament. How can we let one thousand flowers bloom, as the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) said—my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) endorsed that—if we stamp on the one flower that has democratic authority and legitimacy on the question of the civil service in Parliament?

[Nick Herbert]

It is a weed.

[Mr Jenkin]

My hon. Friend says it is a weed, but I think he demeans himself by being derogatory about so many others who have offered their service in this, including Members who are supporting—